The Fertile Desert: A History of the Middle Euphrates Valley Until the Arrival of Alexander 9781803271200, 9781803271217, 1803271205

The Fertile Desert studies a region of the Euphrates Valley between the Balikh and Khabour in Syria that remains little

214 80 47MB

English Pages 346 Year 2022

Table of contents :
Cover
Title Page
Copyright Page
Dedication
Contents Page
Acknowledgments
Preface
Prólogo y reflexión sobre esta obra
Chapter 1
Introduction
The study of human occupation along the Euphrates Valley, between Balikh and Khabour, until the time of Alexander the Great.
Surveys
Excavations
Methodology, hypothesis, and work plan
Research objectives
References
Figure 1. Location of Tell Biaa.
Figure 2. The excavations at the palace zone (photo by the author).
Figure 3. Small finds from Tell Biaa (photo by the author: Raqqa Museum).
Figure 4. Location of Tell Zeidan.
Figure 5. Pottery from Tell Zeidan (after Stein and Al Khabour 2008).
Figure 6. Stamp from the Late Chalcolithic II (after Stein and Al Khabour 2008).
Figure 7. Location of Tell Masri I.
Figure 8. Tell Masri I, seen from the top to the north (after Goto and Hasigawa 2007).
Figure 10. Tell Masri II, seen from the top to the north (after Goto and Hasigawa 2007).
Figure 9. Location of Tell Masri II.
Figure 11. Location of Tell Mazar.
Figure 12. Location of Tell Shennan.
Figure 13. General view of Tell Shanan (after Goto and Hasigawa 2007).
Figure 14. Location of Rabtat Abyad.
Figure 15. General view of Rabtat Abyad (photo by the author).
Figure 16. Collection of superficial sherds (after Goto and Hasigawa 2007).
Figure 17. Location of Maqbarat al Karama.
Figure 18. General view of Maqbarat al-Karama (photo by the author).
Figure 19. General view of Maqbarat al-Karama (photo by the author).
Figure 20. Location of Maqbarat al Karama.
Figure 21. General view of Maqbara Qadima (photo by the author).
Figure 22. General view of Maqbara Qadima (photo by the author).
Figure 23. Collection of superficial sherds (after Goto and Hasigawa 2007).
Figure 24. Location of Wadi Qutena.
Figure 25. Location of Jibli.
Figure 26. Location of Jibli 9F.
Figure 27. Location of Jibli 9E.
Figure 28. Location of Jibli 9D.
Figure 29. Tumulus tomb of Jibli 9D, view from the southeast (after Nishiaki 2009).
Figure 30. Location of Eadi Aain.
Figure 31. Tombs of Wadi Aain, view from the east (after Nishiaki 2009).
Figure 32. Location of Tell Hamadin.
Figure 33. Tell Hamadin, general view (after Goto and Hasigawa 2007).
Figure 34. Topographic plan of Tell Hamadin, general view (after Goto and Hasigawa 2007).
Figure 35. Location of Zor Shammar Foqani.
Figure 36. Location of Wadi Ubaid.
Figure 37. Location of Jabal Tbouq.
Figure 38. Location of cairn fields M-W of Bishri Mountains
Figure 39. Tumulus tomb of cairn fields (after Fuji and Adachi 2010).
Figure 40. Bromze pin from a tomb of cairn fields (after Fuji and Adachi 2010).
Figure 41. Pendant and beads from a tomb of cairn fields (after Fuji and Adachi 2010).
Figure 42. Location of Wadi Kharrar.
Figure 43. Wadi Kharrar, general view (after Nishiaki 2009).
Figure 44. Wadi Kharrar, lithic artifacts (after Nishiaki 2009).
Figure 45. Wadi Kharrar, Middle Paleolithic instruments (after Nishiaki 2009).
Figure 46. Location of Wadi Dabaa.
Figure 47. Cemetery of Wadi Dabaa (after Numoto and Kume 2010).
Figure 48. Pottery sherds from Wadi Dabaa (after Numoto and Kume 2010).
Figure 49. Location of Abu Hamad.
Figure 50. Cemetery of Abu Hamad (after Meyer 2010).
Figure 51. Pottery sherds from Abu Hamad (after Ohnuma and Al Khabour, 2008).
Figure 52. Location of Wadi Shabout.
Figure 53. Cemetery of Wadi Shabout (after Numoto and Kume 2010).
Figure 54. Pottery from Wadi Shabout (after Numoto and Kume 2010).
Figure 55. Location of Tell Ghanem al- Ali.
Figure 56. Pottery from Tell Ghanem al-Ali (after Al Khabour 2012).
Figure 57. Location of Wadi Jazla.
Figure 58. Cemetery of Wadi Jazla (after Numoto and Kume 2010).
Figure 59. Pottery sherds from Wadi Jazla (after Numoto and Kume 2010).
Figure 60. Location of Tell Mughla as-Saghir (Betha).
Figure 61. Location of Tell Mughla as-Saghir General view (after Goto and Hasigawa 2007).
Figure 62. Location of Tell Beilouni.
Figure 63. Tombs around Tell Beilouni (after Nishiaki 2010).
Figure 64. Location of Tell Sheikh Mousa.
Figure 65. General view (photo of the author).
Figure 66. Collection of superficial sherds (after Goto and Hasigawa 2007).
Figure 67. Location of Tell Sweda.
Figure 68. General view (after Goto and Hasigawa 2007).
Figure 69. Location of Tell Maqam.
Figure 70. Pottery from Tell Al- Maqam (after Kohlmeyer 1984: 114).
Figure 71. Location of Tell Saghir.
Figure 72. General view (after Goto and Hasigawa 2007).
Figure 73. Location of Tell Ahmar.
Figure 74. General view (after Goto and Hasigawa 2007).
Figure 75. Location of Tell Humeida.
Figure 76. General view (after Montero 2011)
Figure 77. Pottery from Tell Humeitha (after Montero 2011).
Figure 78. Location of Wadi Abu Shahri.
Figure 79. Location of Tell Qabr Abu al-Atiq.
Figure 80. General view of Tell Qabr Abu al-Atiq (after Montero et al. 2010).
Figure 81. Repertoire of Middle Assyrian pottery (after Montero et al. 2010).
Figure 82. Cuneiform tablets from Tell Qabr Abu al-Atiq (after Montero et al. 2010).
Figure 83. Location of Tell Qsubi.
Figure 84. General view of Tell Qsubi (photo by the author).
Figure 85. General view of Tell Qsubi (photo by the author).
Figure 86. Location of Qsubi tomb.
Figure 87. Location of Qleb al Hemma 13.1
Figure 88. Qleb al Hemma 13.1.
Figure 89. Location of Qleb al Hemma 13.3.
Figure 90. Location of Qleb al Hemma 13.3.
Figure 91. Location of Qleb al Hemma 13.4.
Figure 92. Location of Qleb al Hemma 13.5.
Figure 93. Location of Qleb al Hemma 13.6.
Figure 94. Qleb al Hemma 13.6.
Figure 95. Qleb al Hemma 13.7.
Figure 96. Qleb al Hemma 13.8.
Figure 97. Qleb al Hemma 13.8.
Figure 98. Qleb al Hemma 13.12.
Figure 99. Qleb al Hemma 13.12.
Figure 100. Qleb al Hemma 13.13.
Figure 101. Qleb al Hemma 13.13.
Figure 102. Qleb al Hemma 13.14.
Figure 103. Qleb al Hemma 13.14.
Figure 104. Qleb al Hemma 13.17.
Figure 105. Qleb al Hemma 13.17.
Figure 106. Qleb al Hemma 13.18.
Figure 107. Qleb al Hemma 13.27.
Figure 108. Qleb al Hemma 13.27.
Figure 109. Qleb al Hemma 13.30.
Figure 110. Qleb al Hemma 13.30.
Figure 111. Location of Tell Tebni.
Figure 112. General view of Tell Tebni (photo by the author).
Figure 113. General view (photo by the author).
Figure 114. Location of Tell Abu Makiya.
Figure 115. General view of Tell Abu Makiya (after Sanjuro et al. 2009).
Figure 116. Pottery from Tell Abu Makiya (after Sanjuro et al. 2009).
Figure 117. Location of Tell Abu Fahd.
Figure 118. General view of Tell Abu Fahd (after Montero 2009).
Figure 119. Excavation of the Syrian-Spanish expedition (after Montero 2009).
Figure 120. Location of Nadra.
Figure 121. Artefacts from the Neolithic PPNB (after Lonnqvist 2011: 157).
Figure 122. Location of Tell Tabus.
Figure 123. Artefacts from Tell Tabus (after Lonnqvist 2011).
Figure 124. Location of Tell Khraita.
Figure 125. Investigated zone to the south of Tell Khraita (after Lonnqvist 2011).
Figure 126. Lithic artefacts from Tell Khraita (after Lonnqvist 2011).
Figure 127. Location of Tell Ain Abu-Jemaa.
Figure 128. Location of Tell Ayyash.
Figure 129. Investigated zone of Tell Ayyash (after Lonnqvist 2011).
Figure 130. Artifacts from Tell Ayyash (after Lonnqvist 2011).
Figure 131. Location of Tell as-Sinn.
Figure 132. Flint arrowheads from Tell as-Sin (after Montero and Al-Shbib 2008).
Figure 133. Flint arrowheads from Tell as-Sin (after Montero and Al-Shbib 2008).
Figure 134. Location of Tell et-Tabie II.
Figure 135. Pottery from Tell et-TabiyeII (after Geyer and Monchambert 2003: 191).
Figure 136. Location of Tell Mohasan I.
Figure 137. Pottery from Tell Mohasan I (after Geyer and Monchambert 2003: 150).
Figure 138. Location of Tell es-Sabha I.
Figure 139. Pottery from Tell es-Sabha I (after Geyer and Monchambert 2003: 212).
Figure 140. Location of Tell es-Salu V.
Figure 141. Pottery from Tell es-Salu V (after Geyer and Monchambert 2003: 205).
Figure 142. Location of Tell Bueseire I.
Figure 143. Pottery from Tell Buseire I (after Geyer and Monchambert 2003: 186).
Figure 144. Location of Tell Safat ez-Zerr.
Figure 145. Pottery from Safat ez-Zerr (after Geyer and Monchambert 2003: 156).
Figure 146. Location of Tell Bouqras I.
Figure 147. Small finds from Tell Bouqras I (after Akkermans et al. 1983: 357).
Chapter 3
The occupation of the territory Description of the investigated sites
1. Tell Biaa (Tuttul)
Description of the investigated sites
2. Tell Zeidan
3. Wadi Ubeid
4. Jabal Tbouq
5. Cairn fields northwest of Mt Bishri
6. Wadi Kharrar
7. Cemetery of Wadi Dabaa
8. Cemetery of Abu Hamad
9. Wadi Shabout
10. Tell Ghanem al-Ali
11. Cemetery of Wadi Jazla
12. Tell Mugla as-Sagir (Tell Beitha)
13. Tell Beilouni
14. Tell Humeida
15. Tell Qabr Abu al-Atiq
16. Tell Qsubi -Tell Qalaa
16. Tomb of Qsubi
17. Qleb al Hemma
18. Tell et-Tibni
19. Tell Abu Fahd
20. Tell As-Sin
21. Tell Bouqras I
Chapter 4
Figure 148. Location of Tell Biaa.
Figure 149. The church of Tell Biaa (after Krebernik and Stromminger 1988: 137).
Figure 150. General plan of Tell Biaa (after Bösze 2009: 63).
Figure 151. The temple (after Krebernikna and Strommenger 1998: 128).
Figure 152. Plan of one of the palaces (after Krebernikna and Strommenger 1998: 133).
Figure 153. Plan of the royal tombs of Tuttul (after Bösze 2009: 65).
Figure 154. General view of the royal tombs (after Krebernikna and Strommenger 1998: 129).
Figure 155. Precious objects from the royal tombs (after Krebernikna and Strommenger 1998: 130).
Figure 156. Reconstruction of the Mausoleum (royal tombs) of Tuttul (after Bösze 2009: 71).
Figure 157. Rests of wooden furniture from the royal tombs (after Krebernikna and Strommenger 1998: 130).
Figure 158. Remains of the fire in Palace B (after Krebernikna and Strommenger 1998: 130).
Figure 159. Fragments of a bearded from Palace B (after Krebernikna and Strommenger 1998: 131).
Figure 160. Fragments of Akkadian seal impression (after Krebernikna and Strommenger 1998: 132).
Figure 161. Individual grave of the high-ranked society (after Krebernikna and Strommenger 1998: 132).
Figure 162. Cylinder seal from one of the tombs (after Krebernikna and Strommenger 1998: 132).
Figure 163. Plan of Palace A (after Krebernikna and Strommenger 1998: 133).
Figure 164. Room 5 of Palace A (after Krebernikna and Strommenger 1998: 134).
Figure 165. Section of the skeleton pit (after Krebernikna and Strommenger 1998: 135).
Figure 166. Map of Ubaid period sites and Tell Zeidan (Stein and Al Khabour 2008).
Figure 167. Topographic map showing the three mounds of Tell Zeidan (Stein and Al Khabour 2008).
Figure 168. The southern mound of Tell Zeidan (Stein and Al Khabour 2008).
Figure 169. Painted pottery from Ubaid period (Stein and Al Khabour 2008).
Figure 170. Stratigraphic trench in Tell Zeidan, view from the west (Stein and Al Khabour 2008).
Figure 171. Stratigraphic section of the southern mound (Stein and Al Khabour 2008).
Figure 172. Pottery from Ubaid period (left.) with decorations from the previous period of Halaf (right.) (Stein and Al Khabour 2008).
Figure 173. Backed clay “muller” represents a continuation of Ubaid oractices in the Late Chalcolithic I (Stein and Al Khabour 2008).
Figure 174. Obsidian from Tell Zeidan (Stein and Al Khabour 2008).
Figure 175. Blowpipe to melt copper (Stein and Al Khabour 2008).
Figure 176. Stamp from the Late Chalcolithic II (Stein and Al Khabour 2008).
Figure 177. Radiocarbon date analisis from Tell Zeidan (Stein and Al Khabour 2008).
Figure 178. Location of Wadi Ubaid.
Figure 179. Location of Jabal Tbouq.
Figure 180. The PPNB flint scatter of Jabal Tbouq in Wadi er-Rhoum, Loc. 1, viewed from the east (after Nishiaki 2008:164)
Figure 181. PPNB flint implements from Jabal Tbouq in Wadi er-Rhoum, Loc. 1(after Nishiaki 2008: 165)
Figure 182. Location of Bishri Mountain (after Fuji and Adachi 2010: 62).
Figure 183. Topographic map of the research area (after Fuji and Adachi 2010: 62).
Figure 184. Distribution of Bronze Age cairns (after Fuji and Adachi 2010: 63).
Figure 185. Wadi Hedaja 1 (after Fuji and Adachi, 2010: 65).
Figure 186. Segments A and B (after Fuji and Adachi. 2010).
Figure 187. BC-10 Plan of the cairn (after Fuji and Adachi 2010: 67).
Figure 188. General view of BC-10 from SE (after Fuji 2009: 154).
Figure 189. General view of the cist, from NW (after Fuji 2009: 154).
Figure 190. Human skeletal remains from the central chamber of BC-10 (after Fuji 2009: 154).
Figure193. BC-10 Construction material engraved with an animal design (after Fuji 2009: 155).
Figure 192. Construction material decorated with herringbone patterns (after Fuji. 2009: 155).
Figure 193. BC-10 Construction material engraved with an animal design (after Fuji 2009: 155).
Figure 194. Bronze products from BC-09 (after Fuji, Adachi and Suzuki 2009: 186).
Figure 195. Faience products from BC-09 (after Fuji, Adachi and Suzuki 2009: 186).
Figure 196. Agate and faience beads from BC-09 (after Fuji, Adachi and Suzuki 2009: 186).
Figure 197. Snail beads from BC-09 (after Fuji, Adachi and Suzuki 2009: 186).
Figure 198. Wadi Hedaja 1: techno-typological sequence of cairns (after Fuji and Adachi 2010: 69).
Figure 199. Tor Rahum 1: site map and techno-typological sequence (after Fuji and Adachi 2010:71).
Figure 200. Tor Rahum 1: Bronze dagger and sheath from BC-131 (after Fuji et al 2010a:107).
Figure 201. Wadi Hayuz 1: General view of BC-05, from SE (after Fuji et al. 2010b:167).
Figure 202. Wadi Hayuz 1: Small finds from BC-01 (after Fuji et al. 2010b:167).
Figure 203. Wadi Hedaja 2: General view of BC-09, looking NE (after Fuji et al. 2010b:167).
Figure 204. Wadi Hedaja 2: Pottery from BC-09 (after Fuji et al. 2010b:167).
Figure 205. Wadi Jal al-Tyur 2: BC-01, looking NE (after Fuji et al. 2010b:167).
Figure 206. Wadi Jal al-Tyur 2: BC-01, small finds (after Fuji et al. 2010b:167).
Figure 207. Wadi Jal al-Tyur 2: General view of BC-02, looking NW (after Fuji et al. 2010b:168).
Figure 208. Wadi Jal-at-Tyur 2: General view of some cairns (BC-17-18-19), looking N (after Fuji et a., 2010b: 168).
Figure 209. Finds from Structure A: el-Khiam points (after Fuji et al. 2011: 145).
Figure 210. Farkat Bidewy 1: structural complex, looking north (after Fuji et al. 2013: 8).
Figure 211. Farkat Bidewy 2: BC-01. From northwest (after Fuji et al. 2013: 12).
Figure 212. Location of Wadi Kharrar
Figure 213. Satellite image of the surveyed area (after Nishiaki et al: 2009: 161).
Figure 214. General view of Wadi Kharrar, looking south (after Nishiaki et al: 2009: 162).
Figure 215. Spring at a tributary of Wadi Kharrar, looking west. Areas 16 O and 16 P are located on the left bank. Top right is the southern end of Area 16 M on the lower terrace of Wadi Kharrar (after Nishiaki et al: 2009: 162).
Figure 217. Chipped stones from Area 16I on a lower terrace of Wadi Kharrar. Tow lunates are on the top left corner of the photo (after Nishiaki et al:2009: 163).
Figure 218. Middle Paleolithic chipped stones from Area 16AO on upper terrace of Wadi Kharrar (after Nishiaki et al:2009: 163).
Figure 219. Mound tombs near Area 10N on the plateau along Wadi Ein West, looking east (after Nishiaki et al:2009: 163).
Figure 220. A burial cairn at Area 9D near the upstream of Wadi Quteina, looking southeast (after Nishiaki et al:2009: 163).
Figure 221. Location of Wadi Dabaa.
Figure 222. The cemetery of Wadi Dabaa. The map shows the sites of Tell Ghanem al-Ali, Wadi Shabout and Abu Hamad (after Tsuneki 2009).
Figure 223. Wadi Dabaa to the south of Ghanem Al-Ali (after Tsuneki 2009).
Figure 224. Unit A. Viewed from the west (after Numoto and Kume 2010: 188).
Figure 225. Unit B graves used as a garbage pits, viewed from northwest (after Numoto and Kume 2010: 188).
Figure 226. Unit C, traces of depressions excavated into the slope by grave robbers, looking west (after Numoto and Kume 2010:189).
Figure 227. Shaft of the grave. Tow monolithic Stone seal the entrance of the chamber (after Numoto and Kume 2010: 189).
Figure 228. Stairs leading to the chamber, the bottom of the stairs is constructed from mud bricks (after Numoto and Kume 2010:189).
Figure 229. Pottery in the burial chamber (after Numoto and Kume 2010:189).
Figure 230. Complete vessels recovered from the burial chamber (after Numoto and Kume 2010:189).
Figure 231. Black Euphrates Ware with spiral burnishing from the burial chamber (after Numoto and Kume 2010:190).
Figure 232. Zoomorphic pendant (after Numoto and Kume 2010: 190).
Figure 233. Bronze pin with mushroom-shaped head (after Numoto and Kume 2010: 190).
Figure 234. Beads (after Numoto and Kume 2010: 190).
Figure 235. Postholes dug in the chamber (after Numoto and Kume 2010: 190).
Figure 236. The entrances of the four shaft tombs excavated in 2010, looking northeast (after Kume et al. 2011: 168).
Figure 237. Grave WD1C-2, looking southwest (after Kume et al. 2011: 168).
Figure 238. A jar and bottle of Black Euphrates Banded Ware from Grave WD1C-2 (after Kume et al. 2011: 168).
Figure 239. A pair of Bronze pins from Grave WD1C-2 (after Kume et al. 2011: 168).
Figure 240. Small hole between WD1C-2 and WD1C-2-3. An infant skull and complete vessels were located at the entrance, looking NW (after Kume et al. 2011: 168).
Figure 241. Pendant of lapis lazuli (after Kume et al. 2011: 168).
Figure 242. Fragmented human remains (after Kume et al. 2011: 169).
Figure 243. Two burial chambers of Grave WD1C-3, looking SW (after Kume et al. 2011: 169).
Figure 244. Recovered human remains from the niche- like chamber of Grave WD1C-3, looking SW (after Kume et al. 2011: 169).
Figure 245. Pendant with flower-like motif from Grave WD1C-3 (after Kume et al. 2011: 169).
Figure 246. Two lateral chambers and a niche-like chamber of Grave WD1C-4, looking SW (after Kume et al. 2011: 169).
Figure 247. Disarticulated human skull from niche-like burial chamber of Grave WD1C-4 (after Kume et al. 2011:170).
Figure 248. Uncovered ditch and the entrance to the burial chamber of grave WD1C-5. A small entrance to Grave WD1C-5-6 and a drain outlet are shown at right in the photo, looking SW (after Kume et al. 2011:170).
Figure 249. Ceramic vessels from Grave WD1C-5-6, looking NW (after Kume et al. 2011: 170).
Figure 250. Discovered complete ceramic vessels during the 2010 season of the Syrian- Japanese expedition (after Kume et al. 2011: 170).
Figure 251. location of the cemetery of Abu Hamad.
Figure 252. Plan of the cemetery of Abu Hamad (after Meyer 2010: 156).
Figure 253. Grave A5, Stone cist (after Meyer 2010: 157).
Figure 254. Grave J1-9, Stone cist (after Meyer 2010: 158).
Figure 255. Grave J1-9, Stone cist (after Meyer 2010: 158).
Figure 256. Grave J10, Stone cist with part of the covering (left) and the slabs of the side wall (right) (after Meyer 2010: 159).
Figure 257. Location of Wadi Shabout.
Figure 258. Wadi Shabout (WS) with the three investigated areas (after Numoto and Kume:2009 a:176).
Figure 259. Grave-cluster A, WS2, looking south (after Numoto and Kume: 2009: 177).
Figure 260. Tomb A1 from northwest (after Numoto and Kume: 2009: 177).
Figure 261. Shell ring ornament (after Numoto and Kume: 2009: 177).
Figure 262. Bronze object (after Numoto and Kume: 2009: 177).
Figure 263. Tomb A2 from the south (after Numoto and Kume: 2009: 177).
Figure 264. Shell rings from Tomb A2 (after Numoto and Kume: 2009: 178).
Figure 265. Shell beads from Tomb A2 (after Numoto and Kume: 2009: 178).
Figure 266. Tomb A3 from northwest (after Numoto and Kume: 2009:178).
Figure 267. Tomb A4 (after Numoto and Kume: 2009:178).
Figure 268. Both sides of shell ring ornament with spiral groove (after Numoto and Kume: 2009:178).
Figure 269. Both sides of shell ring ornament with spiral groove (after Numoto and Kume: 2009:178).
Figure 270. Tomb A5 from north (after Numoto and Kume: 2009:179).
Figure 271. Tomb A6 from west (after Numoto and Kume: 2009:179).
Figure 272. Pottery in-situ context at Tomb A6 (after Numoto and Kume: 2009: 179).
Figure 273. Nearly complete pottery from Tomb A6 (after Numoto and Kume: 2009: 179).
Figure 274. Distribution of grave clusters and isolated graves and their burial types in WS 1 and 2 (after Numoto and Kume: 2009: 179).
Figure 275. High mound tombs or tumuli called Tell shabout in WS1, from south overlooking Tell Ghanem al-Ali (after Numoto and Kume: 2009: 179).
Figure 276. Cist/ stone chamber grave (Tomb B2) at Grave-cluster B, WS2, from east (after Numoto and Kume: 2009: 180).
Figure 277. Research aeras WS 3 and WS 4 (after Numoto and Kume: 2009a: 196).
Figure 278. Euphrates Banded Ware (Top righ:WS3-Unit C; Bottom right: WS3- Unit N; Top left and bottom left: WS4-Unit A (after Numoto and Kume: 2009a: 197).
Figure 279. Pedestal of so-called “champagne” vessel from WS3- Unit C (after Numoto and Kume: 2009a: 197).
Figure 280. Possible sherds of Black Euphrates Banded War from WS3-Unit C (after Numoto and Kume: 2009a: 197).
Figure 281. WS3- Unit E, looking east (after Numoto and Kume: 2009a: 197).
Figure 282. Sketch map of WS3-Unit E (after Numoto and Kume: 2009a: 198).
Figure 283. WS3- Unit N, looking south (after Numoto and Kume: 2009a:198).
Figure 284. Sketch map of WS3-Unit N (after Numoto and Kume: 2009a:198).
Figure 285. WS4- Unit A, looking south (after Numoto and Kume: 2009a: 198).
Figure 286. Sketch map of WS4-Unit A (after Numoto and Kume: 2009a :198).
Figure 287. Carin discovered beneath earthen mound at Tell Shabout 1, looking north (after Numoto and Kume: 2010:135).
Figure 288. Discovered cairn at Tell Shabout 1, looking south (after Numoto and Kume: 2010:135).
Figure 289. Main burial chamber of the cairn, a seriously disturbed above-ground structure was preserved, looking north (after Numoto and Kume: 2010:135).
Figure 290. Tell Shabout 1. The inner ring and northern wall of the annex, looking east (after Numoto and Kume 2010: 135).
Figure 291. Tell Shabout 1 and 2 before soundings, overlooking Tell Ghanem al-Ali (after Numoto and Kume: 2010:135).
Figure 292. Fragments of possible Early Bronze Age sherds from Tell Shabout 1 (Left: hemispherical bowl; Right: Euphrates Fine Ware (after Numoto and Kume: 2010: 136).
Figure 293. Fragments of Roman/ Byzantine terracotta coffin from Tell Shabout 1 (after Numoto and Kume: 2010: 136).
Figure 294. Pit grave and surrounding Stone wall at Tell Shabout 2, looking southwest (after Numoto and Kume: 2010: 136).
Figure 295. Undisturbed terracotta coffin burial and human remains (after Numoto and Kume: 2010:136).
Figure 296. Tell Ghanem al-Ali and the sites included in the Syria/Japan Archaeological Joint Research (after Ohnuma and Al Khabour 2008:135).
Figure 297. Plan of Tell Ghanem al-Ali (after Ohnuma and Al Khabour 2008:139).
Figure 298. Plan of Tell Ghanem al-Ali and excavated areas (after Ohnuma 2011: 154).
Figure 299. The three structures of the Square 1, from west (after Hasegawa 2010: 26).
Figure 300. Stone walls of Square 1 (after Ohnuma and Al Khabour 2008a: 157).
Figure 301. Three- room building level 2, Square 2, from the south (after Kiuchi 2010:179).
Figure 302. Complete bowl (after Kiuchi 2010:180).
Figure 303. Animal figurine (after Kiuchi 2010:180).
Figure 304. Massive wall, from the north-east (after Kiuchi 2010:181).
Figure 305. Building level 7 of Square 2, from the south (after Hasegawa 2010: 30).
Figure 306. Plan of the site (after Ohnuma 2010a:131).
Figure 307. Square 2 (after Hasegawa 2010:210).
Figure 308. Grooved rim jar found in pit of Square 3 (after Negishi 2008: 182).
Figure 309. Zoomorphic clay figure from Square 3 (after Negishi 2008: 182).
Figure 310. Pit grave revealed in Square 6 (after Ohnuma 2010a: 131).
Figure 311. Fire instruments in Square 7, from the southeast (after Hasegawa 2011: 159).
Figure 312. Square 101 with cobbles allocation (after Khalil and Sultan 2010: 177).
Figure 313. Location of Wadi Jazla.
Figure 314. Small mound (Area 23H) on the left bank of Wadi Jazla, looking southwest (after Nishiaki, Kadowaki and Kume 2009: 161).
Figure 315. Stone tools including pestles and basalt grinding slabs that indicate food processing at Wadi Jazla west (after Nishiaki, Kadowaki and Kume 2009: 161).
Figure 316. Chipped stone from (rea 23H) in Jazla west, top left is probably a Canaanean Blade (burnt) (after Nishiaki, Kadowaki and Kume 2009: 161).
Figure 317. Pottery sherds like those in Tell Ghanem al-Ali (after Nishiaki, Kadowaki and Kume 2009: 161).
Figure 318. Large Stone-walled building (Area 23J) on the hilltop of Jazla (after Nishiaki, Kadowaki and Kume 2009: 161).
Figure 319. Chipped stones collected on the ground surface inside the large building (Area 23J) at Jazla. Top left is probably a Canaanean blade (burnt) (after Nishiaki, Kadowaki and Kume 2009: 161).
Figure 320. Middle Bronze Age pottery from one of the plundered shaft tombs at Wadi Jazla west (after Nishiaki and Abbe 2009: 127).
Figure 321. Middle Bronze Age tombs, looking southeast (after Nishiaki et al. 2012: 4).
Figure 322. Another mound (23CG), looking north (after Nishiaki et al. 2012: 4).
Figure 323. Location of Tell Mughla as-Saghir.
Figure 324. General view of Tell Mughla as-Saghir, looking south (after Nishiaki et al. 2010: 118).
Figure 325. Rectangular structures on the Surface of Tell Mughla as-Saghir (after Nishiaki et al.: 2010).
Figure 326. The three principal settlements: Tell Hamadin (left), Tell Ghanem al-Ali (center) and Tell Mugla as-Saghir (right) with a 5-6km distance between them.
Figure 327. Cemetery from the Early Bronze Age distributed, looking west (after Nishiaki et al.: 2010).
Figure 328. Surface ceramic on the EBA shaft tombs after Nishiaki et al.: 2010).
Figure 329. Rectangular depression with shaft tombs along the Edge (26E) near Mugla as-Saghir, looking west (after Nishiaki 2010: 42).
Figure 330. Artifacts from the south of the funerary zone of Mughla as-Saghir (after Nishiaki et al.: 2010).
Figure 331. Location of Tell Beilouni.
Figure 332. Cairn field near Beilouni (after Nishiaki 2010: 43).
Figure 333. Fragments of pottery from the Euphrates ware dated to EBA from cairn tombs in Wadi Beilouni (after Nishiaki 2010: 43).
Figure 334. Cairn field at Beilouni, looking north (after Nishiaki et al. 2011:132).
Figure 335. Sherds of Black Euphrates Fine Ware near the Cairns of Beilouni, Area 9J (after Nishiaki et al.: 2011: 131).
Figure 336. A large cairn on the top of the Mound near the southwestern corner of the field cairn of Wadi Beilouni (after Nishiaki et al. 2011: 133).
Figure 337. Cairn surrounded by rectangular structures at Wadi Beilouni (after Nishiaki et al. 2011: 133).
Figure 338. Artifacts from the Middle Paleolithic at Wadi Beilouni (after Nishiaki 2010).
Figure 339. Location of Tell Humeida.
Figure 340. The western part of Tell Humeida (after Montero et al. 2012: 311).
Figure 341. General view of Tell Humeida (after Montero et al. 2012: 311).
Figure 342. Beveled rim bowls from the western side of Tell Humeida (after Montero et al. 2012: 311).
Figure 343. Beveled rim bowls from Tell Humeida (after Montero 2011:215).
Figure 344.The Byzantine wall of Tell Humeida (after Montero, 2012: 312).
Figure 345. Phase 2 of the Uruk layer at Tell Humeida (after Montero 2012: 313).
Figure 346. Location of Tell Qabr Abu al-Atiq.
Figure 347. Room 1 (after Montero, Al- Shabib, Marquez and Caramelo 2011: 171).
Figure 348. Basalt mortar with red color (after Montero, Marquez, Caramelo and Al- Abdallah, 2011).
Figure 349. Objects found in Room 1 of the Middle Assyrian building (after Montero, Marquez, Caramelo and Al- Abdallah, 2011:273).
Figure 350. Room 2 (after Montero, Al- Shabib, Marquez and Caramelo 2011: 174).
Figure 351. The ceramic found on the floor of Room 3 (after Montero et al. 2015:80).
Figure 352. Tow clay tablets found in Room 3 (after Montero et al. 2015: 88).
Figure 353. Middle Assyrian Administrative Pottery from Room 3 (after Montero and al-Shabib 2016: 252).
Figure 354. Room 4 (after Montero et al 2011).
Figure 355. Cylinder seal from Room 4 (after Montero et al, 2011).
Figure 356. Ceramics from Room 4 (after Montero, Marquez, Caramelo 2011:274).
Figure 357. Provisional results of the GPR sounding at Tell Qabr Abu al-Atiq (after Montero, Marquez and Caramelo 2011: 271).
Figure 358. Pottery from the Early Bronze Age (after Montero, Al-Shabib, Marquez and Caramelo 2011: 175).
Figure 359. Two rooms of the Early Bronze Age building (after Montero and al-Shabib 2016: 250).
Figure 360. Location of Tell Qsubi.
Figure 361. General view of Tell Qsubi (after Montero et al. 2006: 115).
Figure 362. Location of the Tomb of Qsubi.
Figure 363. Schematic section and photograph of the tomb of Tell Qsubi (after Alachkar and Showhan 2019: 275).
Figure 364. Location of Qleb al Hemma.
Figure 365. The five axes of survey at Qleb al Hemma.
Figure 366. Location of Tell Tibni.
Figure 367. General view of Tell Tibni (after Montero et al.:2006).
Figure 368. General view from southwest (photo by the author).
Figure 369. Ceramics from the Bronze Age and Iron Age from Tell Tibni (after Lonnqvis et al. 2010:220).
Figure 370. Fragment of Uruk pottery from Tell Tibni (after Lonnqvist et al. 2010: 220).
Figure 371. Location of Tell Abu Fahd.
Figure 372. View of the Tell (after Montero and Vidal: 2009: 215).
Figure 373. The tower in the northeast corner (after Montero, Marquez, Caramelo and Vidal: 2006: 114).
Figure 374. The tower in the northeast corner (after Montero, Marquez, Caramelo and Al-Sabib: 2006).
Figure 375. The tower in the northeast corner (after Montero, Marquez, Caramelo and Al-Sabib: 2006).
Figure 376. Location of Tell As-Sin.
Figure 377. Plan of Tell As-Sin (after Montero and Al Shabib 2008).
Figure 378. Shaft tomb with two lateral niches (after Montero and Al Shabib 2008).
Figure 379. Tomb excavated in the rock (after Montero and Al Shabib 2008).
Figure 380. Stairs of hypogeum tomb (after Montero and Al Shabib 2008).
Figure 381. Door of one hypogeum tomb (after Montero and Al Shabib 2008).
Figure 382. Tomb with five niches (after Montero and Al Shabib 2008).
Figure 383. Tomb with central pilar (after Montero and Al Shabib 2008).
Figure 384. Christian symbols and inscriptions in one of the tombs (after Montero and Al Shabib 2008).
Figure 385. Location of Tell Bouqras.
Figure 386. House walls on the southern slope of Tell Bouqras (after Akkermans et al. 1981: 490).
Figure 387. Contour map of Tell Bouqras (after Akkermans et al. 1983: 339).
Figure 388. Houses 16, 17 and 18 seen from the SW (after Akkermans, Fokkens and Waterbolk 1981: 496).
Figure 389. Plan of the houses at the southwest of the site (after Akkermans, Fokkens and Waterbolk 1981: 496).
Figure 390. Stone ware from Tell Bouqras (after Akkermans et al. 1983: 357).
Analysis of the historical and cultural processes in the investigated area
Historical evidence: analysis of the historical and cultural process in a work on the Euphrates section.
Introduction
The Palaeolithic
Pre-Pottery Neolithic
Neolithic
Halaf
Ubaid
Uruk
Early Bronze Age
Middle Bronze Age
Late Bronze Age
Neo-Assyrian Period
Neo-Babylonian-Achaemenid Period
Chapter 5
Figure 391. Location of the Paleolithic sites.
Figure 392. Location of El Kowm in relation to the studies sites.
Figure 393. Pre-Pottery Neolithic sites in the investigated area.
Figure 394. Distribution of the PPNB sites on the Euphrates and Balikh Valleys (after Akkermans 1999: 531).
Figure 395. Neolithic sites in the investigated area.
Figure 396. Halaf sites in the investigated area.
Figure 397. Distribution of Halaf sites on the Balikh and Euphrates valleys (after Akkermans 1999: 533).
Figure 398. Ubaid sites in the investigated area.
Figure 399. Distribution of Ubaid sites in Mesopotamia (after Adams 1981: figure 9).
Figure 400. Uruk sites in the investigated area.
Figure 401. Map of Uruk stations (after Algaze 2005: 49).
Figure 402. Map of the Early Bronze Age sites in the investigated area.
Figure 403. Northern Syrian Euphrates EBA sites (after Cooper 2006).
Figure 404. Middle Bronze Age sites in the investigated area.
Figure 405. Late Bronze Age sites in the investigated area.
Figure 406. New-Assyrian sites in the investigated area.
Figure 407. New-Assyrian sites between the Balikh and the Euphrates (after Bonacossi Morandi: 2010).
Figure 408. New-Assyrian sites on the Khabour Valley, Wadi Ajij and Jabal Abd al-Aziz (after Bonacossi Morandi: 2010).
Summary and final conclusions
Occupation of the valley in the Palaeolithic
1st Urbanization/Uruk Period in the Euphrates Valley
Halaf
Pre-Pottery Neolithic and Pottery Neolithic
Ubaid
Early Bronze Age
Middle Bronze Age
Babylonian and Achaemenid Empires
Consolidated References
Appendices
Alphabetical list of sites on the Euphrates between the Balikh and Khabour Rivers
Numerical list of sites on the Euphrates between the Balikh and Khabour Rivers
Back Cover

Recommend Papers

A History of the Valley of Virginia

116 106 30MB Read more

The History of Alexander the Great 9781463208899

This is a Syriac edition, with English translation, of the folk-lore and legends connected to Alexander the Great. This

180 70 45MB Read more

Along the Valley Line : The History of the Connecticut Valley Railroad [1 ed.] 9780819577382, 9780819577375

The Connecticut Valley Railroad once carried both passengers and freight along the west bank of the Connecticut River be

139 32 28MB Read more

Burial Practices of the Third Millennium BCE in the Middle Euphrates Region: An interpretation of funerary results 9781407314211, 9781407343785

The Middle Euphrates Region, encompassing ancient Syria, enjoyed a period of rapid and complex socio-political developme

160 88 176MB Read more

The World’s Most Famous Deserts: The History and Legacy of the Sahara Desert, Gobi Desert, and Mojave Desert

*Includes pictures *Includes online resources and a bibliography for further reading *Includes a table of contents They

159 95 7MB Read more

On Fertile Ground: A Natural History of Human Reproduction 9780674036444

Ranging from the latest achievements of modern fertility clinics to the lives of subsistence farmers in the rain forests

123 89 1MB Read more

The First European: A History of Alexander in the Age of Empire 9780674972841

Enlightenment thinkers, searching for ancient models to understand contemporary affairs, were the first to critically in

126 85 125MB Read more

The Lithic Industries of the Illinois Valley in the Early and Middle Woodland Period 9781951519353, 9781949098129

Anta Montet-White analyzes chipped stone tools from more than 30 Woodland and Hopewell sites in the Illinois Valley, inc

161 30 11MB Read more

The Arabs from Alexander the Great until the Islamic Conquests: Orientalist Perceptions and Contemporary Conflicts 9781463242862

This is not a conventional history book. It is rather a study of the sociology of historical writing about a period that

156 86 25MB Read more

The Aztecs Under Spanish Rule: A History of the Indians of the Valley of Mexico, 1519-1810 9781503621114

98 24 154MB Read more

The Fertile Desert: A History of the Middle Euphrates Valley Until the Arrival of Alexander
9781803271200, 9781803271217, 1803271205

Author / Uploaded
Anas Al Khabour

0 0 0
Like this paper and download? You can publish your own PDF file online for free in a few minutes! Sign Up

File loading please wait...

Citation preview

The Fertile Desert A History of the Middle Euphrates Valley until the arrival of Alexander

Anas Al Khabour

The Fertile Desert A History of the Middle Euphrates Valley until the arrival of Alexander

Anas Al Khabour

Archaeopress Archaeology

Archaeopress Publishing Ltd Summertown Pavilion 18-24 Middle Way Summertown Oxford OX2 7LG www.archaeopress.com

ISBN 978-1-80327-120-0 ISBN 978-1-80327-121-7 (e-Pdf) © Anas Al Khabour and Archaeopress 2022

Cover image: The Euphrates near the Khanuqa George

All rights reserved. No part of this book may be reproduced, or transmitted, in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying or otherwise, without the prior written permission of the copyright owners. This book is available direct from Archaeopress or from our website www.archaeopress.com

To Elisar, Aram and Aliaa To my eternal love… The Euphrates River

Contents

List of Figures��iv

Acknowledgements�� xii Preface�� xiii Prólogo y reflexión sobre esta obra��xiv Chapter 1: Introduction��1 The study of human occupation along the Euphrates Valley, between Balikh and Khabour, until the time of Alexander the Great.��1 Surveys��2 Excavations��3 Research objectives��5 Methodology, hypothesis, and work plan ��5 References��6 Chapter 2: Occupation of the territory and Catalogue of the studied sites��8 Catalogue of sites��8 Catalogue��9 1. Tell Biaa��9 2. Tell Zeidan��10 3. Tell Masri I��12 4. Tell Mesri II��13 5. Tell Mazar (Ratla, or Sheikh Asaad)��15 6. Tell Shennan��16 7. Rabtat Abyad��17 8. Maqbarat Al Karama��19 9. Maqbara Qadima��20 10. Wadi Qutena��22 11. Jibli��23 12. Jibli 9 F��24 13. Jibli 9E��25 14. Jibli 9D��26 15. Wadi Aain��27 16. Tell Hamadin��29 17. Zor Shammar Foqani��31 18. Wadi Ubeid��32 19. Jabal Tbuq��33 20. Cairn fields northwest of Mt Bishri��34 21. Wadi Kharrar��35 22. Cemetery of Wadi Dabaa��37 23. Cemetery of Abu Hamad��38 24. Cemetery of Wadi Shabout��40 25. Tell Ghanem al-Ali��41 26. Cemetery of Wadi Jazla��43 27. Tell Mugla as-Sagir (Tell Beitha)��44 28. Tell Beilouni��46 29. Tell Sheikh Mousa��47 30. Tell Sweda��49 31. Tell al-Maqam��50 32. Tell Saghir��52 33. Tell Ahmar��53 i

34. Tell Humeida��55 35. Wadi Abu Shahri��56 36. Tell Qabr Abu al-Atiq��57 37. Tell Qsubi -Tell Qalaa��59 38. Tomb of Qsubi��61 39. Qleb al Hemma 13.1��62 40. Qleb al Hemma 13.3��63 41. Qleb al Hemma 13.4��65 42. Qleb al Hemma 13.5��66 43. Qleb al Hemma 13.6��67 44. Qleb al Hemma 13.7��68 45. Qleb al Hemma 13.8��69 46. Qleb al Hemma 13.12��71 47. Qleb al Hemma 13.13��72 48. Qleb al Hemma 13.14��74 49. Qleb al Hemma 13.17��75 50. Qleb al Hemma 13.18��77 51. Qleb al Hemma 13.27��78 52. Qleb al Hemma 13.30��79 53. Tell Tibni��81 54. Tell Abu Makiya��82 55. Tell Abu Fahd��84 56. Nadra��85 57. Tell Tabus ��87 58. Tell Khraita ��88 59. Tell Ain Abu-Jemaa��90 60. Tell Ayyash ��91 61. Tell As-Sinn��93 62. Tell Et-Tabie II��94 63. Tell Mohasan I��96 64. Tell Es-Sabha I��97 65. Tell Es-Salu V��99 66. Tell Buseire I��100 67. Tell Safat Ez-Zerr II��102 68. Tell Bouqras I��103 References��105

Chapter 3: The occupation of the territory Description of the investigated sites�� 107 Description of the investigated sites��107 1. Tell Biaa (Tuttul)��107 2. Tell Zeidan��123 3. Wadi Ubeid��131 4. Jabal Tbouq��132 5. Cairn fields northwest of Mt Bishri��135 6. Wadi Kharrar��152 7. Cemetery of Wadi Dabaa��158 8. Cemetery of Abu Hamad��173 9. Wadi Shabout��178 10. Tell Ghanem al-Ali��200 11. Cemetery of Wadi Jazla��212 12. Tell Mugla as-Sagir (Tell Beitha)��218 13. Tell Beilouni��224 14. Tell Humeida��229 15. Tell Qabr Abu al-Atiq��235 16. Tell Qsubi -Tell Qalaa��243 16. Tomb of Qsubi��246 ii

17. Qleb al Hemma��247 18. Tell et-Tibni��252 19. Tell Abu Fahd��257 20. Tell As-Sin��260 21. Tell Bouqras I��266

Chapter 4: Analysis of the historical and cultural processes in the investigated area�� 273 Historical evidence: analysis of the historical and cultural process in a work on the Euphrates section.��273 Introduction ��273 The Palaeolithic ��276 Pre-Pottery Neolithic ��280 Neolithic��284 Halaf��286 Ubaid��289 Uruk��291 Early Bronze Age��294 Middle Bronze Age��297 Late Bronze Age��300 Neo-Assyrian Period ��303 Neo-Babylonian-Achaemenid Period��307 Chapter 5: Summary and final conclusions�� 308 Occupation of the valley in the Palaeolithic ��309 Pre-Pottery Neolithic and Pottery Neolithic��310 Halaf ��310 Ubaid��310 1st Urbanization/Uruk Period in the Euphrates Valley��310 Early Bronze Age��311 Middle Bronze Age��311 Babylonian and Achaemenid Empires��312 Consolidated References�� 313 Appendices�� 321 Alphabetical list of sites on the Euphrates between the Balikh and Khabour Rivers��321 Numerical list of sites on the Euphrates between the Balikh and Khabour Rivers��322

iii

List of Figures Figure 1. Figure 2. Figure 3. Figure 4. Figure 6. Figure 5. Figure 7. Figure 8. Figure 9. Figure 10. Figure 11. Figure 12. Figure 13. Figure 14. Figure 15. Figure 16. Figure 17. Figure 18. Figure 19. Figure 20. Figure 22. Figure 23. Figure 21. Figure 24. Figure 25. Figure 26. Figure 27. Figure 28. Figure 29. Figure 30. Figure 31. Figure 32. Figure 33. Figure 34. Figure 35. Figure 36. Figure 37. Figure 38. Figure 40. Figure 41. Figure 39. Figure 42. Figure 44. Figure 45. Figure 43. Figure 46. Figure 47. Figure 48. Figure 49. Figure 50. Figure 51. Figure 52. Figure 53. Figure 54. Figure 55. Figure 56. Figure 57. Figure 58. Figure 59. Figure 60. Figure 61. Figure 62. Figure 63. Figure 64.

