ARCHEOLOGIE ET HISTOIRE DE LA SYRIE I SCHRIFTEN ZUR VORDERASIATISCHEN ARCHÄOLOGIE Herausgegeben von Winfried Orthmann und Jan-Waalke Meyer Band 1,1 2013 Harrassowitz Verlag · Wiesbaden Archéologie et Histoire de la Syrie I La Syrie de l’époque néolithique à l’âge du fer édité par Winfried Orthmann / Paolo Matthiae / Michel al-Maqdissi avec les contributions de Peter M.M.G. Akkermans, Alfonso Archi, Jörg Becker, Dominique Beyer, Felix Blocher, Eva Cancik-Kirschbaum, Annie Caubet, Heike Dohmann-Pfälzner, Jean-Marie Durand, Jacqueline Gachet-Bizollon, Ralph Hempelmann, Horst Klengel, Kai Kohlmeyer, Hartmut Kühne, Marc Lebeau, Dittmar Machule, Jean-Claude Margueron, Stefania Mazzoni, Jan-Waalke Meyer, Mirko Novák, Joan Oates, Dennis Pardee, Frances Pinnock, Alexander Pruß, Lauren Ristvet, Wolfgang Röllig, Elena Rova, Gabriella Scandone-Matthiae, Helga Seeden, Danielle Stordeur, Dietrich Sürenhagen, Harvey Weiss, Dirk Wicke, Marguerite Yon 2013 Harrassowitz Verlag · Wiesbaden Bibliografische Information der Deutschen Nationalbibliothek Die Deutsche Nationalbibliothek verzeichnet diese Publikation in der Deutschen Nationalbibliografie; detaillierte bibliografische Daten sind im Internet über http://dnb.dnb.de abrufbar. Bibliographic information published by the Deutsche Nationalbibliothek The Deutsche Nationalbibliothek lists this publication in the Deutsche Nationalbibliografie; detailed bibliographic data are available in the internet at http://dnb.dnb.de. For further information about our publishing program consult our website http://www.harrassowitz-verlag.de © Otto Harrassowitz GmbH & Co. KG, Wiesbaden 2013 This work, including all of its parts, is protected by copyright. Any use beyond the limits of copyright law without the permission of the publisher is forbidden and subject to penalty. This applies particularly to reproductions, translations, microfilms and storage and processing in electronic systems. Printed on permanent/durable paper. Printing and binding: Memminger MedienCentrum AG Printed in Germany ISSN 2196-7199 ISBN 978-3-447-06972-4 Avant-propos En 1989 parut le volume II du livre « Archéologie et histoire de la Syrie », traitant des périodes de la domination des Achéménides jusqu’aux débuts de l’islam. Il était alors prévu d’entamer dans la foulée le travail pour le volume I présentant une période allant de l’époque du néolithique jusqu’à l’empire néoassyrien. Pour diverses raisons, les préparatifs pour ce livre furent retardés et c’est seulement en 2002 qu’à la demande de la Direction Générale des Antiquités et des Musées de la République Syrienne, le travail reprit. Les collaborateurs pressentis pour les différentes parties se déclarèrent prêts à envoyer leurs textes et illustrations dans un délai raisonnable et au cours de l’année 2003 les premiers manuscrits parvinrent. Malheureusement, il fallut finalement une dizaine d’années pour réunir tous les textes compris dans ce volume. Entretemps, la recherche avait fait des progrès considérables, grâce à une activité intense de fouilles à laquelle participèrent directement un grand nombre de collaborateurs de ce volume. Les auteurs des manuscrits achevés depuis longtemps ont saisi l’opportunité d’actualiser leurs textes au regard de ces recherches récentes et d’intégrer dans leur bibliographie de nouvelles publications. Les éditeurs de ce volume remercient tous les collaborateurs pour leur patience et leur effort d’actualisation. Dans la recherche archéologique en Syrie, plusieurs systèmes chronologiques et désignations de périodes sont pratiqués. Les éditeurs n’ont pas estimé utile de pousser à une unification de la terminologie à l’intérieur de ce volume, celle-ci étant amenée à d’autres modifications dans les prochaines années, en raison d’initiatives telles que notamment ARCANE. Le tableau au page 584 essaie de donner une concordance des différentes terminologies pour l’âge de bronze en Syrie. Paolo Matthiae Winfried Orthmann Contents Danielle Stordeur: Le Néolithique précéramique en Syrie . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Peter M.M.G. Akkermans: Northern Syria in the Late Neolithic, ca. 6800–5300 BC . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Jörg Becker: Northern Syria in the Ubaid Period, ca. 5300–4200 BC . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Joan Oates: The Proto-Urban (Uruk) Period in Northeast Syria . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Dietrich Sürenhagen: Die Uruk-Periode im syrischen Euphrattal . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Alfonso Archi: History of Syria in the Third Millennium: the Written Sources . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Jean-Claude Margueron: Le royaume de Mari durant la première moitié du IIIe millénaire : stratigraphie et architecture Elena Rova: The Ninivite 5 Period in Northeast Syria . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Marc Lebeau: La Syrie du nord-est à l’époque Jezireh Archaïque III . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Alexander Pruß: The last centuries of the 3rd millennium in the Syrian Ǧezīra . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Jan-Waalke Meyer, Winfried Orthmann: Die westliche Ǧezīra in der Frühen Bronzezeit . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Jan-Waalke Meyer, Ralph Hempelmann: Das dritte Jahrtausend im Gebiet des Mittleren Euphrats . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Paolo Matthiae: The IIIrd Millennium in North-Western Syria: Stratigraphy and Architecture . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Frances Pinnock: Sculpture and Minor Arts of the Early Dynastic and Akkade Periods and Their Relation to Mesopotamian Art . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Heike Dohmann-Pfälzner: Siegel des dritten Jahrtausends v. Chr. in der syrischen Ğezīra . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Jean-Marie Durand: Histoire du royaume de Mari . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Jean-Claude Margueron: La Ville III de Mari : la dynastie des Šakanakku et l’époque amorite . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Lauren Ristvet, Harvey Weiss: The Ḫābūr Region in the Old Babylonian Period . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Jan-Waalke Meyer: Die Mittlere Bronzezeit am Euphrat und in der westlichen Ǧezīra . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 17 33 43 61 75 89 107 119 137 147 165 181 199 215 235 243 257 273 8 Contents Paolo Matthiae: North-Western Syria in the Old Syrian Period: Stratigraphy and Architecture . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Marguerite Yon: La Syrie côtière entre le 16e et le 12e siècle av. J.-C. : Stratigraphie et architecture . . . . . . . . . . . Dennis Pardee: Ugaritic Culture and Religion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Horst Klengel: Syria 1350–1200 BC . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Mirko Novák: Upper Mesopotamia in the Mittani Period . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Dittmar Machule, Felix Blocher: The Late Bronze Age in the Middle Euphrates Valley Region: Stratigraphy and Architecture . . Paolo Matthiae: Stone Sculpture of the Second Millennium BC . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Helga Seeden: Metal Sculpture of the Second Millennium BC . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Gabriella Scandone Matthiae: Egyptian Statuary of the IIIrd and IInd Millennia in Syria . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Annie Caubet, Jacqueline Gachet-Bizollon: L’ivoire en Syrie à l’âge du Bronze . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Dominique Beyer: Sceaux et empreintes de sceaux du second millénaire . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Eva Cancik-Kirschbaum: The Middle Assyrian Domination of Northeast Syria: The Written Sources . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Wolfgang Röllig: History of the Neohittite and the Aramaean States and the Assyrian Conquest . . . . . . . . . . . . . Hartmut Kühne: State and Empire of Assyria in Northeast Syria . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Winfried Orthmann: The Neo-Hittite Period in Northern Syria: Stratigraphy and Architecture . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Kai Kohlmeyer: The Temple of the Storm-God of Aleppo . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Winfried Orthmann: Stone Sculpture of the Iron Age in Northern Syria . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Winfried Orthmann: Assyrian Wall Painting in Northern Syria . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Dirk Wicke: Elfenbeinschnitzereien in der Eisenzeit . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Stefania Mazzoni: Seals and Seal Impressions of the Iron Age . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 283 309 329 339 345 357 375 395 411 417 433 449 461 473 499 511 525 543 549 571 Table of terminologies in use for the Bronze Age of Syria . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 584 List of Abbreviations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 585 Topographical Index . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 586 Upper Mesopotamia in the Mittani Period Mirko Novák1 The political entity, which is known as “Mittan(n)i” in the scientific literature, is still a mystery in various aspects. Its political history, its socio-cultural structure, its art and architecture are still obscure and difficult to define. Many fundamental questions like the identification and localisation of its capital(s), the origin of its ruling dynasty and its sociopolitical structures, and the reasons for its expansion, remain open and are still disputed. At least it seems highly probable to be identical to the “land of the Hurrians” mentioned in Old Hittite sources dating back to the 16th century bc. Its heartland was Upper Mesopotamia in general and in particular the so-called “Ḫābūr-triangle”, i.e. the area watered and drained by the tributaries of the Ḫābūr north of their junction at the modern Syrian city of al-Ḥassaka. This territory was named “Ḫanigalbat” in Assyrian sources. Here, only few sites yielding considerable remains of this period have been excavated. However, most of our knowledge on Mittani derives either from the archives of its neighbouring states Egypt, Hatti and Assyria, or from sites situated at the periphery of the state, like Alalaḫ and Ugarit in the west and Nuzi in the east. Therefore, it is difficult to give a reliable general overview of the Mittani period in the Ǧazirah and its archaeology in particular. However, an attempt will be made to re-evaluate the different aspects of this period according to the current state of research. Geography The information on the geopolitical landscape of the heartland of the Mittani Empire is sparse and derives from external sources due to the absence of archives and royal inscriptions from Mittani itself. The kingdom was centred in Upper Mesopotamia, namely inside the Ḫābūr triangle, a region that Assyrian sources refer to as “Ḫanigalbat” (Fig. 169). The subjugated regions west of the Euphrates and east of the Tigris were ruled by local dynasts and gained the status of vassal kingdoms, while the central heartland was directly controlled by the king. Mittani was bordered by the lands of Išuwa and Alšu in the north and Babylonia in the south. Kizzuwatna was its northwestern neighbour and the vassal states of 1 I like to thank Dr. Ekin Kozal (Çanakkale) for her helpful remarks and Alexander and Brand E. Sollee for improving the English manuscript. 346 Mirko Novák Fig. 169. Map showing extension of the Mittani Empire Egypt limited it to the southwest. In the east, a glacis of surrounding vassal states including Arrapḫa and Aššur extended to the piedmont area west of the Zagros Mountains. Thus, the Mittani kingdom stretched from the Mediterranean coast to the Zagros, within the dry-farming belt south of the Taurus. The identification and localisation of the capital of Mittani remains uncertain. It is still unclear whether the Empire had just one real capital or whether the kings moved between several residences. However, at least two cities are known to have been of uttermost importance: Waššukanni and Taidu. Although neither one has been clearly identified yet, it is highly probable that they can be located in T. Faḫarīya2 and T. alḤamidīya3 respectively. Due to the lack of clear textual evidence there has been a long debate that is still going on, concerning the question whether the one or the other was the real capital. Both were raided by Šuppiluliuma I during his decisive attack (DS ii 30-34, Güterbock 1956, 111), but none of them was explicitly labelled as a royal city. However, since Šuppiluliuma I advanced against Waššukanni first, it seems likely that this city was king Tušratta’s residence (CTH 51.I §3, Z. 46 4). As it is mentioned in the Šattiwaza 2 3 4 Jakob 2009, 46. His suggestion is based on a letter from T. Ḫuēra (TCH92.G.151). Arguments for a location of Tîdu=Taidu north of the Kašiyari-Mountains (=Ṭur ‘Abdīn) were brought forward by Radner, Schachner 2001, 756 f., who would like to identify the site with modern Üçtepe. However, this does not fit well with Old Babylonian and Middle Assyrian sources like the itinerary from Dūr-Katlimmu. The latter places Taidu (Old Babylonian Tâdum) a two-days trip north or northeast of modern al-Ḥassaka, while other texts confirm that it should be located in the vicinity of Nabula [Girnavaz], Kaḫat [T. Barrī] and Nag/war [T. Brāk]. Therefore, the identification of Taidu with T. al-Ḥamidīya seems very likely, thus following Wäfler 1994 and 1995 and Cancik-Kirschbaum 2009, 139. For the most recent edition and translation as well as a bibliography cf. Wilhelm in www.hethport.uni-wuerzburg.de/txhet_svh. Upper Mesopotamia in the Mitanni Period 347 treaty shortly later (CTH 52.I §2, Z. 14-16), a golden and silver gate, which had been taken away from Assyria by the most powerful Mittanian king Šauštatar some generations before, still stood in the royal palace of Waššukanni. Hence, the predominance of this city, at least in the period of Šauštatar, is very likely to have been the case. After the death of the last Mittanian sovereign Tušratta, his successor Šuttarna I, the opponent of Šattiwaza, delivered the aforementioned gate back to the Assyrians to win their support in his struggle for power. In return, the newly won Assyrian and Alšian allies impaled all the Mittanian nobles who were loyal to Šattiwaza. This happened in Taidu, obviously the city of their protégée Šuttarna. Later, Adad-nārārī I considered Taidu as the “Royal City” of king Wasašatta, whereas Waššukanni/Uššukannu is merely mentioned along with the other important cities of Ḫanigalbat. This indicates that Taidu had already become the capital and predominant city of the kingdom. Although no real proof can be presented, the most plausible reconstruction of the geopolitical situation might be that Waššukanni was the original residence of imperial Mittani, prior to its subjugation first by the Hittites and then by the Assyrians. In the time after the reduction of Mittani from an empire to a dependent regional kingdom, its political centre was transferred to Taidu. This was the result either of Assyrian intervention (Taidu was situated closer to Assyria and thus better controllable), or of the reduced territory of Ḫanigalbat, with Taidu situated at its geographical centre.5 Other important cities of Ḫanigalbat were mentioned in the annals (Grayson 1987, A.0.76.1: 8–14) of Adad-nārārī I (1295–1264 B.C.): Šūru [probably modern Savur, cf. Belmonte 2001, 279], Kaḫat [T. Barrī, cf. Pecorella 2006, 41–46 esp. 44 ff.], Amasakku [probably T. Muhammad, cf. Freydank 1976, no. 39: 2.], Ḫurrā, Šuduḫu (Guichard 2009), Nabula [Girnavaz, cf. Röllig 1998], and finally Irrite, the last refuge of the royal family in the westernmost part of the state (either at the Balīḫ or in the Sarūǧ valley, cf. Crasso 2009, 224–225) and already known as Irrid in Old Babylonian times (Ziegler 2009, 197). As far as we can tell, all these cities were situated south of the Ṭur ‘Abdīn. According either to attestations in Hittite sources, or archaeological remains or the role of a settlement in the Middle Assyrian period, additional cities need to be mentioned. At least two of them lie north of the Ṭur ‘Abdīn on the banks of the Upper Tigris: Tušḫan [Ziyaret Tepe] and Eluḫat/Elaḫut [probably Pir Hüssein near Diyarbakır, cf. Lipinski 2000, 153], Naḫur [probably T. ‘Ailūn near Darbassīya; cf. Charpin 2009, 71, n. 56], Kulišhinaš [T. Amuda] and Nag/war [T. Brāk] are located in the Ḫābūr triangle, while Ṭabēte [T. Ṭābān, cf. Shibata 2007, 71 note 49] and Dūr-Katlimmu [T. Šēḫ Ḥamad] are to be found on the Lower Ḫābūr. Ḫarbe [T. Ḫuēra6], Ḫarrān and Tuttul [T. Bī‘a] lie in the region of the Balīḫ fluvial system (Röllig 2008, no. 39: 14).Finally, the old Hurrian cult city Urkeš [T. Mōzān] is to be mentioned as well. Until now, the written sources have given little information about the settlement systems, the second rank sites and villages, and the administrative organisation of the Mittanian heartland. However, it is certain that Waššukanni and Taidu were the residential cities and political centres of the empire. According to the oaths sworn in the treaties, the most important religious centres were Ḫarrān (the city of the Moon God) and Kaḫat (the seat of the Storm-God). Historical Framework The kingdom of “Mittani” is characterised by two significant features: First, the predominant linguistic group of this entity were the Hurrians, and second, the rulers bear exclusively non-Hurrian and presumably Indo-Aryan throne-names. The latter distinguishes Mittani sharply from all other earlier or later Hurrian principalities. On the basis of Old Babylonian slave trade records, Van Koppen (2004: 23) has 5 6 The latter assumption is supported by the Šattiwaza-treaty, in which consultations between Šattiwaza and the Hittite prince Piyaššili, governor of Karkamiš, are supposed to have been held either in Irrite, the westernmost Mittanian city, or in Taidu (CTH 51: I § 15’ Z. 189). On the attestation for the existence of the city already in the Mittani period cf. Jakob 2009: 4. 