Location of Tell Biaa.��9 The excavations at the palace zone (photo by the author).��10 Small finds from Tell Biaa (photo by the author: Raqqa Museum).��10 Location of Tell Zeidan.��11 Stamp from the Late Chalcolithic II (after Stein and Al Khabour 2008).��11 Pottery from Tell Zeidan (after Stein and Al Khabour 2008).��11 Location of Tell Masri I.��12 Tell Masri I, seen from the top to the north (after Goto and Hasigawa 2007).��13 Location of Tell Masri II.��14 Tell Masri II, seen from the top to the north (after Goto and Hasigawa 2007).��14 Location of Tell Mazar.��15 Location of Tell Shennan.��16 General view of Tell Shanan (after Goto and Hasigawa 2007). ��17 Location of Rabtat Abyad.��18 General view of Rabtat Abyad (photo by the author).��18 Collection of superficial sherds (after Goto and Hasigawa 2007). ��18 Location of Maqbarat al Karama.��19 General view of Maqbarat al-Karama (photo by the author).��20 General view of Maqbarat al-Karama (photo by the author).��20 Location of Maqbarat al Karama.��21 General view of Maqbara Qadima (photo by the author).��21 Collection of superficial sherds (after Goto and Hasigawa 2007). ��21 General view of Maqbara Qadima (photo by the author).��21 Location of Wadi Qutena.��22 Location of Jibli.��23 Location of Jibli 9F.��24 Location of Jibli 9E.��25 Location of Jibli 9D.��26 Tumulus tomb of Jibli 9D, view from the southeast (after Nishiaki 2009).��27 Location of Eadi Aain.��28 Tombs of Wadi Aain, view from the east (after Nishiaki 2009).��28 Location of Tell Hamadin.��29 Tell Hamadin, general view (after Goto and Hasigawa 2007).��30 Topographic plan of Tell Hamadin, general view (after Goto and Hasigawa 2007).��30 Location of Zor Shammar Foqani.��31 Location of Wadi Ubaid.��32 Location of Jabal Tbouq.��33 Location of cairn fields M-W of Bishri Mountains��34 Bromze pin from a tomb of cairn fields (after Fuji and Adachi 2010).��35 Pendant and beads from a tomb of cairn fields (after Fuji and Adachi 2010).��35 Tumulus tomb of cairn fields (after Fuji and Adachi 2010).��35 Location of Wadi Kharrar.��36 Wadi Kharrar, lithic artifacts (after Nishiaki 2009).��36 Wadi Kharrar, Middle Paleolithic instruments (after Nishiaki 2009).��36 Wadi Kharrar, general view (after Nishiaki 2009).��36 Location of Wadi Dabaa.��37 Cemetery of Wadi Dabaa (after Numoto and Kume 2010).��38 Pottery sherds from Wadi Dabaa (after Numoto and Kume 2010).��38 Location of Abu Hamad.��39 Cemetery of Abu Hamad (after Meyer 2010).��39 Pottery sherds from Abu Hamad (after Ohnuma and Al Khabour, 2008).��39 Location of Wadi Shabout.��40 Cemetery of Wadi Shabout (after Numoto and Kume 2010).��41 Pottery from Wadi Shabout (after Numoto and Kume 2010).��41 Location of Tell Ghanem al- Ali.��42 Pottery from Tell Ghanem al-Ali (after Al Khabour 2012).��42 Location of Wadi Jazla.��43 Cemetery of Wadi Jazla (after Numoto and Kume 2010).��44 Pottery sherds from Wadi Jazla (after Numoto and Kume 2010).��44 Location of Tell Mughla as-Saghir (Betha).��45 Location of Tell Mughla as-Saghir General view (after Goto and Hasigawa 2007).��45 Location of Tell Beilouni.��46 Tombs around Tell Beilouni (after Nishiaki 2010).��47 Location of Tell Sheikh Mousa.��48

iv

Figure 65. Figure 66. Figure 67. Figure 68. Figure 69. Figure 70. Figure 71. Figure 72. Figure 73. Figure 74. Figure 75. Figure 76. Figure 77. Figure 78. Figure 79. Figure 80. Figure 82. Figure 81. Figure 83. Figure 84. Figure 85. Figure 86. Figure 87. Figure 88. Figure 89. Figure 90. Figure 91. Figure 92. Figure 93. Figure 94. Figure 95. Figure 96. Figure 97. Figure 98. Figure 99. Figure 100. Figure 101. Figure 102. Figure 103. Figure 104. Figure 105. Figure 106. Figure 107. Figure 108. Figure 109. Figure 110. Figure 111. Figure 112. Figure 113. Figure 114. Figure 115. Figure 116. Figure 117. Figure 118. Figure 119. Figure 120. Figure 121. Figure 122. Figure 123. Figure 124. Figure 126. Figure 125. Figure 127. Figure 128. Figure 130. Figure 129. Figure 131. Figure 132. Figure 133.

General view (photo of the author).��48 Collection of superficial sherds (after Goto and Hasigawa 2007).��48 Location of Tell Sweda.��49 General view (after Goto and Hasigawa 2007).��50 Location of Tell Maqam.��51 Pottery from Tell Al- Maqam (after Kohlmeyer 1984: 114).��51 Location of Tell Saghir.��52 General view (after Goto and Hasigawa 2007).��53 Location of Tell Ahmar.��54 General view (after Goto and Hasigawa 2007).��54 Location of Tell Humeida.��55 General view (after Montero 2011)��56 Pottery from Tell Humeitha (after Montero 2011).��56 Location of Wadi Abu Shahri.��57 Location of Tell Qabr Abu al-Atiq.��58 General view of Tell Qabr Abu al-Atiq (after Montero et al. 2010).��58 Cuneiform tablets from Tell Qabr Abu al-Atiq (after Montero et al. 2010). ��59 Repertoire of Middle Assyrian pottery (after Montero et al. 2010). ��59 Location of Tell Qsubi.��60 General view of Tell Qsubi (photo by the author).��60 General view of Tell Qsubi (photo by the author).��60 Location of Qsubi tomb.��61 Location of Qleb al Hemma 13.1��62 Qleb al Hemma 13.1.��63 Location of Qleb al Hemma 13.3.��64 Location of Qleb al Hemma 13.3.��64 Location of Qleb al Hemma 13.4.��65 Location of Qleb al Hemma 13.5.��66 Location of Qleb al Hemma 13.6.��67 Qleb al Hemma 13.6.��68 Qleb al Hemma 13.7.��69 Qleb al Hemma 13.8.��70 Qleb al Hemma 13.8.��70 Qleb al Hemma 13.12.��71 Qleb al Hemma 13.12.��72 Qleb al Hemma 13.13.��73 Qleb al Hemma 13.13.��73 Qleb al Hemma 13.14.��74 Qleb al Hemma 13.14.��75 Qleb al Hemma 13.17.��76 Qleb al Hemma 13.17.��76 Qleb al Hemma 13.18.��77 Qleb al Hemma 13.27.��78 Qleb al Hemma 13.27.��79 Qleb al Hemma 13.30.��80 Qleb al Hemma 13.30.��80 Location of Tell Tebni.��81 General view of Tell Tebni (photo by the author).��82 General view (photo by the author).��82 Location of Tell Abu Makiya.��83 General view of Tell Abu Makiya (after Sanjuro et al. 2009).��83 Pottery from Tell Abu Makiya (after Sanjuro et al. 2009).��83 Location of Tell Abu Fahd.��84 General view of Tell Abu Fahd (after Montero 2009).��85 Excavation of the Syrian-Spanish expedition (after Montero 2009).��85 Location of Nadra.��86 Artefacts from the Neolithic PPNB (after Lonnqvist 2011: 157).��86 Location of Tell Tabus.��87 Artefacts from Tell Tabus (after Lonnqvist 2011).��87 Location of Tell Khraita.��88 Lithic artefacts from Tell Khraita (after Lonnqvist 2011).��89 Investigated zone to the south of Tell Khraita (after Lonnqvist 2011).��89 Location of Tell Ain Abu-Jemaa.��90 Location of Tell Ayyash.��91 Artifacts from Tell Ayyash (after Lonnqvist 2011).��92 Investigated zone of Tell Ayyash (after Lonnqvist 2011).��92 Location of Tell as-Sinn.��93 Flint arrowheads from Tell as-Sin (after Montero and Al-Shbib 2008).��94 Flint arrowheads from Tell as-Sin (after Montero and Al-Shbib 2008).��94

v

Figure 134. Figure 135. Figure 136. Figure 137. Figure 138. Figure 139. Figure 140. Figure 141. Figure 142. Figure 143. Figure 144. Figure 145. Figure 146. Figure 147. Figure 148. Figure 149. Figure 150. Figure 151. Figure 152. Figure 153. Figure 154. Figure 155. Figure 156. Figure 157. Figure 158. Figure 159. Figure 160. Figure 161. Figure 162. Figure 163. Figure 165. Figure 164. Figure 166. Figure 168. Figure 167. Figure 169. Figure 170. Figure 171. Figure 172. Figure 173. Figure 174. Figure 175. Figure 176. Figure 177. Figure 178. Figure 179. Figure 180. Figure 181. Figure 182. Figure 183. Figure 184. Figure 185. Figure 186. Figure 187. Figure 188. Figure 189. Figure 190. Figure193. Figure 192. Figure 193. Figure 194. Figure 195. Figure 196. Figure 197. Figure 198. Figure 199.

Location of Tell et-Tabie II.��95 Pottery from Tell et-TabiyeII (after Geyer and Monchambert 2003: 191).��95 Location of Tell Mohasan I.��96 Pottery from Tell Mohasan I (after Geyer and Monchambert 2003: 150). ��97 Location of Tell es-Sabha I.��98 Pottery from Tell es-Sabha I (after Geyer and Monchambert 2003: 212).��98 Location of Tell es-Salu V.��99 Pottery from Tell es-Salu V (after Geyer and Monchambert 2003: 205). ��100 Location of Tell Bueseire I.��101 Pottery from Tell Buseire I (after Geyer and Monchambert 2003: 186). ��101 Location of Tell Safat ez-Zerr.��102 Pottery from Safat ez-Zerr (after Geyer and Monchambert 2003: 156). ��103 Location of Tell Bouqras I.��104 Small finds from Tell Bouqras I (after Akkermans et al. 1983: 357).��104 Location of Tell Biaa.��108 The church of Tell Biaa (after Krebernik and Stromminger 1988: 137).��109 General plan of Tell Biaa (after Bösze 2009: 63).��110 The temple (after Krebernikna and Strommenger 1998: 128).��111 Plan of one of the palaces (after Krebernikna and Strommenger 1998: 133).��111 Plan of the royal tombs of Tuttul (after Bösze 2009: 65).��112 General view of the royal tombs (after Krebernikna and Strommenger 1998: 129).��113 Precious objects from the royal tombs (after Krebernikna and Strommenger 1998: 130).��113 Reconstruction of the Mausoleum (royal tombs) of Tuttul (after Bösze 2009: 71).��114 Rests of wooden furniture from the royal tombs (after Krebernikna and Strommenger 1998: 130).��115 Remains of the fire in Palace B (after Krebernikna and Strommenger 1998: 130).��116 Fragments of a bearded from Palace B (after Krebernikna and Strommenger 1998: 131).��117 Fragments of Akkadian seal impression (after Krebernikna and Strommenger 1998: 132).��117 Individual grave of the high-ranked society (after Krebernikna and Strommenger 1998: 132).��118 Cylinder seal from one of the tombs (after Krebernikna and Strommenger 1998: 132).��118 Plan of Palace A (after Krebernikna and Strommenger 1998: 133).��119 Section of the skeleton pit (after Krebernikna and Strommenger 1998: 135).��120 Room 5 of Palace A (after Krebernikna and Strommenger 1998: 134).��120 Map of Ubaid period sites and Tell Zeidan (Stein and Al Khabour 2008).��124 The southern mound of Tell Zeidan (Stein and Al Khabour 2008). ��125 Topographic map showing the three mounds of Tell Zeidan (Stein and Al Khabour 2008).��125 Painted pottery from Ubaid period (Stein and Al Khabour 2008).��126 Stratigraphic trench in Tell Zeidan, view from the west (Stein and Al Khabour 2008). ��126 Stratigraphic section of the southern mound (Stein and Al Khabour 2008).��127 Pottery from Ubaid period (left.) with decorations from the previous period of Halaf (right.) (Stein and Al Khabour 2008). ��128 Backed clay “muller” represents a continuation of Ubaid oractices in the Late Chalcolithic I (Stein and Al Khabour 2008). ��128 Obsidian from Tell Zeidan (Stein and Al Khabour 2008). ��128 Blowpipe to melt copper (Stein and Al Khabour 2008). ��129 Stamp from the Late Chalcolithic II (Stein and Al Khabour 2008). ��129 Radiocarbon date analisis from Tell Zeidan (Stein and Al Khabour 2008).��130 Location of Wadi Ubaid.��131 Location of Jabal Tbouq.��132 The PPNB flint scatter of Jabal Tbouq in Wadi er-Rhoum, Loc. 1, viewed from the east (after Nishiaki 2008:164)��133 PPNB flint implements from Jabal Tbouq in Wadi er-Rhoum, Loc. 1(after Nishiaki 2008: 165)��133 Location of Bishri Mountain (after Fuji and Adachi 2010: 62).��135 Topographic map of the research area (after Fuji and Adachi 2010: 62).��136 Distribution of Bronze Age cairns (after Fuji and Adachi 2010: 63).��136 Wadi Hedaja 1 (after Fuji and Adachi, 2010: 65).��137 Segments A and B (after Fuji and Adachi. 2010).��138 BC-10 Plan of the cairn (after Fuji and Adachi 2010: 67).��139 General view of BC-10 from SE (after Fuji 2009: 154).��140 General view of the cist, from NW (after Fuji 2009: 154).��140 Human skeletal remains from the central chamber of BC-10 (after Fuji 2009: 154).��141 BC-10 Construction material engraved with an animal design (after Fuji 2009: 155).��141 Construction material decorated with herringbone patterns (after Fuji. 2009: 155).��142 BC-10 Construction material engraved with an animal design (after Fuji 2009: 155).��142 Bronze products from BC-09 (after Fuji, Adachi and Suzuki 2009: 186).��143 Faience products from BC-09 (after Fuji, Adachi and Suzuki 2009: 186).��143 Agate and faience beads from BC-09 (after Fuji, Adachi and Suzuki 2009: 186).��143 Snail beads from BC-09 (after Fuji, Adachi and Suzuki 2009: 186).��143 Wadi Hedaja 1: techno-typological sequence of cairns (after Fuji and Adachi 2010: 69).��144 Tor Rahum 1: site map and techno-typological sequence (after Fuji and Adachi 2010:71).��145

vi

Figure 200. Figure 201. Figure 202. Figure 203. Figure 205. Figure 204. Figure 206. Figure 207. Figure 208. Figure 210. Figure 209. Figure 211. Figure 212. Figure 213. Figure 214. Figure 215. Figure 217. Figure 218. Figure 219. Figure 220. Figure 221. Figure 222. Figure 223. Figure 224. Figure 225. Figure 226. Figure 227. Figure 228. Figure 229. Figure 230. Figure 231. Figure 232. Figure 233. Figure 234. Figure 235. Figure 236. Figure 237. Figure 238. Figure 239. Figure 240. Figure 241. Figure 242. Figure 244. Figure 243. Figure 245. Figure 246. Figure 248. Figure 247. Figure 250. Figure 249.

Tor Rahum 1: Bronze dagger and sheath from BC-131 (after Fuji et al 2010a:107).��146 Wadi Hayuz 1: General view of BC-05, from SE (after Fuji et al. 2010b:167).��146 Wadi Hayuz 1: Small finds from BC-01 (after Fuji et al. 2010b:167).��147 Wadi Hedaja 2: General view of BC-09, looking NE (after Fuji et al. 2010b:167).��147 Wadi Jal al-Tyur 2: BC-01, looking NE (after Fuji et al. 2010b:167).��148 Wadi Hedaja 2: Pottery from BC-09 (after Fuji et al. 2010b:167).��148 Wadi Jal al-Tyur 2: BC-01, small finds (after Fuji et al. 2010b:167).��148 Wadi Jal al-Tyur 2: General view of BC-02, looking NW (after Fuji et al. 2010b:168).��149 Wadi Jal-at-Tyur 2: General view of some cairns (BC-17-18-19), looking N (after Fuji et a., 2010b: 168).��149 Farkat Bidewy 1: structural complex, looking north (after Fuji et al. 2013: 8).��150 Finds from Structure A: el-Khiam points (after Fuji et al. 2011: 145).��150 Farkat Bidewy 2: BC-01. From northwest (after Fuji et al. 2013: 12).��151 Location of Wadi Kharrar��153 Satellite image of the surveyed area (after Nishiaki et al: 2009: 161).��153 General view of Wadi Kharrar, looking south (after Nishiaki et al: 2009: 162).��154 Spring at a tributary of Wadi Kharrar, looking west. Areas 16 O and 16 P are located on the left bank. Top right is the southern end of Area 16 M on the lower terrace of Wadi Kharrar (after Nishiaki et al: 2009: 162).��154 Chipped stones from Area 16I on a lower terrace of Wadi Kharrar. Tow lunates are on the top left corner of the photo (after Nishiaki et al:2009: 163).��155 Middle Paleolithic chipped stones from Area 16AO on upper terrace of Wadi Kharrar (after Nishiaki et al:2009: 163).��155 Mound tombs near Area 10N on the plateau along Wadi Ein West, looking east (after Nishiaki et al:2009: 163).��157 A burial cairn at Area 9D near the upstream of Wadi Quteina, looking southeast (after Nishiaki et al:2009: 163).��157 Location of Wadi Dabaa.��158 The cemetery of Wadi Dabaa. The map shows the sites of Tell Ghanem al-Ali, Wadi Shabout and Abu Hamad (after Tsuneki 2009).��159 Wadi Dabaa to the south of Ghanem Al-Ali (after Tsuneki 2009).��159 Unit A. Viewed from the west (after Numoto and Kume 2010: 188).��160 Unit B graves used as a garbage pits, viewed from northwest (after Numoto and Kume 2010: 188).��161 Unit C, traces of depressions excavated into the slope by grave robbers, looking west (after Numoto and Kume 2010:189).��161 Shaft of the grave. Tow monolithic Stone seal the entrance of the chamber (after Numoto and Kume 2010: 189).��162 Stairs leading to the chamber, the bottom of the stairs is constructed from mud bricks (after Numoto and Kume 2010:189).��162 Pottery in the burial chamber (after Numoto and Kume 2010:189).��163 Complete vessels recovered from the burial chamber (after Numoto and Kume 2010:189).��163 Black Euphrates Ware with spiral burnishing from the burial chamber (after Numoto and Kume 2010:190).��163 Zoomorphic pendant (after Numoto and Kume 2010: 190). ��164 Bronze pin with mushroom-shaped head (after Numoto and Kume 2010: 190).��164 Beads (after Numoto and Kume 2010: 190). ��164 Postholes dug in the chamber (after Numoto and Kume 2010: 190).��165 The entrances of the four shaft tombs excavated in 2010, looking northeast (after Kume et al. 2011: 168).��165 Grave WD1C-2, looking southwest (after Kume et al. 2011: 168).��166 A jar and bottle of Black Euphrates Banded Ware from Grave WD1C-2 (after Kume et al. 2011: 168).��166 A pair of Bronze pins from Grave WD1C-2 (after Kume et al. 2011: 168).��167 Small hole between WD1C-2 and WD1C-2-3. An infant skull and complete vessels were located at the entrance, looking NW (after Kume et al. 2011: 168).��167 Pendant of lapis lazuli (after Kume et al. 2011: 168).��167 Fragmented human remains (after Kume et al. 2011: 169).��168 Recovered human remains from the niche- like chamber of Grave WD1C-3, looking SW (after Kume et al. 2011: 169).��169 Two burial chambers of Grave WD1C-3, looking SW (after Kume et al. 2011: 169). ��169 Pendant with flower-like motif from Grave WD1C-3 (after Kume et al. 2011: 169).��170 Two lateral chambers and a niche-like chamber of Grave WD1C-4, looking SW (after Kume et al. 2011: 169).��170 Uncovered ditch and the entrance to the burial chamber of grave WD1C-5. A small entrance to Grave .. WD1C-5-6 and a drain outlet are shown at right in the photo, looking SW (after Kume et al. 2011:170).��171 Disarticulated human skull from niche-like burial chamber of Grave WD1C-4 (after Kume et al. 2011:170).��171 Discovered complete ceramic vessels during the 2010 season of the Syrian- Japanese expedition (after Kume et al. 2011: 170).��172 Ceramic vessels from Grave WD1C-5-6, looking NW (after Kume et al. 2011: 170).��172

vii

Figure 251. Figure 252. Figure 253. Figure 254. Figure 256. Figure 255. Figure 257. Figure 259. Figure 258. Figure 260. Figure 261. Figure 262. Figure 263. Figure 264. Figure 265. Figure 266. Figure 267. Figure 268. Figure 270. Figure 269. Figure 271. Figure 272. Figure 273. Figure 274. Figure 275. Figure 276. Figure 277. Figure 278. Figure 279. Figure 280. Figure 281. Figure 283. Figure 282. Figure 285. Figure 284. Figure 286. Figure 287. Figure 288. Figure 289. Figure 290. Figure 291. Figure 292. Figure 293. Figure 294. Figure 295. Figure 296. Figure 297. Figure 298. Figure 299. Figure 300. Figure 301. Figure 302. Figure 304. Figure 303. Figure 305.

location of the cemetery of Abu Hamad.��174 Plan of the cemetery of Abu Hamad (after Meyer 2010: 156).��174 Grave A5, Stone cist (after Meyer 2010: 157).��175 Grave J1-9, Stone cist (after Meyer 2010: 158).��176 Grave J10, Stone cist with part of the covering (left) and the slabs of the side wall (right) (after Meyer 2010: 159).��177 Grave J1-9, Stone cist (after Meyer 2010: 158).��177 Location of Wadi Shabout.��179 Grave-cluster A, WS2, looking south (after Numoto and Kume: 2009: 177). ��180 Wadi Shabout (WS) with the three investigated areas (after Numoto and Kume:2009 a:176). ��180 Tomb A1 from northwest (after Numoto and Kume: 2009: 177). ��181 Shell ring ornament (after Numoto and Kume: 2009: 177). ��181 Bronze object (after Numoto and Kume: 2009: 177). ��181 Tomb A2 from the south (after Numoto and Kume: 2009: 177). ��182 Shell rings from Tomb A2 (after Numoto and Kume: 2009: 178). ��182 Shell beads from Tomb A2 (after Numoto and Kume: 2009: 178). ��182 Tomb A3 from northwest (after Numoto and Kume: 2009:178). ��183 Tomb A4 (after Numoto and Kume: 2009:178). ��183 Both sides of shell ring ornament with spiral groove (after Numoto and Kume: 2009:178). ��184 Tomb A5 from north (after Numoto and Kume: 2009:179). ��184 Both sides of shell ring ornament with spiral groove (after Numoto and Kume: 2009:178). ��184 Tomb A6 from west (after Numoto and Kume: 2009:179). ��185 Pottery in-situ context at Tomb A6 (after Numoto and Kume: 2009: 179).��186 Nearly complete pottery from Tomb A6 (after Numoto and Kume: 2009: 179).��186 Distribution of grave clusters and isolated graves and their burial types in WS 1 and 2 (after Numoto and Kume: 2009: 179).��187 High mound tombs or tumuli called Tell shabout in WS1, from south overlooking Tell Ghanem al-Ali ... (after Numoto and Kume: 2009: 179). ��188 Cist/ stone chamber grave (Tomb B2) at Grave-cluster B, WS2, from east (after Numoto and Kume: 2009: 180). ��188 Research aeras WS 3 and WS 4 (after Numoto and Kume: 2009a: 196).��189 Euphrates Banded Ware (Top righ:WS3-Unit C; Bottom right: WS3- Unit N; Top left and bottom left: WS4-Unit A (after Numoto and Kume: 2009a: 197). ��190 Pedestal of so-called “champagne” vessel from WS3- Unit C (after Numoto and Kume: 2009a: 197).��190 Possible sherds of Black Euphrates Banded War from WS3-Unit C (after Numoto and Kume: 2009a: 197).��191 WS3- Unit E, looking east (after Numoto and Kume: 2009a: 197).��191 WS3- Unit N, looking south (after Numoto and Kume: 2009a:198).��192 Sketch map of WS3-Unit E (after Numoto and Kume: 2009a: 198).��192 WS4- Unit A, looking south (after Numoto and Kume: 2009a: 198).��193 Sketch map of WS3-Unit N (after Numoto and Kume: 2009a:198).��193 Sketch map of WS4-Unit A (after Numoto and Kume: 2009a :198).��194 Carin discovered beneath earthen mound at Tell Shabout 1, looking north (after Numoto and Kume: 2010:135). ��195 Discovered cairn at Tell Shabout 1, looking south (after Numoto and Kume: 2010:135). ��196 Main burial chamber of the cairn, a seriously disturbed above-ground structure was preserved, looking north (after Numoto and Kume: 2010:135). ��196 Tell Shabout 1. The inner ring and northern wall of the annex, looking east (after Numoto and Kume 2010: 135).��197 Tell Shabout 1 and 2 before soundings, overlooking Tell Ghanem al-Ali (after Numoto and Kume: 2010:135).��197 Fragments of possible Early Bronze Age sherds from Tell Shabout 1 (Left: hemispherical bowl; Right: Euphrates Fine Ware (after Numoto and Kume: 2010: 136). ��198 Fragments of Roman/ Byzantine terracotta coffin from Tell Shabout 1 (after Numoto and Kume: 2010: 136). ��198 Pit grave and surrounding Stone wall at Tell Shabout 2, looking southwest (after Numoto and Kume: 2010: 136). ��199 Undisturbed terracotta coffin burial and human remains (after Numoto and Kume: 2010:136). ��199 Tell Ghanem al-Ali and the sites included in the Syria/Japan Archaeological Joint Research (after Ohnuma and Al Khabour 2008:135). ��201 Plan of Tell Ghanem al-Ali (after Ohnuma and Al Khabour 2008:139). ��202 Plan of Tell Ghanem al-Ali and excavated areas (after Ohnuma 2011: 154).��202 The three structures of the Square 1, from west (after Hasegawa 2010: 26). ��203 Stone walls of Square 1 (after Ohnuma and Al Khabour 2008a: 157). ��204 Three- room building level 2, Square 2, from the south (after Kiuchi 2010:179).��204 Complete bowl (after Kiuchi 2010:180).��205 Massive wall, from the north-east (after Kiuchi 2010:181).��205 Animal figurine (after Kiuchi 2010:180).��205 Building level 7 of Square 2, from the south (after Hasegawa 2010: 30).��206

viii

Figure 306. Figure 307. Figure 308. Figure 309. Figure 310. Figure 311. Figure 312. Figure 313. Figure 314. Figure 315. Figure 316. Figure 318. Figure 317. Figure 320. Figure 319. Figure 321. Figure 322. Figure 323. Figure 324. Figure 325. Figure 326. Figure 327. Figure 329. Figure 328. Figure 330. Figure 331. Figure 332. Figure 334. Figure 333. Figure 336. Figure 335. Figure 337. Figure 338. Figure 339. Figure 340. Figure 341. Figure 342. Figure 343. Figure 344. Figure 345. Figure 346. Figure 347. Figure 348. Figure 349. Figure 350. Figure 351. Figure 352. Figure 354. Figure 353. Figure 355. Figure 356. Figure 357. Figure 358. Figure 359. Figure 360. Figure 361.

Plan of the site (after Ohnuma 2010a:131).��206 Square 2 (after Hasegawa 2010:210).��207 Grooved rim jar found in pit of Square 3 (after Negishi 2008: 182).��208 Zoomorphic clay figure from Square 3 (after Negishi 2008: 182).��208 Pit grave revealed in Square 6 (after Ohnuma 2010a: 131).��209 Fire instruments in Square 7, from the southeast (after Hasegawa 2011: 159).��210 Square 101 with cobbles allocation (after Khalil and Sultan 2010: 177).��210 Location of Wadi Jazla.��212 Small mound (Area 23H) on the left bank of Wadi Jazla, looking southwest (after Nishiaki, Kadowaki and Kume 2009: 161). ��213 Stone tools including pestles and basalt grinding slabs that indicate food processing at Wadi Jazla west (after Nishiaki, Kadowaki and Kume 2009: 161). ��214 Chipped stone from (rea 23H) in Jazla west, top left is probably a Canaanean Blade (burnt) (after Nishiaki, Kadowaki and Kume 2009: 161).��214 Large Stone-walled building (Area 23J) on the hilltop of Jazla (after Nishiaki, Kadowaki and Kume 2009: 161).��215 Pottery sherds like those in Tell Ghanem al-Ali (after Nishiaki, Kadowaki and Kume 2009: 161).��215 Middle Bronze Age pottery from one of the plundered shaft tombs at Wadi Jazla west (after Nishiaki and Abbe 2009: 127). ��216 Chipped stones collected on the ground surface inside the large building (Area 23J) at Jazla. Top left is probably a Canaanean blade (burnt) (after Nishiaki, Kadowaki and Kume 2009: 161).��216 Middle Bronze Age tombs, looking southeast (after Nishiaki et al. 2012: 4). ��217 Another mound (23CG), looking north (after Nishiaki et al. 2012: 4). ��217 Location of Tell Mughla as-Saghir.��219 General view of Tell Mughla as-Saghir, looking south (after Nishiaki et al. 2010: 118). ��219 Rectangular structures on the Surface of Tell Mughla as-Saghir (after Nishiaki et al.: 2010).��220 The three principal settlements: Tell Hamadin (left), Tell Ghanem al-Ali (center) and Tell Mugla asSaghir (right) with a 5-6km distance between them.��221 Cemetery from the Early Bronze Age distributed, looking west (after Nishiaki et al.: 2010).��221 Rectangular depression with shaft tombs along the Edge (26E) near Mugla as-Saghir, looking west (after Nishiaki 2010: 42). ��222 Surface ceramic on the EBA shaft tombs after Nishiaki et al.: 2010).��222 Artifacts from the south of the funerary zone of Mughla as-Saghir (after Nishiaki et al.: 2010).��223 Location of Tell Beilouni.��224 Cairn field near Beilouni (after Nishiaki 2010: 43).��225 Cairn field at Beilouni, looking north (after Nishiaki et al. 2011:132).��226 Fragments of pottery from the Euphrates ware dated to EBA from cairn tombs in Wadi Beilouni (after Nishiaki 2010: 43).��226 A large cairn on the top of the Mound near the southwestern corner of the field cairn of Wadi Beilouni (after Nishiaki et al. 2011: 133).��227 Sherds of Black Euphrates Fine Ware near the Cairns of Beilouni, Area 9J (after Nishiaki et al.: 2011: 131).��227 Cairn surrounded by rectangular structures at Wadi Beilouni (after Nishiaki et al. 2011: 133).��228 Artifacts from the Middle Paleolithic at Wadi Beilouni (after Nishiaki 2010).��228 Location of Tell Humeida.��230 The western part of Tell Humeida (after Montero et al. 2012: 311).��231 General view of Tell Humeida (after Montero et al. 2012: 311). ��231 Beveled rim bowls from the western side of Tell Humeida (after Montero et al. 2012: 311).��232 Beveled rim bowls from Tell Humeida (after Montero 2011:215).��232 The Byzantine wall of Tell Humeida (after Montero, 2012: 312). ��233 Phase 2 of the Uruk layer at Tell Humeida (after Montero 2012: 313).��234 Location of Tell Qabr Abu al-Atiq.��235 Room 1 (after Montero, Al- Shabib, Marquez and Caramelo 2011: 171).��236 Basalt mortar with red color (after Montero, Marquez, Caramelo and Al- Abdallah, 2011).��236 Objects found in Room 1 of the Middle Assyrian building (after Montero, Marquez, Caramelo and AlAbdallah, 2011:273).��236 Room 2 (after Montero, Al- Shabib, Marquez and Caramelo 2011: 174).��237 The ceramic found on the floor of Room 3 (after Montero et al. 2015:80). ��238 Tow clay tablets found in Room 3 (after Montero et al. 2015: 88).��238 Room 4 (after Montero et al 2011).��239 Middle Assyrian Administrative Pottery from Room 3 (after Montero and al-Shabib 2016: 252).��239 Cylinder seal from Room 4 (after Montero et al, 2011).��240 Ceramics from Room 4 (after Montero, Marquez, Caramelo 2011:274).��240 Provisional results of the GPR sounding at Tell Qabr Abu al-Atiq (after Montero, Marquez and Caramelo 2011: 271).��241 Pottery from the Early Bronze Age (after Montero, Al-Shabib, Marquez and Caramelo 2011: 175).��242 Two rooms of the Early Bronze Age building (after Montero and al-Shabib 2016: 250).��242 Location of Tell Qsubi.��244 General view of Tell Qsubi (after Montero et al. 2006: 115).��245

ix

Figure 362. Figure 363. Figure 364. Figure 365. Figure 366. Figure 367. Figure 368. Figure 369. Figure 370. Figure 371. Figure 373. Figure 372. Figure 374. Figure 375. Figure 376. Figure 377. Figure 378. Figure 379. Figure 380. Figure 381. Figure 382. Figure 383. Figure 384. Figure 385. Figure 386. Figure 387. Figure 388. Figure 389. Figure 390. Figure 391. Figure 392. Figure 393. Figure 394. Figure 395. Figure 396. Figure 397. Figure 398. Figure 399. Figure 400. Figure 401. Figure 402. Figure 403. Figure 404. Figure 405. Figure 406. Figure 407. Figure 408.

Location of the Tomb of Qsubi.��246 Schematic section and photograph of the tomb of Tell Qsubi (after Alachkar and Showhan 2019: 275).��247 Location of Qleb al Hemma.��248 The five axes of survey at Qleb al Hemma.��249 Location of Tell Tibni.��253 General view of Tell Tibni (after Montero et al.:2006).��254 General view from southwest (photo by the author).��254 Ceramics from the Bronze Age and Iron Age from Tell Tibni (after Lonnqvis et al. 2010:220).��255 Fragment of Uruk pottery from Tell Tibni (after Lonnqvist et al. 2010: 220).��256 Location of Tell Abu Fahd.��257 The tower in the northeast corner (after Montero, Marquez, Caramelo and Vidal: 2006: 114).��258 View of the Tell (after Montero and Vidal: 2009: 215).��258 The tower in the northeast corner (after Montero, Marquez, Caramelo and Al-Sabib: 2006).��259 The tower in the northeast corner (after Montero, Marquez, Caramelo and Al-Sabib: 2006).��259 Location of Tell As-Sin.��261 Plan of Tell As-Sin (after Montero and Al Shabib 2008).��262 Shaft tomb with two lateral niches (after Montero and Al Shabib 2008).��262 Tomb excavated in the rock (after Montero and Al Shabib 2008).��263 Stairs of hypogeum tomb (after Montero and Al Shabib 2008).��264 Door of one hypogeum tomb (after Montero and Al Shabib 2008).��265 Tomb with five niches (after Montero and Al Shabib 2008).��266 Tomb with central pilar (after Montero and Al Shabib 2008).��266 Christian symbols and inscriptions in one of the tombs (after Montero and Al Shabib 2008).��267 Location of Tell Bouqras.��268 House walls on the southern slope of Tell Bouqras (after Akkermans et al. 1981: 490).��269 Contour map of Tell Bouqras (after Akkermans et al. 1983: 339).��270 Houses 16, 17 and 18 seen from the SW (after Akkermans, Fokkens and Waterbolk 1981: 496).��271 Plan of the houses at the southwest of the site (after Akkermans, Fokkens and Waterbolk 1981: 496).��272 Stone ware from Tell Bouqras (after Akkermans et al. 1983: 357).��273 Location of the Paleolithic sites.��278 Location of El Kowm in relation to the studies sites. ��279 Pre-Pottery Neolithic sites in the investigated area.��283 Distribution of the PPNB sites on the Euphrates and Balikh Valleys (after Akkermans 1999: 531).��285 Neolithic sites in the investigated area.��287 Halaf sites in the investigated area.��289 Distribution of Halaf sites on the Balikh and Euphrates valleys (after Akkermans 1999: 533).��290 Ubaid sites in the investigated area.��291 Distribution of Ubaid sites in Mesopotamia (after Adams 1981: figure 9).��292 Uruk sites in the investigated area. ��294 Map of Uruk stations (after Algaze 2005: 49).��295 Map of the Early Bronze Age sites in the investigated area.��297 Northern Syrian Euphrates EBA sites (after Cooper 2006).��298 Middle Bronze Age sites in the investigated area.��300 Late Bronze Age sites in the investigated area.��303 New-Assyrian sites in the investigated area.��306 New-Assyrian sites between the Balikh and the Euphrates (after Bonacossi Morandi: 2010).��307 New-Assyrian sites on the Khabour Valley, Wadi Ajij and Jabal Abd al-Aziz (after Bonacossi Morandi: 2010).��308

x

Acknowledgements It is a duty and honor to begin these lines with a sincere paeon of gratitude to Professor Joaquín María Córdoba Zoilo; his unconditional support and encouragement have encouraged me during a process he has made technically enjoyable and intellectually enriching, almost from the moment I started my doctorate between 2006 and 2012. In these years I not only planted the seeds of an academic background, but, at the same time, Professor Córdoba Zoilo became a sincere friend. A great friend and scientist of recognized prestige, Dr Ignacio Márquez Rowe provided fundamental support for this research; resorting to his advice was an invaluable source of security and guarantor of my work. On the banks of the Euphrates, I was able to spend concentrated and rewarding hours with Dr Katsohiko Ohnuma, along with our team of Japanese experts, including Fujii, Nishiaki, Hasegawa, Kume, Numoto, Hoshino, Saito, Miashta, and their group, who put all their efforts into overcoming whatever obstacles arose. Without their essential contribution, my work is unlikely to have reached its home port. My teachers, as well as attentive ‘bosses’, Dr Michael al-Maqdissi and Dr Bassam Jamous, who expertly guided my work at the Archaeological Museum in Syria, also deserve special mention. I am pleased to acknowledge the guidance and advice of Dr Juan Luis Montero, central to this work, as well as the important contribution provided by the experience of Professor Jan Walke Meyer. Nor can I overlook Professor Gil Stein, who always seemed able to support our work in Zeidan in timely fashion. All through my work, the immense patience of my family and friends never waivered, nor did their unconditional support; they well know how important they have been in helping me reach the goals I set for myself. Finally, my thanks must go to the New Society of Letters at Lund for their generous contribution towards the English language review, as well as to my own deeply rooted institution, Lund University.

xi

Preface The Euphrates Valley between the Balikh and Khabour in Syria has been little known. The general impression, however, is that much needs to be discovered; partial reports, isolated interventions or the proposals for a hypothetical reconstruction of the relationship and processes of cultural expansion between Mesopotamia and the Jazira, suggest that the Euphrates had always been a traffic road. But suggestions on a map must be confirmed on the ground. However, when looking at the usual tools for information or the relevant archaeological charts, such as the Tübinger Atlas, we face a paradox: with the exception of a few well-known sites, a surprising void reigns over the archaeological landscape. On the other hand, the difficult circumstances suffered by most of the region since the outbreak of the war in Syria, not only did not improve the situation, but made it even more problematic. Fortunately, various archaeological expeditions have intensively worked on the region. The possibilities have changed, and the time has come for a review to attempt at a reconstruction. This has been our goal. With this research I have tried to reconstruct the history of a part of the Euphrates valley that, surprisingly, remained undocumented. I selected the longest stretch, comprised between the confluences of the Balikh and Khabour rivers. Several surface surveys, local and international archaeological expeditions, interventions of the Directorate of Antiquities of the Republic of Syria and my own intervention in the Syrian teams of most of them, in national field works, and in those related with this research have made available a significant number of data, most of them unpublished, that contributed to improve the view I have tried to offer. This monograph consisted of five chapters, starting with an introduction of the geographic area and the scope of the study. The method of data collection, objectives of the research as well as methodology and work plan are elaborated in this chapter (Chapter 1). In the next chapter, we display the data about the occupation of territory in the investigated area through the constructed catalogue of a total of 68 archaeological sites along the Euphrates banks (Chapter 2). In Chapter 3, 21 sites are studied and analyzed in detail according to the excavation and surveys carried out by local and international expeditions in order to study the territory occupation. The following chapter analyses the cultural and historical process in the studied area from the Paleolithic till the Neo-Babylonian and Achaemenian periods (Chapter 4). Finally, the last chapter displays the resumé and the final conclusions of the research (Chapter 5). This research is complemented by the full bibliography of sources that were referenced in the present book.

xii

Prólogo y reflexión sobre esta obra Conocí a Anas Al Khabour hace años, cuando él era un joven director del Museo Arqueológico de Raqqa (Siria) y ya con una acreditada labor de investigador, con varios trabajos de campo como arqueólogo en aquella zona que era, al mismo tiempo, su residencia. Se le daban todos los ingredientes para conocer sobre el terreno y de primera mano los rastros de los milenarios asentamientos humanos en un espacio físico crucial para el estudio de los primeros pasos de la Humanidad, en su constitución como grupos humanos organizados. En las jornadas posteriores tuve ocasión de comprobar la profundidad de esos conocimientos cuando nos acompañó a lo que se conoce como las “Ciudades Muertas”, en la altiplanicie central de Siria. Aparte de la multitud de recuerdos entrañables de las varias visitas que realicé a Siria durante años, hay un rumoroso silencio especial que me acompañará siempre: el peculiar sonido del viento al recorrer las ruinas de aquellas Ciudades Muertas. Sólo la insensibilidad se puede reafirmar en la esterilidad comunicativa –en definitiva, autocomplaciente y sordomuda– ante esos tesoros de la Humanidad que nos transmiten nuestra Historia primordial. La ceguera y la sordera, es decir la ignorancia, ante lo que son las señas de identidad de nuestras raíces y que están escondidas en millones de palabras en forma de piedras y restos arqueológicos, se hace incompatible con una mínima cultura. Aquellos páramos desiertos, pero no mudos para quienes sepan leer de verdad, son el mundo fértil de la Arqueología. Sin ese abecedario básico aún estaríamos convencidos de teorías tan absurdas como el creacionismo y sus corifeos. El texto al que estas líneas sirven de gozoso pórtico es un referente imprescindible para quienes se quieran aventurar por lo capítulos primeros de nuestra niñez como seres sociales, que es tanto como decir humanos en sentido pleno. El que fuese durante años llamado el Creciente Fértil (en algunas tradiciones culturales religiosas el Paraíso Terrenal) incluye en su centro, precisamente, la zona aquí estudiada. Es decir, los cursos medios del Éufrates y, por extensión colateral, el Tigris, Asiria en definitiva y los sucesivos reinos arcaicos que tuvieron su referencia territorial en esas tierras fertilizadas, en la incipiente agricultura y sus frutos culturales. Habría sido un intento titánico intentar resumir en un solo texto la inmensidad histórica y cultural de los primeros siete mil años de la Humanidad, como colectivos de convivencia racional en esa cuna de civilizaciones. Pero igualmente habría resultado derroche inadmisible el no recoger de forma ordenada un esfuerzo arqueológico como el que aquí se refleja. Anas Al Khabour, doctor cum laudem en Arqueología por la Universidad Autónoma de Madrid con esta investigación para su tesis, ha reunido sus trabajos de campo en una tierra que no sólo le vio nacer sino que fue su espacio natural de síntesis de formación académica y dedicación vocacional. Tiene otras virtudes añadidas el texto como la multitud documentada de referencias bibliográficas, agrupadas en cada epígrafe para mayor claridad expositiva. Pero para el sociólogo retrospectivo que firma este prólogo, algo que conecta con lo que da verdadera coherencia comprensiva a todo trabajo que trata sobre el Hombre en sentido lato: la contextualización que conecta los campos necesarios para una cabal comprensión de la tesis expuesta. Sin las referencias historiográficas, sin una datación ajustada y sin describir de forma sistemática las técnicas que se emplean en la investigación, corroboradas por conclusiones puntuales de cada epígrafe, podríamos caer en la mera exposición que, a lo sumo, aspirase a un alarde retórico. No es este, por suerte ni mucho menos, el caso del “Desierto fértil”; oxímoron que, paradójicamente, encierra en su aparente contradicción la esforzada, y a veces fallida, lucha de la Humanidad por la supervivencia en un medio efímero. La Arqueología es ese milagro que hace florecer de sentido las piedras. El trabajo de campo de años por parte del doctor Khabour se ha centrado en ese tramo lleno de vida enterrada que discurre entre los afluentes del gran río Éufrates, Balih y Hahur, o lo que es xiii

lo mismo entre Raqqa y Deir ez-Zor, en la Siria actual. El período estudiado es amplísimo, desde épocas tan remotas como los primeros pasos de tribus nómadas de cinco mil años a. C. (o lo que es lo mismo, a una distancia más próxima al despertar africano del homo sapiens que a la actualidad), con dataciones basadas en trazas del carbono 14 en los objetos analizados. Desde luego los asentamientos precarios de los primeros grupos nómadas requirieron un estudio adicional a lo que podríamos entender como técnicas usuales de Arqueología, ya que los restos hallados eran, por fuerza de desplazamientos no siempre acreditados, sólo meros indicios fragmentarios y residuales. Es algo con lo que todo investigador actual se enfrenta, la necesaria multidisciplinariedad que obliga a nadar en varias corrientes al mismo tiempo. En un trabajo que se antoja inabarcable en los años dedicados a éste, Khabour relaciona hasta sesenta y ocho yacimientos dentro de la zona estudiada de los que describe un total de veintiuno, relacionados entre sí por la trama espaciotemporal. En su recorrido apunta al principio del reino de Tuttul, que hunde sus raíces en un origen tan remoto para nosotros como la Edad del Bronce Arcaico o Antiguo, llegando en ese yacimiento que reúne indicios del milenio IV a. C. Con tan frágiles mimbres pero con precisión de orfebre nos coloca el autor ante la evidencia material de un centro de culto, el llamado Tell Biaa, o Colina del Templo aunque Anas Al Khabour lo denomine iglesia. La cultura acadia ocupa una parte importante de las descripciones topográficas y de contextualización social, apuntando al referente transversal antes aludido. Los modestos, pero elocuentes, ajuares domésticos, distribuidos por habitaciones de las viviendas excavadas, nos remiten en su estado semidestruido a las permanentes luchas por afianzamiento del dominio territorial, que es tanto como decir de acceso a los recursos. No es gratuito, desde ese punto de vista de la superviviencia de los grupos, un tema que recorre todo el texto de esta tesis, como es la fijación grupal en torno a las corrientes de agua y que está en el origen de la ya conocida tesis de las Civilizaciones del Agua. El control de esa vía de comunicación privilegiada que eran en general los grandes ríos, y en este caso el Éufrates, Tell Qabr Abu al-Atiq controlaba el acceso al territorio del imperio asirio, una barrera estratégica contra la amenaza de los hititas de la región de Karkamish y de Emar. Esta descripción, que se antoja paradigmática de lo que era el Éufrates como vía de comercio y comunicación (de ahí la importancia que se otorgó durante milenios a estas fortalezas naturales que eran los altos privilegiados en la orilla fluvial) y la vida que se desarrolló en su entorno. Qleb al Hemma es otro de los ejemplos que ilustran este interesante tramo del Éufrates, estudiado por Khabour. Ese poético “corazón volcánico”, no alude como de forma certera señala el autor, a referencia poética, sino que nos remite al origen por erupción volcánica en la zona y que aportaría, junto con la indudable ruina inmediata de los primitivos asentamientos humanos, el regalo inestimable para las siguientes generaciones de los productos de esa erupción, en especial rocas de ese origen basáltico y que serían después explotadas como materiales y comercio con el sur. El autor sigue un orden descriptivo de norte a sur, desde Tell Biaa en el Balih hasta Buqras en la desembocadura del río Habur. Esto aunque pueda parecer un proceso inverso a la cronología de los asentamientos, nos lleva de la mano al espacio arqueológico que se proponía desde el primer yacimiento: describir la aventura de los humanos en un desierto que les proporcionó la fertilidad que venían persiguiendo desde sus tempranas migraciones procedentes del sudeste de África. Francisco González de Tena Dr. en Sociología

xiv

Chapter 1

Introduction Mesopotamia, for several reasons, is held as the cradle of civilizations: between the two rivers, Tigris and Euphrates, and spread over Syria and Iraq. This zone witnessed the birth and development of the first civilizations, first ‘human beings’, the first cities. Our two great and ‘civilizing’ rivers are born in the mountains of eastern Anatolia, taking different courses, and rejoin their waters in a large delta of marshes to flow, finally, into the Persian Gulf.1 The fertile alluvial sediments, deposited in their valleys, and especially in the lower regions of their routes, have made agriculture and civilization prosper over the centuries. But the role of the Tigris and the Euphrates was not limited to making fertile valleys. As Margueron (1999; 1980)2 points out, the two rivers, together with their tributaries, served to link and communicate with distant lands and vary in their natural resources. The Euphrates, in particular, functioned since earliest times as a connecting axis between northern Syria, the region that borders the Taurus Mountain and the Mediterranean coast, and the lands of Babylon and southern Mesopotamia. The Euphrates, however, does not run through the same landscape features along its entire journey; and neither does it ‘behave’ in the same way – from its source in eastern Anatolia to its ultimate estuary.3 There are roughly four sections that define its course: the passage through Anatolia, with its important geography; the crossing of the Syrian steppe; the journey through the alluvial plain of Lower Mesopotamia; the arrival in the delta area before flowing into the Persian Gulf.4 The Balikh and Khabour are the only two tributaries that pour their waters into the Euphrates. Both are located on its left bank and both in Syrian territory, i.e. in the so-called second great ‘Euphratic’ section. Both tributaries functioned as north-south communication axes, linking the mountainous regions of the Taurus with the Euphrates valley, before reaching into lower Mesopotamia, where natural resources – such as wood, metal and stone – are scarce.5 Of capital importance for man was the supply of tree timber from the higher regions down to the low plains that were devoid of this raw material, fundamental for architecture. The same route transported obsidian and metals (copper) from Anatolia,6 and without this vial link the temples of Uruk (4th millennium BC) could never have been built, nor the palaces of Mari (3rd/2nd millennia BC). The study of human occupation along the Euphrates Valley, between Balikh and Khabour, until the time of Alexander the Great. Given the historical importance of the Euphrates and its two tributaries on the left bank, the study of human occupation along the Euphrates, from the Balikh to Khabour tributaries, is a tale worth the telling. The chronological limits of this research are fixed to the Classical period, the urban ‘boom’ that followed Alexander’s conquest of the East, a process that marks a ‘before and after’ in the historical geography of the Middle East.7 (Students of the historical geography of the Syrian Euphrates in Classical times, more particularly in Roman-Byzantine times, are pointed to Justine Gaborit’s doctoral thesis).8 Sanlaville 1979: 101–103; 2000. Margueron 1999; 1980. 3 Sanlaville 1989: 5–27; 1990: 1–12. 4 Sanlaville 1990. 5 Larsen 1979. 6 Algaze 2005. 7 Akkermans and Schwartz 2003. 8 Gaborit 2008. 1 2

1

The Fertile Desert From prehistory to Alexander, there is to date no analysis or synthesis dedicated to studying or presenting the historical geography of the Euphrates Valley from the Balikh to Khabour. We do have field work, especially archaeological surveys carried out in past years, before the outbreak of the recent war in Syria, by research teams who note the lack of scientific work in such an important area historically. Indeed, as we write, there is no work devoted to the study of the history of the pre-classical occupation of the territory of the Euphrates, between the Balikh and Khabour rivers, in the current Syrian provinces of Raqqa and Deir ez-Zor. It is important, however, to single out the Atlas of Preclassical Upper Mesopotamia (2004),9 in which the Euphrates Valley region, our focus in this present research, languishes as empty and ‘uninhabited’ on each of the maps that correspond to the different historical periods highlighted in the Atlas. This lacuna, however, does not tally with historical-demographic reality, but to a basic lack of information as at 2004, the date of the work referred to. Indeed, archaeological researches undertaken over the last decade or so in the provinces of Raqqa and Deir ez-Zor have proven that that territory was continuously occupied since the Palaeolithic. This is supported by the surveys of Kohlmeyer, Geyer and Monchambert, Gaborit, the Syrian-Spanish expedition in the Syrian Middle Euphrates, as well as several archaeological excavation seasons by different expeditions in the sites located in the study region (Tell Zaydan, Tell Ghanem al-Ali, Tell Qabr Abu al-Atiq, etc.). Surveys Numerous surveys have been carried out to date in the area of interest to us in this present work. In chronological order they are: 1. The French expedition around Ain Abu Jemaa In 1976, a French expedition (R.C.P.), directed by P. Sanlaville, carried out four campaigns (until 1980) in the Middle Euphrates area, documenting important Palaeolithic sites.10 2. The French expedition at Mari Mari’s French expedition, led by B. Geyer and J.-Y. Monchambert, carried out 17 survey campaigns between 1982 and 1990 to delimit the geographical-political territory of the kingdom of Mari. The work covered the Euphrates region between Deir ez-Zor and Abu Kamal, all the sites located on both banks of the Euphrates were chronologically documented, from the Neolithic period to the arrival of Islam.11 3. The German expedition in the Euphrates Valley The German researcher Kay Kohlmeyer conducted two survey campaigns in the Middle Euphrates between 1983 and 1984, between the Tabqa Dam and Deir ez-Zor, documenting several sites in the investigated area, inhabited between Palaeolithic and Neo-Assyrian times.12 4. The Spanish expedition in the Balikh Valley In September 1986, the Autonomous University of Madrid set out to study the Hurrian culture and its population in the Balikh Valley by means of an archaeological survey. Its main researcher J. Córdoba Zoilo documented 26 sites along the valley’s 100 km.13

Anastasio et al. 2004. Sanlaville 1979. 11 Geyer and Monchambert 2003. 12 Kohlmeyer 1984; 1986. 13 Córdoba 1988; 2006. 9

10

2

Introduction 5. The Finnish expedition to Mt Bishri In 1999-2000, a Finnish expedition from the University of Helsinki launched project SYGIS, which, until 2006, mainly dedicated itself to GIS work across a region east of Mt Bishri to the Euphrates.14 6. The Syrian-Spanish expedition to the Middle Euphrates (PAMES) The Middle Euphrates Syrian Archaeological Project was launched in September 2004, through a collaboration agreement between the University of Coruña and the General Directorate of Antiquities and Museums of Damascus (DGAM), to which the Higher Council for Scientific Research (CSIC) and the University Nova Lisbon joined later. The project was led by Juan Luis Montero Fenollós on the Spanish side, and Shakir Al-Shbib (the project’s author in later seasons) for the Syrian institution. The main objective of the expedition was to study territory-border concepts in the Syrian Middle Euphrates region in Antiquity, particularly the Pre-Classical periods. The research is concentrated on a section of the Euphrates in the Syrian province of Deir ez-Zor.15 7. The Syrian-Japanese expedition to the Euphrates and Mt Bishri The Syrian-Japanese expedition to the Middle Euphrates and Mt Bishri, led by Katsohiko Ohnuma and Anas Al Khabour, carried out 15 excavation and survey campaigns in the area, specifically in the province of Raqqa, from February 2007 to November 2010. The main objective of the project was to shed light on the nomadic Amorite communities in the Bishri area and along the Middle Euphrates, from Palaeolithic times onwards. The research team consisted of experts in many disciplines, specializing in cultural and natural sciences. The Syrian-Japanese team set out to determine the relationship between ancient nomadic tribal pastoralists and the formation of urban societies in the central Euphrates area. Numerous environmental and cultural aspects were addressed in the research, i.e. changes in the environment, settlement patterns, livelihood patterns, architectural and artistic styles, and social relations. The expedition conducted several surveys, and opted to dig at Tell Ghanem al-Ali.16 8. The Syrian expedition in the Mount of Qleb al-Hemma The General Directorate of Antiquities and Museums in June 2011 conducted a survey, led by Michel Al-Maqdissi, on the rocky hillsides of Qleb al-Hemma, formed of volcanic lava. This feature, rising 125 m above the level of the Euphrates Valley, is elongated in shape and measures 11 km x 8 km; it comprises numerous small mounds and valleys. The expedition documented several sites from the Palaeolithic to the Bronze Age.17 Excavations The archaeological excavations carried out in the investigated area are: 1. Tell Biaa The University of Berlin and the Deutsche Orient-Gesellschaft (Germany), under the direction of Eva Strommenger, began archaeological excavations at Tell Biaa (Tuttul) in 1980. By 1995 a very important site had been revealed – the city de Tuttul.18 2. Tell Zeidan For this Geographic Information System project, see Lönnqvist et al. 2011. Montero 2009. 16 Al Khabour 2012; Ohnuma and Al Khabour 2010. 17 Al-Maqdissi 2011. 18 Miglus and Strommenger 2002; Strommenger and Kohlmeyer 1998. 14 15

3

The Fertile Desert In 2008, an agreement between the Directorate General of Antiquities and Museums DGAM of Syria and the Oriental Institute of the University of Chicago led to an archaeological collaboration at Tell Zeidan. The expedition was led by Gil Stein for the Americans and Anas Al Khabour (2008) and Mohamad al-Sarhan (2009) for the Syrians.19 3. The Abu Hamad Cemetery The General Directorate of Antiquities and Museums DGAM and the University of Saarbrücken (Germany) carried out a six-week campaign (1990) at Abu Hamad. The expedition was headed by Jan-Waalke Meyer and Murhaf Al Khalaf.20 4. The Syrian-Japanese project The Syrian-Japanese expedition conducted several excavation campaigns at Tell Ghanem al-Ali, as well as at a burial area south of Ghanem al-Ali and Mt Bishri’s burial mounds.21 5. The Syrian-Spanish project The Syrian-Spanish team of the DGAM Syrian and PAMES project carried out excavations at Tell as-Sin and Tell Qabr Abu al-Atiq.22 6. Tell Bouqras A Dutch expedition from the universities of Groningen and Amsterdam undertook several excavation campaigns at Tell Bouqras between 1965 and 1977.23 7. Tell Qsubi The Syrian-Spanish expedition of the DGAM and the PAMES project conducted a small survey between 2005–2007. Later, in 2010, the University of Chicago carried out an emergency excavation campaign necessitated by the impending construction of the Halabiya Dam.24 8. The Qsubi Tomb The funeral area located to the south of Tell Qsubi was excavated by a Syrian expedition in 2009 as part of an emergency excavation programme, prior to work on the Halabiya Dam.25 Our present work aims to bring together all the results of these surveys and excavation campaigns, published and unpublished, allowing the drawing of new archaeological and historical maps that will indicate the presence of human settlements in the region until Alexander’s arrival on the scene. Thus, the significant gap perceived in the corresponding maps of the literature to date can be inked in.26 The lacuna referred to above in the maps of Anastasio, as I intend to demonstrate in this research, reflects no lack in human occupation between the Balikh and Khabour tributaries, but rather the absence of data available to the compilers of the aforementioned Atlas in 2004.

Stein and Al Khabour 2008; Stein 2010. Meyer 2010. 21 Fujii and Adachi 2010. 22 Caramelo et al. 2009. 23 Boerma 1979. 24 Montero 2006. 25 Caramelo et al. 2009. 26 Anastasio 2004. 19 20

4

Introduction Research objectives With this research I intend to study the history of the Pre-Classical occupation of the territory of the Euphrates Valley between the Balikh and Khabour rivers, in the current provinces of Raqqa and Deir ez-Zor in Syria. This historical-geographical work has, as its main objective, the description and analysis of the main events that have marked the region, from the first evidence of human occupation to the conquest of Alexander, by means of the archaeological evidence and written documentation. Thus, we arrive at a fresh look at the evolution of this occupation, from the Palaeolithic to the 4th century BC. This research not only seeks to identify the sedentary settlements from the Neolithic, but also to recognize the presence of those nomadic and semi-nomadic populations who travelled and inhabited the region, especially in the area of Mt Bishri, throughout the millennia under consideration. The included catalogue of sites and series of maps corresponding to the occupation of the river territory in the different historical periods (Palaeolithic, Pre-Pottery Neolithic A and B, Neolithic, Halaf, Ubaid, Uruk, Ancient, Middle and Late Bronze, Neo-Assyrian), constitutes an essential contribution to our research. Other studies of historical interest directly related to the subject will also be addressed, i.e. the broad temporal spectrum that frames the project will allow a longue durée study to materialize in terms of the settlement/use of the territory between the Balikh and the Khabour. We will also see that the research method followed results in a range of comparative studies, not only from a chronological point of view but also geographically, i.e. between settlement patterns, on both sides of the Euphrates, from different historical periods (Uruk, Early Bronze, Late Bronze, etc.), and the continuity or discontinuity of human occupation. Methodology, hypothesis, and work plan The desired historical atlas of the Euphrates Valley from the Balikh to the Khabour must, perforce, be based on an exhaustive catalogue of Pre-Classical archaeological sites, remains, etc., brought to light in this region. Each chosen site includes all available relevant information in historical, archaeological, and geographical terms, referring to the published (and unpublished) data, including any archaeological reports by the various expeditions who have worked in the region between the Balikh and the Khabour, in the current Syrian provinces of Raqqa and Deir ez-Zor. The topographic situation of the different sites is based on existing maps (Soviet Military Topographic Map, 1984, 1/200000, and Topographic Map of Syria, published by the Euphrates project authority, 1962, 1/2500). Nowadays, however, Google Earth provides a helpful tool to augment the geographical data, and gives an easy means, as equally effective and accurate, for anyone to locate a site once the coordinates are known; each site is provided with this information. The obtained data have allowed an assemblage of (partial) archaeological charts, according to the conventional historical periods (e.g. Ubaid, Uruk, Middle Bronze, etc.), which will ultimately serve to explore settlement patterns and carry out comparative and global studies on the continuity/ discontinuity of human occupation in the Euphrates through the timeframe in question.

5

The Fertile Desert References Akkermans, P. and Schwartz, G. 2003. The Archaeology of Syria from Complex Hunter-Gatherers to Early Urban Societies (c. 16,000–300 B.C). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Algaze, G. 2005. The Uruk World System. The Dynamics of Expansion of Early Mesopotamian Civilization (2nd edn). Chigago: University of Chicago Press. Al Khabour, A. 2012. El Proyecto Arqueológico sirio-japonés en la región del Bishri (Siria, Raqqa), in Del Cerro et al. (eds) Ideología, identidades e interacción en el Mundo Antiguo: 259–266. Madrid: Universidad Autónoma de Madrid. Al Maqdissi, M. 2011. Report of the Directorate General of Antiquities and Museums at Qleb al Hemma (in Arabic). Unpublished. Anastasio, S. et al. 2004: Atlas of Preclassical Upper Mesopotamia. Turnhout: Brepols. Boerma, J.A.K. 1979. Soils and natural environment of the tell Bouqras area (east Syria). Anatolica 7: 61–74. Caramelo, F. and Montero-Fenollós, J.-L. (eds) 2009. IIe rencontre syro-franco-ibérique d’archéologie et d’histoire ancienne du Proche-Orient. La basse et moyenne vallée de l’Euphrate syrien : zone de frontière et d’échanges. Estudos Orientais X: 53–79. Córdoba, J. 1988. Prospección en el valle del río Balih (Siria). Informe provisional. Aula Orientalis 6: 149–188. Córdoba, J. 2006. Campesinos e imperios en una región ignorada: prospecciones y sondeos en el valle del Balih (Siria), in J.Mª. Córdoba and M.C. Pérez Díe (eds) La arqueología española en Oriente: 51–54. Madrid: Ministerio de Cultura. Fuji, S. and Adachi, T. 2010. Archaeological investigations of Bronze Age cairn fields on the Northwestern flank of Mt. Bishri. Al-Rāfidān: Journal of Western Asiatic Studies: 61–77. Tokyo: Kokushikan University. Gaborit, J. 2008. La géographie historique du Moyen-Euphrate de la conquête d’Alexandre à l’Islam. PhD dissertation, Université de Paris I-Sorbonne. Geyer, B. and Monchambert, J-Y. 2003. La Basse vallee de l’Euphrate Syrien, du Neolithique a l’avenement de l’Islam, geographie, archeologie et histoire (2 vols). Mission Archéologique de Mari VI/BAH 166. Beyrouth: Institut Français du Proche-Orient. Kohlmeyer, K. 1984. Euphrat-Survey. Die mit Mitteln der Gerda Henkel Stiftung durchgeführte archäologische Geländebegehung im Syrischen Euphrattal. Mitteilungen der Deutschen OrientGesellschaft 116: 95–118. Kohlmeyer, K. 1986. Euphrat-Survey 1984. Zweiter Vorbericht über die mit Mitteln der Gerda Henkel Stiftung durchgeführte archäologische Geländebegehung im syrischen Euphrattal. Mitteilungen der Deutschen Orient-Gesellschaft 118: 51–65. Larsen, M.T. 1979. The tradition of Empire in Mesopotamia, in M.T. Larsen (ed) Power and Propaganda: A Symposium of Ancient Empires: 75–103. Copenhagen: University of Copenhagen. Lonnqvist, M., Tora, M., Lonnqvist, K. and Nuñez, M. 2011. Jebel Bishri in Focus: remote sensing, archaeological surveying, mapping and GIS studies of Jebel Bishri in central Syria by the Finnish project SYGIS. British Archaeological Reports International Series 2230. Oxford: Archaeopress. Margueron, J.-C. 1980. Le Moyen Euphrate : zone de contacts et d’échanges : actes du colloque de Strasbourg, 10–12 mars 1977. Leiden: E.J. Brill. Margueron, J. 1999. L’Éuphrate: force structurante de la Syrie intérieure, in G. del Olmo and J.-L. Montero Fenollós (eds) Archaeology of the Upper Syrian Euphrates: 481–496. Barcelona: University of Barcelona. Meyer, J.-W. 2010. The cemetery of Abu Hamad: a burial place of pastoral groups. Al-Rafidan 2010, Formation of tribal communities: integrated research in the Middle Euphrates, Syria: 155–163. Tokyo: Kokushikan University. Miglus, P.A. and Strommenger, E. 2002. Ausgrabungen in Tall Bīʻa / Tuttul VIII. Stadtbefestigungen, Häuser und Tempel. WVDOG 103. Saarbrücken: Saarbrückener Druckerei und Verlag. Montero Fenollés, J.-L. 2006. El Proyecto Arqueológico Medio Éufrates Sirio. Una iniciativa para el estudio de las civilizaciones del Oriente antiguo. De culturas, lenguas y tradiciones. II simposio de estudios humanísticos 2. Coruña: Universidade da Coruña. Ohnuma, K. and Al Khabour, A. 2010. Formation of Tribal Communities: Integrated Research in the Middle Euphrates, Syria, in Al-Rāfidān: Journal of Western Asiatic Studies, Special Issue. Tokyo: Kokushikan University. 6

Introduction Sanlaville, P. 1979. Quaternaire et préhistoire de Nahr el kébir septentrional: les débuts de l’occupation humaine dans la Syrie du nord et au Levant. Lyon: Éditions de CNRS. Sanlaville, P. 1989. Considérations sur l’évolution de la Basse Mésopotamie au cours des derniers millénaires. Paléorient 15(2): 5–27. Sanlaville, P. 1990. Pays et paysages du Tigre et de l’Euphrate. Réflexions sur la Mésopotamie Antique. Akkadica 66: 1–12. Sanlaville, P. 2000. Le Moyen Orient Arabe, le milieu et l’homme. Paléorient 26: 159–160. Stein, G. and Al Khabour, A. 2008. Report on the first season of the excavation at Tell Zeidan by the SyrianAmerican expedition, Raqqa (in Arabic): 1–19. Chicago: University of Chicago. Stein, G. 2010. Tell Zeidan, 2009–2010. Annual Report of The Oriental Institute. Chicago: University of Chicago. Strommenger, E. and Kohlmeyer, K. 1998. Ausgrabungen in Tall Bīʻa, Tuttul I.: Die Altorientalischen Bestattungen. WVDOG 96. Saarbrücken: Saarbrückener Druckerei und Verlag.

7

Chapter 2

Occupation of the territory and Catalogue of the studied sites Catalogue of sites 1. Tell Biaa 2. Tell Zeidan 3. Tell Masri I 4. Tell Mesri I 5. Tell Mazar (Ratla, or Sheikh Asaad) 6. Tell Shennan 7. Rabtat Abyad 8. Maqbarat Al Karama 9. Maqbara Qadima 10. Wadi Qutena 11. Jibli 12. Jibli 9F 13. Jibli 9E 14. Jibli 9D 15. Wadi Aain 16. Tell Hamadin 17. Zor Shammar Foqani 18. Wadi Ubaid 19. Jabal Tbuq 20. Cairn fields northwest of Mt Bishri 21. Wadi Kharrar 22. Cemetery of Wadi Dabaa 23. Cemetery of Abu Hamad 24. Cemetery of Wadi Shabout 25. Tell Ghanem al-Ali 26. Cemetery of Wadi Jazla 27. Tell Mugla as-Sagir (Tell Beitha) 28. Tell Beilouni 29. Tell Sheikh Mousa 30. Tell Sweda 31. Tell al-Maqam 32. Tell Saghir 33. Tell Ahmar 34. Tell Humeida

35. 36. 37. 38. 39. 40. 41. 42. 43. 44. 45. 46. 47. 48. 49. 50. 51. 52. 53. 54. 55. 56. 57. 58. 59. 60. 61. 62. 63. 64. 65. 66. 67. 68.

8

Wadi Abu Shahri Tell Qabr Abu al-Atiq Tell Qsubi -Tell Qalaa Tumb of Qsubi Qleb al Hemma 13.1 Qleb al Hemma 13.3 Qleb al Hemma 13.4 Qleb al Hemma 13.5 Qleb al Hemma 13.6 Qleb al Hemma 13.7 Qleb al Hemma 13.8 Qleb al Hemma 13.12 Qleb al Hemma 13.13 Qleb al Hemma 13.14 Qleb al Hemma 13.17 Qleb al Hemma 13.18 Qleb al Hemma 13.27 Qleb al Hemma 13.30 Tell Tibni Tell Abu Makiya Tell Abu Fahd Nadra Tell Tabus Tell Khraita Tell Ain Abu Jemaa Tell Ayyash Tell As-Sinn Tell Et-Tabie II Tell Mohasan I Tell Es-Sabha I Tell Es-Salu V Tell Buseire I Tell Safat Ez-Zerr II Tell Bouqras I

Occupation of the territory and Catalogue of the studied sites Catalogue 1. Tell Biaa Site name: Tell Biaa Site number: 1 Ancient toponym: Tuttul Altitude and longitude coordinates: 35.9575°N 39.0475°E Geomorphological unit: mound Type of site: habitat Dimensions: 35-40 ha Description/Geographical location: It is a large mound, located near the mouth of the Balikh in the Euphrates, 3 km from Raqqa. The Middle Bronze Age city of Tuttul was walled. The excavations uncovered a palace similar to that at Mari. Dagan was the main god of the city, the site provided valuable cuneiform tablets. Dating: Uruk, Early Bronze, Middle Bronze, Mitani, Roman, Byzantine and Islamic eras C14: yes References: Akkermans and Schwartz 2003; Córdoba, 1988: 149–188; Strommenger and Kohlmeyer 1998 First campaign: 1980 End: 1995 Duration: 15 years Archaeological expedition: Free University of Berlin, Deutsche Orient-Gesellschaft, Germany.

Figure 1. Location of Tell Biaa.

9

The Fertile Desert

Figure 2. The excavations at the palace zone (photo by the author).

Figure 3. Small finds from Tell Biaa (photo by the author: Raqqa Museum).

2. Tell Zeidan Site name: Tell Zeidan Site number: 2 Ancient toponym: unknown Altitude and longitude coordinates: 35°57’0.99”N 39° 5’37.37”E Geomorphological unit: mound Type of site: habitat Dimensions: 35-40 ha Description/Geographical location: It consists of three mounds, located on the bank of the Balikh river, at its mouth in the Euphrates, 5 km east of Raqqa city. Dating: Halaf: 5800–5300, Ubaid: 5300–4500, Late Chalcolithic I: 4500–4200, Late Chalcolithic II: 4200-3900 BC C14: yes References: Córdoba 1988: 149–188; Stein and Al Khabour 2008: 1–19; Stein 2010 First campaign: 2008 End: 2010 Duration: two years Archaeological expedition: Directorate General of Antiquities and Museums DGAM of Syria and the University of Chicago (USA).

10

Occupation of the territory and Catalogue of the studied sites

Figure 4. Location of Tell Zeidan.

Figure 5. Pottery from Tell Zeidan (after Stein and Al Khabour 2008).

Figure 6. Stamp from the Late Chalcolithic II (after Stein and Al Khabour 2008).

11

The Fertile Desert 3. Tell Masri I Site name: Tell Masri I Site number: 3 Ancient toponym: unknown Altitude and longitude coordinates: 35°56’34.44”N 39° 6’14.01”E Geomorphological unit: mound Type of site: habitat Dimensions: 850 m x 400 m. Description/Geographical location: It is situated 8 km east of Raqqa, 700 m north of the old road from Raqqa to Deir ez-Zor. The mound was illegally excavated in the 1970s. Dating: Bronze Age, older periods? C14: no References: Goto and Hasigawa 2007 First campaign: Survey, 12 August 2007 End: 16 August 2007 Duration: one survey season Archaeological expedition: Archaeological expedition: DGAM of Syria and the University of Kokushikan (Tokyo, Japan).

Figure 7. Location of Tell Masri I.

12

Occupation of the territory and Catalogue of the studied sites

Figure 8. Tell Masri I, seen from the top to the north (after Goto and Hasigawa 2007).

4. Tell Mesri II Site name: Tell Masri II Site number: 4 Ancient toponym: unknown Altitude and longitude coordinates: 35°56’35.22”N 39° 6’46.41”E Geomorphological unit: mound Type of site: habitat Dimensions: 130 m x 120 m. Description/Geographical location: It is situated 8 km east of Raqqa, 900 m north of the Raqqa to Deir ez-Zor road, and 700m from Tell Masri I. It is a small mound. Dating: Bronze Age, older periods? C14: no References: Goto and Hasogawa 2007 First campaign: Survey, 12 August 2007 End: 16 August 2007 Duration: one survey season Archaeological expedition: Archaeological expedition: DGAM of Syria and the University of Kokushikan (Tokyo, Japan).

13

The Fertile Desert

Figure 9. Location of Tell Masri II.

Figure 10. Tell Masri II, seen from the top to the north (after Goto and Hasigawa 2007).

14

Occupation of the territory and Catalogue of the studied sites 5. Tell Mazar (Ratla, or Sheikh Asaad) Site name: Tell Mazar (Ratla, or Sheikh Asaad) Site number: 5 Ancient toponym: unknown Altitude and longitude coordinates: 35°53’34.60”N 39° 4’4.56”E Geomorphological unit: mound Type of site: habitat Dimensions: 130 m x 75 m. Description/Geographical location: Located 1750 m to the north of the Raqqa to Deir ez-Zor highway, and 7.5 km east of Raqqa. It is a small mound. Dating: Early Bronze Age C14: no References: Goto and Hasogawa 2007; Kohlmeyer 1984: 95–118 First campaign: German survey 1983–1984; Syrian-Japanese survey, 12 August 2007 End: 16 August 2007 Duration: one survey season Archaeological expedition: Archaeological expedition: DGAM of Syria and the University of Kokushikan (Tokyo, Japan).

Figure 11. Location of Tell Mazar.

15

The Fertile Desert 6. Tell Shennan Site name: Tell Shennan Site number: 6 Ancient toponym: unknown Altitude and longitude coordinates: 35°50’10.57”N 39°13’6.39”E Geomorphological unit: mound Type of site: habitat Dimensions: 180 m x 160 m Description/Geographical location: Located 700 m to the south of the highway from Raqqa to Deir ez-Zor, 22 km east of Raqqa, and 3 km south of the Euphrates course. It is a small mound. Dating: Bronze Age C14: no References: Goto and Hasogawa 2007; Kohlmeyer 1986: 51–65 First campaign: German survey 1983-1984; Syrian-Japanese survey, 12 August 2007 End: 16 August 2007 Duration: one survey season Archaeological expedition: Archaeological expedition: DGAM of Syria and the University of Kokushikan (Tokyo, Japan).

Figure 12. Location of Tell Shennan.

16

Occupation of the territory and Catalogue of the studied sites

Figure 13. General view of Tell Shanan (after Goto and Hasigawa 2007).

7. Rabtat Abyad Site name: Rabtat Abyad Site number: 7 Ancient toponym: unknown Altitude and longitude coordinates: 35°52’48.68”N 39°14’7.28”E Geomorphological unit: mound Type of site: habitat Dimensions: 15 m x 15 m Description/Geographical location: Located 550 m to the south of the ancient road from Raqqa to Deir ez-Zor, 21 km east of Raqqa and 280 m north of the Euphrates course. It is a very small mound. Dating: Bronze Age, Byzantine C14: no References: Goto and Hasogawa 2007 First campaign: Survey, 12 August 2007 End: 16 August 2007 Duration: one survey season Archaeological expedition: Archaeological expedition: DGAM of Syria and the University of Kokushikan (Tokyo, Japan).

17

The Fertile Desert

Figure 14. Location of Rabtat Abyad.

Figure 16. Collection of superficial sherds (after Goto and Hasigawa 2007).

Figure 15. General view of Rabtat Abyad (photo by the author).

18

Occupation of the territory and Catalogue of the studied sites 8. Maqbarat Al Karama Site name: Maqbarat al Karama Site number: 8 Ancient toponym: unknown Altitude and longitude coordinates: 35°51’50.96”N 39°16’6.20”E Geomorphological unit: mound Type of site: habitat Dimensions: 450 m x 300 m Description/Geographical location: Situated 1.5 km to the south of the old road from Raqqa to Deir ez-Zor, 25 km east of Raqqa and 350 m north of the Euphrates course. Currently it is used as a cemetery for the nearby town of Al Karama. Dating: Bronze Age, Roman C14: no References: Goto and Hasogawa 2007 First campaign: Survey, 12 August 2007 End: 16 August 2007 Duration: one survey season Archaeological expedition: Archaeological expedition: DGAM of Syria and the University of Kokushikan (Tokyo, Japan).

Figure 17. Location of Maqbarat al Karama.

19

The Fertile Desert

Figure 18. General view of Maqbarat al-Karama (photo by the author).

Figure 19. General view of Maqbarat al-Karama (photo by the author).

9. Maqbara Qadima Site name: Maqbara Qadima Site number: 9 Ancient toponym: unknown Altitude and longitude coordinates: 35°50’28.76”N 39°24’44.80”E Geomorphological unit: mound Type of site: unknown Dimensions: 325 m x 260 m Description/Geographical location: Located 1.8 km to the south of the old road from Raqqa to Deir ez-Zor, 37 km east of Raqqa and 1.9 km north of the Euphrates course. Dating: Bronze Age, Byzantine C14: no References: Goto and Hasogawa 2007 First campaign: Survey, 12 August 2007 End: 16 August 2007 Duration: one survey season Archaeological expedition: Archaeological expedition: DGAM of Syria and the University of Kokushikan (Tokyo, Japan). 20

Occupation of the territory and Catalogue of the studied sites

Figure 20. Location of Maqbarat al Karama.

Figure 21. General view of Maqbara Qadima (photo by the author).

Figure 23. Collection of superficial sherds (after Goto and Hasigawa 2007).

Figure 22. General view of Maqbara Qadima (photo by the author).

21

The Fertile Desert 10. Wadi Qutena Site name: Wadi Qutena Site number: 10 Ancient toponym: unknown Altitude and longitude coordinates: 35°46’36.98”N 39°19’7.16”E Geomorphological unit: valley Type of site: cemetery Dimensions: unknown Description/Geographical location: Located 200 m to the south of the Raqqa to Deir ez-Zor highway, 32 km east of Raqqa and 6.5 km south of the Euphrates course. Dating: Palaeolithic, the cemetery is Early Bronze Age. C14: no References: Al Khabour 2018: 161–191; Nishiaki 2008: 151–152; Nishaki 2010: 37–48 First campaign: 2008 End: 2009 Duration: three survey seasons Archaeological expedition: Archaeological expedition: DGAM of Syria and the University of Kokushikan (Tokyo, Japan).

Figure 24. Location of Wadi Qutena.

22

Occupation of the territory and Catalogue of the studied sites 11. Jibli Site name: Jibli Site number: 11 Ancient toponym: unknown Altitude and longitude coordinates: 35°46’52.47”N 39°19’42.57”E Geomorphological unit: high mound Type of site: prehistoric workshop Dimensions: unknown Description/Geographical location: Located 1.3 km to the south of the road of Raqqa to Deir ezZor, 32 km east of Raqqa and 6.2 km south of the Euphrates course. Dating: Palaeolithic C14: no References: Nishiaki 2008: 151–152; Nishaki 2010: 37–48 First campaign: 2008 End: 2009 Duration: three survey seasons Archaeological expedition: Archaeological expedition: DGAM of Syria and the University of Kokushikan (Tokyo, Japan).

Figure 25. Location of Jibli.

23

The Fertile Desert 12. Jibli 9 F Site name: Jibli 9F Site number: 12 Ancient toponym: unknown Altitude and longitude coordinates: 35°46’39.14”N 39°19’40.85”E Geomorphological unit: valley Type of site: cemetery Dimensions: unknown Description/Geographical location: Located 1.7 km to the south of the Raqqa to Deir ez-Zor road, 32.5 km east of Raqqa and 7.3 km south of the Euphrates course. Dating: Palaeolithic C14: no References: Nishiaki 2008: 151–152; Nishaki 2010: 37–48 First campaign: 2008 End: 2009 Duration: three survey seasons Archaeological expedition: Archaeological expedition: DGAM of Syria and the University of Kokushikan (Tokyo, Japan).

Figure 26. Location of Jibli 9F.

24

Occupation of the territory and Catalogue of the studied sites 13. Jibli 9E Site name: Jibli 9E Site number: 13 Ancient toponym: unknown Altitude and longitude coordinates: 35°46’34.02”N 39°19’46.97”E Geomorphological unit: valley Type of site: cemetery Dimensions: unknown Description/Geographical location: Located 1.7 km to the south of the Raqqa to Deir ez-Zor road, 32.5 km east of Raqqa and 7.4 km south of the Euphrates course. Dating: Early Bronze Age C14: no References: Nishiaki 2008: 151–152; Nishaki 2010: 37–48 First campaign: 2008 End: 2009 Duration: three survey seasons Archaeological expedition: Archaeological expedition: DGAM of Syria and the University of Kokushikan (Tokyo, Japan).

Figure 27. Location of Jibli 9E.

25

The Fertile Desert 14. Jibli 9D Site name: Jibli 9D Site number: 14 Ancient toponym: unknown Altitude and longitude coordinates: 35°46’23.40”N 39°19’45.66”E Geomorphological unit: valley Type of site: tumulus tombs Dimensions: unknown Description/Geographical location: Located 2.1 km to the south of the Raqqa to Deir ez-Zor road, 32.9 km east of Raqqa and 7.6 km south of the Euphrates course. Dating: Early Bronze Age C14: no References: Nishiaki 2008: 151–152; Nishaki 2010: 37–48 First campaign: 2008 End: 2009 Duration: three survey seasons Archaeological expedition: Archaeological expedition: DGAM of Syria and the University of Kokushikan (Tokyo, Japan).

Figure 28. Location of Jibli 9D.

26

Occupation of the territory and Catalogue of the studied sites

Figure 29. Tumulus tomb of Jibli 9D, view from the southeast (after Nishiaki 2009).

15. Wadi Aain Site name: Wadi Aain Site number: 15 Ancient toponym: unknown Altitude and longitude coordinates: 35°46’16.26”N 39°20’26.10”E Geomorphological unit: valley Type of site: cemetery Dimensions: unknown Description/Geographical location: Located 1.8 km to the south of the Raqqa to Deir ez-Zor road, 33 km east of Raqqa and 7.2 km south of the Euphrates course. Dating: Early Bronze Age C14: no References: Nishiaki 2008: 151–152; Nishaki 2010: 37–48 First campaign: 2008 End: 2009 Duration: three survey seasons Archaeological expedition: Archaeological expedition: DGAM of Syria and the University of Kokushikan (Tokyo, Japan).

27

The Fertile Desert

Figure 30. Location of Eadi Aain.

Figure 31. Tombs of Wadi Aain, view from the east (after Nishiaki 2009).

28

Occupation of the territory and Catalogue of the studied sites 16. Tell Hamadin Site name: Tell Hamadin Site number: 16 Ancient toponym: unknown Altitude and longitude coordinates: 35°47’29.68”N 39°21’11.00”E Geomorphological unit: mound Type of site: habitat Dimensions: 325 m x 160 m Description/Geographical location: Located 350 m to the south of the Raqqa to Deir ez-Zor road, 37 km east of Raqqa and 5 km south of the Euphrates course. Dating: Early Bronze Age, Late Bronze Age C14: no References: Goto and Hasogawa 2007; Kohlmeyer 1984: 95–118 First campaign: survey began August 12, 2007 End: 16 August 2007 Duration: one survey season Archaeological expedition: Archaeological expedition: DGAM of Syria and the University of Kokushikan (Tokyo, Japan).

Figure 32. Location of Tell Hamadin.

29

The Fertile Desert

Figure 33. Tell Hamadin, general view (after Goto and Hasigawa 2007).

Figure 34. Topographic plan of Tell Hamadin, general view (after Goto and Hasigawa 2007).