348 Mirko Novák proposed that the foundation of the kingdom was the result of the acquisition of civil power by leaders of mercenaries, the descendants of deportees who were brought from the Zagros ranges to Upper Mesopotamia by the Assyrian king Išme-Dagan generations before. The Indo-Aryan influence may date back to the time, in which these groups had been settling somewhere in the vicinity of or beyond the Zagros mountains. The formation of the Mittani kingdom started during the Old Babylonian period, predating the sack of Babylon by the Hittites by at least two generations (Novák 2007). When Ḫattušili I started his forays to southeastern Anatolia and the northern Levant, a certain “King of the Hurrians” appeared as one of his main opponents, obviously one of the first rulers of the political entity later known as “Mittani”.7 He demonstrated his power impressively by directly attacking the Hittite central heartland (Klengel 1999: 30; Bryce 2005: 74f.). The way to establish an extended empire including northern Syria was opened two generations later with the destruction of the important kingdom of Yamḫad by Muršili I and the following Hittite raid of Babylon presumably in the year 1522 bc 8, which set an end to the Old Babylonian dynasty. Since the Old Hittite Empire was involved in internal struggles immediately after its overwhelming triumph, the Mittani in Upper Mesopotamia and the northern Levant and the Kassites in Babylonia were the main beneficiaries of the Hittite successes. The two kings Kirta and his son Šuttarna I are only known from the seal of the latter, which was carved in Old Syrian style and was reused by one of his successors as early as in the late 15th century bc. One of them might have been the aforementioned counterpart of Ḫattušili I and/or Muršili I. The next attested king is a certain Parratarna, known from the famous “autobiography” of Idrimi, a prince of the old, but at that time recently replaced dynasty of Aleppo. After his long-lasting exile, Idrimi managed to obtain the rulership in a provincial town of the former kingdom of his ancestors, Alalaḫ. He became a subject of Parratarna in the early 15th century bc. As far as it can be reconstructed, this Mittanian king was the one who was able to establish his power over a large territory from the Mediterranean coast to at least the Tigris and presumably even beyond. Soon afterwards, a certain king Šaušadat is attested in records from Terqa as overlord of this town on the Middle Euphrates. A possible identity of this Šaušadat with Šauštatar, son of Parsatatar, can be assumed, but it remains uncertain. In the second half of the 15th century bc Mittani had to face the attacks of some Pharaohs of the 18th dynasty, the most prominent of which was Thutmose III. Even though we lack any Mittanian source for a reconstruction of these events and thus depend on the Egyptian annals, it is almost certain that Mittani was able to defend its territories and reconsolidate its position in the northern Levant quickly. Unfortunately, we do not know the name of Thutmose’s Mittani counterpart. According to the available information, king Šauštatar seems to have been the most powerful ruler of Mittani. He overwhelmed Assyria and incorporated it into his realm. Afterwards, the boundaries of the empire reached from the Mediterranean coastal region, with the vassal kingdoms of Ugarit and Alalaḫ, to the Zagros ranges with the important principality of Arrapḫa. The high reputation of Šauštatar is reflected by the later use of his personal seal as a dynastic one. It was found on treaties from Alalaḫ (Stein 1989), Tuba [Umm al-Marra’] (Cooper et al. 2005), Baṣīru [T. Bāzi] (Sallaberger et al. 2006), Nagar [T. Brāk] (Oates et al. 1997, Chap. 3) and Nuzi [Yorgan Tepe] (Stein 1989), some of them datable to the last generation of Mittanian sovereigns. During the reign of Tušratta (middle of the 14th century bc), the Hittite king Šuppiluliuma I launched his Syrian Wars, starting with his “One-Year-Campaign”. A first serious attack on the Mittani Empire followed immediately upon the Hittite invasion of the buffer states of Išuwa and Alšu, both situated to the north of the Mittanian central heartland in the Altınova and the region west and northwest of mod7 8 Klinger 1988; Kühne 1999: 208; Van Koppen 2004: 19ff. On the history of the Mittani Empire and its very beginnings, cf. Wilhelm 1982; 1994 and Kühne 1999. Year calculated by Mebert 2010, cf. in particular chart on p. 117. Upper Mesopotamia in the Mitanni Period 349 ern Diyarbakır respectively. Šuppiluliuma I reached the area of Waššukanni, but Tušratta seems to have avoided any open confrontation. Not yet being able to besiege the capital and to conquer the Mittanian heartland, the Hittites had to redirect their activities towards the Syrian vassals of Mittani. Obviously, Tušratta did re-establish his sovereignty over the lost territories for a brief period by undertaking a campaign to Amurru.9 Nevertheless, the destabilization of his empire had already been initiated. Tušratta was murdered by his own son and internal dynastic struggles ensued, which led to the “Six-Year-Campaign” of Šuppiluliuma and the invasion of Mittani. A civil war broke out, with two pretenders: Šuttarna, backed by the Assyrians under their king Aššur-uballiṭ I (1353–1318), and Šattiwaza, whom the Hittites supported. The latter proved dominant and won the throne and his kingdom became a Hittite protectorate for some time (Beckman 1993, 56b; Bryce 1998, 200f.; Klengel 1999, 165). All the Mittanian provinces west of the Euphrates were incorporated into the Hittite empire. They were governed by the viceroy of Karkamiš. The provinces east of the Tigris were lost either to the Assyrians or to the Babylonians, the two powers who now started a close competition for the supremacy over this region. It is uncertain how long the Hittite domination over the remaining Mittanian kingdom, by then nothing more than a mid-sized regional power, lasted. Only two decades later, Adad-nārārī I (1295–1264) claimed an allegedly inherited supremacy over Ḫanigalbat and accused its king of treason and collaboration with the Hittites, thus probably reflecting on a shift of dominance in this region from the Hittites to the Assyrians already in the time before his reign. In a first campaign, Adad-nārārī I conquered all territories of Ḫanigalbat as far as the district of Ḫarrān at the Balīḫ, but he left them in the hands of Šattuara I, who had to swear an oath of allegiance and pay tribute regularly (Grayson 1987, A.0.76.3: 11–14). After Šattuara’s death, his son and successor Wasašatta stopped paying tribute, thus forcing Adad-nārārī I into starting a second military campaign (Grayson 1987, A.0.76.3: 26; A.0.76. 26; A.0.76.3: 27-51). Irrite, the last refuge of the Mittanian royal family, was completely destroyed (Kessler 1980). Although the Assyrians temporarily lost control of Ḫanigalbat by the end of the reign of Adad-nārārī I (Postgate 1972–75, 28), Šalmaneser I (1263–1234) finally set an end to the independence of Ḫanigalbat and made it part of the Assyrian empire. He defeated a coalition of Šattuara II, the successor of Wasašata and last king of the dynasty, and the Hittites under Ḫattušili III (Grayson 1987, A.0.77.1: 56–87). Šalmaneser I and his son Tukultī-Ninurta I (1233–1197) now were able to strengthen the Assyrian grip on the region, and Ḫanigalbat became a purely tutelary kingdom, ruled by an Assyrian vizier, a close relative of the Assyrian king. In sum, the history of the Mittani kingdom can be subdivided into three major periods: • Mittani I (after ca. 1600–1522 bc): Formation of the empire. This phase is contemporary to the late Old Babylonian period and the first expansion of the Old Hittite empire under Ḫattušili I and his grandson Muršili I. Its beginning remains obscure, starting some time after Samsu-ilūna’s (ca. 1676– 1638) destruction of Šeḫna [T. Lailan]. • Mittani II (ca. 1522–1350 bc): The imperial period, in which Mittani held its place as a leading major power, only rivalled by Babylonia, Elam and Egypt. This phase was initiated by the Hittite victory over Yamḫad and Babylon and it ended with Šuppiluliuma I’s campaigns to Upper Mesopotamia and the northern Levant. • Mittani III (ca. 1350–1260 bc): The period as subjugated second-class power, depending first on the Hittite and later on the expanding Assyrian empires. The state ceased to exist, when the Assyrians integrated the remaining territories of Ḫanigalbat into their realm. 