30

Occupation of the territory and Catalogue of the studied sites 17. Zor Shammar Foqani Site name: Zor Shammar Foqani Site number: 17 Ancient toponym: unknown Altitude and longitude coordinates: 35°46’10.99”N 39°21’20.35”E Geomorphological unit: valley Type of site: cemetery Dimensions: unknown Description/Geographical location: Located 2 km to the south of the Raqqa to Deir ez-Zor road, 35 km east of Raqqa and 6.5 km south of the Euphrates course. Dating: Palaeolithic C14: no References: Nishiaki 2008: 151–152; Nishaki 2010: 37–48 First campaign: 2008 End: 2009 Duration: three survey seasons Archaeological expedition: Archaeological expedition: DGAM of Syria and the University of Kokushikan (Tokyo, Japan).

Figure 35. Location of Zor Shammar Foqani.

31

The Fertile Desert 18. Wadi Ubeid Site name: Wadi Ubeid, Ubaid Site number: 18 Ancient toponym: unknown Altitude and longitude coordinates: 35°39’31.63”N 39°21’8.58”E Geomorphological unit: valley Type of site: temporary or seasonal workshop Dimensions: unknown Description/Geographical location: Located 14 km to the south of the Raqqa to Deir ez-Zor road, 42.5 km east of Raqqa and 16.5 km south of the Euphrates course. Dating: Neolithic PPNB C14: yes References: Nishiaki 2008: 151–152; Nishaki 2010: 37–48 First campaign: 2008 End: 2009 Duration: three survey seasons Archaeological expedition: Archaeological expedition: DGAM of Syria and the University of Kokushikan (Tokyo, Japan).

Figure 36. Location of Wadi Ubaid.

32

Occupation of the territory and Catalogue of the studied sites 19. Jabal Tbuq Site name: Jabal Tbuq Site number: 19 Ancient toponym: unknown Altitude and longitude coordinates: 35°18’20.58”N 39° 4’39.16”E Geomorphological unit: mound Type of site: habitat Dimensions: unknown Description/Geographical location: Situated in the Tar Sbaii area, 59 km to the south of the road Raqqa to Deir ez-Zor, 70 km east of Raqqa and 63.5 km south of the Euphrates course. In this area, the Finnish expedition also carried out surveys at Tar Sbaii. Dating: Palaeolithic, Neolithic PPNB C14: yes References: Lonnqvist et al. 2011; Nishiaki 2008: 151–152; Nishaki 2010: 37–48 First campaign: 2008 End: 2009 Duration: three survey seasons Archaeological expedition: Archaeological expedition: DGAM of Syria and the University of Kokushikan (Tokyo, Japan).

Figure 37. Location of Jabal Tbouq.

33

The Fertile Desert 20. Cairn fields northwest of Mt Bishri Site name: Rijum, cairn fields northwest of Mt Bishri Site number: 20 Ancient toponym: unknown Altitude and longitude coordinates: 35°24’59.91”N 39°10’0.05”E Geomorphological unit: tombs in an elevated area used as a cemetery Type of site: cemetery Dimensions: extends to cover area of 150 km² Description/Geographical location: The investigated area was divided into three areas, where c. 500 tumulus tombs extended through it. The diameter of the tombs is between 3 m and 12 m. In the area of Wadi al-Hajana a Neolithic PPNB settlement has been discovered. Dating: Neolithic PPNB, Middle Bronze Age C14: yes References: Al Khabour 2017: 79–89; Fuji and Adachi 2010: 61–77 First campaign: 2007 End: 2010 Duration: eight seasons Archaeological expedition: Archaeological expedition: DGAM of Syria and the University of Kokushikan (Tokyo, Japan).

Figure 38. Location of cairn fields M-W of Bishri Mountains

34

Occupation of the territory and Catalogue of the studied sites

Figure 39. Tumulus tomb of cairn fields (after Fuji and Adachi 2010).

Figure 40. Bromze pin from a tomb of cairn fields (after Fuji and Adachi 2010).

Figure 41. Pendant and beads from a tomb of cairn fields (after Fuji and Adachi 2010).

21. Wadi Kharrar Site name: Wadi Kharrar Site number: 21 Ancient toponym: unknown Altitude and longitude coordinates: 35°45’56.59”N 39°22’48.87”E Geomorphological unit: valley Type of site: habitat Dimensions: extends up to 20 km² Description/Geographical location: Located 1750 m to the south of the Raqqa to Deir ez-Zor road, 40 km east of Raqqa and 5 km south of the Euphrates course. Dating: Palaeolithic C14: yes References: Nishiaki 2008: 151–152; Nishaki 2010: 37–48; Al Khabour 2018: 161–191 First campaign: 2008 End: 2009 Duration: three survey seasons Archaeological expedition: Archaeological expedition: DGAM of Syria and the University of Kokushikan (Tokyo, Japan). 35

The Fertile Desert

Figure 42. Location of Wadi Kharrar.

Figure 43. Wadi Kharrar, general view (after Nishiaki 2009).

Figure 44. Wadi Kharrar, lithic artifacts (after Nishiaki 2009).

Figure 45. Wadi Kharrar, Middle Paleolithic instruments (after Nishiaki 2009).

36

Occupation of the territory and Catalogue of the studied sites 22. Cemetery of Wadi Dabaa Site name: Wadi Dabaa Site number: 22 Ancient toponym: unknown Altitude and longitude coordinates: 35°46’25.34”N 39°24’46.01”E Geomorphological unit: valley Type of site: cemetery Dimensions: unknown Description/Geographical location: Located 300 m to the south of the Raqqa to Deir ez-Zor road, 41 km east of Raqqa and 3 km south of the Euphrates course. It consists of a series of cist-type tombs, which probably constituted the cemetery of the ancient town of Tell Ghanem al-Ali. Dating: Early Bronze Age C14: yes References: Nishaki 2010: 37–48. Numoto and Kume 2010: 49–60 First campaign: 2008 End: 2009 Duration: three survey seasons. Archaeological expedition: Archaeological expedition: DGAM of Syria and the University of Kokushikan (Tokyo, Japan).

Figure 46. Location of Wadi Dabaa.

37

The Fertile Desert

Figure 47. Cemetery of Wadi Dabaa (after Numoto and Kume 2010).

Figure 48. Pottery sherds from Wadi Dabaa (after Numoto and Kume 2010).

23. Cemetery of Abu Hamad Site name: Abu Hamad Site number: 23 Ancient toponym: unknown Altitude and longitude coordinates: 35°45’51.96”N 39°24’41.15”E Geomorphological unit: Upper terrace of the river Type of site: cemetery Dimensions: 2 km x 1.5 km Description/Geographical location: Located 1.3 km to the south of the Raqqa to Deir ez-Zor road, 42 km east of Raqqa and 3.85 km south of the Euphrates course. The tombs are spread out in a very dispersed way, and they are of different types: pit tomb, stone cist or pit tomb with stone cover. There are more than 300 tombs of different types in an area of 3 km2. Dating: Early Bronze Age and Akkadian (probable) C14: yes References: Meyer and Al-Khalaf 1993: 196–200; Meyer et al. 2005. Meyer 2010: 155-163; Ohnuma and Al Khabour 2008: 134–149 First campaign: 1990 End: 1990 Duration: six-week excavation season Archaeological expedition: DGAM Syria and the University of Saarbrücken (Germany). 38

Occupation of the territory and Catalogue of the studied sites

Figure 49. Location of Abu Hamad.

Figure 50. Cemetery of Abu Hamad (after Meyer 2010).

Figure 51. Pottery sherds from Abu Hamad (after Ohnuma and Al Khabour, 2008).

39

The Fertile Desert 24. Cemetery of Wadi Shabout Site name: Cemetery of Wadi Shabout Site number: 24 Ancient toponym: unknown Altitude and longitude coordinates: 35°46’5.41”N 39°25’1.65”E Geomorphological unit: valley Type of site: cemetery Dimensions: unknown Description/Geographical location: Located 750 m to the south of the Raqqa to Deir ez-Zor road, 42 km east of Raqqa and 3.4 km south of the Euphrates course. It is a cemetery with tombs in the shape of mounds, large quantities of flint were documented at the site. Dating: Early Bronze Age, Middle Bronze Age C14: yes References: Nishaki 2010: 37–48; Numoto and Kume 2010: 49–60 First campaign: 2008 End: 2009 Duration: three survey seasons. Archaeological expedition: Archaeological expedition: DGAM of Syria and the University of Kokushikan (Tokyo, Japan).

Figure 52. Location of Wadi Shabout.

40

Occupation of the territory and Catalogue of the studied sites

Figure 53. Cemetery of Wadi Shabout (after Numoto and Kume 2010).

Figure 54. Pottery from Wadi Shabout (after Numoto and Kume 2010).

25. Tell Ghanem al-Ali Site name: Tell Ghanem al-Ali Site number: 25 Ancient toponym: unknown Altitude and longitude coordinates: 35°46’40.76”N 39°25’13.92”E Geomorphological unit: mound Type of site: habitat Dimensions: 330 m x 300 m Description/Geographical location: It is located 150 m to the north of the Raqqa to Deir ez-Zor road, 41 km east of Raqqa and 2.4 km south of the Euphrates course. Dating: Early Bronze Age, Middle Bronze Age C14: yes References: Ohnuma and Al Khabour 2008: 134–149; Al Khabour 2012: 259–266 First campaign: first survey, 15 January 2007. End: 2011 Duration: 16 excavation seasons. Archaeological expedition: Archaeological expedition: DGAM of Syria and the University of Kokushikan (Tokyo, Japan). 41

The Fertile Desert

Figure 55. Location of Tell Ghanem al- Ali.

Figure 56. Pottery from Tell Ghanem al-Ali (after Al Khabour 2012).

42

Occupation of the territory and Catalogue of the studied sites 26. Cemetery of Wadi Jazla Site name: Wadi Jazla Site number: 26 Ancient toponym: unknown Altitude and longitude coordinates: 35°45’42.45”N 39°26’29.76”E Geomorphological unit: valley Type of site: cemetery Dimensions: unknown Description/Geographical location: Located 1.25 km to the south of the Raqqa to Deir ez-Zor highway, 44 km east of Raqqa and 4.2 km south of the Euphrates course. It is a small mound, located in the western part of the valley (wadi), 3 km southeast of Tell Ghanem al-Ali. Apparently, this small tell was part of a settlement that extended to the east, where the Romans built a citadel. Dating: Early Bronze Age, Middle Bronze Age, Roman and Islamic periods C14: yes References: Nishaki 2010: 37–48; Numoto and Kume 2010: 49–60 First campaign: 2008 End: 2009 Duration: three survey seasons Archaeological expedition: Archaeological expedition: DGAM of Syria and the University of Kokushikan (Tokyo, Japan).

Figure 57. Location of Wadi Jazla.

43

The Fertile Desert

Figure 58. Cemetery of Wadi Jazla (after Numoto and Kume 2010).

Figure 59. Pottery sherds from Wadi Jazla (after Numoto and Kume 2010).

27. Tell Mugla as-Sagir (Tell Beitha) Site name: Tell Mugla as-Sagir o Tell Beitha Site number: 27 Ancient toponym: unknown Altitude and longitude coordinates: 35°46’2.31”N 39°28’49.63”E Geomorphological unit: mound Type of site: habitat Dimensions: 220 m x 220 m Description/Geographical location: Located 275 m to the south of the Raqqa to Deir ez-Zor road, 46 km east of Raqqa and 3.65 km south of the Euphrates course. To the south of the site there is a large rectangular depression, located at the northern end of the plateau, south of the Mughla Saghira village. The southern and eastern slopes of the depression are covered with pit tombs. Dating: Early Bronze Age C14: yes References: Nishaki 2010: 37–48; Kohlmeyer 1986: 111 First campaign: the survey started 12 August 2007 End: 16 August 2007 Duration: one survey season Archaeological expedition: Archaeological expedition: DGAM of Syria and the University of Kokushikan (Tokyo, Japan). 44

Occupation of the territory and Catalogue of the studied sites

Figure 60. Location of Tell Mughla as-Saghir (Betha).

Figure 61. Location of Tell Mughla as-Saghir General view (after Goto and Hasigawa 2007).

45

The Fertile Desert 28. Tell Beilouni Site name: Tell Beilouni Site number: 28 Ancient toponym: unknown Altitude and longitude coordinates: 35°45’18.24”N 39°31’4.11”E Geomorphological unit: mound Type of site: cemetery and workshop to reproduce flint Dimensions: 330 m x 300 m Description/Geographical location: Located 1.25 km to the south of the Raqqa to Deir ez-Zor road, 50 km east of Raqqa and 5 km south of the Euphrates course. It was an important source of flint. Additionally, a group of tumulus tombs was documented in the area, more than 100 small ones with dimensions between 2 m and 3 m in diameter and 1m in height, built with gypsum stone, including their interior walls. Other larger burial mounds were documented and measure 35 m x10 m and 2 m height. Dating: Palaeolithic, Neolithic PPNA and Early Bronze Age C14: yes References: Nishaki 2010: 37–48 First campaign: 2008 End: 2009 Duration: three survey seasons Archaeological expedition: Archaeological expedition: DGAM of Syria and the University of Kokushikan (Tokyo, Japan).

Figure 62. Location of Tell Beilouni.

46

Occupation of the territory and Catalogue of the studied sites

Figure 63. Tombs around Tell Beilouni (after Nishiaki 2010).

29. Tell Sheikh Mousa Site name: Tell Sheikh Mousa Site number: 29 Ancient toponym: unknown Altitude and longitude coordinates: 35°48’33.57”N 39°34’38.88”E Geomorphological unit: mound Type of site: cemetery Dimensions: 450 m x 200 m Description/Geographical location: Located 675 m to the south of the old road from Raqqa to Deir ez-Zor, 52 km east of Raqqa and 2.3 km north of the Euphrates course, south of Al-Hawas village. Dating: Early Bronze Age C14: no References: Goto and Hasogawa 2007 First campaign: survey, 12 August 2007 End: 16 August 2007 Duration: one survey season Archaeological expedition: Archaeological expedition: DGAM of Syria and the University of Kokushikan (Tokyo, Japan).

47

The Fertile Desert

Figure 64. Location of Tell Sheikh Mousa.

Figure 65. General view (photo of the author).

Figure 66. Collection of superficial sherds (after Goto and Hasigawa 2007).

48

Occupation of the territory and Catalogue of the studied sites 30. Tell Sweda Site name: Tell Sweda Site number: 30 Ancient toponym: unknown Altitude and longitude coordinates: 35°45’46.00”N 39°37’25.97”E Geomorphological unit: mound Type of site: habitat Dimensions: 350 m x 250 m Description/Geographical location: Situated 730 m to the north of the Raqqa to Deir ez-Zor road, 58 km east of Raqqa and 2.3 km south of the Euphrates course, north of the town of Maadan. Dating: Early Bronze Age C14: no References: Goto and Hasogawa 2007 First campaign: Survey, 12 August 2007 End: 16 August 2007 Duration: one survey season Archaeological expedition: Archaeological expedition: DGAM of Syria and the University of Kokushikan (Tokyo, Japan).

Figure 67. Location of Tell Sweda.

49

The Fertile Desert

Figure 68. General view (after Goto and Hasigawa 2007).

31. Tell al-Maqam Site name: Tell al-Maqam Site number: 31 Ancient toponym: unknown Altitude and longitude coordinates: 35°47’27.49”N 39°38’45.59”E Geomorphological unit: mound Type of site: habitat Dimensions: 210 m x 110 m Description/Geographical location: Located 350 m from the course of the Euphrates River, 65 km from Deir ez-Zor, and 58 km from Raqqa. Dating: New Assyrian C14: no References: Kohlmeyer 1984: 110–114 First campaign: 1983 End: 1983 Duration: ten weeks Archaeological expedition: German survey by K. Kohlmeyer.

50

Occupation of the territory and Catalogue of the studied sites

Figure 69. Location of Tell Maqam.

Figure 70. Pottery from Tell Al- Maqam (after Kohlmeyer 1984: 114).

51

The Fertile Desert 32. Tell Saghir Site name: Tell Saghir Site number: 32 Ancient toponym: unknown Altitude and longitude coordinates: 35°45’31.75”N 39°40’28.84”E Geomorphological unit: mound Type of site: habitat Dimensions: 75 m x 50 m Description/Geographical location: Located 2 km to the north of the Raqqa to Deir ez-Zor highway, 65 km east of Raqqa and 1.2 km south of the Euphrates course. It is a small mound. Dating: Early Bronze Age C14: no References: Goto and Hasogawa 2007 First campaign: survey, 12 August 2007 End: 16 August 2007 Duration: one survey season Archaeological expedition: Archaeological expedition: DGAM of Syria and the University of Kokushikan (Tokyo, Japan).

Figure 71. Location of Tell Saghir.

52

Occupation of the territory and Catalogue of the studied sites

Figure 72. General view (after Goto and Hasigawa 2007).

33. Tell Ahmar Site name: Tell Ahmar, Tell Maadan Atiq Site number: 33 Ancient toponym: unknown Altitude and longitude coordinates: 35°45’19.25”N 39°40’32.08”E Geomorphological unit: mound Type of site: habitat Dimensions: 350 m x 250 m Description/Geographical location: Located 1.5 km to the north of the Raqqa to Deir ez-Zor highway, 65 km east of Raqqa and 1.6 km south of the Euphrates course and 300 m south of Tell Saghir, between the villages of Maadan and Qsubi. It is a small mound. Dating: Early Bronze Age C14: no References: Goto and Hasogawa 2007; Kohlmeyer 1984: 110 First campaign: survey, 12 August 2007 End: 16 August 2007 Duration: one survey season Archaeological expedition: Archaeological expedition: DGAM of Syria and the University of Kokushikan (Tokyo, Japan).

53

The Fertile Desert

Figure 73. Location of Tell Ahmar.

Figure 74. General view (after Goto and Hasigawa 2007).

54

Occupation of the territory and Catalogue of the studied sites 34. Tell Humeida Site name: Tell Humeida, Tell al-Fakhar Site number: 34 Ancient toponym: unknown Altitude and longitude coordinates: 35°45’50.35”N 39°41’53.04”E Geomorphological unit: mound Type of site: habitat Dimensions: 300 m x 300 m Description/Geographical location: Located 3 km to the south of the old road from Raqqa to Deir ez-Zor, 60 km east of Raqqa and 100 m north of the Euphrates course. Dating: Ubaid, Ururk, Byzantine C14: yes References: Montero Fenollés 2011: 205–216 First campaign: 2006–2009 and survey in 2011 End: 2011 Duration: one survey season Archaeological expedition: DGAM of Syria and the University of La Coruña (Spain).

Figure 75. Location of Tell Humeida.

55

The Fertile Desert

Figure 76. General view (after Montero 2011)

Figure 77. Pottery from Tell Humeitha (after Montero 2011).

35. Wadi Abu Shahri Site name: Wadi Abu Shahri Site number: 35 Ancient toponym: unknown Altitude and longitude coordinates: 35°43’0.00”N 39°42’0.00”E Geomorphological unit: valley Type of site: habitat Dimensions: unknown Description/Geographical location: Located 2 km to the south of the road from Raqqa to Deir ezZor, 5 km before the village of Qsubi, 65 km from Raqqa, 3 km south of the Euphrates course, and 58 km from Deir ez-Zor. Dating: Palaeolithic C14: yes References: Borrel 2010: 117–128; Kohlmeyer 1984: 95–118; Muhesen 1992: 247–303 First campaign: survey in 1976 End: 1980 Duration: four survey seasons Archaeological expedition: French expedition directed by P. Sanlaville.

56

Occupation of the territory and Catalogue of the studied sites

Figure 78. Location of Wadi Abu Shahri.

36. Tell Qabr Abu al-Atiq Site name: Tell Qabr Abu al-Atiq, Tell Abu shams Site number: 36 Ancient toponym: unknown Altitude and longitude coordinates: 35°45’51.26”N 39°46’54.58”E Geomorphological unit: mound Type of site: habitat Dimensions: 90 m x 80 m Description/Geographical location: Located 1.3 km to the south of the old road from Raqqa to Deir ez-Zor 70 km east of Raqqa, 56 km from Dei ez-Zor, and 1.15 km north of the Euphrates course. It was mentioned by the first travelers, such as Sachau, Sarre, Herzfeld and others. It consists of a main mound (acropolis) and a lower city. The latest excavations showed that the site was an Assyrian period settlement. Dating: Uruk, Early Bronze Age, Middle Bronze Age, Late Bronze Age and Islamic. C14: yes References: Montero et al. 2009: 191–199; Montero et al. 2010: 73–84; Montero et al. 2011: 267–278 First campaign: 2005 End: 2011 Duration: six seasons, open project Archaeological expedition: DGAM of Syria and the University of La Coruña (Spain).

57

The Fertile Desert

Figure 79. Location of Tell Qabr Abu al-Atiq.

Figure 80. General view of Tell Qabr Abu al-Atiq (after Montero et al. 2010).

58

Occupation of the territory and Catalogue of the studied sites

Figure 81. Repertoire of Middle Assyrian pottery (after Montero et al. 2010).

Figure 82. Cuneiform tablets from Tell Qabr Abu al-Atiq (after Montero et al. 2010).

37. Tell Qsubi -Tell Qalaa Site name: Tell Qsubi o Tell Qalaa Site number: 37 Ancient toponym: unknown Altitude and longitude coordinates: 35°44’20.34”N 39°45’51.69”E Geomorphological unit: mound Type of site: habitat Dimensions: 450 m x 230 m Description/Geographical location: Situated just to the north of the Raqqa to Deir ez-Zor highway, 70 km east of Raqqa and 250 m south of the Euphrates course. In the north of the town called Al-Qsubi. 56 km from Deir ez-Zor. It was mentioned by Gaspar Balbi in his book: Viaggio dell’Indie Orientali (1923). It was also mentioned by Sarre and Herzfeld as well as Laufray. There is a rectangular structure with numerous rooms on the mound. Dating: Early Bronze Age, Middle Bronze Age C14: yes References: Montero 2009: 123–145; Sanjurjo et al. 2008: 21–29 First campaign: 2005, emergency excavation 12 August 2010 End: 2007, emergency excavation 21 August 2010 Duration: two years; one season of emergency excavation Archaeological expedition: DGAM of Syria and the University of La Coruña (Spain). University of Chicago (USA) for emergency excavation. 59

The Fertile Desert

Figure 83. Location of Tell Qsubi.

Figure 84. General view of Tell Qsubi (photo by the author).

Figure 85. General view of Tell Qsubi (photo by the author).

60

Occupation of the territory and Catalogue of the studied sites 38. Tomb of Qsubi Site name: Tomb of Qsubi Site number: 38 Ancient toponym: unknown Altitude and longitude coordinates: 35°43’53.89”N 39°45’49.40”E Geomorphological unit: cemetery in the mound Type of site: cemetery Dimensions: 8.91 m x 6.92 m Description/Geographical location: The tomb located in the southern part of the modern town of Qsubi, on the side of the mound overlooking the Euphrates, 200 m from the river. Some 59 km to the west of Deir ez-Zor. It consists of an oval-shaped square with a diameter of 8 m, the entrance measures 122 cm in width; the tomb contains three niches linked to each other. The tomb has suffered destruction due to illegal excavations carried out in the tomb and by the water from tree irrigation just above the tomb. Dating: Early Bronze Age (2450–2100 BCE) C14: no References: Alachkar and Showhan 2019: 273–292 First campaign: 2009 End: 2009 Duration: one season of emergency excavation Archaeological expedition: DGAM of Syria.

Figure 86. Location of Qsubi tomb.

61

The Fertile Desert 39. Qleb al Hemma 13.1 Site name: Qleb al Hemma 13.1, Gleb al Hemma 13.1 Site number: 39 Ancient toponym: unknown Altitude and longitude coordinates: 35°42’30.45”N 39°47’10.58”E Geomorphological unit: large mound Type of site: cemetery Dimensions: unknown Description/Geographical location: Situated on the mound of Qleb el Hemma, 1.5 km north of the Raqqa to Deir ez-Zor road, 47 km from Deir ez-Zor, and 71 km from Raqqa, right on the bank of the Euphrates. It consists of tombs built by basalt stones that form an oval-shaped space with diameters between 4 m and 7 m, there is a dense presence of lithic artifacts as well as ceramics dating back to the 3rd millennium BC. The delimitations could belong to burial tombs (tumulus). Dating: Prehistory, 3rd millennium BCE C14: no References: Al Maqdissi 2011 First campaign: survey 2011 End: 2011 Duration: one survey season Archaeological expedition: DGAM of Syria, directed by M. Al Maqdissi.

Figure 87. Location of Qleb al Hemma 13.1

62

Occupation of the territory and Catalogue of the studied sites

Figure 88. Qleb al Hemma 13.1.

40. Qleb al Hemma 13.3 Site name: Qleb el Hemma 13.3, Gleb al Hemma Site number: 40 Ancient toponym: unknown Altitude and longitude coordinates: 35°42’10.34”N 39°47’30.27”E Geomorphological unit: large mound Type of site: camp or workshop Dimensions: unknown Description/Geographical location: Situated on the mound of Qleb el Hemma, 1.5 km north of the Raqqa to Deir ez-Zor road, 47 km from Deir ez-Zor, and 71 km from Raqqa, right on the bank of the Euphrates. It consists of temporary or seasonal prehistoric camps. The structures are united and built from basalt in simple structure. Dating: Prehistory C14: no References: Al Maqdissi 2011 First campaign: survey 2011 End: 2011 Duration: one survey season Archaeological expedition: DGAM of Syria, directed by M. Al Maqdissi.

63

The Fertile Desert

Figure 89. Location of Qleb al Hemma 13.3.

Figure 90. Location of Qleb al Hemma 13.3.

64

Occupation of the territory and Catalogue of the studied sites 41. Qleb al Hemma 13.4 Site name: Qleb el Hemma 13.4, Gleb al Hemma 13.4 Site number: 41 Ancient toponym: unknown Altitude and longitude coordinates: 35°40’8.67”N 39°48’13.21”E Geomorphological unit: large mound Type of site: camp, habitat Dimensions: unknown Description/Geographical location: Situated on the mound of Qleb el Hemma, 1.5 km north of the Raqqa to Deir ez-Zor road, 47 km from Deir ez-Zor, and 71 km from Raqqa, right on the bank of the Euphrates. It consists of structures in form of rectangular units, there is evidence of lithic artifacts, indicating a prehistoric camp. Dating: Prehistory C14: no References: Al Maqdissi 2011 First campaign: survey 2011 End: 2011 Duration: one survey season Archaeological expedition: DGAM of Syria, directed by M. Al Maqdissi.

Figure 91. Location of Qleb al Hemma 13.4.

65

The Fertile Desert 42. Qleb al Hemma 13.5 Site name: Qleb el Hemma 13.5, Gleb al Hemma 13.5 Site number: 42 Ancient toponym: unknown Altitude and longitude coordinates: 35°40’26.04”N 39°47’47.43”E Geomorphological unit: large mound Type of site: camp, habitat Dimensions: unknown Description/Geographical location: Situated on the mound of Qleb el Hemma, 1.5 km north of the Raqqa to Deir ez-Zor road, 47 km from Deir ez-Zor, and 71 km from Raqqa, right on the bank of the Euphrates. It is a prehistoric temporary camp, rectangular in form, 60 m x 40 m. In the centre there are structures built from basalt, related probably to the function of housing animals. Dating: Prehistory C14: no References: Al Maqdissi 2011 First campaign: survey 2011 End: 2011 Duration: one survey season Archaeological expedition: DGAM of Syria, directed by M. Al Maqdissi.

Figure 92. Location of Qleb al Hemma 13.5.

66

Occupation of the territory and Catalogue of the studied sites 43. Qleb al Hemma 13.6 Site name: Qleb el Hemma 13.6, Gleb el Hemma 13.6 Site number: 43 Ancient toponym: unknown Altitude and longitude coordinates: 35°40’36.02”N 39°47’30.44”E Geomorphological unit: large mound Type of site: habitat Dimensions: unknown Description/Geographical location: Situated on the mound of Qleb el Hemma, 1.5 km north of the Raqqa to Deir ez-Zor road, 47 km from Deir ez-Zor, and 71 km from Raqqa, right on the bank of the Euphrates. It is near to the top of the mound. It is a prehistoric camp and has a triangular form, 70 m x 40 m. Dating: Prehistory C14: no References: Al Maqdissi 2011 First campaign: survey 2011 End: 2011 Duration: one survey season Archaeological expedition: DGAM of Syria, directed by M. Al Maqdissi.

Figure 93. Location of Qleb al Hemma 13.6.

67

The Fertile Desert

Figure 94. Qleb al Hemma 13.6.

44. Qleb al Hemma 13.7 Site name: Qleb el Hemma 13.7, Gleb al Hemma 13.7 Site number: 44 Ancient toponym: unknown Altitude and longitude coordinates: 35°40’40.82”N 39°47’17.50”E Geomorphological unit: large mound Type of site: cemetery or store place Dimensions: unknown Description/Geographical location: Situated on the mound of Qleb el Hemma, 1.5 km north of the Raqqa to Deir ez-Zor road, 47 km from Deir ez-Zor, and 71 km from Raqqa, right on the bank of the Euphrates. Consists of a dense grouping of basalt units of different oval and circular shapes. Perhaps they had a funeral function, or they were used for storage. There is a considerable presence of lithic artifacts. Dating: Prehistory C14: no References: Al Maqdissi 2011 First campaign: survey 2011 End: 2011 Duration: one survey season Archaeological expedition: DGAM of Syria, directed by M. Al Maqdissi.

68

Occupation of the territory and Catalogue of the studied sites

Figure 95. Qleb al Hemma 13.7.

45. Qleb al Hemma 13.8 Site name: Qleb el Hemma 13.8, Gleb al Hemma 13.8 Site number: 45 Ancient toponym: unknown Altitude and longitude coordinates: 35°41’4.90”N 39°47’11.11”E Geomorphological unit: large mound Type of site: camp, habitat Dimensions: unknown Description/Geographical location: Situated on the mound of Qleb el Hemma, 1.5 km north of the Raqqa to Deir ez-Zor road, 47 km from Deir ez-Zor, and 71 km from Raqqa, right on the bank of the Euphrates. There are circular structures (8 – 11m in diameter), with no structures inside. The distance between these structures is 40 m. There is evidence of lithic artifacts. Dating: Prehistory C14: no References: Al Maqdissi 2011 First campaign: survey 2011 End: 2011 Duration: one survey season Archaeological expedition: DGAM of Syria, directed by M. Al Maqdissi.

69

The Fertile Desert

Figure 96. Qleb al Hemma 13.8.

Figure 97. Qleb al Hemma 13.8.

70

Occupation of the territory and Catalogue of the studied sites 46. Qleb al Hemma 13.12 Site name: Qleb el Hemma 13.12, Gleb el Hemma 13.12 Site number: 46 Ancient toponym: unknown Altitude and longitude coordinates: 35°41’7.52”N 39°49’10.90”E Geomorphological unit: large mound Type of site: habitat Dimensions: unknown Description/Geographical location: Situated on the mound of Qleb el Hemma, 1.5 km north of the Raqqa to Deir ez-Zor road, 47 km from Deir ez-Zor, and 71 km from Raqqa, right on the bank of the Euphrates. It was mentioned by Laufray (1983) as a fortified building 40 m x 40 m, with semicircular towers at the corners. There is a distinct presence of lithic artifacts. Dating: Prehistory C14: no References: Al Maqdissi 2011 First campaign: survey 2011 End: 2011 Duration: one survey season Archaeological expedition: DGAM of Syria, directed by M. Al Maqdissi.

Figure 98. Qleb al Hemma 13.12.

71

The Fertile Desert

Figure 99. Qleb al Hemma 13.12.

47. Qleb al Hemma 13.13 Site name: Qleb el Hemma 13.13, Gleb al Hemma 13.13 Site number: 47 Ancient toponym: unknown Altitude and longitude coordinates: 35°41’15.97”N 39°49’3.97”E Geomorphological unit: large mound Type of site: habitat Dimensions: unknown Description/Geographical location: Situated on the mound of Qleb el Hemma, 1.5 km north of the Raqqa to Deir ez-Zor road, 47 km from Deir ez-Zor, and 71 km from Raqqa, right on the bank of the Euphrates. It has an oval shape, inside there are basalt structures, perhaps ovens or places to light fires. There are lithic artifacts. Dating: Prehistory C14: no References: Al Maqdissi 2011 First campaign: survey 2011 End: 2011 Duration: one survey season Archaeological expedition: DGAM of Syria, directed by Michael Al Maqdissi.

72

Occupation of the territory and Catalogue of the studied sites

Figure 100. Qleb al Hemma 13.13.

Figure 101. Qleb al Hemma 13.13.

73

The Fertile Desert 48. Qleb al Hemma 13.14 Site name: Qleb el Hemma 13.14, Gleb al Hemma 13.14 Site number: 48 Ancient toponym: unknown Altitude and longitude coordinates: 35°41’7.09”N 39°48’46.45”E Geomorphological unit: large mound Type of site: habitat Dimensions: unknown Description/Geographical location: Situated on the mound of Qleb el Hemma, 1.5 km north of the Raqqa to Deir ez-Zor road, 47 km from Deir ez-Zor, and 71 km from Raqqa, right on the bank of the Euphrates. It has a rectangular shape, 40 m x 30 m; there is slight evidence of lithic artifacts. Dating: Prehistory C14: no References: Al Maqdissi 2011 First campaign: survey 2011 End: 2011 Duration: one survey season Archaeological expedition: DGAM of Syria, directed by Michael Al Maqdissi.

Figure 102. Qleb al Hemma 13.14.

74

Occupation of the territory and Catalogue of the studied sites

Figure 103. Qleb al Hemma 13.14.

49. Qleb al Hemma 13.17 Site name: Qleb el Hemma 13.17, Gleb al Hemma 13.17 Site number: 49 Ancient toponym: unknown Altitude and longitude coordinates: 35°39’11.21”N 39°44’45.15”E Geomorphological unit: large mound Type of site: camp, habitat Dimensions: unknown Description/Geographical location: Situated on the mound of Qleb el Hemma, 1.5 km north of the Raqqa to Deir ez-Zor road, 47 km from Deir ez-Zor, and 71 km from Raqqa, right on the bank of the Euphrates. It consists of groups of temporary installations, almost rectangular in shape, measuring 50 m x 30 m. These facilities could be important to the site’s organization. Dating: Prehistory C14: no References: Al Maqdissi 2011 First campaign: survey 2011 End: 2011 Duration: one survey season Archaeological expedition: DGAM of Syria, directed by M. Al Maqdissi.

75

The Fertile Desert

Figure 104. Qleb al Hemma 13.17.

Figure 105. Qleb al Hemma 13.17.

76

Occupation of the territory and Catalogue of the studied sites 50. Qleb al Hemma 13.18 Site name: Qleb el Hemma 13.18 Site number: 50 Ancient toponym: unknown Altitude and longitude coordinates: 35°39’9.53”N 39°44’50.11”E Geomorphological unit: large mound Type of site: camp, habitat Dimensions: unknown Description/Geographical location: Situated on the mound of Qleb el Hemma, 1.5 km north of the Raqqa to Deir ez-Zor road, 47 km from Deir ez-Zor, and 71 km from Raqqa, right on the bank of the Euphrates. It consists of an oval space with a diameter of 30 m. Its exact function is not known, perhaps it was a prehistoric camp. Lithic artifacts are distributed on the surface. Likewise, there is evidence of Byzantine ceramics. Dating: Prehistory, Byzantine C14: no References: Al Maqdissi 2011 First campaign: survey 2011 End: 2011 Duration: one survey season. Archaeological expedition: DGAM of Syria, directed by M. Al Maqdissi.

Figure 106. Qleb al Hemma 13.18.

77

The Fertile Desert 51. Qleb al Hemma 13.27 Site name: Qleb el Hemma 13.27, Gleb el Hemma 13.27 Site number: 51 Ancient toponym: unknown Altitude and longitude coordinates: 35°40’7.08”N 39°45’3.88”E Geomorphological unit: large mound Type of site: habitat Dimensions: unknown Description/Geographical location: Situated on the mound of Qleb el Hemma, 1.5 km north of the Raqqa to Deir ez-Zor road, 47 km from Deir ez-Zor, and 71 km from Raqqa, right on the bank of the Euphrates. It is a small mound, containing basalt units, it is difficult to relate them to a clear architectural unit. The collected pottery belonged to the Early Bronze Age. The only fragment of decorated pottery corresponds to a small container. Dating: Early Bronze Age III, IV C14: no References: Al Maqdissi 2011 First campaign: survey 2011 End: 2011 Duration: one survey season. Archaeological expedition: DGAM of Syria, directed by M. Al Maqdissi.

Figure 107. Qleb al Hemma 13.27.

78

Occupation of the territory and Catalogue of the studied sites

Figure 108. Qleb al Hemma 13.27.

52. Qleb al Hemma 13.30 Site name: Qleb el Hemma 13.30 Site number: 52 Ancient toponym: unknown Altitude and longitude coordinates: 35°39’37.77”N 39°44’33.74”E Geomorphological unit: large mound Type of site: camp, habitat Dimensions: unknown Description/Geographical location: Situated on the mound of Qleb el Hemma, 1.5 km north of the Raqqa to Deir ez-Zor road, 47 km from Deir ez-Zor, and 71 km from Raqqa, right on the bank of the Euphrates. The camp is quite large, but it was difficult to determine its exact architecture. It extends over 50 m2. There is evidence of prehistoric lithic artifacts. Dating: Prehistory C14: no References: Al Maqdissi 2011 First campaign: survey 2011 End: 2011 Duration: one survey season. Archaeological expedition: DGAM of Syria, directed by M. Al Maqdissi.

79

The Fertile Desert

Figure 109. Qleb al Hemma 13.30.

Figure 110. Qleb al Hemma 13.30.

80

Occupation of the territory and Catalogue of the studied sites 53. Tell Tibni Site name: Tell Tebeni Site number: 53 Ancient toponym: unknown Altitude and longitude coordinates: 35°37’2.45”N 39°49’7.36”E Geomorphological unit: large mound Type of site: habitat Dimensions: 200 m x 150 m Description/Geographical location: Located 130 m to the north of the road from Raqqa to Deir ezZor, 82 km east of Raqqa, 43 km from Deir ez-Zor, and c. 1 km south of the course of the Euphrates, in the village of Tebni. It was visited by Laufray. It contains remains from different eras. Dating: Palaeolithic, Neolithic, Uruk, Middle Bronze Age, classical and Islamic eras C14: yes References: Besançon and Sanlaville 1981: 5–18; Lonnqvist et al. 2011: 218-225; Montero 2009: 123– 145 First campaign: 2007 End: 2008 Duration: two seasons Archaeological expedition: Syrian-Spanish archaeological expedition: DGAM of Syria and the University of La Coruña (Spain). The Finnish Bishri expedition surveyed the site in 2005.

Figure 111. Location of Tell Tebni.

81

The Fertile Desert

Figure 112. General view of Tell Tebni (photo by the author).

Figure 113. General view (photo by the author).

54. Tell Abu Makiya Site name: Tell Abu Makiya, Tell Abu Machiya Site number: 54 Ancient toponym: unknown Altitude and longitude coordinates: 35°37’40.97”N 39°50’32.65”E Geomorphological unit: mound Type of site: habitat Dimensions: 130 m x 105 m Description/Geographical location: Situated to the southwest of the ancient road from Raqqa to Deir ez-Zor, 2.5 km south of the village of Halabya, and 80 km from Raqqa, 620 m north of the Euphrates course, and 40 km from Deir ez-Zor. Dating: Middle Bronze Age C14: yes References: Sanjurjo et al. 2008: 21–29 First campaign: 2005 End: 2007 Duration: two seasons Archaeological expedition: Syrian-Spanish archaeological expedition: DGAM of Syria and the University of La Coruña (Spain).

82

Occupation of the territory and Catalogue of the studied sites

Figure 114. Location of Tell Abu Makiya.

Figure 115. General view of Tell Abu Makiya (after Sanjuro et al. 2009).

83

Figure 116. Pottery from Tell Abu Makiya (after Sanjuro et al. 2009).

The Fertile Desert 55. Tell Abu Fahd Site name: Tell Abu Fahd Site number: 55 Ancient toponym: unknown Altitude and longitude coordinates: 35°35’6.74”N 39°55’4.74”E Geomorphological unit: mound Type of site: habitat Dimensions: 390 m x 100 m Description/Geographical location: Located 1.75 km to the south of the old road from Raqqa to Deir ez-Zor, 40 km west of Deir ez-Zor, and 2.4 km north of the Euphrates course. It is located in front of the town of Tebni, near the town of al-Kasra on the left bank of the Euphrates. It was visited by Laufray and by the French military officer Pierre Hameline. The site contains remains from different eras. Dating: Middle Bronze Age C14: yes References: Montero 2009: 123–145; Sanjurjo et al. 2008: 21–29 First campaign: 2005 End: 2007 Duration: two seasons. Archaeological expedition: Syrian-Spanish archaeological expedition: DGAM of Syria and the University of La Coruña (Spain).

Figure 117. Location of Tell Abu Fahd.

84

Occupation of the territory and Catalogue of the studied sites

Figure 118. General view of Tell Abu Fahd (after Montero 2009).

Figure 119. Excavation of the Syrian-Spanish expedition (after Montero 2009).

56. Nadra Site name: Nadra Site number: 56 Ancient toponym: unknown Altitude and longitude coordinates: 35°22’31.26”N 39°29’27.91”E Geomorphological unit: valley Type of site: cemetery and temporal workshops Dimensions: extends more than 22 km² Description/Geographical location: It is a large valley, located on the eastern slope of Mount Bishri, 60 km west of Deir ez-Zor. The site consists of 39 sectors, varying between tombs-burial mounds and temporary prehistoric workshops. Dating: Palaeolithic, Neolithic PPNB, Ubaid, Halaf, Early Bronze age, Middle Bronze Age, Roman, Byzantine and Islamic C14: yes References: Lonnqvist et al. 2011 First campaign: 2000 End: 2004 Duration: two survey seasons Archaeological expedition: Finnish archaeological expedition, Helsinki University, Finland. 85

The Fertile Desert

Figure 120. Location of Nadra.

Figure 121. Artefacts from the Neolithic PPNB (after Lonnqvist 2011: 157).

86

Occupation of the territory and Catalogue of the studied sites 57. Tell Tabus Site name: Tell Tabus Site number: 57 Ancient toponym: unknown Altitude and longitude coordinates: 35°28’5.61”N 39°56’54.46”E Geomorphological unit: mound Type of site: temporal workshops Dimensions: 95 m x 50 m Description/Geographical location: Located 23 km northwest of Deir ez-Zor, 4.5 km west of the current course of the Euphrates. To the southeast of the site, less than 1 km away, lithic artifacts are shown indicating prehistoric temporary workshops. Dating: Palaeolithic, (Neolithic?), Byzantine C14: yes References: Lonnqvist et al. 2011 First campaign: 2000; the Syrian-Spanish expedition 2007 End: 2004; the Syrian-Spanish expedition 2007 Duration: two survey seasons; the Syrian-Spanish expedition undertook one survey season. Archaeological expedition: Finnish archaeological expedition, Helsinki University, Finland. Syrian-Spanish archaeological expedition: DGAM of Syria and the University of La Coruña (Spain).

Figure 122. Location of Tell Tabus.

Figure 123. Artefacts from Tell Tabus (after Lonnqvist 2011).

87

The Fertile Desert 58. Tell Khraita Site name: Tell Khraita Site number: 58 Ancient toponym: unknown Altitude and longitude coordinates: 35°27’21.86”N 39°59’5.81”E Geomorphological unit: mound Type of site: temporary workshops Dimensions: 95 m x 50 m Description/Geographical location: Located 18 km northwest of Deir ez-Zor, 4 km west of the current course of the Euphrates and 2.3 km north of Ain Abu Jemaa. To the south of the site, at 100 m, the spread of lithic artifacts indicates prehistoric temporary workshops. Dating: Palaeolithic, Ubaid, Uruk C14: yes References: Lonnqvist et al. 2011 First campaign: 2000 End: 2004 Duration: two survey seasons Archaeological expedition: Finnish archaeological expedition, Helsinki University, Finland.

Figure 124. Location of Tell Khraita.

88

Occupation of the territory and Catalogue of the studied sites

Figure 125. Investigated zone to the south of Tell Khraita (after Lonnqvist 2011).

Figure 126. Lithic artefacts from Tell Khraita (after Lonnqvist 2011).

89

The Fertile Desert 59. Tell Ain Abu-Jemaa Site name: Tell Ain Abu Jemaa Site number: 59 Ancient toponym: unknown Altitude and longitude coordinates: 35°26’19.42”N 40° 0’46.10”E Geomorphological unit: mound Type of site: habitat Dimensions: 220 m x 90 m Description/Geographical location: Located just to the north of the road from Raqqa to Deir ezZor, 2 km from the village of Ayyash, 15 km to the west of Deir ez-Zor, and 105 km from Raqqa, right on the bank of the Euphrates. Dating: Palaeolithic C14: yes References: Besançon and Sanlaville 1981: 5–18; Borrel 2010: 117–128; Muhesen 1992: 247–303; Shaw 2012: 23–27 First campaign: survey 1976 End: 1980 Duration: four survey seasons. Archaeological expedition: French archaeological expedition, directed by P. Sanlaville.

Figure 127. Location of Tell Ain Abu-Jemaa.

90

Occupation of the territory and Catalogue of the studied sites 60. Tell Ayyash Site name: Tell Ayyash Site number: 60 Ancient toponym: unknown Altitude and longitude coordinates: 35°25’35.33”N 40° 2’4.87”E Geomorphological unit: mound Type of site: temporal workshops Dimensions: 95 m x 50 m Description/Geographical location: Located 12 km northwest of Deir ez-Zor, and 3 km west of the current course of the Euphrates. To the east of the site, and on both sides of the road between Raqqa and Deir ez-Zor, lithic artifacts can be distinguished indicating prehistoric temporary workshops. Dating: Palaeolithic C14: yes References: Lonnqvist et al. 2011; Shaw 2012: 23–27 First campaign: 2000 End: 2004 Duration: two survey seasons. Archaeological expedition: Finnish archaeological expedition, Helsinki University, Finland.

Figure 128. Location of Tell Ayyash.

91

The Fertile Desert

Figure 129. Investigated zone of Tell Ayyash (after Lonnqvist 2011).

Figure 130. Artifacts from Tell Ayyash (after Lonnqvist 2011).

92

Occupation of the territory and Catalogue of the studied sites 61. Tell As-Sinn Site name: Tell As-Sin Site number: 61 Ancient toponym: unknown Altitude and longitude coordinates: 35°19’6.02”N 40°14’55.76”E Geomorphological unit: mound Type of site: habitat and cemetery Dimensions: 550 m x 500 m Description/Geographical location: Located 9 km to the northeast of Deir ez-Zor, and 450 m north of the Euphrates course. The tell has a pentagon shape with a main mound. It was excavated by Roodenberg and Mahmoud. After 2005 the Syrian-Spanish expedition continued the excavation. Dating: Neolithic PPNB, Hellenistic and Byzantine C14: yes References: Montero and Chebib 2006; Montero and Al-Shbib 2008 First campaign: 1978 by the Dutch expedition; 2005 by the Syrian-Spanish expedition End: 1978 Dutch Expedition; 2007 the Syrian-Spanish expedition Duration: two weeks by the Dutch; three seasons by the Syrian-Spanish expedition Archaeological expedition: Syrian-Spanish archaeological expedition: DGAM of Syria and the University of La Coruña (Spain).

Figure 131. Location of Tell as-Sinn.

93

The Fertile Desert

Figure 132. Flint arrowheads from Tell as-Sin (after Montero and AlShbib 2008).

Figure 133. Flint arrowheads from Tell as-Sin (after Montero and AlShbib 2008).

62. Tell Et-Tabie II Site name: Tell et-Tabie II Site number: 62 Ancient toponym: unknown Altitude and longitude coordinates: 35°16’53.21”N 40°18’7.48”E Geomorphological unit: mound Type of site: habitat Dimensions: 180 m x 60 m Description/Geographical location: Located 9 km to the northeast of Deir ez-Zor, and 450 m north of the Euphrates course. The tell has a pentagon shape, with a main mound. It was excavated by Roodenberg and Mahmoud. Since 2005 the Syrian-Spanish expedition have excavated a site14 km to the east of Deir ez-Zor, 2 km north of the course of the Euphrates. A little marked trench runs along the mound; there are various tombs in a southeast direction as well as visible remains of the stone walls. Dating: Middle Bronze Age C14: no References: Geyer and Monchambert 2003 First campaign: 1982 End: 1990 Duration: 17 survey seasons Archaeological expedition: the French expedition at Mari (Tell Hariri).

94

Occupation of the territory and Catalogue of the studied sites

Figure 134. Location of Tell et-Tabie II.

Figure 135. Pottery from Tell et-TabiyeII (after Geyer and Monchambert 2003: 191).

95

The Fertile Desert 63. Tell Mohasan I Site name: Tell Mohasan I, Tell Abu Nuhud Site number: 63 Ancient toponym: unknown Altitude and longitude coordinates: 35°13’31.15”N 40°18’13.61”E Geomorphological unit: mound Type of site: habitat Dimensions: 900 m x 700 m Description/Geographical location: Situated 17 km to the east of Deir ez-Zor, 4 km north of the Euphrates course. The mound is located to the south of the Mohasan Canal. It consists of two main mounds and an artificial elevation to the west. This part is occupied by a cemetery. The surface is covered by small ridges similar to those at Mari (remains of a dam). In 1987 a trench was dug on the northeast mound, the archaeological levels in the section contain ash, remains of an oven or stove. Dating: Middle Bronze Age and Islamic C14: no References: Geyer and Monchambert 2003 First campaign: 1982 End: 1990 Duration: 17 survey seasons Archaeological expedition: the French expedition at Mari (Tell Hariri).

Figure 136. Location of Tell Mohasan I.

96

Occupation of the territory and Catalogue of the studied sites

Figure 137. Pottery from Tell Mohasan I (after Geyer and Monchambert 2003: 150).

64. Tell Es-Sabha I Site name: Tell es-Sabha I Site number: 64 Ancient toponym: unknown Altitude and longitude coordinates: 35°12’2.00”N 40°24’47.60”E Geomorphological unit: mound Type of site: cemetery Dimensions: 100 m x 75 m Description/Geographical location: Located 27 km to the east of Deir Ez-Zor, on the north bank of the Euphrates course. It is a small oval mound, there is a modern cemetery on top of the archaeological cemetery. The expedition documented fragments of ancient sarcophagi on the mound. Dating: New Assyrian C14: no References: Geyer and Monchambert 2003 First campaign: 1982 End: 1990 Duration: 17 survey seasons Archaeological expedition: the French expedition at Mari (Tell Hariri). 97

The Fertile Desert

Figure 138. Location of Tell es-Sabha I.

Figure 139. Pottery from Tell es-Sabha I (after Geyer and Monchambert 2003: 212).

98

Occupation of the territory and Catalogue of the studied sites 65. Tell Es-Salu V Site name: Tell es-Salu 5, Tell es-Saalo Site number: 65 Ancient toponym: unknown Altitude and longitude coordinates: 35°11’7.00”N 40°24’6.90”E Geomorphological unit: mound Type of site: habitat Dimensions: 200 m x 150 m Description/Geographical location: Situated 27 km to the east of Deir ez-Zor, 600 m north of the Euphrates course. It is a small oval mound, consists of a slightly higher main mound. There is a cemetery that occupies a large part of the tell in the southwest area. Dating: Middle Bronze Age C14: no References: Geyer and Monchambert 2003 First campaign: 1982 End: 1990 Duration: 17 survey seasons Archaeological expedition: the French expedition at Mari (Tell Hariri).

Figure 140. Location of Tell es-Salu V.

99

The Fertile Desert

Figure 141. Pottery from Tell es-Salu V (after Geyer and Monchambert 2003: 205).

66. Tell Buseire I Site name: Tell Buseire I Site number: 66 Ancient toponym: unknown Altitude and longitude coordinates: 35° 9’24.58”N 40°25’45.62”E Geomorphological unit: mound Type of site: habitat Dimensions: 1230 m x 420 m Description/Geographical location: Located 30 km to the east of Deir ez-Zor, 1.5 km north of the Euphrates course, and 400 m from Khabour, at its mouth of the Euphrates. It is a large site, formed by three mounds stretching 1.2 km in a north-south direction. The highest mound has a rectangular shape, it reaches 600 m in height and extends towards the nearby town, located in the southwest of the site. On the surface of the tell there are visible trenches. In the eastern and western parts there are remains of walls. The other mounds have triangular oval shapes, remains of clay walls appear. Dating: (Early Bronze Age?) Middle Bronze Age, classic period and Islamic C14: no References: Geyer and Monchambert 2003 First campaign: 1982 End: 1990 Duration: 17 survey seasons Archaeological expedition: the French expedition at Mari (Tell Hariri).

100

Occupation of the territory and Catalogue of the studied sites

Figure 142. Location of Tell Bueseire I.

Figure 143. Pottery from Tell Buseire I (after Geyer and Monchambert 2003: 186).

101

The Fertile Desert 67. Tell Safat Ez-Zerr II Site name: Tell Safat ez-Zerr, Tell Saffat ez-Zor Site number: 67 Ancient toponym: unknown Altitude and longitude coordinates: 35° 7’44.09”N 40°25’46.65”E Geomorphological unit: mound Type of site: habitat Dimensions: 130 m x 80 m Description/Geographical location: Located 31.5 km to the east of Deir ez-Zor, 450 m north of the Euphrates course, and 80 m from Khabour, right at its mouth in the Euphrates. It is a small mound, partially occupied by a modern town. Remains of fire were documented on the top of the site. Dating: Middle Bronze Age, New Assyrian, Classic period and Islamic C14: no References: Geyer and Monchambert 2003 First campaign: 1982 End: 1990 Duration: 17 survey seasons Archaeological expedition: the French expedition at Mari (Tell Hariri).

Figure 144. Location of Tell Safat ez-Zerr.

102

Occupation of the territory and Catalogue of the studied sites

Figure 145. Pottery from Safat ez-Zerr (after Geyer and Monchambert 2003: 156).

68. Tell Bouqras I Site name: Tell Bouqras I Site number: 68 Ancient toponym: unknown Altitude and longitude coordinates: 35° 5’7.76”N 40°23’45.42”E Geomorphological unit: mound Type of site: habitat Dimensions: 275 m x 100 m Description/Geographical location: Located 35 km to the east of Deir Ez-Zor, 5 km south of the mouth of the Khabour in the Euphrates. The site was partially excavated. Architectural remains appear on the surface. Dating: Neolithic PPMB, pre-Hassuna and Hassuna C14: yes References: Akkermans et al. 1983: 335–372; Boerma 1979: 61–74; Geyer and Monchambert 2003 First campaign: 1965 End: 1976–1977 Duration: 17 survey seasons Archaeological expedition: University of Groningen.

103

The Fertile Desert

Figure 146. Location of Tell Bouqras I.

Figure 147. Small finds from Tell Bouqras I (after Akkermans et al. 1983: 357).

104

Occupation of the territory and Catalogue of the studied sites References Akkermans, P. et al. 1983. Bouqras revisited: preliminary report on a project in eastern Syria. Proceedings of the Prehistoric Society 49 (1): 335–372. Akkermans, P. and Schwartz, G. 2003. The Archaeology of Syria from Complex Hunter-Gatherers to Early Urban Societies (c. 16,000–300 B.C). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Alachkar, S. and Showhan, Y. 2019. Découverte d’une tombe du Bronze ancien à Tell Qsubi (MoyenEuphrate, Syrie), Syria 96: 273–292. Al Khabour, A. 2012. El Proyecto Arqueológico sirio-japonés en la región del Bishri (Siria, Raqqa), in C. Del Cerro et al. (eds) Ideología, identidades e interacción en el Mundo Antiguo: 259–266. Madrid: Universidad Autónoma de Madrid. Al Khabour, A. 2017. Urbanism, material culture and soil occupation during the Middle Bronze Age in the Middle Euphrates Valley. Al-Rāfidān: Journal of Western Asiatic Studies 38: 79–89. Tokyo: Kokushikan University. Al Khabour, A. 2018. Burials and funerary practices along the Middle Euphrates Valley during the Early Bronze Age. Isimu: Soundings on the Archaeology and the History of the Near East 20: 161–191. Madrid: Universidad Autónoma de Madrid. Al Maqdissi, M. 2011. Report of the Directorate General of Antiquities and Museums at Qleb al Hemma (in Arabic). Unpublished. Besançon, J. and Sanlaville, P. 1981. Aperçu géomorphologique sur la vallée de l’Euphrate Syrien. Paléorient 7(2): 5–18. Boerma J.A.K. 1979. Soils and natural environment of the tell Bouqras area (east Syria). Anatolica 7: 61–74. Borrel, A. 2010. Characterizing flint outcrops in secondary position, in H. Alarashi et al. (eds) Regards croisés sur l’étude archéologique des paysages anciens. Nouvelles recherches dans le Bassin méditerranéen, en Asie centrale et au Proche et au Moyen-Orient: 117–128. Lyon: Maison de l’Orient et de la Méditerranée. Córdoba, J. 1988. Prospección en el valle del río Balih (Siria). Informe provisional. Aula Orientalis 6: 149–188. Fuji, S. and Adachi, T. 2010. Archaeological investigations of Bronze Age cairn fields on the northwestern flank of Mt. Bishri. Al-Rāfidān: Journal of Western Asiatic Studies, Special Issue: 61– 77. Tokyo: Kokushikan University. Geyer, B. and Monchambert, J.-Y. (eds) 2003. La basse vallée de l’Euphrate syrien du Néolithique à l’avènement de l’islam : géographie, archéologie et histoire. Mission Archéologique de Mari VI/BAH 166. Beyrouth: Institut Français du Proche-Orient. Goto, T. and Hasogawa, H. 2007. Investigation of the Tell used by Soviet Military Map. Unpublished. Kohlmeyer, K. 1984. Euphrat-Survey. Die mit Mitteln der Gerda Henkel Stiftung durchgeführte archäologische Geländebegehung im Syrischen Euphrattal. Mitteilungen der Deutschen OrientGesellschaft 116: 95–118. Kohlmeyer, K. 1986. Euphrat-Survey 1984. Zweiter Vorbericht über die mit Mitteln der Gerda Henkel Stiftung durchgeführte archäologische Geländebegehung im Syrischen Euphrattal. Mitteilungen der Deutschen Orient-Gesellschaft 118: 51–65. Lonnqvist, M., Tora, M., Lonnqvist, K. and Nuñez, M. 2011. Jebel Bishri Focus: remote sensing, archaeological surveying, mapping and GIS studies of Jebel Bishri in central Syria by the Finnish project SYGIS: 218-225. British Archaeological Reports International Series 2230. Oxford: Archaeopress. Meyer, J.-W. 2010. The cemetery of Abu Hamad: a burial place of pastoral groups. Al-Rafidan 2010, Formation of tribal communities: integrated research in the Middle Euphrates, Syria: 155–163. Tokyo: Kokushikan University. Meyer, J.-W. and Al-Khalaf, M. 1993. Ausgabungen in Abu Hamad 1990. Archiv für Orientforschung 40/41: 196–200. Vienna: Institut für Orientalistik. Meyer, J.-W., Falb, Chr., Kransik. K. and Vila. E. 2005. Der Friedhof von Abu Hamad. Gräber des 3. Jahrtausends v. Chr. Schriften zur Vorderasiatischen Archäologie 8. Montero, J.-L. 2009. Nouvelles recherches archéologiques Dans la région du verrou basaltique de Halabiyé (Moyen-Euphrate syrien). Estudos orientais 10: 123–145. Montero Fenollés, J.-L. 2011. Le site urukéen de Tell Humeida au Moyen Euphrate syrien. Premières recherches archéologiques. Res antiquitatis 2: 205–216. Lisboa: Universidade Nova de Lisboa.

105

The Fertile Desert Montero, J-L. and Chebib, Ch. 2006. Investigaciones sirio-españolas en el Valle del Éufrates. Primeros datos sobre la necrópolis bizantina de Tall as-Sin (Siria), in: E. Guerri, R. Fernández and A. Vivancos (eds) Espacio y tiempo en la percepción de la antigüedad tardía: 409–426. Murcia: Universidad de Murcia. Montero, J-L. and Al-Shbib, Sh. 2008. La necrópolis bizantina de Tall As-Sin (Deir ez-Zor, Siria). Biblioteca Del Próximo Oriente Antiguo 4. Madrid: Consejo Superior de Investigaciones Científicas. Montero, J.-L., Al-Shbib, Sh., Márquez, I. and Caramelo, F. 2009. IV campaña del Proyecto Arqueológico Medio Éufrates Sirio. Sondeos en Tall Qabr Abu al- ‘Atiq: de los orígenes de la ciudad al período Asirio Medio. Excavaciones en el exterior: 191–199. Madrid: Ministerio de Cultura. Montero, J.-L., al-Shbib, S., Márquez Rowe, I. and Caramelo, F. 2010. Tell Qubr Abu al- ‘Atiq: From an Early Dynastic City to a Middle Assyrian Fort: 5th Season Report of the Proyecto Arqueológico Medio Éufrates Sirio (2009). Aula Orientalis 28: 73–84. Montero, J.-L., Marquez, I., Caramelo, F. and Al-Abdallah, Y. 2011. Tell Qubr Abu al-‘Atiq: A Middle Assyrian Fort in the Gorge of Khanuqa: 6th Season Report of the Proyecto Arqueologico Medio Eufrates Sirio (2010). Aula Orientalis 29: 267–278. Muhesen, S. 1992. Bilan sur la préhistoire de la Syrie. Syria. Archéologie, Art et Histoire 69: 247–303. Nishiaki, Y. 2008. Prehistoric survey at the northern edge of Jebel Bishri, Raqqa, in K. Ohnuma and A. Al Khabour (eds) Preliminary reports of the Syria-Japan archaeological joint research team in the region of Ar-Raqqa, Syria, 2007. Archaeological research in the Bishri region report of the 3rd working season: 151–152. Tokyo: Kokushikan University. Nishaki, Y. 2010. Archaeological evidence of the Early Bronze Age communities in the Middle Euphrates steppe, North Syria. Al-Rāfidān: Journal of Western Asiatic Studies, Special Issue: 37–48. Tokyo: Kokushikan University. Numoto, H. and Kume, S. 2010. Surveys and sondage at the cemeteries near Tell Ghanem Al-Ali. Al-Rāfidān: Journal of Western Asiatic Studies, Special Issue: 49–60. Tokyo: Kokushikan University. Ohnuma, K. and Al Khabour, A. 2008. Report of the second season of the Syrian-Japanese expedition. Al-Rāfidān: Journal of Western Asiatic Studies 29: 134–149. Tokyo: Kokushikan University. Sanjurjo, J., Fernández, D. and Montero, J-L. 2008. TL and OSL dating of sediment and pottery from two Syrian archaeological sites. Geocronometria 31: 21–29. Sanlaville, P. and Besançon, J. 1981. Aperçu géomorphologique sur la vallée de l’Euphrate syrien. Paléorient 7(2): 5–18. Shaw, A.D. 2012. The Earlier Palaeolithic of Syria. Reinvestigating the Evidence from the Orontes and Euphrates Valleys: 23–27. British Archaeological Reports International Series 2341. Oxford: Archaeopress. Stein, G. and Al Khabour, A. 2008. Report on the first season of the excavation at Tell Zeidan by the SyrianAmerican expedition, Raqqa (in Arabic): 1–19. Chicago: University of Chicago. Stein, G. 2010. Tell Zeidan, 2009–2010: Annual Report of The Oriental Institute. Chicago: University of Chicago. Strommenger, E. and Kohlmeyer, K. 1998. Ausgrabungen in Tall Bīʻa, Tuttul I.: Die Altorientalischen Bestattungen. WVDOG 96. Saarbrücken: Saarbrückener Druckerei und Verlag.

106

Chapter 3

The occupation of the territory Description of the investigated sites Description of the investigated sites 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. 16. 17. 18. 19. 20. 21. 22.

Tell Biaa Tell Zeidan Wadi Ubaid Jabal Tbuq Cairn fields northwest of Mt Bishri Wadi Kharrar Cemetery of Wadi Dabaa Cemetery of Abu Hamad Cemetery of Wadi Shabout Tell Ghanem al-Ali Cemetery of Wadi Jazla Tell Mugla as-Sagir (Tell Beitha) Tell Beilouni Tell Humeida Tell Qabr Abu al-Atiq Tell Qsubi –Tell Qalaa Tomb of Qsubi Qleb al Hemma Tell et-Tibni Tell Abu Fahd Tell As-Sinn Tell Bouqras I

1. Tell Biaa (Tuttul) In 1960, and due to the construction of the Euphrates Dam to the west of Raqqa, various international expeditions arrived to participate in the rescue excavations at archaeological sites that would, after the dam’s construction, be overwhelmed by water. One of the archaeologists was Eva Strommenger; she was interested in excavating at Tell Biaa, on the idea that the site was the ancient city of Tuttul.1 The site was excavated by the German expedition over twelve seasons, carried out between 1980 and 1995.2 Location The site is located on the angle between the Euphrates and Balikh rivers, over a considerable area – 650 m x 750 m. The Assyriologist George Dossin, based on a clay tablet from the Mari kingdom, identified the site in 1947 as the kingdom of Tuttul (Figure 148). History According to the epigraphic resources from Mari, the city of Tuttul played an important role in the Bronze Age. The Mari king Yahdun-Lim (18th century BC) told of his victory over a coalition 1 2

Cordoba 1988; 2006. Al Khabour 2018: 174–175.

107

The Fertile Desert

Figure 148. Location of Tell Biaa.

of three kings of the Tamina and how they became his enemies; they were supported by Aleppo, among them was Bahlu-kulim, king (Lugal) of Tuttul.3 In the archive of Ebla (Tell Mardikh) there are frequent mentions of Tuttul and the high-ranking people who visited, including rulers seeking to make offering to the god Dagan in his main temple at Tuttul.4 The Mari period of Shakanaku saw the control of the Euphrates valley, and to these times is ascribed the political control of the Amorites in Syria. There is an inscription describing Tuttul as linked to Mari in the times of the Assyrian king Shamshi-Adad, after he took control over Mari and the cities belonging to it. After the Assyrian presence in Mari, when Zimri-Lim ascended to the throne of Mari, cuneiform texts discovered at Tuttul mention his rule there. The city was mentioned in the Codex of Hammurrabi together with Mari, with the great Babylon monarch claiming his control over them.5 By the end of the Bronze Age, Tuttul was destroyed and abandoned, the site not seeing inhabitants again until the Roman period. During Byzantine times, parts of the ancient city were used for funerary purposes and transformed into cemeteries. Finally, the central mound was topped with a temple, forming at that time a landmark recognizable from afar and giving rise to the archaeological sites of Tuttul being given its the current name – Tell Biaa, meaning in Arabic ‘the mound of the church’ (Figure 149). The early Islamic period is represented by the Islamic cemetery.

Dossin 1955: 1–28. Bösze 2009: 6–7. 5 Bösze 2009: 9. 3 4

108

The occupation of the territory Description of the investigated sites

Figure 149. The church of Tell Biaa (after Krebernik and Stromminger 1988: 137).

Excavations at the site The strategic location of Tuttul on the Euphrates gave it an extraordinary importance, connecting Anatolia, Syria, and southern Mesopotamia. The excavation of the city of Tuttul revealed relevant data in terms of history, archaeology, and funerary practices. The surface indications, even before excavation of the mound, were helpful for indicating the divisions and functions of the hidden ancient city. The Directorate General of Antiquities and Museums (DGAM) accepted the request of Eva Strommenger, after concluding her research at Habuba Kabira, to carry out new investigations at the site of Tell Biaa. The site was disturbed by clandestine digging and threatened by city expansion, being located very close to the growing city of Raqqa. The team obtained funding from the German Foundation of Research (Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft) and was directed by Strommenger over twelve seasons between 1980 and 1995. The surface of the mound was formed of nineteen small mounds, identified as A–T, then two further areas, U and Z, located to the north of the mound, were added to the plan of the investigated site (Figure 150). The surface finds pointed to the early occupation of the site during the second half of the 4th millennium BC – the excavations could not reach these layers due to the extent of the groundwater. In this early period, Uruk influenced all Mesopotamia (Liverani 1998), and stretching up to Syrian sites such as Habuba Kabira. During the First Dynastic Period of the 3rd millennium BC, Tuttul and numerous cities in northern Mesopotamia and Syria experienced considerable changes in cultural

109

The Fertile Desert

Figure 150. General plan of Tell Biaa (after Bösze 2009: 63).

and political influence. By the first half of the 2nd millennium BC, Tuttul started losing its power and a few centuries later saw it disappear altogether.6 General characteristics of Tuttul The main areas of the ancient city presented a range of general characteristics and details, and Strommenger’s plan (Krebernik and Strommenger 1998) will serve us well here to present the city: 1. A temple to the east, near the eastern gate of the city, meeting the city walls and in the centre of a residential neighbourhood. It belongs to the typical northern and central Syria ‘Anten’ type, similar to the temples of Habuba Kabira and Tell Mumbaqa (Figure 151). 2. The main temple dedicated to the worship of the famous god Dagan of Tuttul. It is situated in the western area of the central mound (Area F, Figure 150). Its location and the surface survey confirmed its relationship with the ‘Anten’ temple type just referred to. 3. A succession of palaces on the central mound. Their diversity in styles reflect different cultural and political influences (Figure 152). 4. The economic centres of the central mound. One is dated to the Shamshi-Adad period and another to the Akkadian period. One of these centres was a palace converted into an administrative building and various cuneiform tablets, as well as clay ‘envelopes’, were found. 6

Krebernik and Strommenger 1998.

110

The occupation of the territory Description of the investigated sites

Figure 151. The temple (after Krebernikna and Strommenger 1998: 128).

Figure 152. Plan of one of the palaces (after Krebernikna and Strommenger 1998: 133).

111

The Fertile Desert

Figure 153. Plan of the royal tombs of Tuttul (after Bösze 2009: 65).

5. The city walls are made of mudbrick. The oldest part of the walls is 8 m thick and had a gate in the western section, flanked by two 12-m high towers. 6. Residential area. 7. Tombs in houses, in non-built-up spaces of the neighbourhoods, as well as in the necropolis located outside the city. 8. Tombs of the rulers of Tuttul, from the first half of the 3rd millennium BC, built with mudbrick and with an unprecedented style (Figures 153, 154). They are obviously related to the construction of a contemporary palace that was unfinished at the time the tombs were in use. Its inventory (Figure 155) shows the significant wealth of the ruling class, even though it does not match Ur’s ‘royal tombs’ in terms of quality and quantity of precious objects found. Key finds at Tuttul Excavations at central mound E provided highly significant data, it being the seat of political and religious power. The excavated area contained a number of important constructions. Public building: Strommenger (Krebernik and Strommenger 1998) cited that this was the oldest space found in an almost complete state. The robustness and quality of the walling leaves little doubt: it is a public building built in two recognizable phases; although its function is unknown, considering local traditions it is most likely a royal palace. The pottery found belonged the Early Dynastic period according to the Tell Biaa ceramic reference. 112

The occupation of the territory Description of the investigated sites

Figure 154. General view of the royal tombs (after Krebernikna and Strommenger 1998: 129).

Figure 155. Precious objects from the royal tombs (after Krebernikna and Strommenger 1998: 130).

Royal tombs of Tuttul beneath Palace B: The funeral practices are well documented at Tell Biaa via its two cemeteries: the extramural cemetery U containing different social classes (families); and the ‘royal tombs’ found below Palace B.7 After the destruction and abandonment of the public building mentioned above, a complex of mudbrick walls was built in the area, which has been identified as a set of six mausolea (‘Grabbauten’ or burial chambers).8 There is no direct relation with Palace B, as use of the tomb area ended with its foundation, however an ideological/ancestral conception might be assumed via building the

7 8

Al Khabour 2018: 174–175. Bösze 2009: 11.

113

The Fertile Desert

Figure 156. Reconstruction of the Mausoleum (royal tombs) of Tuttul (after Bösze 2009: 71).

palace on top of graves of high-ranked individuals, as seems to be confirmed by the richness of the inventory.9 The tombs in the area of Palace B belong to affluent people, yet erosion to the area means that we cannot know if they were in open spaces or inside the houses. They date, as does cemetery U, to the 3rd millennium BC. The graves consist of mudbrick walls constructed on sandy soil; the walls had white plaster inside and out. Their architecture reveals two grave types: tripartite (G3, G4 and G6, with G1 and G2 probably also from this group), and single- chambered grave (e.g. G5, Figure 156). The largest tombs are G3 to the east, with its walls 2 m high, and G4 to the west, with its walls 1.8 m high. The entrance is located on the eastern side and leads to an elongated space, located in the middle of the two sets of graves: the two doors opened to the north and south.10 G4 stands on account of its size and G3 for its niches in the side walls, which begin at a height of 1.10 m, and up to 1.20 m above ground level, measuring c. 40 cm wide. G4 was built only of mudbricks, whereas G3 (10.80 m x 8.40 m) had a plinth c. 40 cm – 50 cm high made of rough limestone blocks, and floors fitted with irregular limestone slabs. The thresholds and plinth were at the same height above the ground. On the stone plinth stood mudbrick walls. The floor and walls were covered with white clay and plaster.

9

Al Khabour 2018: 174–175. Krebernik and Strommenger 1998: 126–137; Al Khabour 2018: 174–175.

10

114

The occupation of the territory Description of the investigated sites To the north of G3 and G4, two other independent units – Tombs G1 and G2 – were also excavated. G1 was situated to the east and the only surviving part was its southern wall. G2, situated to the west, retained parts of its southern, western, and eastern walls. To the south of this area, Tomb G5 is made of stone, composed of a single space and two entrances. The western entrance was opened when the last unit (G6) was built: it blocks the narrow passage between G3 and G4. Tomb G6 is the largest unit of all, having three spaces and a particularly wide entrance, which opens onto the northern room. The space to the south was largely damaged due to erosion.11 The funerary function of these facilities can be deduced, above all, by the archaeological record. Almost all of the rooms contained large numbers of ceramic vessels, placed next to each other, closely attached, some even piled on top of each other. In addition, beads, pins, and other body adornments were found, as well as remains of inlaid wooden furniture (Figure 157).12 Scattered human bones of various individuals, as well as, but to a lesser extent, animal bones, were documented. According to the excavators, the remains of furniture and associated contents were only found in the north parts of G3 and G6, as well as in G5. Fragments of gold ornaments (Figure 155) appeared in G4 and G5, suggesting probably that the highest-ranking individual was buried there. Krebernik and Strommenger (1998) suggested that the existing disorder in the different spaces was due to looting activities carried out by knocking through the side walls. Two instances of this were documented in the excavation, suggesting that the grave robbers knew very well where the

Figure 157. Rests of wooden furniture from the royal tombs (after Krebernikna and Strommenger 1998: 130). 11 12

Krebernik and Strommenger 1998: 126–137. Krebernik and Strommenger 1998: 126–137.

115

The Fertile Desert

Figure 158. Remains of the fire in Palace B (after Krebernikna and Strommenger 1998: 130).

most valuable finds might lie, and also, therefore, that not much time would have elapsed between burials and looting. It is plausible that the original roofs were then intact, since the thieves used the interior doors to move around inside the rooms. It follows, therefore, that the tombs were not guarded at the time, perhaps indicating a change of dynasty. The royal tombs of the Tuttul are unique in Mesopotamia – comparable to some extent with Ur’s ‘Royal Cemetery of Ur’, where the custom of burying servants with their masters is well documented. Palace B The mausoleum was subsequently abandoned, possibly with the palace to which it belonged. The tombs were after a time demolished, and the land was levelled. A new palace was raised above these layers. Palace B was constructed with mudbrick walls, in some places reinforced with wood; there were porticoes with wooden posts surrounding the courtyard. The frequent use of wood in the construction, obtained from the nearby forests on the banks of the rivers, is why Palace B has provided the most important and secure source of information on Tuttul. The abundant use of this flammable material resulted, ultimately, in a catastrophic fire, from which the mudbrick walls were completely calcined, and, although the wood remains are charred, they still in situ – just as when everything collapsed (Figure 158).13 The finding of a carved stone with the remains of a beard in the ruins of Palace B was an interesting discovery. It has a close parallel with a find from Ebla’s contemporary Palace G, in central Syria, a high-quality object, and it is very possible that the beard fragment found at Tuttul was pre-made in 13

Krebernik and Strommenger 1998.

116

The occupation of the territory Description of the investigated sites

Figure 159. Fragments of a bearded from Palace B (after Krebernikna and Strommenger 1998: 131).

Figure 160. Fragments of Akkadian seal impression (after Krebernikna and Strommenger 1998: 132).

Ebla, since contacts between the two cities is documented from the archives of Ebla (Figure 159).14 (The similarity of Tuttul’s Palace B to Ebla’s Palace G appears in both the plan, where their sloping terrain is circumvented by means of a staircase, and the construction technique – the significant use of wood.) According to Krebernik and Strommenger (1998: 130), excavations at the site have not yet touched the most significant area of the structure: the central sector is still under the ruins of the mound. The excavators expect finds of great value, including cuneiform tablets, as an archive was found at Ebla in the corresponding area. The same excavators have also offered an interesting insight into the history of Tuttul, via the relationship between Palace B, a Syrian tradition connecting it to sites such as Ebla, and its royal tombs, whose only close parallel is in southern Mesopotamia.15 Economic factors Strommenger (1998) have described a public building constructed before the fire at Palace B; this was built in the space in front of the building to the west, and seems to have had a totally different function, featuring a wall with buttresses which collapsed to the west, crushing the interior walls. The successive phases of construction have been dated by some clay ‘envelopes’, marked with Akkadian style stamps (Figure 160). There are other finds of interest, such as small ovens to bake clay figures and pots, as well as small ovens (‘tannurs’) to bake bread. Such finds give an idea of activities, possibly economic ones, carried out there. Tombs of people from different social classes (families) In the area of Palace B, numerous tombs were found. These are typical burials of wealthy individuals, from the time when the building with buttresses was still standing.16 The extramural cemetery Krebernik and Strommenger 1998: 126–137. Krebernik and Strommenger 1998. 16 Krebernik and Strommenger 1998: 126–137. 14 15

117

The Fertile Desert

Figure 161. Individual grave of the high-ranked society (after Krebernikna and Strommenger 1998: 132).

Figure 162. Cylinder seal from one of the tombs (after Krebernikna and Strommenger 1998: 132).

U consists of groups of shaft graves. At the beginning, the shaft was dug and at its end an oval chamber was created, in which the body of the deceased was deposited. In most cases, the body was laid at the lateral wall and the person was normally buried in the traditional crouching position, mostly wrapped in a canvas. The grave goods included weapons, cylinder seals, ceramic vessels, etc. (Figures 161, 162). After the ceremony, the chamber and the shaft were often closed, either with bricks or with stones.17 Palace A Strommenger (1998) describes how the levels of the southern slope of the central mound were destroyed at the time of foundation of a new palace, called Palace A. It measures 41.5 m x 46.80 m (Figure 163). Palace A represents a totally different tradition from Palace B. Its closest parallel is 17

Al Khabour 2018: 174–175.

118

The occupation of the territory Description of the investigated sites

Figure 163. Plan of Palace A (after Krebernikna and Strommenger 1998: 133).

in the south, in the city of Mari. The Mari archive contained many references to Tuttul, and the political relationship between both cities is mentioned frequently.18 The main entrance was opened to the north and featured two towers. The entrance leads to a large courtyard (11) and, crossing it, one reaches the elongated space (room 1), which had a platform next to wall E. Strommenger suggested that there the Lord of Tuttul would sit, while his officials and visitors were ranged along the continuous benches attached to the lateral walls of the room.19 Behind that courtroom was a second room, very large room (5), with a hypogeum under the floor and a small room adjoining to the east (R). Since the rooms in the northwest part of the building around the courtyard (16) follow the pattern of a house, it is most likely that they were used for dwelling (Figure 164). Palace A seems to have been short-lived, and not even the hypogeum in room 5 was used for burials – it may not even have been finished. Certainly the lateral walls of the hypogeum were unfinished: they are to be used as a mass grave after some war event(s).20 Apparently, this mass grave was used on two different occasions. The lower level has complete skeletons, several in lateral decubitus position; others were carefully placed next to each other, and a few were unceremoniously thrown in it seems,21and several dismembered parts are in evidence. It is possible that these latter remains Krebernik and Strommenger 1998: 126–137. Krebernik and Strommenger 1998: 126–137. 20 Krebernik and Strommenger 1998: 126–137. 21 Krebernik and Strommenger 1998: 126–137. 18 19

119

The Fertile Desert

Figure 164. Room 5 of Palace A (after Krebernikna and Strommenger 1998: 134).

Figure 165. Section of the skeleton pit (after Krebernikna and Strommenger 1998: 135).

120

The occupation of the territory Description of the investigated sites were collected from other areas of the palace. In many rooms were found bodies that had been quickly buried, perhaps they were victims of the same catastrophe (Figure 165).22 In total, 80 bodies were buried there, but no remains of weapons or body adornments were found. According to the anthropological data, skeletons of the civilian population (men, women, and children of different ages) predominate in the upper part; lower down the complete skeletons could belong to soldiers, since they are apparently fit men, whose bones show evidence of healed wounds.23 According to Strommenger, the rubble and ash lining the pit contain fragments of tablets and clay ‘envelopes’ with cylinder seals from the Shamshi-Adad period. The crisis giving rise to these remains cannot be dated, given that they were most certainly brought from another place. Later, the Tuttul palace was again witness to fierce combat and there is skeletal evidence to prove it – corresponding to bodies not buried in a ritual way, but thrown outside the outer wall. In later periods the palace was destroyed and rebuilt several times. Some doors were bricked up and some walls knocked down to build others. Rooms were compartmentalized. In Room Q, a large oven was made, and in other parts of the palace other ovens (tannur) were placed to bake bread. In the northeast part, in what was courtyard 11, clay tablets were found. Ultimately, Palace A was left to decay, as were the simple dwellings built before Tuttul was completely abandoned.24 Clay tablets of Palace A Tell Biaa provided a considerable number of written texts (379 texts), most from Palace A and dated to the Old Babylonian period. They are often in poor condition or fragmented; they were found in secondary contexts, on or between floors, between wall fill material, on benches or in rubble. In some cases, they are texts related to each other in terms of the same period as well as content. Many of the tablets and ‘envelopes’ are inscribed with cylinder seals. About 30 of the used stamps bore the inscription of their owner.25 Chronologically, they can be divided into three groups: Ancient Babylonian, Middle Babylonian, and Late Babylonian (or Post Old Babylonian). To the first group belong 48 tablets, found in the rubble of the outer wall of the palace. This group includes some tablets from the palace itself and deals with economic matters – there is diplomatic correspondence and talk even of spoils and booty. Among those named is of YahdunLim, apparently bearing the same name as the king of Mari, but not the same man.26 The second group dates to the reign of Yasmah-Adad, most of the tablets following the Assyrian system. Seventeen different eponyms appear to name the years, most of which coincide with those encountered at Mari. However, two texts extend beyond this timeframe: they bear the names of years unknown until now, as well as names of months used in the Mari calendar. One of the names for the year reads ‘the year Zimri-Lim entered Tuttul’, and could refer to some event that took place during Zimri-Lim’s reconquest of Mari. Apparently the palace was used until the end of the Assyrian period, so the governor of Zimri-Lim, Lanasum, must have resided elsewhere.27 Most of the tablets from the Middle Babylonian period are diverse administrative texts. One of the largest and best-preserved tablets records grain inputs from Tuttul ploughmen. Other texts Krebernik and Strommenger 1998: 126–137. Krebernik and Strommenger 1998: 126–137. Krebernik and Strommenger 1998: 126–137. 25 Krebernik and Strommenger 1998: 126–137. 26 Krebernik and Strommenger 1998: 126–137. 27 Krebernik and Strommenger 1998: 126–137. 22 23 24

121

The Fertile Desert mention ‘the great granary of Tuttul’, as well as referring to barley and beer allowances, and even provisions for animals. Some of these texts deal with issues concerning the king and the army of Tuttul, referring specifically, as documented in the Mari letters, to a stay of Yasmah-Adad in Tuttul, which might help to establish an exact dating.28 Strommenger also cites a unique piece, in terms of form, content, and linguistics, i.e. a tablet containing barley allotments for the households of the Lullabi. Along with sheep and cattle, poultry and ostriches are included in the food allowances for animals; one text gives the barley for 300 birds that were transported to Mari. About 90 written inscriptions are evidence of cattle breeding. They record each dead cow, often with age specification, as well as the stockman, one or two officials responsible for the transport, and the exact date. Many pieces are dated to the same day; all are stamped with a seal of one of the officials. Obviously, they were attached to the skin of the animals before they were transported to the city. Another interesting inscription comes from a seemingly commercial text, it included two lists: one refers to millstones granted to shepherds, the other counts sheep, and even the altars needed to make sacrifices to different stars.29 In contrast, there are very few examples of ‘literary’ texts, and what we have are mostly fragmented. One is a spell in the Hurrian language, a duplicate of an incantation found at Mari, the Akkadian signature is missing, and apparently used to prevent against skin disease. This find contributes to our small collection of (barely) understandable Hurrian texts from the ancient Babylonian period. The last group is represented by only two fragmented and sealed tablets, belonging to the late Bronze Age.30 Religion Thanks to ancient Akkadian royal inscriptions, it is known that Tuttul was the main place of worship for the god Dagan, who appears in the Old Testament under the name of Dagon, god of the Philistines. Dagan enjoyed a high (if not the greatest) rank within the Syrian pantheon and that of northern Mesopotamia. He came to be compared with Enlil, the supreme deity of the Mesopotamians, as well as with Kumarbi, the god of the Hurrians, and El, the Semitic deity of the northeast. In a late inscription found in Aleppo he is referred to as ‘the father of all gods’. In Ugarit he was considered the god of the winds. When Sargon of Akkad, at the end of the 24th century BC, conducted a campaign to conquer Syria, he stopped at Tuttul to worship to Dagan, who, according to the monarch, gave him ‘the lands of the North, including Mari and Ebla’. Tuttul became frequently named in the archives (perhaps those belonging to Sargon) in relation to the destruction of Palace G at Ebla. These show that Dagan, ‘Lord of Tuttul’, was also worshipped at Ebla; they also document the journey of the king and high dignitaries of Ebla to Tuttul, presumably for religious reasons.31 To the contrary, there is no reference in any of the texts to any ruler at Tuttul, which could mean that Tuttul at that time was a settlement without a king, but being under the control of Mari – YIL´E-LIM, EN de TUTTUL.32

Krebernik and Strommenger 1998: 126–137. Krebernik and Strommenger 1998: 126–137. 30 Krebernik and Strommenger 1998: 126–137. 31 Bösze 2009. 32 Krebernik and Strommenger 1998. 28 29

122

The occupation of the territory Description of the investigated sites References Al Khabour, A. 2018. Burials and funerary practices along the Middle Euphrates Valley during the Early Bronze Age. Isimu: Soundings on the Archaeology and the History of the Near East 20: 161–191. Madrid. Bösze, I. 2009. Analysis of the Early Bronze Age Graves in Tell Bi`a (Syria). British Archaeological Reports International Series 1995. Oxford: Archaeopress. Córdoba, J. 1988. Prospección en el valle del río Balih (Siria). Informe provisional. Aula Orientalis 6: 149–188. Córdoba, J. 2006. Campesinos e imperios en una región ignorada: prospecciones y sondeos en el valle del Balih (Siria), in J.Mª. Córdoba and M.C. Pérez Díe (eds) La arqueología española en Oriente: 51–54. Madrid: Ministerio de Cultura. Dossin, G. 1995. L’inscription de fondation de Iahdun-Lim, roi de Mari. Syria 32: 1–28. Krebernik, M. and Strommenger, E. 1998. 1980–1995: Tuttul (Tell Bi’a), Ausgrabungen in der Stadt des Gottes Dagan, in G. Wilhelm (ed.) Zwischen Tigris und Nil: 126–137. Mainz: Von Zabern. Liverani, M. 1998. Le Lettere di el-Amarna, Volume (1) Le lettere dei ‘Piccoli Re’. Turin: Paideia Editrice. 2. Tell Zeidan In July 2008, the Syrian-American expedition began the archaeological excavation at the site of Tell Zeidan. This expedition was led by Gil. J. Stein, for the American team, from the Oriental Institute of the University of Chicago, and A. Al Khabour, and later by M. Sarhan, for the Syrian team, from the Archaeological Museum of Raqqa. The objective of the research project was to study the Ubaid period in northern Syria and its relationship with older periods, such as the Halaf and Chalcolithic I and II, covering a period between the 6th to the 4th millennium BC. The Ubaid period at Tell Zeidan is of great importance in understanding the development of northern Syrian societies, by comparing the results with the well-known Ubaid sites such as Tell Brak, Tell Hammam et-Turkman, Hamah, and Tell Hamoukar. Comparison with southern Mesopotamian sites is crucial for understanding the period, for example Eridu and Tell al-Oueili, where irrigation and the first political and economic systems emerged, the centres of power and domination, the development of temples, and changes in burial practices: all evidence of the emergence of new social identity. Characteristics of the material culture of Ubaid included brown, painted ceramics made on a slow wheel, ceramic sickles, ophidian figurines, tripartite houses, and niched and buttressed temples. Such styles originally began in the Ubaid approximately in the 6th millennium BC (Figure 166). Previous studies Mallowan visited the site in 1926 as part of his research in the Balikh Valley of the late 1930s. In 1983, the Dutch researcher Maurits Van Loon also investigated the Balikh area, including Tell Zeidan. Also Dutch, the archaeologist Peter Akkermans studied prehistoric ceramics from the site, which extended over 10 ha; his study was based on the pottery found at the site, he dated Halaf and Ubaid. A Spanish expedition to the Balikh Valley in 1986 was led by Joaquín María Córdoba, from the University of Autonoma, Madrid, who studied the site and noted the presence of Ubaid ceramics.33 A further, systematic, excavation of the site was undertaken by the joint Syrian American expedition in 2008. Description of Tell Zeidan Tell Zeidan is located on the eastern bank of the Balikh, close to its confluence with the Euphrates, 5 km east of Raqqa. It is a considerable triple-mounded settlement, the mounds and the lower 33

Córdoba 1988: 149–188; 2006: 51–54.