9 On the chronology cf. now Wilhelm 2012, in particular the chart on p. 257. 350 ~1540 bc ~1525 bc Mirko Novák Mittani Ḫatti “King of the Hurrians” Ḫattušili I Kirta (?) ↓ (?) Šuttarna I (?) son of Kirta Muršili I (?) Parrattarna Zidanta II Aššur Egypt Thutmose I Šaušadat(?) ~1420 bc Parsatatar Thutmose III Šauštatar (=Šaušadat?) son of Parsatatar Amenhotep II (Parrattarna II ?) Artatama I Tudḫalia I Thutmose IV Artaššumara son of Šuttarna II Arnuwanda I Amenhotep III Tušratta son of Šuttarna II (beside: Artatama II and Šuttarna III) Šuppiluliuma I Šuttarna II son of Artatama ~1360 bc Akhenaten Aššur-uballiṭ I Šattiwaza son of Tušratta ~1290 bc Šattuara I Tutankhamun Muršili II Adad-nārārī I Ḫattušili III Šalmaneser I Wasašatta son of Šattuara I ~1260 bc Šattuara II son of Wasašatta Ramesses II Tab. 1: List of known Mittani rulers and synchronisms with Ḫatti, Aššur and Egypt (based on Wilhelm 1982 and Kühne 1999). Archaeological Record The archaeology of the Mittani empire still suffers from a surprisingly small base of data, especially from its heartland; most of our knowledge on Mittani art and material culture derives from the peripheries of the empire, namely from Alalaḫ at its western edge and Nuzi at its eastern one. One certain reason for this lack of information lies in the concentration of archaeological research in the Ḫābūr triangle on settlements of the 3rd millennium bc, but this alone is not a satisfying explanation for this paucity of knowledge. One of the most evident results of a series of surveys and landscape reconstructions undertaken in Upper Mesopotamia (modern Ǧazira) during the last three decades, was the detection of a significant ruralisation, which took place during the 2nd millennium bc in general and the Mittani period in particular (Akkermans, Schwartz 2003, 346). Urban settlements were rare; the majority of the population lived in small villages and short-lived hamlets, with elite manor houses of limited size at their centres. One of these elite residences was excavated in T. Ḥammām eṭ-Ṭurkmān at the Balīḫ (Van Loon 1988), a site of which the ancient name is still unknown. Even those Mittanian cities, which had already flourished in the previous periods, had remained occupied and were mentioned in the written sources (cf. above), show a considerable reduction in urban size. This is the case e.g. in Nagar, Kaḫat, Urkeš, and Ḫarbe. The only remarkable exception is T. al-Ḥamidīya, most probable identical with the royal city of Taidu (Fig. 170). It covered an area of 250 ha intra muros, if the reconstruction of the excavators is correct (Wäfler 2003; Kaelin in print). The nearly oval city was divided into two parts by the course of the Upper Mesopotamia in the Mitanni Period 351 Fig. 170. City plan of Taidu [T. alḤamidīya] (from Kaelin in print) Ǧaġǧaġ, the main tributary of the Ḫābūr. The old settlement mound, located slightly south of the city centre, was transformed into a 20 ha large citadel 10 with the main buildings placed upon an artificial terrace. Citadels were integral elements of Hittite cities like Ḫattuša, Alişar, and Kuşaklı etc. and it is very likely that they were also an important feature of larger Mittanian settlements, as testified not only in T. Ḥamidīya, but also in Waššukanni [T. Faḫarīya], Emar, Baṣīru [T. Bāzi] and Nuzi. Moreover, the term for “citadel” in almost all Ancient Near Eastern languages was the Hurrian word kerḫu as opposed to adaššu “lower town” (Haas, Wegner 1995). In Karkamiš, such a kerḫu is attested by Hittite sources: After the seizure of the city by Šuppiluliuma I, only the lower town was plundered, while the citadel (kerḫu), including the temples, was spared and protected (Güterbock 1956: 95, DŠ, Tf. Aiii, Z. 26ff.). So far, we have no information on the extent of the Mittanian settlement at T. Faḫarīya, presumable Waššukanni. It might have been of considerable size and obviously it was also dominated by an exposed citadel, located immediately beside the springs of the Ḫābūr (Bonatz et al. 2008, Pl 1). It seems as if the heartland of Mittani was widely de-urbanized with the exception of these two major residential cities. It is remarkable that both of them had been of minor importance during the preceding Old Babylonian period, clearly overshadowed by cities like e.g. Šeḫna/Šubat-Enlil [T. Leilān]. Still, during the Old Babylonian period, a local ruler resided in Taidu, then called Tādum (Wäfler 1994), whereas Waššukanni under its alternative name Sigan, might have merely been a minor religious centre of the Storm-God Bēl-Ḫābūr (Kessler, Müller-Kessler 1995). Why the new dynasty, after gaining power, chose two less important towns as suitable sites for their main residences cannot be determined so far. However, it might have been a political decision of a foreign military cast, which ruled over a heterogeneous and presumably at least partly hostile population. As mentioned before, a general problem of the archaeology of Upper Mesopotamia during the Mittani period is the extremely small number of excavated buildings. In addition, most of them lack a precise stratigraphy, making both the reconstruction of the chronology and the analysis of the material culture (architecture, art, ceramic) difficult. Hence, only a vague overview can be given below. 10 A citadel is defined as an elevated area within a city, being segregated from the dwelling quarters both through its height and its strong fortifications. 352 Mirko Novák Fig. 171. Painted “Nuzi-Beakers” from T. Brāk, T. Bdēri and T. Beidar (from Pfälzner 2007, 278) Fig. 172. The seal of Šauštatar as an examples of Mittani glyptic (from Orthmann 1975, Abb. 270a) Mittani I As stated above, there must be a significant overlap of what is called “Old Babylonian” and “Mittani” periods in Northern Mesopotamia from an archaeological point of view. This contradicts the widespread convention of nearly all chronological charts published so far, showing a succeeding periodization. They equalize “Old Babylonian” with “Middle Bronze Age” on the one hand and “Mittani” with “Late Bronze Age I” on the other, with a distinctive break in between. The historical period Mittani I, as it is defined here, is equivalent to the latest phase of the “Middle Bronze Age”, corresponding to two generations of approximately 40–50 years and covering the time span between the campaigns of the Hittite kings Ḫattušili I and Muršili I to the northern Levant and Mesopotamia. In terms of P. Pfälzner’s “Jazirah-Chronology” it should be approximately identical to his “Old Jazirah III”-period (Pfälzner 2007, 238, Fig. 3). As the reconsideration of the so-called Earlier Ḫābūr-Ware by Faivre, Nicolle (2007) has revealed, the later Old Babylonian style of this pottery is characteristic for this period, which is labelled “Middle Bronze Age II” in their study.11 The period Mittani I seems to be represented in T. Moḥammad Diyāb Level 5, which included both Old Babylonian and Early Mittanian material (Pfälzner 2007, 234), and Strata 8 and 7 in T. Brāk with the so-called “Late Babylonian Vaulted Shrine” (Oates et al. 1997: 36). In Šāġir Bāzār the Intermediate Phase 1C might also belong to this period (Pfälzner 2007: 234). A more detailed analysis of the architecture or art of this phase cannot be presented here due to the lack of sufficient data. Mittani II This phase is more or less identical with the period “Middle Jezirah IA” of P. Pfälzner (2007) and thus corresponds with the first part of what is generally referred to as “Late Bronze Age”. It is characterized by the appearance and far diffusion first of the Later Ḫābūr-Ware and then, in the second half of this phase, the Painted Nuzi-Ware with a dark-on-light decoration (Fig. 171). These wares and the well attested glazed pottery represent the predominant luxury vessels of this time. Another characteristic feature of this period is the typical Mittani