123

The Fertile Desert

Figure 166. Map of Ubaid period sites and Tell Zeidan (Stein and Al Khabour 2008).

town extending 200 m x 600 m (12 ha); the southern mound is 16 m high (Figures 167, 168). Its location dominated two very important routes, namely, the lower section of the Balikh that leads to trade routes to the Harran, Urfa, and Anatolia; and the second main route of the Euphrates, a major connection between Mesopotamia and the Mediterranean. Both gave it great strategic importance, and its location also had economic value linked to its agricultural, commercial, and grazing activities. Excavations at Tell Zeidan The excavations at the site revealed finds from the Halaf and Ubaid periods, as well as the Late Chalcolithic. The Ubaid period was represented by a house floor with hearth, fragments of walls made from mud bricks, and the typical ceramics of this period (Figure 169). The Ubaid period VIIII at the site is contemporaneous with Tell Hammam et-Turkman (Ubaid III), located 70 km north along the Balikh. This was a period of special importance, since it was the time of the spread of Ubaid culture from southern Mesopotamia to Syria. C14 analysis has provided a date of 4940–5055 BC for the Ubaid context at the site.34 The trench in the southern mound (2–12m) revealed the Ubaid period, as well as the periods immediately above (Halaf) and below (Late Chalcolithic I-II)

34

Stein and Al Khabour 2008.

124

The occupation of the territory Description of the investigated sites

Figure 167. Topographic map showing the three mounds of Tell Zeidan (Stein and Al Khabour 2008).

Figure 168. The southern mound of Tell Zeidan (Stein and Al Khabour 2008).

125

The Fertile Desert

Figure 169. Painted pottery from Ubaid period (Stein and Al Khabour 2008).

Figure 170. Stratigraphic trench in Tell Zeidan, view from the west (Stein and Al Khabour 2008).

126

The occupation of the territory Description of the investigated sites (Figure 170). In all, the excavations demonstrated that the site was occupied continuously between 5800–3800 BC (Figure 171). Another interesting find was a mudbrick wall (3.5 m wide, 1.5 m high) which could be the remains of a monumental structure or part of the Ubaid fortifications of Tell Zeidan. C-14 analysis of two samples from the wall gave us approximate dates of 4940 BC (± c. 40 years) and 5055 BC (± c. 40 years).35 There are still several meters to dig before the level of the floodplain is reached, and thus further periods may well be documented. These may include further evidence of the transitional phase from the Ubaid to the older Halaf periods; some floors and walls have already been found dating in this direction, marking a very important stage in understanding how the Ubaid culture spread out from southern Mesopotamia to replace the existing Halaf culture in north Syria. Clear indications can be found that this transition was peaceful, which corroborates the site, there being no destruction layer between the two periods; in addition, there is clear evidence the gradual replacement of Halaf ceramics by Ubaid-style vessels. The Ubaid ceramics in this layer still show the decoration of the previous Halaf style (Figure 172). Dating using the C-14 method indicates that the later Halaf layers at the site date back to 55005400 BC. Excavations in the northwestern mound of the site provided a well-preserved sequence of houses, each of which was built on top of an older one. Their interiors provided evidence of how the dwellers worked and cooked. This era covered a period of c. 500 years, set in Late Chalcolithic I and II, i.e. between 4500 and 4000 BC. Late Chalcolithic I at Tell Zeidan demonstrated a continuity, immediately after the Ubaid period,

Figure 171. Stratigraphic section of the southern mound (Stein and Al Khabour 2008). 35

Stein and Al Khabour 2008; Stein 2010.

127

The Fertile Desert

Figure 172. Pottery from Ubaid period (left.) with decorations from the previous period of Halaf (right.) (Stein and Al Khabour 2008).

Figure 173. Backed clay “muller” represents a continuation of Ubaid oractices in the Late Chalcolithic I (Stein and Al Khabour 2008).

Figure 174. Obsidian from Tell Zeidan (Stein and Al Khabour 2008).

128

The occupation of the territory Description of the investigated sites and the Chalcolithic I population followed the same Ubaid lifestyle and pottery tradition (fired clay) – one of the most representative objects of the period is the fired-clay, nail-shaped item (pestles or seals perhaps) with rounded head (Figure 173). The domestic architecture provides information about changes in social life. Finds of animal bones, instruments, and other artisan objects indicates the relatively wealthy lives of the local population, based on practising irrigated agriculture, craft production, and trade. Fragments of flint sickle blades are found everywhere; their handles made use of the bitumen that came from a source 7 km to Figure 175. Blowpipe to melt copper the south and acquired either through trade or (Stein and Al Khabour 2008). expeditions to collect it. Trade at Tell Zeidan was clearly developed, as suggested by finds of obsidian fragments, a highly-prized and widely traded material (Figure 174) that would have come from the Lake Van area, 400 km north of the site. Other interesting evidence of craft production is the find of a blowpipe used to melt copper (Figure 175). The Chalcolithic witnessed the beginning of smelting the copper and refining it into moulds to make tools and ornaments. The presence of copper at Zeidan indicates that commercial exchanges took place there with areas more than 300 km or 400 km away – copper is known in the Diyar Bakir area, today in south-east Turkey. The inhabitants made their own metal utensils using the most advanced technology that existed in the 5th millennium BC.36 There is also evidence of administrative activities being carried out by people of high social rank, perhaps an emerging elite class who ruled over Tell Zeidan and the surrounding regions in the Late Chalcolithic II, c. 4100 BC. The most remarkable find was a stone stamp seal with a carved image depicting a deer. The seal was unusually large (4.5 cm x 5.8 cm), made of a red stone not native to the Raqqa region. A similar seal, from an iconographic point of view, was found in the Tepe Gawra area, in Mosul, northern Iraq, 300 km east of Zeidan (Figure 176). The proximity between the two seals may suggest that high ranking elites, perhaps sharing a common set of symbols or ideologies, governed at both sites.

Figure 176. Stamp from the Late Chalcolithic II (Stein and Al Khabour 2008). 36

Stein and Al Khabour 2008.

129

The Fertile Desert

Figure 177. Radiocarbon date analisis from Tell Zeidan (Stein and Al Khabour 2008).

Chronology Radiocarbon analyses by the Beta Analytic Laboratory of twelve samples provided important results helping to establish an historical framework for the occupation of Tell Zeidan (Figure 177). The Tell Zeidan radiocarbon data obtained fits well with that from other Halaf, Ubaid, and Late Chalcolithic I and II sites in northern Syrian. The calibration of the radiocarbon data shows that the extension of the Ubaid period from Mesopotamia towards northern Syria took place c. 5400 BC – 5300 BC, more or less 900 years before the year 4500 BC, a date that has been widely accepted for many years.37 Conclusion Tell Zeidan is a key site in the history of the region, with its continuous sequence of occupation through Halaf, Ubaid, and Late Chalcolithic I and II periods, without interruption, and ranging from 6000 to 3800 BC, when the site was abandoned. Such a sequence offers us a unique opportunity to study the early development of societies in northern Syria. The variety of finds discovered – obsidian, basalt, ceramics, etc. – provides good evidence for local and long-distance trade during this period. The Late Chalcolithic I and II at Tell Zeidan witnessed long-distance trade and on-site copper smelting; the existence of stone seals (like those of Tepe Gawra) might well indicate the emergence of ruling elites connected ideologically with those of northern Iraq and covering a wide area in northern Mesopotamia. 37

Stein and Al Khabour 2008; Stein 2010.

130

The occupation of the territory Description of the investigated sites References Al Khabour, A. 2016. Tell Zeidan, in Y. Kanjou and A. Tsuneki (eds) A History of Syria in One Hundred Sites: 88-90. Oxford: Archaeopress. Córdoba, J. 1988. Prospección en el valle del río Balih (Siria). Informe provisional. Aula Orientalis 6: 149–188. Córdoba, J. 2006. Campesinos e imperios en una región ignorada: prospecciones y sondeos en el valle del Balih (Siria), in J. Mª. Córdoba and M.C. Pérez Díe (eds) La arqueología española en Oriente: 51–54. Madrid: Ministerio de Cultura. Stein, G. and Al Khabour, A. 2008. Report on the first season of the excavation at Tell Zeidan by the SyrianAmerican expedition, Raqqa (In Arabic): 1–19. Chicago: University of Chicago. Stein, G. 2010. Tell Zeidan, 2009–2010: Annual Report of The Oriental Institute. Chicago: University of Chicago. 3. Wadi Ubeid Within the context of the Syrian-Japanese Project, in its investigations of the region around Mt Bishri in Raqqa, several surveys have been carried out in the northern area of Bishri to trace the Neolithic settlements in the region, as well as its other periods, and to shed light on the origins of nomadic pastoralism. One of the investigated sites was Wadi Ubeid during a short survey in early August, 4th – 6th, 2007. Location Wadi Ubeid is located c. 15 km south of Tell Hamadin and the shores of the Euphrates. The landscape is typical of the north of the region north, i.e. small mounds on both sides of the valley.

Figure 178. Location of Wadi Ubaid.

131

The Fertile Desert Description of Wadi Ubeid On both sides of the valley there are concentrations of flint, strongly suggesting that the site was used by pastoral groups as a temporary workshop to produce tools during the Pre-Pottery Neolithic B (PPNB). Such sites are valuable as there is a need to develop our research on this category of sites to try and reconstruct the movements of PPNB communities. The total absence of farming tools suggests that the archaeological remains of other flint objects belong to groups of pastoralists who did not practise agriculture, and the finds are probably to be associated with a group sent out to collect raw flint to use in their settlements, perhaps located in more favorable environments in which to live.38 References Nishiaki, Y. 2008. Prehistoric survey at the northern edge of Jebel Bishri, Raqqa, in K. Ohnuma and A. Al Khabour (eds) Preliminary reports of the Syria-Japan archaeological joint research in the region of Ar-Raqqa, Syria, 2007. Archaeological research in the Bishri region. Report of the third working season: 151–152. Tokyo: Kokushikan University. Nishiaki, Y. 2010. Archaeological evidence of the Early Bronze Age communities in the Middle Euphrates steppe, North Syria. Al-Rāfidān: Journal of Western Asiatic Studies, Special Issue: 37–48. Tokyo: Kokushikan University. 4. Jabal Tbouq In the region of Mt Bishri, Raqqa province, the Syrian-Japanese expedition undertook various surveys in the north of the study area to document prehistoric settlements in the region and to investigate the beginnings of human occupation there. Research too place during a short survey in early August, 4th – 6th, 2007.

Figure 179. Location of Jabal Tbouq. 38

Nishiaki 2008; 2010.

132

The occupation of the territory Description of the investigated sites

Figure 180. The PPNB flint scatter of Jabal Tbouq in Wadi er-Rhoum, Loc. 1, viewed from the east (after Nishiaki 2008:164)

Figure 181. PPNB flint implements from Jabal Tbouq in Wadi er-Rhoum, Loc. 1 (after Nishiaki 2008: 165)

133

The Fertile Desert Location The mountainous terrain, running E–W, is on the northwestern edge of Jebel Bishri, roughly 60 km south of Raqqa and in an area cut by Wadi er-Rhoum. Description Jebel Tbouq provided data about the Neolithic in the region. It is a PPNB site with a distribution of naviform cores: the production site was discovered on its left bank (Figures 180, 181). More large flint workshops are spread along the valley, deep in the mountain, i.e. at the western end of Jabal Sbai. These workshops are located near outcrops of high-quality flint that extend to the south and east along the basin and continue to the area of Tar al-Sbaai. This region was already investigated by a Finnish team, and the Syrian-French expedition to the Kowm basin.39 The collected surface sampling can be associated with the Palaeolithic and Neolithic. 1. Palaeolithic artifacts Consisted of form Levallois cores and flakes, typical of the Middle Palaeolithic. All the stages of the core reduction processes took place at the workshops. 2. Neolithic artifacts These are simple objects dated to the PPNB – core-preforms and their preparation by-products only, completion took place elsewhere. The workshops were used for the initial stages of core preparation during the Neolithic. The second-phase workshop is located c. 100 m to the north, along the southern cliff of the mountain, where completely reduced PPNB naviform cores and blades were distributed. Further research on these workshops will shed light on PPNB communities and their possible use of the landscape for collecting and producing flint raw material, as well as on how they roamed this area to cross Mt Bishri, towards the north and south, for hunting and other activities.40 As mentioned above, the surveys that have been already undertaken provide much interesting data about these communities, i.e. the complete absence of farming tools (i.e. sickles) among the flint samples, indicating that these groups were pastoralists, or groups dispatched, possibly, from their home settlements to collect raw materials, such as flint. References Nishiaki, Y. 2008. Prehistoric survey at the northern edge of Jebel Bishri, Raqqa, in K. Ohnuma and A. Al Khabour (eds) Preliminary reports of the Syria-Japan archaeological joint research in the region of ArRaqqa, Syria, 2007. Archaeological research in the Bishri region. Report of the third working season: 151–152. Tokyo: Kokushikan University. Nishiaki, Y. 2010. Archaeological evidence of the Early Bronze Age communities in the Middle Euphrates steppe, North Syria. Al-Rāfidān: Journal of Western Asiatic Studies, Special Issue: 37–48. Tokyo: Kokushikan University.

39 40

Nishiaki 2008; 2010. Nishiaki 2008; 2010.

134

The occupation of the territory Description of the investigated sites 5. Cairn fields northwest of Mt Bishri The Syrian-Japanese expedition began work in the Raqqa region in 2007. The research integrated various scientific disciplines and covered the zone between the Mt Bishri and the course of the Euphrates in Raqqa province. One of the research groups targeted the funerary practices of the pastoral nomad tribes; this group was directed by Sumio Fuji, who started in May 2007 on the northwestern flank of Bishri. The aim was to shed light on the societies of the Middle and Early Bronze Age in the region. The investigated area was divided into three: • Area 1 – This area included the northwestern flanks of Mt Bishri, at elevations of 400 m – 650 m; the region contained various mounds, extending N–W, and numerous cairn fields. • Area 2 – A zone upstream of Area 1 at an elevation of 600 m – 750 m. In this area there are mounds and valleys of various orientations. • Area 3 – This area includes the Rahum Plateau, 500 m – 700m, located to the southwest of the investigated area, and forming a third of the total zone. Cairn fields were also documented in this region (Figures 182, 183).

Figure 182. Location of Bishri Mountain (after Fuji and Adachi 2010: 62).

135

The Fertile Desert

Figure 183. Topographic map of the research area (after Fuji and Adachi 2010: 62).

Figure 184. Distribution of Bronze Age cairns (after Fuji and Adachi 2010: 63).

136

The occupation of the territory Description of the investigated sites The survey The survey focused on areas 1 and 3, due to time restrictions and difficulties in gaining access to area 2. In the areas surveyed, some 35 concentrations of cairn fields (including more than 400 individual tumuli) were recorded. According to the excavators (Fuji and Adachi 2010: 63), the homogeneous concentrations of burial cairns in such a limited area suggests the existence of large groups sharing the same ethno-cultural identity. The distributions of the cairn fields lay E–W and NW–SE and occupied the higher lands; higher locations gave increased visibility and accessibility to raw material near limestone outcrops (Figure 184). Despite the availability of limestone, the cairn fields are small and aligned at intervals of 100 m – 300 m to form patterns of 1 km – 2 km.41 Why these patterns were adopted is still unknown; they differ from contemporary cairn fields in the southern Levant and the Arabian Peninsula.42 Surveys at the cairn fields The surveys were carried out in the following areas: Wadi Hedaja 1–4 (Area 1); Wadi Jal al-Tuyuyr 2 (Area 1); Wadi Hayuz 1–2 (Area 2), and Tor Rahum 1 (Area 3). The most representative of these are Wadi Hedaja 1 and Tor Rahum 1.

Figure 185. Wadi Hedaja 1 (after Fuji and Adachi, 2010: 65). 41 42

Fuji 2008: 138. Fuji and Adachi 2010: 63–64.

137

The Fertile Desert

Figure 186. Segments A and B (after Fuji and Adachi. 2010).

Wadi Hedaja 1 (WHD-1) This site, located in the southern part of Area 1, was excavated in 2009; it consists of two cairn groups – Segments A and B – and the burial cairns were numbered BC1–BC14 (Figure 185). Segment A consisted of ten cairns, extending 1.5 km in length; Segment B consisted of four cairns, over 0.6 km. Feature BC-10 was excavated extensively, being a large mound with a few internal structures (Figure 186), measuring 15 m on its N–S major axis, and 13 m E–W; it is 1.2 m high.43 Its structure consisted of a cist (1.2 m high), and an inner and outer enclosure (Figure 187), all constructed without mortar; the outer enclosure was dressed with limestone cobbles. The cist occupied the centre of the mound and was pear-shaped in plan; it incorporated four stone-lined chambers (Figure 188). The cist suffered disturbance, but it included five concentrations of human skeletal remains (Figure 189).44 The inner enclosure had a similar profile to the cist, the dimensions are 13 m (NNW–SSE) and 10 m (ENE–WSW). It was constructed of a single row of stones, c. 1 m high; there is no entrance to it. Two small graves were documented in the corridor between the cist and the inner enclosure (Graves A and B), covered with a small cobble mound. Grave A revealed human skeletal remains (Figure 190), and in Grave B there were fragmented human bones and a little bronze bracelet (Figure 191). These graves might be incidental burials associated with the main interment within the cist.

43 44

Fuji 2009: 140. Fuji 2009.

138

The occupation of the territory Description of the investigated sites

Figure 187. BC-10 Plan of the cairn (after Fuji and Adachi 2010: 67).

139

The Fertile Desert

Figure 188. General view of BC-10 from SE (after Fuji 2009: 154).

Figure 189. General view of the cist, from NW (after Fuji 2009: 154).

140

The occupation of the territory Description of the investigated sites

Figure 190. Human skeletal remains from the central chamber of BC-10 (after Fuji 2009: 154).

Figure193. BC-10 Construction material engraved with an animal design (after Fuji 2009: 155).

141

The Fertile Desert

Figure 192. Construction material decorated with herringbone patterns (after Fuji. 2009: 155).

Figure 193. BC-10 Construction material engraved with an animal design (after Fuji 2009: 155).

The third feature is the outer enclosure; like the inner one, there is no entrance, and it was also pear-shaped, like the other two components. This enclosure measures 16 m (NNW) x 13.5 m (ENE– WSW), with a preserved height of 0.5 m. Two construction materials were used: limestone boulders, 60 cm – 70 cm long, for the foundation course, and finely dressed limestone cobbles for the upper courses. Many stones were decorated with herringbone patterns (Figure 192) and animal designs (Figure 193). Fourteen features constructed of small stones were documented around BC-10, some containing cores and blades and pottery, indicating perhaps that these features were used temporarily during the construction of BC-10.45 The finds at Wadi Hedaja 1 (WHD-1) Most of the cairns here were looted, but some revealed gastropod shell and stone beads, bronze artifacts, flint, and pottery sherds (Figures 194–197). The human bones were disarticulated, suggesting that the cairns were used for secondary interments. BC-10 included a few individuals of various ages, indicating perhaps that the cairn served as a family tomb rather than an individual grave.46 45 46

Fuji 2009: 141–142. Fuji and Adachi 2010: 66.

142

The occupation of the territory Description of the investigated sites

Figure 194. Bronze products from BC-09 (after Fuji, Adachi and Suzuki 2009: 186).

Figure 195. Faience products from BC-09 (after Fuji, Adachi and Suzuki 2009: 186).

As to the sequence, the linear arrangement of ten burials indicates that the Hedaja cairn complex gradually developed southeast from BC-10, the techno/typological features divided into three phases according to the excavators: Phase 1: Represented by large cairns, e.g. BC-10. The cist also large and there is a cruciform burial chamber, with a double or triple peripheral wall encompassing it. Phase 2: In this phase the peripheral walls disappear and the size is reduced. The form becomes ovoid, with a semi-subterranean cist (e.g. BC-9 to C-5) and there is a gradual reduction in the corridor-like space between the outer and inner cist walls. This phase can be divided into smaller divisions, e.g. Phase 2a, 2b and 2c, according to the size of the cairns. Phase 3: In this phase the cairn size is reduced and simplified, and the corridor disappears (e.g. BC-11, Segment B). The cairns became a simple combination of stone-lined pit grave with a small cobble mound covering it. Fuji assumes suggests that Phases 1 and 2 are dated to the first half of the Middle Bronze Age, with Phase 3 coming later, after the MBA (Figure 198).47

Figure 196. Agate and faience beads from BC-09 (after Fuji, Adachi and Suzuki 2009: 186).

Figure 197. Snail beads from BC-09 (after Fuji, Adachi and Suzuki 2009: 186). 47

Fuji and Adachi 2010: 66–71; Fuji et al. 2009: 183.

143

The Fertile Desert

Figure 198. Wadi Hedaja 1: techno-typological sequence of cairns (after Fuji and Adachi 2010: 69).

144

The occupation of the territory Description of the investigated sites

Figure 199. Tor Rahum 1: site map and techno-typological sequence (after Fuji and Adachi 2010:71).

Survey at Tor Rahum 1 The archaeological research continued to the south of Hedaja to include the area of Tor Rahum 1, located 8 km southeast of Bir Rahum. The expedition documented a 10-km long segment, as well as eighteen cairns. The research focused on the two large cairns (BC-117 and BC-131), as well as investigating cairns BC-116 to BC-133.48 The cairns followed those of Hedaja, starting with a large cairn of Phase 1 and ending with a small cairn of Phase 3, or a further phase – Phase 4 – that

48

Fuji et al. 2010a: 101–104.

145

The Fertile Desert includes a large limestone slab placed on the ground for a stone-lined grave pit (Figure 199).49 Based on the sequence, the site is dated to the Middle Bronze Age, and the finds included a bronze dagger and sheath from BC-131 (Segment D) at Tor Rahum (Figure 200). This dagger has parallels from the MBA hoard at Byblos, as well as from Halawa and Tawi on the upper Syrian Euphrates. The date was confirmed by C-14 analysis.50 Surveys at Wadi Hayuz 1 and 2

Figure 200. Tor Rahum 1: Bronze dagger and sheath from BC-131 (after Fuji et al 2010a:107).

This complex consisted of small cairn fields located 10 km to the south of Bir Rahum, the research documenting five burial cairns at Wadi Hayuz 1 and one at Wadi Hayuz 2, associated to Phases 1 and 2 of the Hedaja sequence. Grave BC-05 at Wadi Hayuz 1 has a particular construction, placed over a large rectangular platform packed with limestone (Figure 201). The cairns were plundered, but some gastropod shell and carnelian beads, pottery sherds, flint and bronze artifacts, as well as human bones, were collected (Figure 202).51

Figure 201. Wadi Hayuz 1: General view of BC-05, from SE (after Fuji et al. 2010b:167). Fuji and Adachi 2010: 71. Fuji and Adachi 2010: 74. 51 Fuji et al. 2010b: 163–168. 49 50

146

The occupation of the territory Description of the investigated sites Surveys at Wadi Hedaja 2 and 4

Figure 202. Wadi Hayuz 1: Small finds from BC-01 (after Fuji et al. 2010b:167).

Located some 5 km to the east of Bir Rahum, nine cairns were documented at these sites: eight at Wadi Hedaha 2 and one at Wadi Hedaja 4. They are dated to Phases 1–3 (Figure 203). The cairns were disturbed in general, but finds of pottery sherds, stone beads, and flint artifacts confirm the Middle Bronze Age. Of particular interest from BC-09 are a straightnecked, small pot and a bronze toggle pin (Figure 204).52 Survey at Wadi Jal al-Tyur 2

This site is 8 km northeast of Bir Rahum, and the survey team investigated here two large burial cairns. BC-01 is associated to Phase 1, consisting of a corridor-type cist and double peripheral wall (Figure 205). The grave was plundered but some finds were collected, including four bronze rings, cowrie and carnelian beads, as well as human skeletal remains (Figure 206). The second cairn (BC-02) is common to Phase 2, being constructed over the southern edge of an oval platform of limestone rubble (Figure 207). The finds included a single bead of black stone, as well as some human bones.53 Surveys to the north of the investigated area In the northern area, the expedition team surveyed and documented seventeen cairns fields (some 131 burial cairns).

Figure 203. Wadi Hedaja 2: General view of BC-09, looking NE (after Fuji et al. 2010b:167). 52 53

Fuji et al. 2010b: 163–168. Fuji et al. 2010b: 163–168.

147

The Fertile Desert

Figure 204. Wadi Hedaja 2: Pottery from BC-09 (after Fuji et al. 2010b:167).

Figure 206. Wadi Jal al-Tyur 2: BC-01, small finds (after Fuji et al. 2010b:167).

Figure 205. Wadi Jal al-Tyur 2: BC-01, looking NE (after Fuji et al. 2010b:167).

148

The occupation of the territory Description of the investigated sites

Figure 207. Wadi Jal al-Tyur 2: General view of BC-02, looking NW (after Fuji et al. 2010b:168).

Figure 208. Wadi Jal-at-Tyur 2: General view of some cairns (BC-17-18-19), looking N (after Fuji et a., 2010b: 168).

149

The Fertile Desert

Figure 209. Finds from Structure A: el-Khiam points (after Fuji et al. 2011: 145).

Surveys at Wadi al-Hajana 1 During the fourteenth season, in May 2010, the expedition explored the small Neolithic settlement at Wadi Hajana 1; it was found in the survey of 2009 and registered as BS-0951 according to the excavators.54 It is located 5 km south of Bir Rahum at c. 540 m.a.s.l. and covers 500 m2. The expedition surveyed approximately half of the area. The surface artifacts contained only flints (7419 pieces). The majority of them was produced using the naviform core-and-blade technique. The surface collection is dated to the Pre-Pottery Neolithic B (PPNB) and the excavated trenches provided an

Figure 210. Farkat Bidewy 1: structural complex, looking north (after Fuji et al. 2013: 8). 54

Fuji et al. 2011: 134–145

150

The occupation of the territory Description of the investigated sites el-Khiam flint assemblage (Figure 209). The site suggests it was used as a temporary flint knapping station during the Khiamian and PPNB periods.55 Surveys at Farkat Bidewy 1 and 2 The research targeted the two small sites of Farkat Bidewy 1 and 2, found during the survey in 2009 and registered as BS-0953 by the expedition.56 They are located 5 km southwest of Bir Rahum at 570 m.a.s.l. Farkat Bidewy 1 The survey documented several wall alignments constructed with two rows of limestone slabs forming multi-room rectangular structures, 36 m long and 9 m – 12 m wide. The complex formed up to six rectangular units, each divided into fifteen rectangular/square compartments without entrances or other features (e.g. hearths). However a small cairn (1.2 m – 3 m in diameter and 0.06 m – 0.45 m high) was associated with the outer wall of every unit (Figure 210).57 As for small finds, there were flint artifacts and a limited collection of wheel-made pottery sherds, iron nails, glass fragments, and bones. Farkat Bidewy 2 Located 1 km northwest of Farkat Bidewy 1, the site contained combinations of two-row slab walls (5.8 m long, 0.3 m max. height) and the small, semi-circular cairn, BC-01 (3.5 m – 4.8 m in diameter, 0.1 m – 0.25 m max. height) (Figure 211). The small finds included flint artifacts and glazed pottery

Figure 211. Farkat Bidewy 2: BC-01. From northwest (after Fuji et al. 2013: 12). Fuji et al. 2011: 134–145. Fuji et al. 2013: 1–12. 57 Fuji et al. 2013: 1–12. 55 56

151

The Fertile Desert sherds, and although the core parts of the cairn were intact, neither human bones nor burial gifts were documented.58 Conclusion The research on the cairns of Mt Bishri set out to trace the Bronze Age pastoralist nomads of the region, and targeted the question of the origins of the Amorite (Mar-tu or Amurru) population – the Sumerian and Akkadian cuneiform texts mentioned their homeland as the peripheral, hilly terrain. The hundreds of burial cairns surveyed during the various campaigns by the Syrian-Japanese team suggest a pastoralist population, who shared the same ideology and rituals, but differing from the inhabitants of the neighbouring and settled farming communities. They probably occupied the kingdom of Mari during the first half of the 2nd millennium BC and used this area for their large cemeteries. Comparing the cairns with older examples, i.e. the Early Bronze Age ones from Tell Shabout and other sites, it might be suggested that in the 3rd millennium the population occupied the edge of the Middle Euphrates, and during the 2nd millennium constructed their cemeteries in the regions around Mt Bishri. References Fuji, S. 2008. The General Survey of Pre-Islamic Cairns in the Northern Flank of Jabal Bishri. AlRāfidān: Journal of Western Asiatic Studies 29: 61–77. Tokyo: Kokushikan University. Fuji, S. 2009. A brief sounding at Rujum Hedaja 1. Al-Rāfidān: Journal of Western Asiatic Studies 30: 138–165. Tokyo: Kokushikan University. Fuji, S. and Adachi, T. 2010. Archaeological investigations of Bronze Age cairn fields on the Northwestern flank of Mt. Bishri. Al-Rāfidān: Journal of Western Asiatic Studies, Special Issue: 61– 77. Tokyo: Kokushikan University. Fuji, S., Adachi, T. and Suzuki, K. 2009. The Second Field Season at Rujum Hedaja 1. Al-Rāfidān: Journal of Western Asiatic Studies 30: 180–187. Tokyo: Kokushikan University. Fuji, S., Adachi, T., Endo, H., Nagaya, K. and Suzuki, K. 2010a. Archaeological Investigation at the Tor Rahum Cairn Fields on the Northwestern Flank of Mt. Bishri. Al-Rāfidān: Journal of Western Asiatic Studies 31: 101–107. Tokyo: Kokushikan University. Fuji, S., Adachi, T., Endo, H., Nagaya, K., Suzuki, K. and Inoue, K. 2010b. Archaeological Survey and Sounding of Bronze Age Cairn Fields on the Northwestern Flank of Jabal Bishri. Al-Rāfidān: Journal of Western Asiatic Studies 31: 163–168. Tokyo: Kokushikan University. Fuji, S., Adachi, T., Akashi, Ch. and Suzuki, K. 2011. Wadi al-Hajana 1: A Preliminary Report of 2010 Excavation Season. Al-Rāfidān: Journal of Western Asiatic Studies 32: 134–145. Tokyo: Kokushikan University. Fuji, S., Adachi, T., and Yamafuji, M. 2013. Farkat Bidewy 1 and 2: Archaeological Investigation around Bir Rahum, 2011 (Spring). Al-Rāfidān: Journal of Western Asiatic Studies 33: 1–12. Tokyo: Kokushikan University. 6. Wadi Kharrar (Areas 16C, 16D, 16E, 16F, 16I, 16J, 16K, 16M, 16N, 16O, 16P, 16Q, 16R, 16V, 16W, 16AI, 16AM, 16AO) The Syrian-Japanese expedition during their fifth working season undertook a survey in the Wadi Kharrar area to investigate settlement types and land use in antiquity and compare the results with written sources. The survey was conducted on foot, using with compasses to document the precise locations of the targets (Figure 212). The survey paths were assigned numbers (1 to 24) and a letter was added; the survey routes are thus identified, e.g. 16C, 16F, etc. (Figure 213). The actual 58

Fuji et al. 2013: 1–12.

152

The occupation of the territory Description of the investigated sites

Figure 212. Location of Wadi Kharrar

Figure 213. Satellite image of the surveyed area (after Nishiaki et al: 2009: 161).

153

The Fertile Desert

Figure 214. General view of Wadi Kharrar, looking south (after Nishiaki et al: 2009: 162).

Figure 215. Spring at a tributary of Wadi Kharrar, looking west. Areas 16 O and 16 P are located on the left bank. Top right is the southern end of Area 16 M on the lower terrace of Wadi Kharrar (after Nishiaki et al: 2009: 162).

154

The occupation of the territory Description of the investigated sites

Figure 217. Chipped stones from Area 16I on a lower terrace of Wadi Kharrar. Tow lunates are on the top left corner of the photo (after Nishiaki et al:2009: 163).

Figure 218. Middle Paleolithic chipped stones from Area 16AO on upper terrace of Wadi Kharrar (after Nishiaki et al:2009: 163).

survey process was difficult as the targeted areas included modern villages and cemeteries, which have modified the surfaces; the focus therefore was on higher areas.59 Location Wadi Kharar is located between Tell Ghanem al-Ali and Tell Hamadin; its length is c. 20 km, N–S, and includes well-developed terraces (Figure 214). The research demonstrated the existence of different sites dated to the Palaeolithic along the terraces of Wadi Kharar. Description Most of the sites are situated on the terraces, at or near the confluence of Wadi Kharrar and its tributary wadis. Some terraces are broad (i.e. 200 m x 60 m) and associated with a spring starting some 4 km from the valley that drains into the Euphrates lowlands (Figure 215). A dense distribution of chipped stone artifacts was detected on the terraces of the spring, distributed over four areas (16M, 16N, 16O/P and 16Q). The excavators collected some 400 pieces, including many end-scrapers, burins, blades/bladelets and bladelet cores, some characterized by carinated forms (Figure 216).60 The collected stone objects belong to the Early Epipalaeolithic or Later Palaeolithic period. This period is documented on other terraces c. 1 km downstream of the spring. This site is located at the confluence of Wadi Kharrar and a tributary wadi and is formed by terraces: the lower terrace (Area 16I) and the upper terrace (16J and 16K), of different elevations. Area 16I provided c. 50 pieces of chipped stone, including two lunates, one endscraper, and several blade/bladelets from the Natufian period (Figure 217). At areas 16J and 16K, the upper terraces, no lunates were documented, instead several rectangular microliths, along with blade/bladelets were collected, and a unipolar bladelet core, all belonging to the Epipalaeolithic. Artifacts from this period are also located further downstream at Areas 16C, 16D and 16R.

59 60

Nishiaki et al. 2009. Nishiaki et al. 2009.

155

The Fertile Desert The collected lithic material from Wadi Kharrar can be dated to the Middle Palaeolithic (Figure 218). These artifacts were collected on the upper terrace of Wadi Kharrar, c. 5 m above the lower terraces where the Epipalaeolithic artifacts were found.61 Isolated finds The survey discovered no archaeological sites, but the quantities of lithic artifacts provide valuable data on the prehistory of the region, e.g. tool types, production technologies, raw material types, and different degrees of occupation, i.e. the lunates recovered in isolation in Areas 16AE and 10M indicate occupation during the Natufian period.62 Early Bronze Age burial structures The survey documented various tombs dated probably to the Early Bronze Age, such as those investigated nearby at Tell Ghanem al-Ali and Jezla. Comparable distributions to the Wadi Shabout tombs and pottery sherds were recorded during the survey, especially on the plateau areas that overlook Tell Hamadin (Figure 219). These areas were located along several wadis, including Wadi Ein and Wadi Quteina which flow towards the direction of Tell Hamadin. One of the interesting discoveries in Area 9D (Figure 220) raised questions in a socio-political context – a cairn of key-hole shape, 6 m x 3.5 m and 1 m in height. This cairn was surrounded by stone alignments, probably associated with the cairn, and it was among mound tombs. What stands out is that such features are usually distributed further south, near Mt Bishri.63 Conclusions Wadi Kharrar could well shed more light on land use and societies in the region’s prehistory. Finds demonstrated that Palaeolithic communities seemed to prefer to establish permanent settlements in the terraces of Wadi Kharrar. The smaller wadis that run, N–S, to the east and west of Wadi Kharrar, were less attractive for Palaeolithic people; in these wadis, most of the sites were temporary camps (Areas 20A, 20B and 20D). Later societies, during the Early Bronze Age, located their cemeteries in the wadis parallel to Wadi Kharrar. Among the advantages of Wadi Kharar are its water availability and access to travel routes towards the Euphrates. According to the excavators, there could be a number of reasons for relative EBA absence at Wadi Kharrar:64 • Geomorphology: Wadi Kharrar was relatively active, and it has either eroded away traces of EBA on the lower terraces, or covered them with sediment. • The absence of N–S wadis in the areas immediately to the east and west of Wadi Kharrar; its tributaries run E–W, forming natural obstacles to N–S travellers from Mt Bishri towards the Euphrates. • The EBA land-use patterns were spatially linked to the tell sites in the lowlands of the Euphrates, e.g. Tell Ghanem al-Ali and Tell Hamadin. The dense distribution of mound tombs appears to have formed two clusters, each spatially associated with the location of the tells. In particular, the mound tombs tend to be located along the wadis overlooking the tells. This is the case at Tell Shabout, in front of Tell Ghanem al-Ali, and Jezla, in front of Tell Hamadin. Further research on the sites in the small wadis is needed to establish settlement patterns and relationships to land use.

Nishiaki et al. 2009. Nishiaki et al. 2009. 63 Al Khabour 2018: 176. 64 Nishiaki 2010. 61 62

156

The occupation of the territory Description of the investigated sites

Figure 219. Mound tombs near Area 10N on the plateau along Wadi Ein West, looking east (after Nishiaki et al:2009: 163).

Figure 220. A burial cairn at Area 9D near the upstream of Wadi Quteina, looking southeast (after Nishiaki et al:2009: 163).

157

The Fertile Desert References Al Khabour, A. 2018. Burials and funerary practices along the Middle Euphrates Valley during the Early Bronze Age. Isimu: Soundings on the Archaeology and the History of the Near East 20: 161–191. Nishiaki, Y. 2010. Archaeological evidence of the Early Bronze Age communities in the Middle Euphrates steppe, North Syria. Al-Rāfidān: Journal of Western Asiatic Studies, Special Issue: 37–48. Tokyo: Kokushikan University. Nishiaki, Y., Kadowaki, S. and Kume, S. 2009. Archaeological survey around Tell Ghanem al-Ali. AlRāfidān: Journal of Western Asiatic Studies 30: 138–165. Tokyo: Kokushikan University. 7. Cemetery of Wadi Dabaa The Syrian-Japanese expedition between 2008–2010 undertook surveys and excavations in Wadi Dabaa, south of Tell Ghanem al-Ali. These revealed a cemetery dated to the Early Bronze Age III and IV, similar to contemporaneous sites in the area including Tell Ghanim al-Ali. The data analysis indicated that Wadi Dabaa (meaning in Arabic ‘the valley of the hyena’) was a cemetery for the nearby settlement of Tell Ghanem al-Ali. The archaeological structures however are heavily damaged due to the modern occupation in the area. Location Wadi Dabaa is 300 m to the south of the highway from Raqqa to Deir Ez-Zor, 41 km east of Raqqa and 650 m south of Tell Ghanem al-Ali (Figures 221, 222). It is a small valley between the eastern end of the village of Qabr al-Mukhtar (named after the tomb of a village leader) and Tell Tantour Shabout (Shabout is a man’s name, but can also mean a fish-shaped mound). The Wadi Dabaa runs north and there are large numbers of shaft graves on the western slope of the valley (Figure 223).65

Figure 221. Location of Wadi Dabaa. 65

Tsuneki 2009: 184.

158

The occupation of the territory Description of the investigated sites

Figure 222. The cemetery of Wadi Dabaa. The map shows the sites of Tell Ghanem al-Ali, Wadi Shabout and Abu Hamad (after Tsuneki 2009).

Figure 223. Wadi Dabaa to the south of Ghanem Al-Ali (after Tsuneki 2009).

159

The Fertile Desert

Figure 224. Unit A. Viewed from the west (after Numoto and Kume 2010: 188).

The excavations at Wadi Dabaa revealed 30–40 tombs, mostly plundered. The investigated area was divided into three units: Unit A. 55 m x 11 m, and located on the western slope of Wadi Dabaa. The excavators documented 20 tombs, all plundered. The inhabitants today have cut into the slopes and used the plundered graves as rubbish pits (Figure 224).66 Unit B. 20 m x 30 m, and also located on the western slope of Wadi Dabaa. There are 15 plundered shaft graves in this sector. The southern edge was cut by the modern road, which suggests that these graves can be associated with those in Unit A. The excavators considered the area as a separate unit to make the division clearer. It is also used by the locals for dumping rubbish (Figure 225). Unit C. 15 m x 20 m, and located at the slope of the terrace of the Euphrates, 150 m northwest of Unit B. It comprises several depressions, dug out by grave robbers. Although modern houses and courtyards now occupy the terrace immediately above the slope, the plundered area itself has conserved the original surface of the slope (Figure 226). After the survey, the expedition selected Unit C for cleaning and further investigation as it was well preserved. The research began by opening a trench, 4 m x 4 m, to include the plundered graves. A further trench, 1 m x 11 m, was opened off the first one to identify other possible graves. The main square was then enlarged to the west (1 m x 5 m). The main focus, however, was on the shaft grave, due to time restrictions. This grave has a rectangular entrance, 1.2 m x 0.8 m, and is oriented NE–SW. The 2.5 m-deep shaft was cut with a slope towards the southwest. Flights of steps led to the burial chamber; the height of the steps is 0.8 m, and the bottom of them is made of mud bricks, above which three undressed gypsum 66

Numoto and Kume 2010: 188.

160

The occupation of the territory Description of the investigated sites

Figure 225. Unit B graves used as a garbage pits, viewed from northwest (after Numoto and Kume 2010: 188).

Figure 226. Unit C, traces of depressions excavated into the slope by grave robbers, looking west (after Numoto and Kume 2010:189).

161

The Fertile Desert stones were laid. Two monolithic gypsum blocks were used to seal the entrance of the chamber (Figures 227, 228). Very few artifacts were recovered from the shaft as it had been plundered (the robbers leaving behind them a modern cigarette pack). The burial chamber is oval in shape (2.2 m x 2. 8m, and 1 m high). In the southeast quadrant of the chamber there was a large pile of sherds of various sizes, as well as 14 complete vessels (Figures 229, 230). Apparently the robbers did not open the chambers. The pottery repertoire indicates that more than 30 individuals might have been placed there, suggesting that multiple inhumations were performed.67

Figure 227. Shaft of the grave. Tow monolithic Stone seal the entrance of the chamber (after Numoto and Kume 2010: 189).

The sherds include both fine and plain wares. One of the vessels is of Black Euphrates Ware with spiral burnishing (Figure 231), indicating that the burial can be dated to Phase 4 (2450 BC – 2300 BC) according to Porter’s classification.68 Some badly damaged human bones were found immediately beneath the pottery at

Figure 228. Stairs leading to the chamber, the bottom of the stairs is constructed from mud bricks (after Numoto and Kume 2010:189). 67 68

Numoto and Kume 2010. Porter 2007.

162

The occupation of the territory Description of the investigated sites

Figure 229. Pottery in the burial chamber (after Numoto and Kume 2010:189).

Figure 230. Complete vessels recovered from the burial chamber (after Numoto and Kume 2010:189).

Figure 231. Black Euphrates Ware with spiral burnishing from the burial chamber (after Numoto and Kume 2010:190).

163

The Fertile Desert the eastern edge of the chamber; they were identified as a concentration of cranial bones. In terms of other finds, a zoomorphic pendant (probably sheep or goat) was recovered (Figure 232), as well as a fragmented bronze pin with a mushroom-shaped head (Figure 233), and various bone, shell, and stone beads (Figure 234).69

Figure 232. Zoomorphic pendant (after Numoto and Kume 2010: 190).