glyptic (Fig. 172) with its elaborated (“court”) and common styles (Stein 1994; Salje 1990). The recognisable strong influence of the Old Syrian style indicates that its origins lie in the Middle Bronze Age. The cylinder seals were made either of hard (haematite, chalcedony etc.) or of soft material (sintered quartz, frit etc.) and mainly showed scenes related to mythology, adoration, hunting or drinking. A great variety of supernatural creatures like demons, griffins, sphinxes etc., gods, and heraldic 11 Ca. 1725–1595 bc according to the Middle Chronology, which most likely has to be lowered by approximately 70 years. Upper Mesopotamia in the Mitanni Period Fig. 173. Mittani Palace and Temple in Nagar [T. Brāk] (from Oates et al. 1997, fig. 12) 353 Fig. 174. So-called “Central Palace” of Taidu [T. al-Ḥamidīya], rather the central sanctuary with a ziqqurat (from Kaelin in print) elements like winged disk standarts, palmette trees etc. were depicted, generally organized in registers, but frequently also in almost free compositions within the available space. In Nagar [T. Brāk] the foundation (Level 6) and the main habitation level (Levels 5–3) of an architectural ensemble of the so-called “Mittanian Palace and Temple” (Oates et al. 1997) date to this phase. These two moderately sized, almost square buildings lay next to each other and were situated at the most elevated part of the site close to its northern slope (Fig. 173). Nevertheless, their architectural constructions were of high quality, consisting of thick walls, baked brick pavements, drains, ovens etc. The layout of the palace shows a central courtyard and an adjacent rectangular throne-room. We lack any information about the resident of the building. He might have been a governor, a relative of the king, or, less likely, the king himself, who might have moved between several residences within his realm. The temple consisted of only one broad-room cella, accessible immediately from the plaza to the south of the temple, and two small chambers at the rear. It is quite unlikely that this small sanctuary was of major importance and most probably it was not the main temple of Nagar at that time. A comparably small single-room shrine, presumably dating back to the same period, was discovered in T. Ḫuēra (Orthmann 1990, 38f.). The most impressive archaeological remains of this period were explored in T. al-Ḥamidīya (Fig. 170) (Kaelin in print). The central part of the citadel was occupied by a five-step mudbrick-terrace with a monumental staircase, reaching from the lowest terrace to the uppermost one (Fig. 174). Only a few remains of the building, which had once stood on top of the terrace, have survived. Contrary to the excavators’ assumption that the building was the “Central Palace”, it rather represents the remains of the main temple of the city, constructed as a ziqqurat, thus following Southern Mesopotamian patterns.12 This identification is supported by the mentioning of an entu-priestess on tablet HT3, which was discovered in the debris of the building (Kaelin in print, FN 16). Presumably the main (and only?) royal palace of the city, 12 Sanctuaries situated on top of high terraces were part of the Upper Mesopotamian tradition as well. The earliest examples date back to the late 4th (T. Brāk, “Eye Temple”) as well as the early (T. Ḥalāwa B) and middle (T. Ḫuēra, T. Mōzān) 3rd Millennia bc. 354 Mirko Novák Fig. 175. “Southwestern Palace” of Taidu [T. al-Ḥamidīya] (from Kaelin in print) the so-called “Southwestern Palace”, was situated on the southwestern edge of the citadel, immediately adjacent to the temple (Fig. 175). Both buildings were accessible from a plaza south of the citadel. The staircase to the high temple was located in the north and the entrance to the palace lay in the west of the plaza. A number of administrative texts dating to the Mittani period and mentioning people from Muṣur (Egypt), Ugarit, Alašiya (Cyprus) and Arrapḫa confirm the identification of the extensive building in the southwest as a palace. Unfortunately, only few of the original inventories of both the temple and the palace have survived the destruction caused by the dramatic events at the end of the Mittanian imperial period. Thus, even the precise dating of the buildings cannot be established.13 Mittani III Phase Mittani III, the period following the collapse of the Mittani empire in 1340 bc, and ending with the final incorporation of the reduced kingdom into the Assyrian empire around 1260 bc, corresponds with the period “Middle Jezirah IB” of P. Pfälzner (2007). The ceramic shows only slight differences to the previous phase, demonstrating the still vivid Mittanian culture and its material specifications. Middle Assyrian or Hittite elements do not appear in a significant quantity yet; it was just after the final incorporation of Ḫanigalbat into the Assyrian empire that the region was opened to Middle Assyrian culture. Only few remains of this phase have been discovered so far, namely in T. Ṭābān (Level 10–13), T. Mōzān, T. Moḥammad Diyāb (Level 4) and T. Beidar (Pfälzner 2007, 234, 249). Although Level 2 of the “Mittani Palace and Temple” ensemble in T. Brāk contained tablets from the period of Artaššumara and Tušratta, predating the collapse of the empire, the dendrochronological data revealed that the layer was destroyed in 1293±7 bc. Thus the terminal Level 2 of the buildings belonged to phase Mittani III. Since many settlements of the Mittani heartland continued to be of importance in the Middle Assyrian empire – some of them were even enlarged and became the residences of governors – chances are high that it will be possible to gather more information on the transitional phase between the Mittani and Middle Assyrian periods in the future. 13 Pfälzner 2007: 234 even doubts the dating of the whole complex into the Mittani period and proposes a Middle and NeoAssyrian date, based on the recovered pottery. Upper Mesopotamia in the Mitanni Period 355 A crude small limestone statue of a seated man was discovered in Level 2 of the “Mittani Palace” of T. Brāk and provides one of the very few examples of Mittani sculpture in general and the only piece from the central heartland in particular (Akkermans, Schwartz 2003, 347 and 336, fig. 10.6 right). This disastrous situation can hardly be explained only by the poor state of research (Stein 1994). Other explanations, like the possible preference of materials like metal and wood, which were either re-used or have perished in the meantime, or the consequent removal and destruction of Mittani monumental art by later invaders like the Assyrians, might be of some relevance. Conclusion The archaeology of the Mittani empire has revealed astonishingly little material so far, especially in its central heartland of Upper Mesopotamia. One of the reasons is surely the state of research. Another reason is the well preserved Middle Assyrian architecture, which is often dense, thus covering and sealing the earlier Mittani buildings; hence, Mittani levels have not been reached on many sites even though their existence is attested. Nevertheless, the main reason is the small number of large Mittani settlements. Many sites have revealed only modest remains of this period, even those that were considered as important settlements in contemporary texts, thus indicating a generally limited extent of urban space of almost all settlements. The exceptions were the mounds of T. Faḫarīya and T. al-Ḥamidīya, which presumably hold the remnants of the two major cities of the empire, Waššukanni and Taidu. According to the structure of the Mittani settlements, which were excavated outside the heartland, such as Karkamiš, Emar and Nuzi, it seems as if a fortified and elevated citadel was an integral urban element of Mittani cities, containing the main sanctuary and the palace. This is confirmed by the structure of Taidu and Waššukanni. In every other aspect, it does not seem as if there were typical “Mittani” features neither in sacral nor in the palatial architecture. All known examples of palaces and temples differ from each other and show a high variety in layout and functional structure. Contrary to this, the Mittanian art seems to have been more characteristic, although our knowledge of it is almost entirely reduced to glyptic artefacts. Bibliography Akkermans P.M.M.G., Schwartz G.M. 2003: The Archaeology of Syria. Cambridge. Belmonte Marín J.A. 2001: Die Orts- und Gewässernamen der Texte aus Syrien im 2. Jt. v. Chr. Wiesbaden. Bonatz D. et al. 2008: Bericht über die erste und zweite Grabungskampagne in Tell Feḫerīye 2006 und 2007, MDOG 140, pp. 89–136. Bryce T. 2005: The Kingdom of the Hittites. New Edition. Oxford. Cancik-Kirschbaum E. 2009: Ortsnamenreihungen als Quellen zur historischen Geographie: Der Westen des mittelassyrischen Reiches unter Tukultī-Ninurta I., in: Cancik-Kirschbaum, Ziegler 2009, pp. 121–150. Cancik-Kirschbaum E., Ziegler N. (eds.) 2009: Entre les fleuves I. Untersuchungen zur historischen Geographie Obermesopotamiens im 2. Jahrtausend v. Chr. (Berliner Beiträge zum Vorderen Orient 20), Gladbeck. Charpin D. 2009: Un itinéraire paléo-babylonien le long du Habur, in Cancik-Kirschbaum, Ziegler 2009, pp. 5974. Cooper J., Schwartz G., Westbrook R. 2005: A MittaniEra Tablet from Umm el-Marra, in: Studies on the Civilization and Culture of Nuzi and the Hurrians 15, pp. 41-56. Crasso D. 2009: The Region of the Upper Euphrates: the Hittite Perspective, in Cancik-Kirschbaum, Ziegler 2009, pp. 211–232. Faivre X., Nicolle Chr. 2007: La Jézireh au Bronze moyen et la céramique du Khabur, in: M. al-Maqdissi, V. Matoïan , Chr. Nicolle (eds.), Céramique de l’Âge du Bronze en Syrie (BAH 180), Beyrut, pp. 179–230. Freydank H. 1976: Mittelassyrische Rechtsurkunden und Verwaltungstexte, Berlin. Grayson,A.K. 1987: Royal Inscriptions of Mesopotamia Assyria (RIMA). Assyrian Rulers of the Third and Second Millennia BC (to 1115 BC), Toronto. 356 Mirko Novák Güterbock H. G. 1956: The Deeds of Suppililumia as told by his Son, Mursili III, JCS 10, pp. 41–68; 75–98; 107–130. Guichard M. 2009: Šuduhum, un royaume d’Ida-Maraṣ et ses rois Yâtr-malik, Hammī-kūn et Amud-pā-El, in Cancik-Kirschbaum, Ziegler 2009, pp. 75–120. Haas V., Wegner, I. 1995: Stadtverfluchungen in den Texten aus Boğazköy sowie hurritische Termini für „Oberstadt“, „Unterstadt“ und „Herd“, in: U. Finkbeiner, R. Dittmann, H. Hauptmann (eds.), Beiträge zur Kulturgeschichte Vorderasiens, Festschrift für Rainer Michael Boehmer, Mainz, pp. 187–194. Jacob St. 2009: Mittelassyrische Verwaltung und Sozialstruktur. Untersuchungen (Cuneiform Monographs 29), Leiden. Kaelin O. in print: Tall al-Ḥamidīya/Tā’idu (?), Residenzstadt des Mitanni-Reiches, in: D. Bonatz, L. Martin (eds.), 100 Jahre archäologische Feldforschungen in Nordost-Syrien – eine Bilanz (Schriften der Max Freiherr von Oppenheim-Stiftung), Wiesbaden. Kessler K. 1980: Das Schicksal von Irridu unter Adadnarari I., Revue d’Assyriologie 74, pp. 61–66. Kessler K., Müller-Kessler Chr. 1995: Zum Kult des Wettergottes von Guzana, in: A. Erkanal et al. (ed.), Eski Yakin Doğu Kültürleri Üzerine İncelemeler, Istanbul, pp. 239–244. Klengel H. 1999: Geschichte des Hethitischen Reiches (Handbuch der Orientalistik I/34), Leiden. Klinger J. 1988: Überlegungen zu den Anfängen des Mittani-Staates, in: V. Haas (ed.), Hurriter und Hurritisch (Konstanzer Altorientalische Symposien II, Xenia 21), Konstanz pp.27–42, Kühne C. 1999: Imperial Mittani: An Attempt at Historical Reconstruction, SCCNH 10, pp. 203–221. Lipinski E. 2000: The Arameans. Their Ancient History, Culture, Religion (OLA 100), Leuven. Mebert J. 2010: Die Venustafeln des Ammī-ṣaduqa und ihre Bedeutung für die astronomische Datierung der altbabylonischen Zeit (AfO Beiheft 31), Wien. Novák M. 2007: Mittani empire and absolute chronology, in: M. Bietak, E. Czerny (eds), The synchronization of civilizations in the Eastern Mediterranean in the 2nd millennium B.C., Wien, pp. 389–401. Oates D et al. 1997: Excavations at Tell Brak Vol. I: The Mitanni and Old Babylonian Periods, London. Orthmann W. 1975: Der Alte Orient (Propyläen KunstGeschichte 14), Berlin. Orthmann W. 1990: Tell Chuera, Ausgrabungen der Max Freiherr von Oppenheim-Stiftung in NordostSyrien. Tartus. Peccorella P. E. 2006: Tell Barrī/Kahat. La campagna del 2002, Realizione preliminare, Florence. Postgate N. 1972-75: s.v. “Ḫābūr”, RlA 4, pp. 28–29. Radner K., Schachner A. 2001: From Tushhan to Amedi. Topographical Questions concerning the Upper Tigris Region in the Assyrian period, in: N. Tuna, J. Öztürk, J. Velibeyoglu (eds.), Salvage Project of the Archaeological Heritage of the Ilisu and Carcemish Dam Reservoirs. Activities in 1999, Ankara, pp. 729-776. Röllig W. 1998: s.v. “Nabula”, RlA 9, pp. 31. Röllig W. 2008: Land- und Viehwirtschaft am unteren Habur in mittelassyrischer Zeit (Berichte der Ausgrabung Tall Šēḫ Ḥamad/Dūr-katlimmu 9),Wiesbaden. Salje, B. 1990: Der ‘Common Style’ der Mitanni-Glyptik und die Glyptik der Levante und Zyperns in der späten Bronzezeit (BagF 11), Mainz. Sallaberger W., Einwag B., Otto A. 2006: Schenkungen von Mittani-Königen an die Einwohner von Basiru. Die zwei Urkunden aus Tall Bazi am Mittleren Euphrat, ZA 96, pp. 69–104. Shibata D. 2007: Middle Assyrian Administrative and Legal Texts from the 2005 Excavation at Tell Taban: A Preliminary Report, Al-Rāfidān 28, pp. 63–74. Stein D. 1989: A Reappraisal of the “Sauštatar Letter” from Nuzi, ZA 79, pp. 36–60. Stein D. 1994: s.v. “Mittan(n)i B. Archäologisch” , RlA 8, pp. 296–299. Van Koppen, F. 2004: The Geography of Slave Trade and Northern Mesopotamia in the Late Old Babylonian Period, in: H. Hunger, R. Pruzsinsky, Mesopotamian Dark Ages Revisited (Österreichische Akademie der Wissenschaften, Denkschriften der Gesamtakademie Bd. 32), Wien, pp. 9–33. Wäfler M. 1994: Taddum, Tidu und Ta’idu(m)/Tâu(m), in: P. Calmeyer et al. (eds.), Beiträge zur Altorientalischen Archäologie und Altertumskunde, Wiesbaden, pp. 293–302. Wäfler M. 1995: Kaḫat, Tādum und Ilanṣura, NABU 1995/31. Wäfler M. 2003: Tall al-Ḥamidīya 4 (OBO Series Archaeologica 21), Fribourg. Wilhelm G. 1982: Grundzüge der Geschichte und Kultur der Hurriter, Darmstadt. Wilhelm G. 1994: s.v. “Mittan(n)i A. Historisch”, RlA 8, pp. 286–296. Wilhelm G. 2012: Šuppiluliuma I. und die Chronologie der Amarna-Zeit, in: R. Hachmann, Kāmidel-Lōz 20. Die Keilschriftbriefe und der Horizont von elAmarna(SBA 87), Bonn, pp. 225–257. Ziegler, N. 2009: Die Westgrenze des Reichs Samsi-Addus, in Cancik-Kirschbaum, Ziegler 2009, pp. 181–210. Table of terminologies in use for the Bronze Age of Syria Approximate Dates BC Historical Terminology for Mesopotamia Historical Terminology for Syria Bronze Age Terminology for Syria Jezirah Terminology LC / EB I EJ 0 4000 Late Uruk Jamdat Nasr 2900 EB II Early Dynastic I EJ 1 2700 EB III (Early Dynastic II) Early Syrian 1 EJ 2 2600 Early Dynastic IIIa EB IVa EJ 3a 2500 Early Dynastic IIIb Early Syrian 2 (‘Mature’) EJ 3b 2350 Akkadian post-Akkadian 2100 Neosumerian / Ur III 2000 EB IVb EJ 4 Early Syrian 3 (‘Late’) EJ 5 Old Syrian 1 MB I OJ 1 Old Babylonian 1800 Old Syrian 2 MB II Mittani LB I 1560 1525 1350 OJ 2 OJ 3 Kassite / Mittani / Middle Assyrian MJ 1 LB II MJ 2 1200 List of Abbreviations AAA Annals of Archaeology and Anthropology (Liverpool) AASOR Annual of the American Schools of Oriental Research AASyr Annales archéologiques arabes syriennes. AfO Archiv für Orientforschung AJA American Journal of Archaeology AnSt Anatolian Studies APA Acta Praehistorica et Archaeologica AOAT Alter Orient und Altes Testament AoF Altorientalische Forschungen ArchAnz Archäologischer Anzeiger ARES Archivi Reali di Ebla - Studi AUWE Ausgrabungen in Uruk-Warka. Endberichte BagF Baghdader Forschungen BagM Baghdader Mitteilungen BAH Bibliothèque archéologique et historique. BAR British Archaeological Reports BASOR Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Research BATSH BBVO Berliner Beiträge zum Vorderen Orient BCSMS Bulletin of the (Canadian) Society for Mesopotamian Studies BiMes Bibliotheca Mesopotamica CDOG Colloquien der Deutschen Orient-Gesellschaft CRAI Comptes rendus des séances de l’Académie des Inscriptions et Belles-Lettres CRRA Comptes rendus de la Rencontre Assyriologique Internationale DamM Damaszener Mitteilungen FAOS Freiburger Altorientalische Studien HSAO Heidelberger Studien zum Alten Orient ICAANE International Congress of the Archaeology of the Ancient Near East IstF Istanbuler Forschungen IstM JCS JdI Istanbuler Mitteilungen Journal of Cuneiform Studies Jahrbuch des Deutschen Archäologischen Instituts JESHO Journal of the Economic and Social History of the Orient JNES Journal of Near Eastern Studies MDOG Mitteilungen der Deutschen Orientgesellschaft NEA Near Eastern Archaeology OBO Orbis Biblicus et Orientalis, OIP Oriental Institute Publications OrAnt Oriens Antiquus RIME The Royal Inscriptions of Mesopotamia, Early Periods RlA Reallexikon der Assyriologie SAAB State Archives of Assyria Bulletin, Padova. SAOC Studies in Ancient Oriental Civilization SBA Saarbrücker Beiträge zur Altertumskunde SMEA Studi Micenei ed Egeo-Anatolici, Roma. SUN Studien zur Urbanisierung Nordmesopotamiens SVA Schriften zur Vorderasiatischen Archäologie TMO Collection travaux de la Maison de l‘Orient UF Ugarit-Forschungen VicOr Vicino Oriente. Annuario del Dipartimento di Scienze