Although there were no built features within the chamber, the floor had four holes (0.9 m x 0.5 m) dug into the eastern edge. The location of the holes, just beneath the pile of sherds and human remains, may suggest a wooden coffin or table for grave goods (Figure 235).70

This table could represent one stage of the funerary process after laying out the dead, symbolizing the separation rite and the later integration of the soul with those of the ancestors.71 This wooden table suggests a similarity with the wooden coffin discovered at Tell Banat.72 In the fifteenth season (2010), the expedition continued working in Sector C, locating in total four further graves that the excavators could associate with their earlier findings (Figure 236). Graves and finds Grave WD1C-2 Grave WD1C-2 now includes a looter pit, 1.6 m in diameter. The entrance shaft is 1.5 m x 1.2 m, and is 0.9 m deep. In the southern part of the funerary chamber there is another pit dug by the robbers (3.0 m diameter, 2.8 m deep). The orientation of the grave is NE–SW, and the chamber is oval, 2.8 m long and 0.9 m deep (Figure 237). There were no finds remaining except for some complete and semi-complete vessels, including small bottles and a short-necked jar of Black Euphrates Banded Ware (Figure 238), and a pair of bronze pins with mushroom-shaped heads (Figure 239). There were concentrations of disturbed human skeletal remains. At the bottom of the entrance shaft there is a

Figure 233. Bronze pin with mushroom-shaped head (after Numoto and Kume 2010: 190). Numoto and Kume 2010. Numoto and Kume 2010. 71 Morris 1987: 32. 72 Al Khabour 2018: 180. 69 70

164

Figure 234. Beads (after Numoto and Kume 2010: 190).

The occupation of the territory Description of the investigated sites

Figure 235. Postholes dug in the chamber (after Numoto and Kume 2010: 190).

Figure 236. The entrances of the four shaft tombs excavated in 2010, looking northeast (after Kume et al. 2011: 168).

165

The Fertile Desert

Figure 237. Grave WD1C-2, looking southwest (after Kume et al. 2011: 168).

Figure 238. A jar and bottle of Black Euphrates Banded Ware from Grave WD1C-2 (after Kume et al. 2011: 168).

166

The occupation of the territory Description of the investigated sites

Figure 239. A pair of Bronze pins from Grave WD1C-2 (after Kume et al. 2011: 168).

Figure 241. Pendant of lapis lazuli (after Kume et al. 2011: 168).

wide ditch (0.2 m) connecting two small holes excavated in both sidewalls of the shaft (Figure 237). Apparently, the ditch and holes formed a drainage system associated with an infant burial located around the main burial.73 Grave WD1C-2-3 A small shaft and undisturbed chamber (WD1C-2-3) were found next to WD1C-2, interpreted as some form of drainage system associated with the latter. Surface observations attested that the grave has a small entrance shaft sealed with two flat gypsum slabs. The orientation of the grave is NE–SW. The burial chamber measures 0.7 m x 0.7 m in length and 0.5 m in height. There is a wide ditch across the bottom of the chamber that leads to the previous grave through a small hole

Figure 240. Small hole between WD1C-2 and WD1C-2-3. An infant skull and complete vessels were located at the entrance, looking NW (after Kume et al. 2011: 168). 73

Kume et al. 2011.

167

The Fertile Desert (Figure 240). Apparently that ditch also led to a third grave (WD1C-3), via another hole dug into the opposite side of the chamber. In the burial chamber, an infant has been laid out in a flexed position on its side. The grave goods included a bowl with rounded rim, a corrugated goblet, a spouted jar, and a shell ring (Figure 240).74 Grave WD1C-3 Grave WD1C-3, oriented NE–SW, has a rectangular entrance; it is 1.4 m x 1.1 m in length and width, and 3.1 m deep. The top of the shaft has been dug through by looters, making a pit 1.8 m x 1.7 m. A lapis lazuli pendant was found in the shaft (Figure 241). At the bottom of the shaft there is a slope leading to the burial chamber; two stones laid at the end of the slope were probably used as steps. The entrance was re-sealed by looters using eight gypsum slabs. The chamber measures 2.2 m x 2.1 m in length and width, and is 1 m high. The finds in this plundered grave included some faience beads and fragmented bronze pins. Five nearly complete ceramic vessels recovered from the southern corner of the chamber, including a bottle of Black Euphrates Banded Ware and a cooking pot and jars of Plain Simple Ware. One of these jars contained fragmented human remains (Figure 242). Immediately below the top of the entrance shaft, there is a further oval burial chamber (nichelike), measuring 1.2 m x 0.8 m in length and width, and 0.8 m in height (Figure 243). Inside, a child was laid in the flexed position on its side (Figure 244).75 The assemblage of ceramic vessels included a bowl with convex wall, spouted and short-necked jars, two lids, and a miniature jar of Plain Simple Ware. The grave goods included beads, a ring, and a pendant with a flower-like motif made of shell or faience. These items apparently belonged

Figure 242. Fragmented human remains (after Kume et al. 2011: 169). 74 75

Kume et al. 2011. Kume et al. 2011.

168

The occupation of the territory Description of the investigated sites

Figure 243. Two burial chambers of Grave WD1C-3, looking SW (after Kume et al. 2011: 169).

Figure 244. Recovered human remains from the niche- like chamber of Grave WD1C-3, looking SW (after Kume et al. 2011: 169).

169

The Fertile Desert to a woman, based on the evidence of the jewellery (Figure 245). A small cutting (0.15 m) similar to that found in the previous grave was documented at the bottom of the chamber. Grave WD1C-4 Grave WD1C-4 has a rectangular entrance shaft measuring 2.4 m x 1.3 m in length and width, and 2.2 m in dept. Although very badly Figure 245. Pendant with flower-like motif from Grave damaged by three looter pits, inside there WD1C-3 (after Kume et al. 2011: 169). were four complete ceramic vessels, including small bowls. There are two lateral burial chambers (Figure 246), but it was not possible to excavate them due to time constraints. The first was dug into the southwestern wall of the shaft, and the other into the northwestern wall, both were plundered. On the southwestern wall of the entrance shaft, 0.8 m below the top, there is a niche-like burial chamber (Figure 245), similar to that found in WD1C-3. The rectangular chamber measures 1.1 m x 1.0 m in length and width, and is 0.7 m deep. In this chamber, seven complete ceramic vessels were collected, including convex-walled cups, spouted and short necked-jars, and a miniature jar of Plain Simple Ware. The grave goods included two terracotta wheels and there were also undressed gypsum stones. The disorder of the chamber suggests that the chamber was plundered in antiquity, or that there were multi-stage burials: the disarticulated human remains in the chamber support this view (Figure 247).76

Figure 246. Two lateral chambers and a niche-like chamber of Grave WD1C-4, looking SW (after Kume et al. 2011: 169).

76

Kume et al. 2011.

170

The occupation of the territory Description of the investigated sites

Figure 247. Disarticulated human skull from niche-like burial chamber of Grave WD1C-4 (after Kume et al. 2011:170).

Grave WD1C-5 Grave WD1C-5, oriented NE–SW, has a rectangular entrance shaft measuring 1.8 m x 1.3 m in length and width and 1.3 m deep. Like the rest of the graves, the top of the shaft is destroyed. There is a long steep slope (0.6 m) leading to the entrance; at the end of the slope, a wide ditch has been excavated (Figure 248), associated with WD1C-5. The burial chamber has an oval shape, 1.9 m x 1.1 m in length and width, and 0.9 m in height. The pottery assemblage consisted of some complete

Figure 248. Uncovered ditch and the entrance to the burial chamber of grave WD1C-5. A small entrance to Grave WD1C5-6 and a drain outlet are shown at right in the photo, looking SW (after Kume et al. 2011:170).

171

The Fertile Desert

Figure 249. Ceramic vessels from Grave WD1C-5-6, looking NW (after Kume et al. 2011: 170).

Figure 250. Discovered complete ceramic vessels during the 2010 season of the Syrian- Japanese expedition (after Kume et al. 2011: 170).

and semi-complete ceramic vessels, i.e. long-necked and spouted jars and a bowl with rounded rim. The grave goods included a shell bead and fragmented bronze pins and rings. Grave WD1C-5-6 Like WD1C-2-3, mentioned above, grave WD1C-5-6, oriented NE–SW, was discovered as part of the drainage arrangement associated with WD1-C-5. The burial chamber is 1.6 m x 0.9 m in length and width, and 0.9 m high. The entrance is not confirmed, but two small holes were identified from the interior wall of the chamber – they may well be the entrance shaft and looter pit. A small hole (0.6 m x 0.4 m) has been dug into the northwestern sidewall leading to the entrance shaft of WD1C-5. Found in the chamber were eight complete and semi-complete ceramic vessels, including a bottle and a short-necked jar of Black Euphrates Banded Ware (Figure 249). Some human remains were recovered from the chamber and fragmented cranial bones (of a child?) were recovered from inside a ceramic vessel. Grave goods included fragments of bronze pins and rings.77 77

Kume et al. 2011.

172

The occupation of the territory Description of the investigated sites Conclusions The Syrian-Japanese expedition worked for several seasons in the area south of Tell Ghanem alAli, and their results have shed light on the funerary practices of Early Bronze Age societies. The cemetery of Wadi Dabaa is dated to the Early Middle Euphrates (EME4), i.e. 2450 BC – 2300 BC. Even though the graves were plundered, there was enough evidence to give us information on the various mortuary practices. As to the ceramic repertoire, it was mostly Black Euphrates Banded Ware (Figure 250). There was a variety of shaft and chamber graves, in terms of size, shape, and number of burial chambers, suggesting, according to the excavators, a domestic grave construction.78 The burial practices demonstrated multi-stage inhumation, i.e. grave WD1C-4, where fragmented human bones were deposited inside the pots; WD1C-3 and WD1C5-6 indicated secondary burials. It seems children and adults were interred differently, e.g. niche-like chambers were used for infants. Further research on the graves in the cemeteries south of Tell Ghanem al-Ali, and their relation to the settlement, is required for a more complete understanding of death and burial practices in the region during the Early Bronze Age. References Al Khabour, A. 2018. Burials and funerary practices along the Middle Euphrates Valley during the Early Bronze Age. Isimu: Soundings on the Archaeology and the History of the Near East 20: 161–191. Kume, S., Sultan, A., Ono, I. and Akashi, Ch. 2011. Sondage at Early Bronze Age Cemetery near Tell Ghanem al-Ali. Al-Rāfidān: Journal of Western Asiatic Studies 32: 163–170. Tokyo: Kokushikan University. Numoto, H. and Kume, S. 2010. Cleaning and survey of the Early Bronze Age shaft graves at Wadi Daba cemetery near Tell Ghanem al-‘Ali. Al-Rāfidān: Journal of Western Asiatic Studies 31: 184–190. Tokyo: Kokushikan University. Morris, I. 1987. Burial and Ancient Society: The Rise of the Greek City-State. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Porter, A. 2007. Ceramic assemblages of the Third Millennium in the Euphrates region, in M. alMaqdissi, V. Matoïan and C. Nicolle (eds) Céramique de l’âge du bronze en Syrie, II: L’Euphrate et la région de Jézireh: 3–21. Beirut: Institut français du Proche-Orient. Tsuneki, A. 2008. A short history of Ganam al-Ali village. Al-Rāfidān: Journal of Western Asiatic Studies 30: 184–190. Tokyo: Kokushikan University. 8. Cemetery of Abu Hamad Location The cemetery of Abu Hamad is located 40km to the east of Raqqa, besides the eponymous village of Abu Hamad. The site is situated above the settled river valley, at the margin of the Bishri Plateau. It is east of the highway between Raqqa and Deir ez-Zor, near the village of Ghanem al-Ali and from the road towards Mt Bishri (Figure 251). Description The site has different levels at the edges due to erosion, then it becomes a plain which stretches to the foot of the Mt Bishri range, some shallow valleys interrupting the plain. The cemetery extends 2 km N–S and 1.5 km E–W, forming an extraordinary cemetery area of 3 km2. The graves do not occupy the entire territory, but they are gathered in separate and close areas or necropolises. The site is one of the most extensive cemeteries in Syria, but, regrettably, it has suffered from extensive plundering.79 78 79

Kume et al. 2011. Meyer et al. 2005; Meyer 2010.

173

The Fertile Desert

Figure 251. location of the cemetery of Abu Hamad.

Figure 252. Plan of the cemetery of Abu Hamad (after Meyer 2010: 156).

174

The occupation of the territory Description of the investigated sites

Figure 253. Grave A5, Stone cist (after Meyer 2010: 157).

Excavations at the site In 1989, the Directorate General of Antiquities and Museums (DGAM) offered Saarbrücken University the opportunity to take part in rescue excavations at the cemetery of Abu Hamad. Prof. Meyer directed the German side of the team, and Murhaf al-Khalaf directed the Syrian component. The excavation programme ran for six weeks between 26th March and 7th May 1990, and the expedition ultimately published a monograph on the site and its finds.80 To facilitate their work, the site was divided into sectors and the units were assigned letters (Figure 252). Some cemeteries, such as A and M, were located on the natural elevation, others on shallow terrain, i.e. J and Z. During the campaign twenty graves were investigated and more than three hundred were documented from thousands of graves.81 The general characteristic of the large cemeteries of the Euphrates, according to Meyer (2010), is that they are situated outside the settlements, or close to them, i.e. Tell Biaa, Shamseden, Djerniye or Halawa, Tawi, and Wreide, and they used to be quite extensive.82 But the EBA communities also practised intramural burials, mostly as single graves, e.g. Halawa, Selenkahiye, Tell Biaa, Tell Banat, Hadidi, Jerablus, and Mari. The cemetery of Abu Hamad is clearly a most extensive and structured complex, comparable to that of Baghuz in terms of its distance from the settlement and the tumuli graves.83 Types of graves The cemetery of Abu Hamad can be divided into four grave categories: (1) shaft, (2) stone cist, (3) earthen with cover stone, (4) a combination of (2) and (3), dug into the natural soil with built side

Meyer et al. 2005. Meyer 2010: 156. 82 Meyer 1991; Meyer 2010. 83 Meyer 2010: 156. 80 81

175

The Fertile Desert

Figure 254. Grave J1-9, Stone cist (after Meyer 2010: 158).

walls. Shaft graves (1 m2, rarely over 2 m2) are the most common; earthen graves with cover stone are the rarest.84 Shaft graves The shaft grave type at Abu Hamad is comparable to those of Wriede and Tell Biaa (Cemetery U) in having one or two side chambers (a twin example is Z2). The body was placed in a flexed position, with the back against the wall. At Wreide and Tell Biaa the small chambers might contain several burials. Some larger shaft graves are known (i.e. A4 with 5 m2), some as much as 11 m2). Some large units were found with small shaft graves around them, forming a circular complex; these, and at other comparable sites at Halawa and Shameseddin, suggest multiple burials.85 Stone cist graves The cist graves feature side walls of dry rubble, and when finished were covered over with stone slabs (i.e. A5; Figure 253). Their average size was c. 2 m2, but some found were as large as 5 m2. Earthen graves with stone cover Earthen graves with a stone covering are rare at Abu Hamad; they differ in terms of their side walls (they are not made of stone and are relatively shallow). The sizes and the stone slabs are larger (i.e. E2-3, E10-12); they may appear in groups (two or three) or be used for single burials. Graves dug in the natural soil with built side walls. This grave type in the necropolis is represented by examples J1-9, strengthened by side walls and then covered with stone slabs; their average size is c. 2 m2 (Figures 254, 255).

84 85

Meyer 2010. Meyer 2010: 157.

176

The occupation of the territory Description of the investigated sites

Figure 255. Grave J1-9, Stone cist (after Meyer 2010: 158).

At Abu Hamad, large graves of all types are rare, and apparently their distribution suggests special burials. This is confirmed at necropolises A and M, where the stone cists are in the centre of a small tumulus and larger shaft graves. They appear to represent a central complex of graves with one or more main burials. The stone cists of necropolis J would seem to confirm this (J10A-C, Figure 256).86 Meyer compares these graves with other sites, i.e. Tell Biaa, where the graves are distributed in connection with burials of members of a nuclear family.87

Figure 256. Grave J10, Stone cist with part of the covering (left) and the slabs of the side wall (right) (after Meyer 2010: 159). 86 87

Meyer 2010: 159. Meyer 2010: 160.

177

The Fertile Desert To block access to the shaft, a monolith, stones, or mud bricks were used. The shaft would be filled with stones, and the accumulations of these stones, especially at the larger tumuli, would make the grave visible from afar, the glittering quartz of the stones adding brilliantly to the effect. In terms of the small finds, regrettably there was very little to collect in the way of grave goods, but the pottery sherds were helpful in dating the site.88 Dating The pottery was studied by Chr. Falb, who dated the Abu Hamad cemetery c. EBA III to EBA IVA (2500 BC – 2350 BC). Conclusion The cemetery of Abu Hamad has shed some light on a period that witnessed huge changes in terms of economy, societies, power, beliefs, and the formation of the first states and urbanization processes as well. The graves varied in distribution and dimension, perhaps indicating social differentiation and the former social status of the deceased. In comparison with other burial sites of sedentary groups, i.e. the communities of Tell Hamadin, Tell Mughla as-Saghir, and Tell Ghanem al-Ali, the cemetery of Abu Hamad was probably used by mobile groups who roamed over those regions between the Euphrates and the ranges of Mt Bishri.89 References Al Khabour, A. 2018. Burials and funerary practices along the Middle Euphrates Valley during the Early Bronze Age. Isimu: Soundings on the Archaeology and the History of the Near East 20: 161–191. Meyer, J.-W. 1991. Ausgrabungen in Šameseddin und Djerniye. Gräber des 3. Jahrtausends im Syrischen Euphrattal 3. Schriften zur Vorderasiatischen Archäologie 3. Meyer, J.-W. 2010. The cemetery of Abu Hamad: a burial place of pastoral groups. Al-Rāfidān: Journal of Western Asiatic Studies, Special Issue: 155–163. Tokyo: Kokushikan University. Meyer, J.-W., Falb, Chr. Kransik. K. and Vila. E. 2005. Der Friedhof von Abu Hamad. Gräber des 3. Jahrtausends v. Chr. Schriften zur Vorderasiatischen Archäologie 8. 9. Wadi Shabout The Syrian-Japanese expedition realized three survey seasons at Wadi Shabout between 2008–2009. The first was a cleaning season from 27 April to 28 May 2008, the second was a survey between 11– 20 May 2008, and the third targeted the site of Tell Shabout in April and May 2009. The team spent their ninth season at Tell Ghanem al-Ali and the cemeteries near it, the excavations providing important data about the communities of the Early Bronze Age and special burial practices.90 Location Wadi Shabout is south of Tell Ghanim al-Ali, c. 42 km to the east of Raqqa, 3.5 km south of the Euphrates course, and 500 m to the east of Tell Shabout. Unlike Wadi Dabaa, which has principally earth cut shaft graves, the cemetery of Wadi Shabout contains additional tomb types, such as stone-built chamber graves, cist graves, and combinations of these two types, mostly covered with tumuli.91 There is a dense presence of flint at the site (Figure 257).

Meyer 2010. Al Khabour 2018: 176. 90 Numoto and Kume 2010: 132. 91 Al Khabour 2018: 177. 88 89

178

The occupation of the territory Description of the investigated sites

Figure 257. Location of Wadi Shabout.

Excavations at Wadi Shabout The archaeological works at Wadi Shabout documented a large quantity of tombs, most of them plundered. The investigated region was divided into three sub-areas along the wadi’s courses in an effort to cover the main site and its c. 250,000 m2: 1. Wadi Shabbout Area 1 (WS 1), consisting of the eastern part of the area, where Tell Shabbout sites 1 and 2 are located; several high mound tombs/tumuli were documented there. 2. Wadi Shabbout Area 2 (WS 2), situated in the western part. 3. Wadi Shabbout Area 3 (WS 3) occupies the southern part (Figure 258). Another area, WS 4, was added later. Area 2 (WS 2) WS 2 (Figure 259) includes a massive grave cluster (Cluster A), a low, natural mound 30 m x 16 m, and 0.75 m high. Seven tombs were identified, all plundered except for one, located at the northern edge of the mound, which was able to provide important information on burial practices.92 Field methods The seven graves were cleaned to salvage the smallest material, such as beads or fragmented bones and teeth. Then two trenches (2 m x 16 m) were opened to cross the top of the mound in an E–W direction, to see if any undisturbed graves lay below the surface and observe any characteristic features, e.g. stone alignments or concentrations. A total area of 92 m2 was revealed. Later, a further trench (2 m x 2 m) was opened to document the stratigraphy.93 92 93

Numoto and Kume 2009: 173. Numoto and Kume 2009: 173.

179

The Fertile Desert

Figure 258. Wadi Shabout (WS) with the three investigated areas (after Numoto and Kume:2009 a:176).

Figure 259. Grave-cluster A, WS2, looking south (after Numoto and Kume: 2009: 177).

180

The occupation of the territory Description of the investigated sites

Figure 260. Tomb A1 from northwest (after Numoto and Kume: 2009: 177).

Figure 261. Shell ring ornament (after Numoto and Kume: 2009: 177).

Figure 262. Bronze object (after Numoto and Kume: 2009: 177).

181

The Fertile Desert

Figure 263. Tomb A2 from the south (after Numoto and Kume: 2009: 177).

Tombs and small finds Tomb A1 Although the western part of the burial was disturbed by looters, tomb A1 was the best preserved of Cluster A. It belongs to the group of typical stone chamber graves, the walls being constructed of nine or so layers of gypsum stone slabs, inclining towards the top. The entrance of the tomb is capped by monolithic gypsum stone slabs. The chamber measures 1.8 m x 1.1m and 1m in depth. The axis of the tomb is oriented W–E. The small finds included a body sherd, a shell ring ornament, a shell bead, a bronze object, and fragmented elements of bones and teeth (probably human) (Figures 260–262).94

Figure 264. Shell rings from Tomb A2 (after Numoto and Kume: 2009: 178).

94

Figure 265. Shell beads from Tomb A2 (after Numoto and Kume: 2009: 178).

Numoto and Kume 2009: 174.

182

The occupation of the territory Description of the investigated sites

Figure 266. Tomb A3 from northwest (after Numoto and Kume: 2009:178).

Figure 267. Tomb A4 (after Numoto and Kume: 2009:178).

183

The Fertile Desert

Figure 268. Both sides of shell ring ornament with spiral groove (after Numoto and Kume: 2009:178).

Figure 269. Both sides of shell ring ornament with spiral groove (after Numoto and Kume: 2009:178).

Tomb A2 Oriented E–W, A2 features a square (1 m x 1 m) pit, 0.6 m deep; the walls were lined with flat gypsum stone slabs, indicating a cist grave type. The small finds included shell and stone beads, as well as chips of bones (Figures 263–265).95 Tomb A3 Tomb A3 was heavily disturbed and only the southern wall was partially preserved. It is a cist grave, oriented E–W, with its chamber measuring 1.8 m x 0. 9 m, 1 m deep (Figure 266). It contained nothing apart from one sherd from a vessel body.96

Figure 270. Tomb A5 from north (after Numoto and Kume: 2009:179). 95 96

Numoto and Kume 2009: 174. Numoto and Kume 2009: 174.

184

The occupation of the territory Description of the investigated sites

Figure 271. Tomb A6 from west (after Numoto and Kume: 2009:179).

Tomb A4 Tomb A4, oriented E–W, is a stone chamber with horizontal, gypsum slab walls; the western wall was lined with two stone slabs on edge, like cist graves. This combination may suggest a transitional phase of two burial types. The chamber measures 1.8 m x 0. 9 m, and 0.9 m in depth. A few finds were recovered, including a ‘type f ’ bronze pin, a shell ring ornament with spiral groove, and several sherds, among them bases, rims, and spout fragments (Figures 267–269).97 Tomb A5 Tomb A5, oriented E–W, is a stone chamber grave; the southern part of the western walling was preserved. The chamber measures 1.4 m x 1.1 m, and 0.6 m in depth. From it were recovered a jar rim and an in situ large jar base (Figure 270).98 Tomb A6 Tomb A6, oriented E–W, is a well-preserved stone chamber grave, similar to A1, although the robbers dug down into its western half. The chamber measures 2 m x 1 m, and 1 m in depth. Apparently the tomb has been plundered twice – once in antiquity and again in modern times. The finds included nearly complete vessels, including a low-necked jar and hemispherical bowl (Figures 271–273).99

Numoto and Kume 2009: 174. Numoto and Kume 2009: 174. 99 Numoto and Kume 2009: 174–175. 97 98

185

The Fertile Desert

Figure 272. Pottery in-situ context at Tomb A6 (after Numoto and Kume: 2009: 179).

Figure 273. Nearly complete pottery from Tomb A6 (after Numoto and Kume: 2009: 179).

186

The occupation of the territory Description of the investigated sites Material from the surface The surface and trench sampling included shell ring ornaments, a flint flake, and a pedestal of a small ceramic vessel. Dating It was difficult to establish the dating in relation to Tell Ghanem al-Ali or other grave-clusters in the area because of the scattered collection from individual burials and the surface and trench sampling. There is an absence of diagnostic wares, such as Euphrates Fine Ware, Metallic Ware, or Smeared Wash Ware. Nevertheless, it appears WS2 Cluster A is contemporaneous with Tell Ghanem al-Ali, i.e. Early Bronze Age III and IV. This dating is based on: • Finds of shell rings that are quite homogeneous with those from Abu Hamad, a site located c. 1 km south of Wadi Shabout. • The burial types at the site, both stone chamber and cist graves, belong to the mid to late 3rd millennium and are comparable with those in the Euphrates Valley in Syria and Turkey. • Several vessel forms from the site, including spout, a small pedestal and complete hemispherical bowl, support this dating. The spouted jars are representative of the assemblage of the period, and at Tell Swehat also, the small pedestal and hemispherical bowls identified with the convex walling are typical of the region in the late 3rd millennium.100 Grave cluster survey in the Wadi Shabout area The grave clusters of WS 1 and 2 demonstrate the variability and distribution of individual plundered tombs in the areas. The survey was conducted on foot, using high-resolution satellite imaging to document the precise locations of the targets (Figure 274).

Figure 274. Distribution of grave clusters and isolated graves and their burial types in WS 1 and 2 (after Numoto and Kume: 2009: 179). 100

Numoto and Kume 2009: 175.

187

The Fertile Desert

Figure 275. High mound tombs or tumuli called Tell shabout in WS1, from south overlooking Tell Ghanem al-Ali (after Numoto and Kume: 2009: 179).

Figure 276. Cist/ stone chamber grave (Tomb B2) at Grave-cluster B, WS2, from east (after Numoto and Kume: 2009: 180).

188

The occupation of the territory Description of the investigated sites

Figure 277. Research aeras WS 3 and WS 4 (after Numoto and Kume: 2009a: 196).

189

The Fertile Desert

Figure 278. Euphrates Banded Ware (Top righ:WS3-Unit C; Bottom right: WS3- Unit N; Top left and bottom left: WS4Unit A (after Numoto and Kume: 2009a: 197).

Figure 279. Pedestal of socalled “champagne” vessel from WS3- Unit C (after Numoto and Kume: 2009a: 197).

WS 1 Seven grave clusters and isolated graves were identified. The burial types included the very impressive Tell Shabout high mound tombs/tumuli (Figure 275), cist, and stone graves.101 WS 2 In this area seven grave-clusters (see above, tombs A1–6), isolated graves, stone chambers, and cist graves were identified. Tombs are oriented E–W within both areas of WS 1 and 2. The internal structures of several of the tombs, including the tumuli, were not observed. The modest sizes of the chambers (major axes: 0.9 m – 2.1 m; minor axes: 0.8 m – 1.4 m) suggest that these tombs were mainly for individual burials (Figure 276).102 In the seventh season, the Syrian-Japanese expedition targeted the two sub-areas WS 3 and WS 4 (Figure 277), extending over 173,000 m2. The individual grave clusters or isolated burials were allocated letters, and since the individual tombs were also numbered, a single tomb was classified using an alphanumeric code, e.g. WS3-A1, WS4-A1, etc. A total of nineteen units containing 124 depressions were documented in WS 3 and WS 4. Four of these massive units/grave clusters are outlined below.103 Numoto and Kume 2009: 175. Numoto and Kume 2009: 175. 103 Numoto and Kume 2009a: 194. 101 102

190

The occupation of the territory Description of the investigated sites WS3-Unit C Situated on the terrace of Wadi Shabout, Unit C covers an area of 18.5 m x 13.0 m; the western edge has been cut by tractor roads by the locals. From the thirteen depressions, only five pits were identified via their burial types, stone chamber grave and four shaft graves. Different ceramic samples were collected, including both fine and plain wares, e.g. Euphrates Banded Ware Figure 280. Possible sherds of Black Euphrates (Figure 278) and a ‘champagne’ vessel (Figure 279). The Banded War from WS3-Unit C (after Numoto possible presence of the black version of Euphrates and Kume: 2009a: 197). Banded Ware is recorded (Black Euphrates Banded Ware) (Figure 280), which suggests a date for these tombs within Phase 4 (c. 2450 BC – 2300 BC) of A. Porter’s six-phase EBA sequence,104 or the end of EBA III/beginning of EBA IVA.105 WS3-Unit E Unit E is situated at the confluence of the two Shabout wadis and an unnamed tributary. Ten shaft graves were documented, extending E–W, c. 36 m (Figures 281, 282). A few sherds were collected, including fine and plain ware. The straight-sided hemispherical bowl of plain ware may date to Porter’s Phase 3 (c. 2600 BC – 2450 BC).106

Figure 281. WS3- Unit E, looking east (after Numoto and Kume: 2009a: 197).

Porter 2007. Numoto and Kume 2009a: 194–195. 106 Numoto and Kume 2009a: 195. 104 105

191

The Fertile Desert

Figure 282. Sketch map of WS3-Unit E (after Numoto and Kume: 2009a: 198).

WS3-Unit N Unit N is on a low, natural mound (c. 33 m x 30m) on the terrace of an unnamed wadi in the western part of area WS 3. Twenty-one depressions were identified, including three stone chamber graves and seven shaft graves (Figures 283, 284). Two stone chamber graves were identified on the top of the mound, surrounded by shaft graves and other unidentified depressions, and a possible stone chamber grave on the southern edge of the site. The stone chamber and shaft graves are comparable with those of WS3-Unit C. Both plain and fine wares were collected, including a few specimens of Red Euphrates Banded War, a ‘champagne’ vessel, and a miniature vase with globular

Figure 283. WS3- Unit N, looking south (after Numoto and Kume: 2009a:198).

192

The occupation of the territory Description of the investigated sites

Figure 284. Sketch map of WS3-Unit N (after Numoto and Kume: 2009a:198).

body and everted rim, which has a parallel in Period IV finds at Tell Banat in the Upper Syrian Euphrates Valley, and dated to Porter’s Phase 3 (2600 BC – 2450 BC).107 WS4-Unit A Unit A is located at the confluence of the two unnamed wadis around Shabout, where the most extensive grave cluster is to be found. Sixty-one depressions were documented, covering an area of 100 m x 80 m, and including eighteen shaft graves, three stone chamber graves, and two cist/ stone chamber graves (Figure 285). The arrangements of the graves are similar to those of WS3-

Figure 285. WS4- Unit A, looking south (after Numoto and Kume: 2009a: 198). 107

Numoto and Kume 2009a: 195.

193

The Fertile Desert

Figure 286. Sketch map of WS4-Unit A (after Numoto and Kume: 2009a :198).

Units C and N. A few stone chamber or cist graves have been located at the upper part of the site, while most of the shaft graves were excavated into the slope of the wadis.108 Finds included both plain and fine (Red Euphrates Banded Ware, Figure 286) wares; the apparent absence of the Black Euphrates version may suggest Porter’s Phase 3.109 During the ninth season, the Syrian-Japanese expedition undertook a third excavation programme at Shabout, between 28 April and 21 May 2009. The focus was on the surrounding two burial mounds of Tell Shabout (as named by the local inhabitants), on the northern edge of the Bishri Plateau, 1 km south of Tell Ghanem al-Ali. Their relatively high location in relation to Ghanem al-Ali suggests the monumental or elite nature of the tombs, according to the excavators. As one might expect, both mounds have been much disturbed by plunderers. Sounding at Tell Shabout 1 Tell Shabout 1 is situated on the high bluffs between Wadi Shabout and a small unnamed wadi; it measures 15 m in diameter, 3 m in height, and is recorded as 279 m.a.s.l. A trench, 2 m wide, was excavated to document the stratigraphy, then it was enlarged to reveal the main chamber and the rest of the archaeological features. According to the stratigraphy, the mound contained a 2 m-high natural hillock, including a gypsum stone outcrop at the top, and comprised at least two main occupational phases – the earthen mound and the cairn.

108 109

Numoto and Kume 2009a: 195. Porter 2007.

194

The occupation of the territory Description of the investigated sites

Figure 287. Carin discovered beneath earthen mound at Tell Shabout 1, looking north (after Numoto and Kume: 2010:135).

Phase 1: Cairn The cairn was discovered beneath the Phase 1 earthen mound. It was apparently destroyed and totally disturbed before the construction of the earthen mound. The burial consists of three specific elements: (1) chambers, (2) rings, and (3) mound (Figures 287, 288).110 1.

Chambers. The main chamber has a rectangular form, 4.5 m x 2.5 m (Figure 289), oriented N, towards Tell Ghanem al-Ali. The surviving walls were 0.7 m high, constructed of gypsum stone slabs in six to seven layers. A narrow, rectangular annex (0.4 m) was attached to the north of the main chamber. The chamber suggested a T-shaped structure; no roof stones were recovered, but monoliths might have covered the narrow annex.111

2/3. Ring walls and mound. The inner ring of the main chamber and annex has a diameter of 7 m, arranged in three to four layers of different stones (Figure 290). The outer ring was damaged, but the remains indicate a diameter of c. 9 m, including the entire mound of the cairn.112 Phase 2: earthen mound The cairn was covered by an earthen mound on the natural hillock spreading generally over Tell Shabout 1 (Figure 291). The earthen mound consisted of greenish, grey-brown soil with fine gravels. The maximum thickness of the fill was 1 m at the point of the main chamber of the cairn.113

Numoto and Kume 2010: 132. Numoto and Kume 2010: 132. 112 Numoto and Kume 2010: 133. 113 Numoto and Kume 2010: 133. 110 111

195

The Fertile Desert

Figure 288. Discovered cairn at Tell Shabout 1, looking south (after Numoto and Kume: 2010:135).

Figure 289. Main burial chamber of the cairn, a seriously disturbed above-ground structure was preserved, looking north (after Numoto and Kume: 2010:135).

196

The occupation of the territory Description of the investigated sites

Figure 290. Tell Shabout 1. The inner ring and northern wall of the annex, looking east (after Numoto and Kume 2010: 135).

Figure 291. Tell Shabout 1 and 2 before soundings, overlooking Tell Ghanem al-Ali (after Numoto and Kume: 2010:135).

197

The Fertile Desert Finds and dating

Figure 292. Fragments of possible Early Bronze Age sherds from Tell Shabout 1 (Left: hemispherical bowl; Right: Euphrates Fine Ware (after Numoto and Kume: 2010: 136).

Although the site was plundered, evidence indicates the construction of the cairn within the Early Bronze Age, while the later Roman/Byzantine populations reused the site as a burial mound. The finds included a wide range of typical material, from Early Bronze Age sherds (Figure 292) to many fragments of a Roman/ Byzantine terracotta coffin (Figure 293), indicating the long use of the mound as a burial site.114 Sounding at Tell Shabout 2

Situated 20 m south of Tell Shabout 1, Tell Shabout 2 measures 10 m in diameter and c. 1 m in height. The stratigraphy indicates that the mound was artificially constructed on a natural feature c. 0.4 m high, and contained two graves. Grave 1 Beneath the artificial mound, a pit grave was revealed, oriented NW–SE; the burial chamber measures 2.8 m x 1.2 m, and 0.6 m in depth (Figure 294). The southern edge of the chamber was cut into a step-like structure. On the northwestern bottom side, a small pit (0.2 m deep small pit was dug for an unknown function. The grave was surrounded by a c. 0.8 m high, semi-circular stone wall built of undressed gypsum stones of different sizes. Considering the construction material, this wall is apparently modern. There were a very few finds from the chamber, including fragments of a coffin from the Roman/Byzantine period.115 Grave 2 On the eastern surface of the mound, a burial in a terracotta coffin (2 m x 0.6 m x 0.3 m, oriented E–W) was revealed, cutting the stone wall described above. The coffin contained a complete human

Figure 293. Fragments of Roman/ Byzantine terracotta coffin from Tell Shabout 1 (after Numoto and Kume: 2010: 136).

114 115

Numoto and Kume 2010: 133. Numoto and Kume 2010: 133–134.

198

The occupation of the territory Description of the investigated sites

Figure 294. Pit grave and surrounding Stone wall at Tell Shabout 2, looking southwest (after Numoto and Kume: 2010: 136).

Figure 295. Undisturbed terracotta coffin burial and human remains (after Numoto and Kume: 2010:136).

199

The Fertile Desert skeleton (Figure 295), without burial goods, except for some stones set on the surface of the burial, perhaps as a marker of some kind.116 Dating The contents of the mound indicate the Roman/Byzantine period. Conclusion Tell Shabout provided a wide variety of burials: hilltop tumuli, e.g. WS1-Unit A (or Tell Shabout 1 and 2); hilltop stone-build tombs, e.g. WS2-Unit A (or Cluster A); lowland shaft tombs, e.g. WS3Unit E and the Wadi Daba grave clusters; interior stone-built tombs with shaft tombs, e.g. WS3Units C and N, WS4-Unit A, and Abu Hamad. This variety can be ascribed to many factors, i.e. gender, social status, or identity. The cairn at Tell Shabout 1 may be related to nomads and their burial customs in the Ancient Near East. The location of the site is on the northern flank of the Mt Bishri range, where mean annual rainfall is less than 200 mm, suggesting it might have been a grazing area for mobile pastoralists. The direct orientation to Tell Ghanem al-Ali indicates some monumental or elite nature of the tomb; the ancestors of the settlement’s inhabitants might have had closer connections with a more nomadic than sedentary lifestyle. Further research in the area, linked to burials generally within the Euphrates Valley will provide further information on Early Bronze Age communities, their beliefs, social structures, and mortuary practices. References Al Khabour, A. 2018. Burials and funerary practices along the Middle Euphrates Valley during the Early Bronze Age. Isimu: Soundings on the Archaeology and the History of the Near East, 20: 161–191. Numoto, H. and Kume, S. 2009. Cleaning and survey of the Early Bronze Age hilltop tombs near Tell Ghanem al- ‘Ali. Al-Rāfidān: Journal of Western Asiatic Studies 30: 172–180. Tokyo: Kokushikan University. Numoto, H. and Kume, S. 2009a. Archaeological survey of the Early Bronze Age off-site tombs near Tell Ghanem al- ‘Ali. Al-Rāfidān: Journal of Western Asiatic Studies 30: 193–198. Tokyo: Kokushikan University. Numoto, H. and Kume, S. 2010. Soundings of hilltop burial mounds near Tell Ghanem al- ‘Ali, Preliminary reports of the Syria-Japan archaeological joint research in the region of Ar-Raqqa, Syria, 2009. Al-Rāfidān: Journal of Western Asiatic Studies 31: 132–136. Tokyo: Kokushikan University. Porter, A. 2007. Ceramic assemblages of the Third Millennium in the Euphrates region, in M. alMaqdissi, V. Matoïan and C. Nicolle (eds) Céramique de l’âge du bronze en Syrie, II: L’Euphrate et la région de Jézireh: 3–21. Beirut: Institut français du Proche-Orient. 10. Tell Ghanem al-Ali In February 2007, the Syrian-Japanese expedition began their archaeological research in the Mt Bishri range in Raqqa province. The expedition was directed by Katsuhiko Ohnuma (Japan) and Anas Al Khabour, and later Mohamed Sarhan and Ahmad Sultan (Syria). The joint research aimed to clarify the relationship between the ancient pastoralists and the nomadic peoples, and the formation of ‘tribal’ communities in the Middle Euphrates in Syria.

116

Numoto and Kume 2010: 134.

200

The occupation of the territory Description of the investigated sites

Figure 296. Tell Ghanem al-Ali and the sites included in the Syria/Japan Archaeological Joint Research (after Ohnuma and Al Khabour 2008:135).

In the first season (February–March 2007) a wide survey was conducted in the zone, it being necessary to determine the targeted sites for excavation and the archaeological work involved. As a result the site of Tell Ghanem al-Ali was chosen as being representative of the Bronze Age communities in the region, and the research was focused here (Figure 296).117 Location Situated on the southern riverside plain of the Euphrates, c. 500 m north from the Raqqa Deir ezZor highway, near the modern village of Ghanem al-Ali, the tell site is 10 m above the river surface and 239 m.a.s.l. The site measures 400 m (E–W) x 300 m (N–S) (Figure 297). Once the site was selected, various trenches in the mound were opened, and the excavations continued for successive seasons. A wide-ranging multi-disciplinary project was conducted at Tell Ghanem al-Ali, including flora and fauna, topography, surveys of prehistoric sites, etc.118 Excavations at Tell Ghanem al-Ali The joint expedition carried out numerous surveys at the site to investigate the visible architecture on the surface and identify the historic periods, as well as efforts to confirm the chronological sequencing of Tell Ghanem al-Ali. The first excavations ran from 11th – 27th August 2007. The research targeted two squares, revealing stone-walled and mudbrick structures, as well as pits, door sockets, pottery, hearths, tannurs, gravel floors, etc.119 Ohnuma and Al Khabour: 2010. Al Khabour 2012: 259–266. 119 Ohnuma and Al Khabour 2008a: 150. 117 118

201

The Fertile Desert

Figure 297. Plan of Tell Ghanem al-Ali (after Ohnuma and Al Khabour 2008:139).

Figure 298. Plan of Tell Ghanem al-Ali and excavated areas (after Ohnuma 2011: 154).

202

The occupation of the territory Description of the investigated sites

Figure 299. The three structures of the Square 1, from west (after Hasegawa 2010: 26).

The expedition investigated eight squares (Figure 298), with squares 1 and 2 representing the main research areas: Square 1 – on the eastern slope, measuring 10 m x 10 m; Square 2 – on the northern slope, a trench 27 m (N–S) x 4 m (E–W); Square 3 – on the north-west, measuring 3 m x 3 m; Square 4 – on the south, measuring 3 m x 3 m; Square 5 – on the south, measuring 3 m x 3 m; Square 6 – on the northwest, measuring 3 m x 3 m; Square 7 – on the northeast, measurements not given by the excavator; Square 8 – to the south of Square 7, measurements not given. (A further small square (101) was also opened on the south-east of the mound.) Square 1 Square 1 revealed three structures (Figure 299). The first (in the southwest) was visible from the surface of the mound as a white line. It was a built feature with gypsum walls – six courses of stones 0.8 m high. Inside the room there is a T-shaped stone wall. The second structure is to the north of the first, being a rectangular room with a small hearth in the northwest corner (Figure 300). The third structure is to the east of the second one, and is a mudbrick rectangular room with a wall of five courses of orange and brown mudbricks. This wall was the only one within the three structures without a stone foundation. The major features of this square are the walls that demonstrate reuse and reconstruction. The walls employed different materials: stone, mudbricks on stone foundation, or mudbricks without stone foundation. In contrast to the next square (2), there is no gypsum-plastered flooring.120 Square 2 Square 2 revealed eight construction levels above the natural:121

120 121

Hasegawa 2010: 25–35; Ohnuma and Al Khabour 2008: 150–169. Ohnuma and Al-Khabour 2008b.

203

The Fertile Desert

Figure 300. Stone walls of Square 1 (after Ohnuma and Al Khabour 2008a: 157).

Figure 301. Three- room building level 2, Square 2, from the south (after Kiuchi 2010:179).

204

The occupation of the territory Description of the investigated sites

Figure 302. Complete bowl (after Kiuchi 2010:180).

Figure 303. Animal figurine (after Kiuchi 2010:180).