storiche, archeologiche e antropologiche dell’antichità, sezione Vicino Oriente VFMOS Vorderasiatische Forschungen der Max Freiherr von Oppenheim-Stiftung WVDOG Wissenschaftliche Veröffentlichungen der Deutschen Orient-Gesellschaft WZKM Wiener Zeitschrift für die Kunde des Morgenlandes ZA Zeitschrift für Assyriologie und Vorderasiatische Archäologie Topographical Index N.B.: The designation ‘Tall/Tell’ and the Arabic article ‘al’ usually have been omitted from the placenames. The transcription of Arabic names follows the usage of the “Tübinger Atlas des Vorderen Orients”. ‘Abāda: 40 Abarsal: 75, 81, 82, 133, 147, 149, 162 ‘Abd: 139, 169, 173, 175, 275, 276 ‘Abr: 34, 35, 37, 38, 62 Abr 3: 11 Abū Ḥamad: 147, 160 Abū Ḥassan: 238 Abū Huǧaira: 129 Abū Huraira: 10, 11, 20, 24 Abū Šaḫāt: 148, 149 Abū Ṣalābiḫ: 77 Açana: 62, 309, 433 Acemhöyük: 435, 441 Adab: 77, 84 Adanni: 80 Admannu: 451 Afis: 462, 573, 574, 576, 580 Aǧāǧa: 451, 479, 483, 484 Agagališ: 77, 79 Ägypten: 552 Aḥmar: 62, 139, 166, 167, 173, 175, 176, 195, 275, 360, 462, 480, 488, 494, 499, 512, 574, 576 ‘Aid: 262 ‘Ailūn: 47, 347 ‘Ain al-Karḫ: 19 ‘Ain Dārā: 499, 500, 502, 507, 516, 518, 523, 525–527, 572 Akšak: 83, 84 Aktaş Harabe: 62 Alaca Hüyük: 518 Alalaḫ: 274, 277, 281, 285–287, 289, 290, 296, 298, 299, 302, 309, 329, 332, 348, 350, 375, 379, 380, 382, 385–387, 389, 391, 420, 422, 433, 434, 435, 437, 438, 442, 507, 515, 516, 523, 571, 572, 580 Alalaḫu: 77 Alašiya: 354 Aleppo: 237, 240, 241, 274, 281, 285, 299, 300, 302, 309, 357, 375, 383, 385, 386, 391, 434, 435, 437, 438, 461, 465, 470, 499, 500, 507, 511, 523, 525, 527 ‘Alī: 451 Alişar: 351, 435 al-Kōm: 62 Alšu: 348 Amad(u): 77 Amarna: 139, 167, 173, 175, 339, 340 Amasakku: 347 Amedi: 464, 466 Amida: 462 Ammon: 470 ‘Āmūdā: 451 Amurru: 310, 340, 341, 349, 438, 454, 461 Ana: 463 Anaiat aš-Šarqi: 52 Anat: 463 Andarig: 241, 242, 266 Appu: 312 Apum: 265, 268, 269, 271 ‘Aqab: 39 Arab al-Mulk: 313, 320 Aram: 467 Arbela: 450 ‘Arbīd: 107, 116, 122, 139, 144, 262, 265, 267 Ardata: 310 Argūna: 22 Aribu’a: 464 Armānum: 83, 86 Arpačīya: 19, 28, 29, 44 Arpad: 462, 467, 470, 471, 561, 565 ‘Arqa: 310, 313, 461 Arrapḫa: 237, 348, 354, 457 Arslan Tash: 492, 537–541, 548, 557, 559, 561, 562 Arslantepe: 61, 62, 167, 259, 417, 500 Arwad: 456, 465, 467 ‘Ašāra: 91, 433, 437, 484 ‘Ašarna: 80, 287 Aškelon: 399 Ašlakkâ: 241, 242 Ašnakkum: 241 Aššukanni: 475 Aššur: 237, 339, 435, 449, 451–454, 457, 462, 475, 477, 490 Aštata: 453, 461 Aswad: 10, 12, 21 Atallig: 312 Atāreb: 195, 205 ‘Atīǧ: 111–113, 122, 131 ‘Atīq: 62 Avaris: 382 Topographical Index ’Awšar: 465 Azallu: 464 ‘Azāz: 464 Azira: 341 Azu: 288, 339, 358, 361 Azzo: 28 Baaz Ǧabb‘adīn: 10 Babylon: 241, 242, 253, 256, 281, 348, 452 Babylonie: 243 Baġūz: 22, 89, 94 Banāt: 139, 167, 169, 170, 173, 175–177, 195, 210 Barga’u: 77 Barrī: 86, 107, 116, 139, 144, 262, 265, 268, 346, 347, 451, 476, 484 Baṣīru: 348, 351, 359 Bāzi: 195, 348, 351, 357, 359, 361, 362, 364, 366–368, 370 Bāz Musiān: 451 Bdēri: 112, 122, 126, 129, 139, 352, 451, 479 Beidar: 47, 56, 76, 82, 107, 110, 112, 120–123, 126–129, 131, 132, 141, 148, 149, 152, 162, 215, 224–227, 230, 262, 263, 268, 352, 354 Beirut: 413 Beneš: 195 Beşar: 81 Bethšan: 434 Beth Šan: 438 Bezāri: 55, 56 Bi‘a: 80, 141, 147, 149–152, 154, 155, 157, 159, 161, 162, 165, 167, 175, 176, 273–275, 277, 279–281, 347, 434, 436 Billā: 451 Binaš: 195 Biqa’: 340 Birecik: 63, 166, 175 Biroutī: 312 Bīt Adini: 464, 467, 483 Bīt Agusi: 465, 470 Bīt Baḫiani: 480, 483 Bīt Baḫiāni: 466 Bīt Rehob: 465 Bīt Zamāni: 466, 483 Bleibis: 62–66 Boġar: 148, 149 Boğazköy: 309, 339 Bouēd: 22, 25, 27, 49 Brāk: 33, 34, 44, 45, 47–56, 61, 62, 70, 71, 75, 107, 108, 110, 112, 114–116, 120, 122, 123, 126, 128, 132, 139, 147, 151, 152, 162, 200, 202, 203, 205, 209, 210, 211, 215, 216, 218, 221, 222, 223, 225, 226, 227, 230, 237, 262, 263, 265, 268, 346, 347, 348, 352, 353, 354, 355, 418, 420, 421, 422, 426, 428, 451 Būqras: 12, 18–20, 25, 27–29 587 Burmarina: 359 Buzuran: 441 Byblos: 190, 199, 200, 383, 389, 396–400, 402–404, 411, 413–415, 420, 434, 436, 456, 461, 465, 470 Coba Höyük: 47 Čoġa Miš: 69 Cudeyde: 62 Cyprus: 331, 354, 419, 421, 425, 426, 434, 511, 574 Ḏahab: 19 Daḫlīz: 148, 149, 162 Damascus: 237, 341, 391, 462, 463, 465–467, 470, 471, 553, 564 Damdamusa: 464 Damišlīya: 12, 21, 22 Dan: 420 Darib: 77 Daruk: 313 Deinit: 574 Delos: 400, 404, 429 Dēr Ḫabī‘a: 288 Deve Hüyük: 573, 580 Dheina: 62 Dībān: 62 Diyarbakır: 349, 462 Domuztepe: 519 Drehem: 212 Dub: 77 Dūderīya: 10 Dunanab(u): 77 Dunnu-ša-Uzībi: 452 Dūra Europos: 89, 93 Dūr-Aššur-kettī-lēšer: 479 Dūr-Katlimmu: 339, 346, 347, 434, 452, 454, 475, 476, 477, 480, 484, 485, 487, 489, 490, 494, 548, 576 Dūr-Kurigalzu: 455 Dūr-Šarrukīn: 490, 562 Ebla: 75, 76, 79, 81, 82, 84, 86, 98, 120, 121, 133, 144, 151, 155, 165, 173, 181–196, 199, 200, 202, 203–209, 211–213, 215, 235, 268–270, 277, 281, 283–296, 298–303, 329, 375–386, 389, 391, 411–414, 418, 434, 435, 437, 442, 511, 513 Edom: 470 Egypt: 452, 465 Ekallâtum: 238, 242, 361 Ekalte: 287, 339, 341, 358, 361, 366, 453 Eluḫat: 347 Eluhut: 242 Emar: 139, 167, 169, 173, 273–277, 280, 331, 339, 341, 351, 355, 357–362, 365, 366, 368, 371, 372, 420–423, 426–428, 434, 438, 439, 442, 443, 454, 455, 461, 517, 550, 571, 572 588 Topographical Index Enkomi: 421, 422 Ergani-Maden: 121 Ešnunna: 77, 237, 240, 241, 242, 256, 277 Faǧami: 54 Faḫarīya: 346, 351, 355, 420, 421, 428, 452, 462, 475, 476, 479 Faq‘ūs: 357, 359 Farfara: 262, 268, 269 Feres aš-Šarqi: 116 Fray: 169, 173, 357, 358–360, 368, 452 Freje: 383 Fuḫḫār: 62 Ǧabal ‘Arūda: 64, 66 Ǧabb‘adīn: 10 Ǧabbul: 387, 389 Ǧablē: 310, 312, 314, 316 Gabr Ab: 62 Ga‘da al-Mujāra: 11, 19 Ǧairūd: 10 Ǧārāde: 10 Gasur: 77 Ǧebel ‘Arūda: 54, 62, 64, 65, 66, 71 Ǧebelet al-Baiḍa: 161, 162, 202, 205, 206 Gelidonya: 396, 419 Ǧerablūs: 339, 461 Ǧerāblūs Taḥtāni: 62, 66, 139, 165, 167, 169, 173, 175, 176 Ǧerf al-Aḥmar: 10, 11 Ǧernīya: 175 Gezer: 291, 412, 422 Gibala: 312 Ǧindīris: 288 Giriciano: 451, 452, 456, 457 Girnavaz: 262, 346, 347 Glea: 148 Göltepe: 121 Gordion: 562, 564, 566 Grai Reš: 47 Gre Virike: 166, 167, 170 Gubla: 86, 411 Ǧudaida: 19, 111, 122, 183, 210, 399, 401, 402 Gurgum: 462, 463–467, 470, 471 Guzana: 462, 463, 466, 480–485, 494, 501, 525, 535, 560 Habūba: 54 Ḥabūba Kabīra: 62, 64–66, 68, 70, 71, 91, 139, 167, 169, 175, 212, 215, 275, 279 Hacınebi Tepe: 61, 62, 66, 69, 71 Ḫadatu: 539, 559 Ḫaddu: 82, 83 Ḥadīdī: 62, 139, 165, 167, 169, 173, 175, 275, 276, 280, 288, 339, 358, 361, 368, 371, 372 Ḥaǧǧ: 62, 70 Haǧib: 54 Ḫalab: 80, 341, 461, 499, 511 Ḫalabitu: 83 Ḥalabīya: 83, 89 Ḥalaf: 22, 33, 37, 462, 463, 480, 482, 494, 501, 534–536, 563, 564, 566, 481 Ḫalam: 77 Ḥalāwa: 139, 152, 165, 167, 169, 173, 175, 177, 205, 206, 273, 275, 277, 279, 280, 353 Ḫalman: 465 Hālūla: 11, 12, 18, 19, 20, 22, 27, 28, 29 Ḥama: 33, 62, 79, 183, 191, 285, 381, 383, 462, 499, 500, 502, 506, 509, 525, 560, 563, 565, 574, 575, 580 Hamadu: 80 Ḫamat: 462–467, 470, 471 Ḫamazi: 82 Ḥamīdī: 86 Ḥamīdīya: 265, 346, 350, 351, 353, 355, 452, 476 Ḫamīs: 167, 173, 275, 279, 280 Ḥammām eṭ-Ṭurkmān: 33, 35, 37, 39, 44, 45, 47, 48, 61, 62, 126, 128, 141, 147, 149, 150, 151, 152, 159, 160, 267, 273, 275, 276, 280, 281, 350 Ḥamūkār: 37, 44, 45, 48, 49, 50, 51, 55, 56, 61, 62, 71, 107, 110, 116, 122, 126, 139, 141, 212, 262, 263 Ḫana: 274, 456, 463 Ḫanigalbat: 341, 342, 345, 347, 349, 453, 454, 463, 474, 475, 476, 479, 483 Ḫān Šeḫūn: 287 Hanū: 268 Ḫanzīr: 148, 149 Ḫarab Sayyār: 139, 147, 148, 149, 150, 151, 152, 153, 157, 159, 162 Ḫarbe: 339, 347, 350, 452, 476 Harīrī: 120, 199, 257, 433 Ḫarran: 77, 79, 347, 349, 453, 576 Hasanlu: 562, 566 Ḥassaka: 345, 346 Hassek Höyük: 62, 65, 66 Ḫaššu: 375 Ḫaššum: 77 Ḫatarikka: 462, 467, 470 Hatti: 452, 461, 464 Ḫatti: 341 Ḫattuša: 287, 309, 339, 341, 351, 389, 438, 454, 505, 511, 512, 518, 525 Hauran: 341 Hawā: 62, 267 Hayaz Höyük: 62 Ḫazāzu: 464, 467 Ḫazna: 28, 109, 111, 112, 113, 122, 129 Ḫazna, T.: 47 Hazor: 332 Ḫazrak: 467 Topographical Index Hierapolis: 302 Ḫilakku: 462, 465 Ḫirbat ad-Dīnīya: 452 Ḫirbet aš-Šanaf: 22, 25, 27 Hirîtum: 242 Hît: 241 Ḫizzīn: 413, 414 Ḥomṣ: 341, 414, 580 Ḫorsabad: 546, 548, 562 Ḫuēra: 75, 82, 110, 123, 126, 128, 129, 132, 133, 139, 147–153, 155–162, 170, 171, 173, 196, 200, 201, 210, 215, 222–224, 227, 230, 268, 339, 347, 353, 451, 476, 477, 479 Ḥumai˚a: 62 Ḫurrā: 347 Hušlâ: 241 Ḫuzirīna: 464, 561 Iarmuti: 84 Ibal: 83 Ilân-ṣûrâ: 241 Ilwi’um: 82 Imamkulu: 512 Imar: 77, 79, 80, 81, 237 Incirlik: 62 Irad: 79 Iris: 313, 320, 326 Iritum: 77, 79 Irqata: 310, 313, 461, 465 Irride: 453 Irrite: 347, 349 Isin: 283 Israel: 465 Išuwa: 348 Jerusalem: 334 Jilib el ‘Abud: 52 Juda: 470 Kabir: 139, 165 Kabīr: 170, 177, 273, 275, 280 Kaḫat: 86, 238, 240, 346, 347, 350, 451, 476, 484 Kakkaban: 86 Kalḫu: 464, 490, 561 Kāmid el-Lōz: 339, 399, 404, 419–422, 461 Kaneš: 385, 434, 435 Karahöyük: 435 Karatepe: 500 Karatut Mevkii: 62, 69 Karḫ: 11, 12, 19, 27, 28, 29 Karkamiš: 62, 63, 77, 81, 147, 165, 166, 175, 183, 274, 275, 285, 287–290, 302, 310, 339–342, 347, 349, 351, 355, 357, 359, 361, 362, 375, 378, 380, 383, 386, 391, 414, 435, 438, 453, 461–466, 468, 470, 471, 499, 500, 502, 503, 505, 506, 508, 509, 516, 519, 522, 527, 528, 529, 530, 531, 533, 561, 564, 572, 573 589 Kār-Šulmānuašared: 465, 467, 488, 539, 559, 576 Kār-Tukultī-Ninurta: 339, 451, 455 Kaškašok: 20, 27, 34, 37, 39, 49, 52, 53, 56, 111–114 Kazal: 288 Kazane Hüyük: 147 Kazel: 309, 313, 314, 316, 320, 321, 322, 325, 326, 342, 420, 461, 572, 573 Kenk Boğazı: 465 Kerma: 111, 112, 113 Kirmizi Ok Tarlası: 62 Kiš: 76, 81, 83, 84, 120 Kiswah: 415 Kizzuwatna: 340, 345 Klavdia: 434 Knēdiǧ: 109, 112, 113, 576, 580 Knossos: 382 Kōm: 10, 13, 18, 19, 27 Komeçlı: 62 Kosak Šamali: 19, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 165 Kreta: 563 Kulišḫinaš: 451 Kültepe: 285, 418, 434, 435, 441 Kumidi: 339, 342, 404, 404 Kummuḫ: 462, 464–468, 470, 471 Kunulua: 462, 464,499 Kuran: 44 Kurban Höyük: 62, 69, 167, 177, 273, 276 Kurdâ: 241 Kurdu: 22, 26, 35, 38 Kuşaklı: 351 Lagaš: 83 Laḫiš: 420 Larsa: 241, 242, 256, 283 (L)arugadu: 80 Leilan: 351 Leilān: 33, 44, 49, 83, 86, 108, 110, 113–115, 122, 123, 126, 128, 129, 131, 133, 139, 144, 147, 152, 154, 183, 215–218, 226, 229, 237, 257, 259–263, 265–268, 274, 277, 279, 281, 433, 434, 437, 442 Lidar Höyük: 62, 276, 441 Lilabšnum: 86 Lu‘aš: 467, 565 Luban: 80 Mabtūḥ al-Ġarbi: 122, 123, 148, 149 Mabtūḥ al-Šarqi: 122, 123 Magdala: 492 Maġer: 148 Mahadū: 311, 420 Mahrūm: 148, 149 Malabīya: 122, 126, 129, 130, 131 Malatya: 461, 466, 467 Malgûm: 242 Malḥat eḍ-Ḍēru: 148, 149 590 Topographical Index Mansuate: 467 Maraş: 463, 471 Mardīḫ: 181, 191, 199, 287, 434, 511, 580 Mari: 75, 76, 79, 81–86, 89, 91–93, 95–100, 102, 103–105, 110, 113, 120, 129, 133, 141, 144, 165, 190, 199–202, 205, 207, 209, 210, 212, 215, 235–238, 240, 242–244, 247, 250, 253, 256, 257, 262, 265, 267, 274, 277, 279, 281, 283, 285, 298, 299, 329, 332, 418, 433, 435–437, 441, 442, 456, 210 Marqasi: 463, 471 Masaiḫ: 487, 548 Masin: 287 Maskana: 275, 339, 434 Mašnaqa: 34, 35, 38, 39, 44, 47, 49–52, 55, 56, 113 Masos: 562 Mastuma: 574, 575, 580 Masuwari: 462, 463, 481, 499, 500, 512, 530 Megiddo: 420, 422, 517 Melid: 461, 463, 464, 466–468, 470 Meliddu: 462 Memphis: 190 Merǧ Ḫamis: 580 Meskene: 461, 517 Metjāḥa: 148, 149 Mīnā: 576, 577 Minet al-Baiḍa: 310, 311, 314, 316, 321, 322, 324, 326, 331, 420, 423, 441, 443 Mišlân: 238 Mišrifa: 339, 434 Mittani: 453, 475 Moab: 470 Moḥamed Arab: 97 Moḥammad Diyāb: 139, 144, 262, 267, 268, 279, 352, 354 Mōzān: 77, 83, 86, 107, 111, 112, 114, 122, 123, 126, 128, 131, 133, 141, 147, 215, 218–222, 224–227, 229, 257, 262, 265, 267, 268, 274, 347, 353, 354 Mu’azzar: 148, 149 Muhammad: 347 Muḥammad ‘Arab: 62 Mukiš: 86, 309 Mulku: 313 Munbāqa: 84, 139, 169, 172, 173, 175, 177, 276, 279, 287, 339, 358–362, 364–372 Munbātih: 12 Muqayyar: 562 Murēbit: 10 Murēbiṭ: 10, 11, 62 Murmuriga: 340 Muṣur: 354 Mutkinu: 456 Nabada: 76, 77, 82, 120, 121, 129, 133, 224 Nabula: 347 Nagar: 75, 76, 77, 81–83, 86, 120, 122, 128, 132, 133, 162, 200, 221, 237, 259, 348, 350, 353 Nahur: 241 Naïri: 466 Nasibīna: 464 Nebi Mend: 339, 414 Neirab: 412, 576, 580 Nenaš: 79 Nija: 461 Nimrud: 464, 540, 543, 555, 556–559, 561–566 Ninive: 62, 464, 562 Ninua: 450, 490 Nippur: 86 Nisibin: 22 Niya: 77, 340 Noršuntepe: 45 Nuḫašše: 340, 341, 461 Nusaybin: 464 Nustell: 49, 52 Nuzi: 348, 350, 351, 355, 438 Palmyra: 19, 29, 343, 463 Paqiraḫupūna: 467 Patina: 464, 465, 466 Phoenicia: 574 Pir Hüssein: 86, 347 Pitru: 456, 465 Qabra: 237 Qadeš: 287, 310, 339, 340, 391, 414, 415, 419 Qal‘at al-Šerqat: 339 Qal‘at ar-Russ: 312, 322 Qal’at Faqrā: 404 Qamišlije: 35 Qannās: 62, 64, 65, 66, 139, 169 Qarāmil: 10 Qara Qūzāq: 139, 147, 153, 166, 167, 169, 170, 173, 175, 177, 275, 279 Qarāya: 52, 53, 62, 63, 66, 69, 70, 91 Qarqar: 465 Qarqūr: 194 Qāṣila: 422 Qatāra: 452 Qaṭna: 79, 83, 237, 241, 242, 274, 277, 281, 285, 287–289, 291, 296–298, 302, 339, 340, 375, 385, 386, 391, 412–415, 418–420, 434–436, 516 Qatni: 480, 484 Qaṭṭarâ: 241 Qdēr: 13 Qiṭār: 275, 359–362, 371, 372 Qu’e: 462, 465, 467, 470 Qumluk: 62 Qūsāq Šamāli: 62, 69 Rad Šaqrah: 112 Topographical Index Ramād: 12, 26 Ramādi: 62, 63 Ramādī: 91 Ramoth Gilead: 465 Rāpiqu: 463 Raqā’i: 111, 112, 113, 122, 126, 131, 152, 153 Raqqa: 165, 357 Rā’s al-‘Ain: 262, 263 Raṣappa: 494 Ra’s Bassīt: 310, 314, 316, 320, 322, 326 Ra’s Ibn Ḥāni: 312, 314, 316, 318, 320–322, 325, 326, 329, 336, 339, 420, 422, 427 Ra’s Šamra: 12, 33, 27, 183, 310, 314, 315, 316, 322, 324, 325, 329, 330, 333, 420, 433, 461, 577 Rawḍa: 194, 273 Razamâ: 241, 242 Rifa’at: 462, 467, 561, 565 Rimāḥ: 267, 452, 485, 487 Rumeila: 175 Saba‘a: 487 Ṣabī Abyaḍ: 12, 18, 19, 21, 22, 26, 27, 29, 339, 452, 457, 476, 477, 479 Šadikanni: 456, 479, 480, 484 Şadı Tepe: 62, 66, 165 Safinat Nūḥ: 287 Safīra: 387, 389 Saggar: 82 Saggâratum: 238, 240 Šāġir Bāzār: 22, 26, 28, 47, 82, 107, 112, 113, 114, 122, 131, 237, 257, 262, 263–265, 267, 268, 352, 434 Sakçagözü: 26, 505, 506, 533, 534, 563, 566 Sakka: 298 Sam’al: 380, 462, 465–467, 470, 471, 499, 500, 503–507, 509, 526, 529–531, 533, 534, 560 Samaria: 467, 470, 471, 562 Samos: 563 Šams ad-Dīn: 22, 25 Samsat: 86 Samsat Höyük: 62, 69 Šamseddīn: 175 Sapuna: 390 Sarafand: 339, 562 Sarepta: 339, 562 Ṣauwān: 35 Savi Höyük: 62 Savur: 347 Šēḫ Ḥamad: 339, 347, 434, 452, 475, 479, 485, 548, 561, 576, 580 Šēḫ Ḥassan: 10, 11, 52, 53, 54, 62, 64, 65, 66, 67, 68, 69, 70, 71 Šeḫna: 86, 122, 133, 183, 257, 265, 351, 434, 435 Selankahīya: 139, 167, 169, 173, 175, 177, 202, 203, 210, 275 591 Šelgiya: 44 Seqar Fawqāni: 268 Şerağa Höyük: 62 Sfīre: 470 Siānū: 313 Šibanibe: 451 Sidon: 456, 461, 464 Sigan: 351 Siǧr: 94 Sijannu: 461 Sikani: 462 Simirra: 288, 471 Sinaru: 310 Sippar: 84, 437, 442 Šitamrat: 465 Siyannu: 309, 310, 313, 465 Šiyūḫ Fawqāni: 62, 139, 165, 166, 167, 169, 173, 175, 359, 360 Šiyūḫ Taḥtāni: 139, 167, 175, 275 Söğüt Tarlası: 62 Šubat Enlil: 434, 435 Šubat-Enlil: 237, 238, 240–242, 257, 265, 266, 277, 351 Šuduḫu: 347 Suhû: 454 Suḫu: 463, 487 Sūkās: 313, 320, 322, 325, 326, 339, 404, 461 Suksi: 313 Šuksi: 339, 461 Sultantepe: 464, 561, 566 Sumur: 309, 310, 313, 342, 461, 471 Ṣuprum: 238 Sur: 287 Šūru: 347 Susa: 64, 71, 72 Sweyhat: 139, 167, 169, 173, 174–177, 275 Tabal: 462 Ṭābān: 257, 263, 347, 354, 451, 479 Tabbat al-Hammam: 314 Ṭabēte: 257, 347, 479, 480, 484 Tabqa: 165 Tadmor: 343, 463 Tādum: 86, 351 Taftanaz: 378 Taidu: 346, 347, 350, 351, 353, 355, 451, 453, 476 Talhawum: 82 Tannīra: 62, 66 Tarḫuntašša: 461 Taribu: 195 Tarsus: 580 Tawi: 167, 175 Taya: 259 Tayinat: 462, 500, 503, 505, 508, 499 Tayyānah: 62 592 Topographical Index Ṭayyiba: 10 Tepecik: 62 Tepe Gawra: 38, 43–45, 47, 52, 56, 62 Terqa: 83, 86, 91, 98, 141, 190, 238, 240, 279, 348, 433, 437, 442, 453, 463 Thèbes: 442 Til-Abnu: 360, 464 Til Barsib: 209, 462, 463, 465, 480–483, 488, 493, 494, 499, 500, 502, 512, 530, 537, 539, 541, 543, 545–548, 559, 560, 566 Tilmen Hüyük: 296, 298, 302, 388, 389, 434, 515 Titriş Hüyük: 147 Tıladır Tepe: 62 Tuba: 79 Tuēni: 312 Tulūl al-‘Aqar: 339, 451 Tunip: 77, 80, 287, 391, 461 Ṭūqān: 285, 287–290, 298, 302 Tušḫan: 347, 464 Tuttul: 76, 80, 81, 83, 86, 147, 149, 196, 238, 240, 274–278, 280, 283, 299, 347, 375, 434, 436 Tutub: 277 Tyre: 461, 464, 470 Üçtepe: 346 Uduḫudu: 79 Ugarit: 183, 288, 309–311, 313–325, 329–332, 334– 336, 339–342, 348, 354, 375, 385, 387–391, 396, 398, 400, 402, 403, 404, 412, 414, 415, 419, 420–429, 433–435, 438, 441–443, 452, 461, 511, 550, 553, 571, 572 Ullaza: 312 Uluburun: 396, 419, 429 Umm Agrēbe: 477 Umm al-Marra’: 20, 195, 348, 418, 576, 580 Umm al-Quwain: 418 Umm ‘Aqrubba: 487 Umm Dabāġīyah: 20 Umm Qusēr: 22, 25, 27, 44, 47, 48, 52, 53, 55, 56 Unqi: 462, 465, 466, 470 Ur: 86, 219, 236, 244, 283, 418, 562 Urkeš: 77, 83, 86, 122, 133, 218, 259, 347, 350 Ursa’um: 79 Uršu: 375 Uršum: 77 Uruk: 64, 66, 84 ‘Usiyeh: 561 Uškānu: 330 Ušnatu: 309, 310, 313, 465 Warka: 52 Waššukanni: 268, 339, 340, 346, 347, 349, 351, 355, 453, 475, 476 Wreide: 167, 175 Yabrūd: 10 Yakaltum: 361 Yamhad: 86, 434 Yamḫad: 274, 281, 285, 298, 309, 348, 376, 383, 385, 386, 391, 435–437, 511 Yarim Tepe: 25, 28, 62 Yarım Höyük: 166, 167 Yassıhöyük: 562 Yazılıkaya: 517, 520 Yesemek: 518, 522, 526 Yorgan Tepe: 348 Yunus: 509, 574, 575 Zaḫiran: 82 Zaidān: 34, 35, 62 Zalpa: 275 Zamāḫu: 485, 487 Zeytinbahçeli Höyük: 62 Zeytinli Bahçe: 165, 166, 167, 173 Zincirli: 462, 499, 500, 541, 554, 559, 560, 563, 564 Ziyāda: 34, 35, 38, 113 Ziyāde: 44, 47 Ziyaret Tepe: 347, 464