Building level 1: Comprising three parallel, E–W, stone walls. There is an oven in the west section, and a pit in the north; the western part is paved with gravels and covered with ash. Building level 2: Consists of three rooms oriented N–S direction, with entrances on the western wall. There is a doorway between the central room and the southern one. To the south of those another room was discovered with a gypsum-plastered floor and a circular depression where an oven was documented (Figure 301). In this building level below the south room were found a complete bowl and an animal figurine (Figures 302, 303).122 Building level 3: A massive wall was documented in this level, apparently re-used when building level 2 was constructed. The wall, partly made of large stones, is 1 m high and continued to the north.

Figure 304. Massive wall, from the north-east (after Kiuchi 2010:181).

122

Kiuchi 2008: 178–181.

205

The Fertile Desert

Figure 305. Building level 7 of Square 2, from the south (after Hasegawa 2010: 30).

Figure 306. Plan of the site (after Ohnuma 2010a:131).

206

The occupation of the territory Description of the investigated sites

Figure 307. Square 2 (after Hasegawa 2010:210).

Building level 4: Contains two structures: a mud-brick wall and a thick, massive stone wall. The stone wall consists of two parallel walls extending N–S. The northern wall over 1.8 m high; the southern one (2 m wide, 0.7 m high): both were probably parts of the city walls (Figure 304).123 Building level 5: Consists of an E–W stone wall in poor condition. Building level 6: The central part of Square 2 has very thick topsoil layers, 1.3 m below the level of the mound top. Under these layers there is a large foundation, NW–SE, built of large stones. Building level 7: This feature, c. 0.4 m below level 6, consists of three mudbrick rooms oriented N–W. The walls are 0. 6 m wide, built directly on the ground without stone foundations (Figure 305). Building level 8: A further three rooms were identified c. 0.4 m below level 7. As with the above level, they were made of mudbricks, however in level 7 the bricks are placed vertically to form a 0.6 m wall, while in level 8 they are horizontal and form walls 0.3 m wide. The feature contained a thick ash layer (0.4 m), in which were a few fragments of potsherds and charcoals. 123

Kiuchi 2008: 178–181.

207

The Fertile Desert

Figure 308. Grooved rim jar found in pit of Square 3 (after Negishi 2008: 182).

Figure 309. Zoomorphic clay figure from Square 3 (after Negishi 2008: 182).

The next layer is darker, virgin soil, c. 3.4 m below the mound surface; there were no remains found in it. During the eighth season, the expedition continued their final investigations in Square 2, surveying the visible surface structures in the four sectors – A, B, C and D (Figure 306). The structures form part of a building from the Early Bronze Age, consisting of rectangular rooms, 6.5 m x 4 m, and 5 m x 4 m (Figure 307). Possible five rooms in total were ascertained. An interesting find was a Middle Bronze Age jar.124 Square 3 Square 3 contained a pit immediately below the surface, containing a jar dated EBA IV (Figure 308). In the next level there was a dwelling floor made of plaster, from which various artifacts were collected, including a small, bottle-like vessel with a zoomorphic feature, a unique clay figure from the Early Bronze Age (Figure 309).125 124 125

Ohnuma 2010a. Negishi 2008: 181.

208

The occupation of the territory Description of the investigated sites

Figure 310. Pit grave revealed in Square 6 (after Ohnuma 2010a: 131).

Square 4 This square contained thick layers of ash and animal bones. However, since no structures or other relevant features were found the work here was halted. Square 5 Again, only limited work was undertaken here. Some pottery sherds were found, but there was no direct evidence that the probable mudbrick wall was connected to the city wall.126 Square 6 Involved a small sondage (3 m x 3 m) in the northern part of the site. The excavation revealed a small tomb with human bones and seven pottery vessels. The human bones were not complete, with most of the skull and one of the legs missing. The pottery contained two complete vessels and five broken ones (Figure 310). The finds here are dated to the Middle Bronze Age, and provides evidence of use in this period, although on a smaller scale than in the Early Bronze Age. Tell Ghanem al-Ali was probably at its height in the Early Bronze Age and then diminished in the Middle Bronze Age, with simple houses and pit graves.127 Square 7 Square 7 is located in the northeastern part of the site and consists of architectural structures formed by three stone walls. The principal wall measures 0.7 m in width, oriented E–W, and is connected to four rooms. In the centre of the square, five round hearths (diam. 0.7 m) were identified (Figure 311).128 Negishi 2008: 183. Ohnuma 2010a: 130. 128 Hasegawa 2011: 159. 126 127

209

The Fertile Desert

Figure 311. Fire instruments in Square 7, from the southeast (after Hasegawa 2011: 159).

Figure 312. Square 101 with cobbles allocation (after Khalil and Sultan 2010: 177).

210

The occupation of the territory Description of the investigated sites Square 8 Located to the south of Square 7, the surface structures here appeared 0.15 m below it; they profile a rectangular stone building with various rooms, oriented N–S, measuring 5 m x 9 m. The ceramic repertoire included fragments of Simple Ware and Black Euphrates Ware, dated to the Early Bronze Age III and IV.129 Square 101 Additionally, the expedition undertook further work (Square 101) at the southeastern edge of Tell Ghanem al-Ali, assuming the concentration of gypsum cobbles there as a probable grave (Figure 312). An assemblage of miniature pottery was found, as well as a spindle and many flakes and chips of Bronze Age lithic artifacts.130 Conclusion Considering the results of the work at Tell Ghanem al-Ali, we may conclude that the occupation of the site was at the end of the 4th/beginning of the 3rd millennium BC. The mound was inhabited as a settlement during the Early Bronze Age III and IV. The use of the site diminished during the Middle Bronze Age, and after that was abandoned definitively.131 Ohnoma132 has suggested that the Bishri region became chaotic immediately after the fall of the Akkadian Empire, and as a result many of its inhabitants moved east and south, i.e. the Amorite migration hypothesis to Assyrian and Babylonian lands. References Al Khabour, A. 2012. El Proyecto Arqueológico sirio-japonés en la región del Bishri (Siria, Raqqa), in C. Del Cerro et al. (eds) Ideología, identidades e interacción en el Mundo Antiguo: 259–266. Madrid: Universidad Autónoma de Madrid. Al Khabour, A. 2017. Urbanism, material culture and soil occupation during the Middle Bronze Age in the Middle Euphrates Valley. Al-Rāfidān: Journal of Western Asiatic Studies 38: 79–89. Tokyo: Kokushikan University. Hasegawa, A. 2010. Sondage at the site of Tell Ghanem al-Ali Al-Rāfidān: Journal of Western Asiatic Studies, Special Issue: 25–36. Tokyo: Kokushikan University. Hasegawa, A. 2011. Sondage in Squares 7 and 8 of Tell Ghanem al-Ali. Al-Rāfidān: Journal of Western Asiatic Studies 32: 158–163. Tokyo: Kokushikan University. Khalil, I. and Sultan, A. 2010. Sondage in Square 101 of Tell Ghanem al-Ali. Al-Rāfidān: Journal of Western Asiatic Studies 31: 176–177. Tokyo: Kokushikan University. Kiuchi, T. 2008. Trench excavation in Square 2 of Tell Ghanem al-Ali. Al-Rāfidān: Journal of Western Asiatic Studies 29: 178–181. Tokyo: Kokushikan University. Nakamura, T., Hoshino, M., Tanaka, T., Yoshida, H., Saito, T., Tsukada, K., . . . Maqdissi, M. 2010. Early Bronze Age Strata at Tell Ghanem Al-Ali Along the Middle Euphrates in Syria: A Preliminary Report of 14C Dating Results. Radiocarbon 52(2): 383–392. Negishi, Y. 2008. Trench excavation in Square 3-5 of Tell Ghanem al-Ali. Al-Rāfidān: Journal of Western Asiatic Studies 29: 181–183. Tokyo: Kokushikan University. Ohnuma, K. 2010. Sondage in Square 6 of Tell Ghanem al-Ali. Al-Rāfidān: Journal of Western Asiatic Studies 31: 129–131. Tokyo: Kokushikan University. Ohnuma, K. 2011. Sondage in Square 6 of the Site of Tell Ghanem al-Ali. Al-Rāfidān: Journal of Western Asiatic Studies 32: 152–180. Tokyo: Kokushikan University. Ohnuma, K. and Al Khabour, A. 2008. Report of the second season of the Syrian-Japanese expedition. Al-Rāfidān: Journal of Western Asiatic Studies 29: 134–149. Tokyo: Kokushikan University. Al Khabour 2017: 80. Khalil and Sultan 2010: 177. 131 Al Khabour et al. 2010. 132 Ohnuma 2010a: 129–131. 129 130

211

The Fertile Desert Ohnuma, K. and Al-Khabour, A. 2008a. Archaeological Research in the Bishri Region: Report of the Third Working Season. Al-Rāfidān: Journal of Western Asiatic Studies 29: 150–169. Tokyo: Kokushikan University. Ohnuma, K. and Al-Khabour, A. 2008b. Archaeological Research in the Bishri Region: Report of the Fourth Working Season. Al-Rāfidān: Journal of Western Asiatic Studies 29: 170–193. Tokyo: Kokushikan University. Ohnuma, K. and Al Khabour, A. 2010. Formation of Tribal Communities: Integrated Research in the Middle Euphrates, Syria. Al-Rāfidān: Journal of Western Asiatic Studies, Special Issue: 3-8. Tokyo: Kokushikan University. 11. Cemetery of Wadi Jazla The Syrian-Japanese expedition also undertook successive survey seasons in the area near Tell Ghanem al-Ali to investigate settlement types and populations from prehistory. One of the sites investigated was the cemetery of Wadi Jazla. The site provided data on activities between the edges of the Bishri Plateau and the upper terraces of the Euphrates River, including Early Bronze Age burials. Location of Wadi Jazla Wadi Jazla (3 km southeast of Tell Ghanem al-Ali) is to be found 1.25 km south of the Raqqa Deir ez-Zor highway, 44 km east of Raqqa and 4.2 km to the south of the Euphrates. There is a small mound to the east of the valley. It seems that this section of the mound was part of a settlement that extended to the east, where the Romans constructed a castle (Figure 313).

Figure 313. Location of Wadi Jazla.

212

The occupation of the territory Description of the investigated sites

Figure 314. Small mound (Area 23H) on the left bank of Wadi Jazla, looking southwest (after Nishiaki, Kadowaki and Kume 2009: 161).

Occupation periods at Wadi Jazla The survey was undertaken on foot, using a compass to navigate and document the precise locations of the targets. The survey paths were assigned numbers (1–24) and letters were further allocated (i.e. Area 23H, 23J). The survey identified several features. One was a small, short-term settlement and cemetery, where shaft graves were common.133 The expedition also documented a large cemetery area, with high number of mound tombs dated to the Early Bronze Age. In the same area there is a large, stone-walled building (150 m x 100 m) that was dated at first as an Islamic fortification. A small valley to the west of the fortification was also surveyed, ‘V’-shaped in cross section and with terraces. A small upstream area provided habitable terraces. On one of these terraces there is a small mound (Area 23H), from which many pottery sherds and stone artifacts were collected (Figure 314). In the fourteenth season the expedition compiled a topographic map, determining the mound’s dimensions. Like most of the region’s sites, the area had been plundered. The quantities of pottery sherds and food processing tools found, including grinding slabs and pestles, as well as the chipped stones, suggest that the site witnessed permanent occupation and was not a transitory camp (Figure 315). The collected chipped stones included a Canaanean blade, flakes, and cores with water-rolled cortex (Figure 316). The flaking technology is like that found at Tell Ghanem al-Ali. The pottery sherds suggest an Early Bronze Age date for mound 23H, as at Tell Ghanem al-Ali (Figure 317). The expedition made further investigations. They explored the fortification (Area 23J) on the hilltop to the east of the mound (Area 23H); it is dated to the 2nd century BC, with restorations in later periods.134 The external walls only have survived, inside there are various levels of fill 133 134

Al Khabour 2018: 177. Nishiaki et al. 2012: 3.

213

The Fertile Desert

Figure 315. Stone tools including pestles and basalt grinding slabs that indicate food processing at Wadi Jazla west (after Nishiaki, Kadowaki and Kume 2009: 161).

Figure 316. Chipped stone from (rea 23H) in Jazla west, top left is probably a Canaanean Blade (burnt) (after Nishiaki, Kadowaki and Kume 2009: 161).

associated with the wall remnants (Figure 318). The team also documented the tomb interiors, noting chipped stones, including, probably a Canaanean blade (Figure 319). The survey team continued upstream to define the southern extension of the cemetery discovered in the lower stream of the valley. Various plundered shaft tombs were documented. One of these tombs contained three complete pottery vessels (Figure 320) dated to the Middle Bronze Age. Numerous Bronze Age flint scatters were collected. At a confluence of two small tributaries of the valley, a short-term Neolithic station was discovered. The collected artifacts consisted of broken arrowheads and knives, indicating that the site was a temporary hunting spot rather than a permanent settlement.135 Figure 320. Middle Bronze Age pottery from one of the plundered shaft tombs at Wadi Jazla (after Nishiaki and Abbe 2009: 127). 135

Nishiaki and Abbe 2009.

214

The occupation of the territory Description of the investigated sites

Figure 317. Pottery sherds like those in Tell Ghanem al-Ali (after Nishiaki, Kadowaki and Kume 2009: 161).

Figure 318. Large Stone-walled building (Area 23J) on the hilltop of Jazla (after Nishiaki, Kadowaki and Kume 2009: 161).

215

The Fertile Desert

Figure 319. Chipped stones collected on the ground surface inside the large building (Area 23J) at Jazla. Top left is probably a Canaanean blade (burnt) (after Nishiaki, Kadowaki and Kume 2009: 161).

Figure 320. Middle Bronze Age pottery from one of the plundered shaft tombs at Wadi Jazla west (after Nishiaki and Abbe 2009: 127).

216

The occupation of the territory Description of the investigated sites

Figure 321. Middle Bronze Age tombs, looking southeast (after Nishiaki et al. 2012: 4).

Figure 322. Another mound (23CG), looking north (after Nishiaki et al. 2012: 4).

217

The Fertile Desert To the south of Jezla (Area 24), the Syrian-Japanese expedition continued in a final season, proceeding to the end of the Wadi Jazla east basin. No mound tombs were documented but there was density of chipped stones dated to the Middle and Late Palaeolithic, as well as, probably, Bronze Age flakes. The looted Middle Bronze Age tombs (23CA, 23 CB, and 23CE) (Figure 321) provided numerous sherds. To the south, two tomb clusters were documented (23CC and 23CF), the pottery indicating Early Bronze Age use and including Euphrates Fine Ware. The survey also revealed another possible mound site (23CG) near Tell Jazla (23H), located on the other side of Wadi Jazla (Figure 322).136 Conclusion The archaeological work at Wadi Jazla has provided important data, demonstrating its contemporaneity with Tell Ghanem al-Ali, as well as the relationship between Early Bronze Age communities and the patterns of land use. Apparently, the site was occupied since the Middle Palaeolithic, and it was used as a funerary area for the inhabitants of the neighbouring settlements on the banks of the Euphrates. The discovery of Middle Bronze Age tombs located between the Early Bronze Age tombs at Jazla and the Early Bronze Age settlements such as Tell Mughla asSaghir was unexpected. However, their location near the probable Middle Bronze Age mounds (Area 23H and 23CG) indicates that the occupants of these mounds buried their dead in this space during the MBA. Further research is required to understand the continuity of activity at Wadi Jazla from the EBA to the MBA and its relation to the other sites in the region. References Al Khabour, A. 2018. Burials and funerary practices along the Middle Euphrates Valley during the Early Bronze Age. Isimu: Soundings on the Archaeology and the History of the Near East, 20: 161–191. Nishiaki, Y., Kadowaki, S. and Kume. S. 2009. Archaeological survey around Tell Ghanem al-Ali. AlRāfidān: Journal of Western Asiatic Studies 30: 135–165. Tokyo: Kokushikan University. Nishiaki, Y., Sultan, A., Kadowaki, S., Kume. S. and Shimogama, K. 2012. Archaeological survey around Tell Ghanem al-Ali (V). Al-Rāfidān: Journal of Western Asiatic Studies 33: 1–6. Tokyo: Kokushikan University. 12. Tell Mugla as-Sagir (Tell Beitha) The Syrian-Japanese expedition conducted a survey season at Tell Mugla as-Saghir to investigate Bronze Age (and earlier) communities along the Euphrates Valley. The objective of the research was to determine types of human occupation at the site, where the Neolithic was confirmed through lithic finds, as well as the Bronze Age funeral area. Location Tell Mugla as-Saghir is located 46 km east of Raqqa, 3.65 km south of the Euphrates. It is sited in a lowland area near the river, 5 km from Tell Ghanem al-Ali. The site measures 220 m x 220 m and reaches a height of 6m. It was mentioned in the survey conducted by Kohlmeyer in 1984 (Figures 323, 324).137 Archaeological work at Tell Mughla as-Saghir On the top of Tell Mugla as-Saghir there is a modern cemetery. The expedition collected sherds and lithic artifacts. The sherds apparently dated to the Bronze Age, and further material collected including an arrowhead dated to the Neolithic. On the surface of the mound, alignments of 136 137

Nishiaki et al. 2012: 4; Nishiaki, Kadowaki and Kume 2009. Kohlmeyer 1984.

218

The occupation of the territory Description of the investigated sites

Figure 323. Location of Tell Mughla as-Saghir.

Figure 324. General view of Tell Mughla as-Saghir, looking south (after Nishiaki et al. 2010: 118).

219

The Fertile Desert

Figure 325. Rectangular structures on the Surface of Tell Mughla as-Saghir (after Nishiaki et al.: 2010).

gypsum rocks were clearly visible and indicated rectangular architecture beneath (Figure 325). By comparing Tell Mugla as-Saghir with the local principal settlements (Tell Ghanem al-Ali and Tell Hamadin), the three sites might have had the same function as sedentary installations during the Bronze Age.138 The distance between the three sites is almost regular, some 5 km – 6km; they were probably contemporaneous or partly so (Figure 326). The funerary zone to the south of Tell Mughla as-Saghir From the east of Wadi Jazla begins the funerary zone of Tell Mugla as-Saghir, situated to the south of the mound. The Syrian-Japanese expedition surveyed the cemetery area as part of their wider investigations. The scarcity of Bronze Age tombs in the area to the east of Wadi Jazla was striking, whereas the number increases considerably as we head east, where hundreds of shaft tombs are distributed. Most of the surfaces of these tombs are covered with fragments of Early Bronze Age pottery (Figures 327, 328). Types of tombs A possible mortuary monument (Area 26E) was discovered to the south of Tell Mugla as-Saghir, represented by a large rectangular depression at the northern edge of the plateau. The depression measures 160 m (E–W) x 63 m (N–S), with a depth of 10m; it opens to the north (Figure 329). According to the excavators, the regular shape and the absence of a water channel in the basin suggest that the depression was a man-made structure. The southern and eastern slopes are covered with shaft tombs,139 and the rectangular form of the depression was created to simulate the naturally formed low banks of the neighbouring areas, which were used as locations for shaft tombs. The existence 138 139

Nishiaki et al. 2010: 42. Al Khabour 2018: 177.

220

The occupation of the territory Description of the investigated sites

Figure 326. The three principal settlements: Tell Hamadin (left), Tell Ghanem al-Ali (center) and Tell Mugla as-Saghir (right) with a 5-6km distance between them.

Figure 327. Cemetery from the Early Bronze Age distributed, looking west (after Nishiaki et al.: 2010).

221

The Fertile Desert

Figure 328. Surface ceramic on the EBA shaft tombs after Nishiaki et al.: 2010).

Figure 329. Rectangular depression with shaft tombs along the Edge (26E) near Mugla as-Saghir, looking west (after Nishiaki 2010: 42).

222

The occupation of the territory Description of the investigated sites

Figure 330. Artifacts from the south of the funerary zone of Mughla as-Saghir (after Nishiaki et al.: 2010).

of EBA flaked stones in the depression indicates that more activities were going on. As a result of these factors, the monumental nature of the site is indicated.140 To the east, the typology of tombs changes at Beilouni (areas 26 and 27), east of Mugla as-Saghir. Here there is a dense distribution of cairns, more than one hundred mounds, each c. 2 m – 3 m in diameter and 1 m high. They were built using gypsum rocks and contained stone chambers. Some cairns formed larger mounds (up to 35 m x 10 m x 2 m), containing several stone chambers.141 In the southern part of the funerary zone at Tell Mughla as-Saghir there are indications of temporal occupation associated with shaft tombs; there is a presence of flint artifacts, the material probably being extracted locally from the Wadi Beilouni area (Figure 330). Conclusions The survey carried out by the Syrian-Japanese expedition in the area of Tell Mugla as-Saghir, and the funerary zone to the south, provided relevant data for reconstructing the history of the region. During the Bronze Age, the site was inhabited in the same way as at Tell Hamadin and Tell Ghanem al-Ali; the southern areas of these sites were used as cemeteries. The southern area was also a source of raw material for the inhabitants of Tell Mugla as-Saghir, especially from the zone of Wadi Beilouni (in Palaeolithic, EBA and MBA times). There are Neolithic stone artifacts from Tell Mugla as-Saghir, as well as arrowheads, and the flint finds near Wadi Beilouni are also dated to that era, indicating that the site was habitually utilized, the flint having originated from the south, in the Kowm area in the Syrian desert. Further surveys and excavations are required, especially at Beilouni, to complete our picture of the human occupation of the region in the Neolithic, Bronze Age, and other periods. References Al Khabour, A. 2018. Burials and funerary practices along the Middle Euphrates Valley during the Early Bronze Age. Isimu: Soundings on the Archaeology and the History of the Near East 20: 161–191. 140 141

Nishiaki 2010: 42. Nishiaki 2010: 43.

223

The Fertile Desert Kohlmeyer, K. 1984. Euphrat-Survey. Die mit Mitteln der Gerda Henkel Stiftung durchgeführte archäologische Geländebegehung im Syrischen Euphrattal. Mitteilungen der Deutschen OrientGesellschaft 116: 95–118. Nishiaki, Y. 2010. Archaeological evidence of the Early Bronze Age communities in the Middle Euphrates steppe, North Syria. Al-Rāfidān: Journal of Western Asiatic Studies: 37–48. Tokyo: Kokushikan University. Nishiaki, Y., Abbe, M., Kadowaki, S., Kume. S. and Nakata, H. 2010. Archaeological survey around Tell Ghanem al-Ali. Al-Rāfidān: Journal of Western Asiatic Studies 31: 100–124. Tokyo: Kokushikan University. 13. Tell Beilouni The Syrian-Japanese expedition also surveyed in the area near Tell Ghanem al-Ali between 2008– 2009, seeking to trace the settlements and movements of the tribal nomads in the Early Bronze Age, as well as their funerary zones. The survey also included the sites dated to older periods – the temporary workshops and permanent settlements dated to prehistory. Location Tell Beilouni (330 m x 300 m) is c. 5km to the south of the Euphrates, 50 km east of Raqqa, and 1.25 km south of the highway between Raqqa and Deir ez-Zor (Figure 331). It is one of a group of sites located near Tell Ghanem al-Ali, the principal settlement in the area. Description of the site Tell Beilouni was an important source of flint in the past and the site also contains a cemetery where a large quantity of cairns was documented. The dimensions of these cairns vary, the first type consists of a group of more than one hundred smaller ones, c. 3 m in diameter and 1 m high.

Figure 331. Location of Tell Beilouni.

224

The occupation of the territory Description of the investigated sites

Figure 332. Cairn field near Beilouni (after Nishiaki 2010: 43).

There is also a concentration of larger cairns, 35 m in diameter and 2 m high. More than 350 burial cairns were documented during the survey of the Beilouni area.142 Archaeological work The site was included as part of the Syrian-Japanese survey in the Mt Bishri area that took place between 2008–2009. To the east of Wadi Beilouni, more than one hundred mounds were investigated consecutively. These were built of gypsum rocks and contained stone chambers, each c. 2 m – 3 m in diameter and 1 m high. The cairn field covered an area of 1 km (S–N) x 500 m (E–W) (Figure 332). Some cairns formed larger mounds (up to 35 m x 10 m x 2 m), containing several stone chambers. The pottery sherds collected from the surface of the plundered tombs included Euphrates Banded Ware from the EBA (Figure 333).143 During the 2010 survey along the left side of Wadi Beilouni, near the funerary area of Mughla as-Saghir, many flint scatters dated to the Bronze Age, and probably earlier, were collected. The preliminary research indicated that they were related to short-term activities. The grave complex in this area, near to the northern fringe of the steppe plateau facing the lowlands, is more comparable to the tombs of the Mt Bishri range. Another aspect differentiates this complex from the rest of the cemeteries near the settlements is its location far from the main permanent settlements – Tell Ghanem al-Alim Tell Hamadin and Jazla. In the next season, the survey was extended to include the area to the south of Wadi Beilouni. Here cairns clusters were documented on a zone extending over 2 km (E–W) and 1 km (N–S), between Wadi Beilouni and the valley located to its east (Figure 334).144 The cairns are constructed with sediments and gypsum stones, and can be divided into two forms – round and oval. The round Al Khabour 2018: 177. Nishiaki 2010: 43. 144 Nishiaki et al. 2011: 132. 142 143

225

The Fertile Desert

Figure 333. Fragments of pottery from the Euphrates ware dated to EBA from cairn tombs in Wadi Beilouni (after Nishiaki 2010: 43).

Figure 334. Cairn field at Beilouni, looking north (after Nishiaki et al. 2011:132).

226

The occupation of the territory Description of the investigated sites

Figure 335. Sherds of Black Euphrates Fine Ware near the Cairns of Beilouni, Area 9J (after Nishiaki et al.: 2011: 131).

Figure 336. A large cairn on the top of the Mound near the southwestern corner of the field cairn of Wadi Beilouni (after Nishiaki et al. 2011: 133).

227

The Fertile Desert

Figure 337. Cairn surrounded by rectangular structures at Wadi Beilouni (after Nishiaki et al. 2011: 133).

Figure 338. Artifacts from the Middle Paleolithic at Wadi Beilouni (after Nishiaki 2010).

228

The occupation of the territory Description of the investigated sites cairns c. 5 m in diameter and 0.5 m in height; their stone chambers are constructed with gypsum stones. Some of the cairns are apparently surrounded with lines of gypsum stones that extend more than 10 m. The pottery sherds distributed near the cairns (Area 9J) are dated to the same period and include Black Euphrates Fine Ware (Figure 335). The oval cairns are usually associated with multiple chambers, and they are often relatively high, up to 1.5 m. On the border of cairn field there are some other larger cairns. On the top of the mound there is one at the southwestern corner that measures 16 m (E–W) x 6.5 m (N–S), and 1.2 m in height (Figure 336); this cairn has at least three gypsum stone chambers. There are other forms of cairns with rectangular stone structures that consist of 10 m – 20 m lines of gypsum stones (Figure 337).145 The southern limit of the surveyed cairn area at Wadi Beilouni is marked by mounds, with shallow valleys ascending towards the Mt Bishri range to the south. There are concentrations of flints distributed in five principal areas, each 5 m to 10 m from the stone mounds. The many lithic artifacts/chipped stones indicate the prehistoric of settlement at Wadi Beilouni, helping to provide data on the different periods of land use in the region – including the Middle Palaeolithic, Late-Epipalaeolithic, Neolithic, and Bronze Age (Figure 338). Conclusions The results of the survey at Wadi Beilouni have confirmed a Middle Palaeolithic occupation of the site. The fragments of ceramics and the distributed graves indicate that the site was used as a cemetery in Early Bronze Age. The cairns helped to shed light on the relationship between the lowlands and the steppe communities in the EBA. More research is required to trace the natural sources of flint, the techniques applied, as well as the long-term occupation and land use patterns from the Palaeolithic through to later periods. References Al Khabour, A. 2018. Burials and funerary practices along the Middle Euphrates Valley during the Early Bronze Age. Isimu: Soundings on the Archaeology and the History of the Near East 20: 161–191. Nishiaki, Y. 2010. Archaeological evidence of the Early Bronze Age communities in the Middle Euphrates steppe, North Syria. Al-Rāfidān: Journal of Western Asiatic Studies: 37–48. Tokyo: Kokushikan University. Nishiaki, Y., Kadowaki, S., Nakata, H., Shimogama, K. and Hayakawa, Y. 2011. Archaeological Survey around Tell Ghanem al-Ali (IV). Al-Rāfidān: Journal of Western Asiatic Studies 32: 125–133. Tokyo: Kokushikan University. 14. Tell Humeida Moving now to the Syrian-Spanish expedition to the central Euphrates, this team realized soundings and collected pottery sherds in the region of the Khanuqa Gorge and documented the site of Tell Humeida. The site was excavated between 2006 and 2011. Location The site of Tell Humeida (known also as Tell Fukhar, ‘the mount of pottery’) is located on the left bank of the Euphrates, 75 km northwest of Deri ez-Zor and 100 m north of the course of the Euphrates (Figure 339). 145

Nishiaki et al. 2011: 125–133.

229

The Fertile Desert

Figure 339. Location of Tell Humeida.

Previous research According to J.-L. Montero,146 the site was known to travellers and writers from the 19th century. The German scholar Eduard Sachau mentioned it in his Reise in Syria und Mesopotamia as the site of Tell Elkhmeda.147 In 1910, Gertrude Bell148 described it in her Amurath to Amurath as the site of Tell Humeida, and by its location thought it must be the ancient city of Thillada Mirrada.149 The French architect Jean Lauffray, in his study of the region near the Byzantine city of Halabiye-Zenobia, cited the spot as Tell Abu Khmeyda. In his publication of the site in 1954, however, he does not provide a date.150 The German survey led by Kay Kohlmeyer into the Euphrates (between Raqqa and Halabiye) suggested that Tell Humeida occupied during the Uruk, Ubaid, and other periods.151 All in all, it is clear that the site has been of historical (and archaeological) importance from the 4th millennium BC.152 Description Tell Humeida gets its name from the large amounts of Rumex Vesicarius growing on and around it. As mentioned above, it is also known also as ‘the mount of pottery’, due to the quantities of the ceramic shreds distributed on its surface. The site measures 400 m (W–E) x 180 m (N–S), occupying more than 6 ha. It is formed of a principal tell, and has a circular shape, with a diameter of 140 m and a height of 11 m. There are three houses constructed on the southern sector; the western part has experience heavy erosion from its proximity to the Euphrates (Figures 340, 341).153 There has been a modern Islamic cemetery here since 1954.

Montero: 2011: 206 Sachau 1883. 148 Bell 1924. 149 Montero 2006: 51. 150 Lauffray 1983. 151 Kohlmeyer 1984. 152 Montero et al. 2011: 207; Montero 2009. 153 Montero et al. 2012: 311. 146 147

230

The occupation of the territory Description of the investigated sites

Figure 340. The western part of Tell Humeida (after Montero et al. 2012: 311).

Figure 341. General view of Tell Humeida (after Montero et al. 2012: 311).

The ceramic repertoire included three principal periods: Ubaid, Uruk, and Byzantine.154 Most of the pottery collected is Uruk (3300 BC), suggesting that this period represents the principal occupation time at the site, during the 4th millennium BC. The Late Uruk was confirmed by the massive presence of the Bevelled Rim Bowls, very characteristic of the period and forming 80% of this period’s pottery. These handmade vessels were used for the measurement of oil or barley in 154

Montero 2016: 133.

231

The Fertile Desert

Figure 342. Beveled rim bowls from the western side of Tell Humeida (after Montero et al. 2012: 311).

Figure 343. Beveled rim bowls from Tell Humeida (after Montero 2011:215).

232

The occupation of the territory Description of the investigated sites

Figure 344.The Byzantine wall of Tell Humeida (after Montero, 2012: 312).

the administrative domain, the rations serving as units of payment for workers. They appeared also on some occasions in funeral contexts as rations offered to the dead (Figures 342, 343).155 The excavations revealed two principal sectors: J-13 on the principal mound, and AB-31 within the lower zone.156 In J-13, a 5 m x 5 m square was opened on the western side of the principal mound; two main occupation periods were documented: Byzantine and Uruk. A city wall (3 m) was identified from the Byzantine period, formed by basalt and limestone and with an elevation of raw mudbrick (46 cm x 46 cm), the width of the wall is 2.5 m (Figure 344). The excavations produced further Uruk evidence at J-13, documenting three phases. The first is represented by a fragment of a wall made of small mudbricks (22 cm x 11 cm x 9 cm), a typical wall from the Uruk period. It was damaged by the construction of the Byzantine defensive wall mentioned above. The second phase is represented by the abundant presence of charcoals, bones, and ceramics, i.e. the bevelled rim bowls (Figure 345). A third phase is indicated by a fragmented wall of mudbricks, maintained to four courses and dated to the Uruk period. Conclusion The archaeological soundings at Tell Humeida provided exceptional information on the occupation of the site in general, and the principal period of Uruk occupancy in particular. This was a period of great importance, since it witnessed administrative development at a very high level. The settlements developed along the banks of the Euphrates to control and organize the commercial traffic and to take advantage of irrigation. This would all require sophisticated administrative organization of the activities of the settlement’s growing population.

155 156

Montero 2006: 52. Montero et al. 2012: 312–313.

233

The Fertile Desert

Figure 345. Phase 2 of the Uruk layer at Tell Humeida (after Montero 2012: 313).

The site of Tell Humeida is clearly of great importance as a Uruk settlement, given the paucity of contemporary settlements along the Euphrates Valley between Balikh and Khabour. Future research is required to provide more information on this period in the rich history of northwestern Mesopotamia. References Bell, G. 2014 (1924). Amurath to Amurath. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Kohlmeyer, K. 1984. Euphrat-Survey. Die mit Mitteln der Gerda Henkel Stiftung durchgeführte archäologische Geländebegehung im Syrischen Euphrattal. Mitteilungen der Deutschen OrientGesellschaft 116: 95–118. Lauffray, J. 1983. Halabiyya-Zenobia, place forte du limes oriental et la Haute-Mésopotamie au VIe siècle. Paris: Geuthner. Montero Fenollés, J.-L. 2006. El Proyecto Arqueológico Medio Éufrates Sirio. Una iniciativa para el estudio de las civilizaciones del Oriente antiguo. De culturas, lenguas y tradiciones. II simposio de estudios humanísticos 2. Coruña: Universidade da Coruña. Montero, J.-L. 2009. Nouvelles recherches archéologiques Dans la région du verrou basaltique de Halabiyé (Moyen-Euphrate syrien). Estudos orientais 10: 123–145. Montero Fenollés, J.-L. 2011. Le site urukéen de Tell Humeida au Moyen Euphrate syrien. Premières recherches archéologiques. Res antiquitatis 2: 205–216. Montero Fenollés, J.-L. 2016. Le défilé de Khanuqa: Geografie e histoire au Moyen Euphrate meridional. ISIMU, Soundings on the Archaeology and the History of the Near East 13: 125–136. Montero Fenollés, J.-L., Caramelo, F., Marquez, I., and Al-Abdallah, Y. 2012. Excavaciones arqueológicas en Tell Humeida (Siria): De la colonización de Uruk al Imperio Bizantino. Informes y Trabajos, N2, 2012, Excavaciones en el exterior 2010: 309–315. Sachau, E. 1883. Reise in Syrien und Mesopotamien. Leipzig: F.A. Brockhaus.

234

The occupation of the territory Description of the investigated sites 15. Tell Qabr Abu al-Atiq Location Tell Qabr Abu al-Atiq is located on the left bank of the Euphrates, 1.3 km to the south of the ancient highway between Raqqa and Deir ez-Zor, 70 km to the east of Raqqa, 56 km to the west of Deir ezZor, and 150 m to the north of the Euphrates course (Figure 346). Description Tell Qabr Abu al-Atiq (known also as Tell Abu Shams as it is situated near the modern village of Abu Shams) is formed of a principal mound, located to the west; it is a small acropolis and a lower town. The site has an irregular shape now due to the erosion of the terrace on which the city was constructed – on an ancient meander, abandoned today. Its location was ideal to control the river’s course.157 Previous research Tell Qabr Abu al-Atiq was visited by Eduard Sachau,158 Friedrich Sarre, and Ernest Herzfeld,159 within their expedition (1907/8) along the Euphrates and Tigris. In their subsequent publication they referred to the site as Khabuqa.160 The French historian Victor Chapot161 prepared a plan of Khabuqa, including Tell Qabr Abu al-Atiq. Gertrude Bell mentioned the site in her travels in the

Figure 346. Location of Tell Qabr Abu al-Atiq.

Montero et al. 2006: 112–113. Sachau 1883: 255–257. 159 Sarre and Herzfeld 1911: 165. 160 Montero 2016: 128. 161 Chapot 1907: 292–293. 157 158

235

The Fertile Desert

Figure 347. Room 1 (after Montero, Al- Shabib, Marquez and Caramelo 2011: 171).

Figure 348. Basalt mortar with red color (after Montero, Marquez, Caramelo and Al- Abdallah, 2011).

Figure 349. Objects found in Room 1 of the Middle Assyrian building (after Montero, Marquez, Caramelo and AlAbdallah, 2011:273).

236

The occupation of the territory Description of the investigated sites

Figure 350. Room 2 (after Montero, Al- Shabib, Marquez and Caramelo 2011: 174).

region (1911).162 The location was later confirmed by Lauffray163 and a survey was conducted by Kohlmeyer in 1983/4.164 The Syrian-Spanish joint expedition worked in the region between 2005 and 2011.165 Excavations at the site In 2008 the expedition targeted the lower town, dated to the Early Bronze Age/middle of the 3rd millennium BC. In 2009 the survey employed ground penetrating radar (GPR) to assist them.166 The second occupation phase at the site is Late Bronze Age, and a Middle Assyrian building was revealed as well as a representative repertoire of so-called ‘Middle Assyrian Administrative Pottery’.167 On the principal mound, the soundings revealed a building dated to the Middle Assyrian period, comprising four rooms: Room 1: This is a rectangular space, 2.85 m x 5.80 m, and with a conserved height of walls of 1.24 m. It was constructed with mudbricks (0.37 m x 0.37 m; 0.37 m x 0.18 m) (Figure 347). In 2008/9 a ceramic assemblage was found on the floor (jars, dishes, cups, etc.) and nearby a circular basalt mortar with traces of red pigment. These items had been crushed and burnt by the fire that destroyed the room (Figures 348, 349).168

Bell 1924. Lauffray 1983: 65–83. 164 Kohlmeyer 1984: 95–118. 165 Montero et al. 2011. 166 Montero et al. 2011: 270. 167 Montero and Al-Shbib 2016: 250–252. 168 Montero et al. 2011: 272. 162 163

237

The Fertile Desert

Figure 351. The ceramic found on the floor of Room 3 (after Montero et al. 2015:80).

Figure 352. Tow clay tablets found in Room 3 (after Montero et al. 2015: 88).

238

The occupation of the territory Description of the investigated sites

Figure 353. Middle Assyrian Administrative Pottery from Room 3 (after Montero and al-Shabib 2016: 252).

Figure 354. Room 4 (after Montero et al 2011).

239

The Fertile Desert

Figure 355. Cylinder seal from Room 4 (after Montero et al, 2011).

Figure 356. Ceramics from Room 4 (after Montero, Marquez, Caramelo 2011:274).

Room 2: This space is accessible from Room 1 via a doorway. On the northwestern side of the mound was identified a wall of basalt and limestone (0.75 m – 1 m wide); the floor of the building was also identified (Figure 350).169 Room 3: This room measures 18.8 m2. One of the walls is cut by a modern Islamic grave.170 On the floor was documented a range of ceramics, including bowls, jugs, and strainers of different shapes. The most significant discovery was in 2010, when an assemblage of cuneiform tablets was found on the floor and hidden with a broken vessel. The material in Room 3 was covered by a layer of ash from the fire that destroyed the building (Figures 351–353).171 Room 4: A series of large jars was documented in this room, along with a basalt cylinder seal. The seal represented four Mesopotamian gods, one of them identified as Hadad (Figures 354–356). Montero et al. 2011: 174. Montero et al. 2011: 274. 171 Montero et al. 2015: 80–88; Montero and Al-Shbib 2016: 252. 169 170

240

The occupation of the territory Description of the investigated sites

Figure 357. Provisional results of the GPR sounding at Tell Qabr Abu al-Atiq (after Montero, Marquez and Caramelo 2011: 271).

The lower town Collections of surface ceramic sherds indicated site occupation during the Early Bronze Age. The surface evidence of the mudbrick wall suggested the plan of the ancient constructions (Figures 357, 358). Using GPR in 2009, the expedition documented the city wall (c. 400 m, 6 m wide) surrounding the town in the 3rd millennium BC (Figure 359).172 Cuneiform tablets Two cuneiform administrative tablets (Middle Assyrian dialect) were discovered in their original context, perhaps falling there after the fire. Made of clay, they measure 5.6 cm x 4.7 cm x 2.0 cm and 3.6 cm x 4.5 cm x 1.5 cm and were complete; the surface of one of them still has seal impressions. The conservation state is not good, and thus reading the text was challenging. One of the tablets conserves the date ‘Abattu’ (the son of Ada-Shumu-Leshir), he gave his name to the 11th year of the reign of Tukulti- Ninurta I, thus the date is 1232 or 1222 BC.173

172 173

Montero et al. 2011: 270; Montero and Al-Shbib 2016: 250–252. Montero and Al-Shbib 2016: 252.

241

The Fertile Desert

Figure 358. Pottery from the Early Bronze Age (after Montero, Al-Shabib, Marquez and Caramelo 2011: 175).

Figure 359. Two rooms of the Early Bronze Age building (after Montero and al-Shabib 2016: 250).

242

The occupation of the territory Description of the investigated sites Conclusion The excavation at Tell Qabr Abu al-Atiq revealed a town from the Early Bronze Age, probably part of the kingdom of Mari on the northern borders. Its strategic location enabled it to control river traffic through the Khanuqa Gorge and protect the northern borders of the kingdom. The Assyrian building, destroyed by fire, provided a large volume of ceramics (Middle Assyrian Administrative Pottery), and the building was contemporaneous to Tell Shaikh Hamad on the Khabour, and Tell Sabi Abyad on the Balikh. The cuneiform tablets and the cylinder seal enable us to date the site to the middle of the 13th century BC. It is possible that the Assyrian settlement of ‘Dunnu’ at Tel Qabr Abu al-Atiq was destroyed during the military conflicts to define the territories of the Assyrians, Babylonian, and Hittites. References Bell, G. 2014 (1924). Amurath to Amurath. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Chapot, V. 1907. La frontière de l’Euphrate, de Pompée à la conquête arabe. Paris: A. Fontemoing. Kohlmeyer, K. 1984. Euphrat-Survey. Die mit Mitteln der Gerda Henkel Stiftung durchgeführte archäologische Geländebegehung im Syrischen Euphrattal. Mitteilungen der Deutschen OrientGesellschaft 116: 95–118. Lauffray, J. 1983. Halabiyya-Zenobia, place forte du limes oriental et la Haute-Mésopotamie au VIe siècle. Paris: Geuthner. Montero, J.-L. 2015. Asirios en el medio Éufrates: la cerámica medio asiria de Tell Qabr Abu a-atiq en su contexto histórico- arqueológico. Cuadernos Mesopotámicos 5: 1–141. Montero Fenollés, J.-L. 2016. Le défilé de Khanuqa: Geografie e histoire au Moyen Euphrate meridional. ISIMU, Soundings on the Archaeology and the History of the Near East 13: 125–136. Montero Fenolles, J.-L. and Al-Shbib, Sh. 2016. Tell Qabr Abu al-Atiq (deir ez-Zor), in Y. Kanjou and A. Tsuneki (eds) A History of Syria in One Hundred Sites: 250–252. Oxford: Archaeopress. Montero, J.-L, Al-Shbib, Sh., Marquez, I. and Caramelo, F. 2011. Excavation in Tell Qabr Abu al-Atiq: from the early city to the Middle Assyrian settlement. Annales Archéologiques Arabes Syriennes 53– 54: 169–177. Montero, J.-L., Márquez, I. and Caramelo, F. 2011. V campaña del Proyecto Arqueológico Medio Éufrates Sirio. Investigaciones en Tall Qabr Abu al-‘Atiq y Tell Ma’adan. Excavaciones en el exterior: 268–277. Madrid: Ministerio de Cultura. Montero, J.-L., Marquez, I., Caramelo, F. and Al-Abdallah, Y. 2011. Tell Qubr Abu al-‘Atiq: A Middle Assyrian Fort in the Gorge of Khanuqa: 6th Season Report of the Proyecto Arqueologico Medio Eufrates Sirio (2010). Aula Orientalis 29: 267–278. Montero, J-L., Marquez, I., Caramelo, F. and Vidal, J. 2006. O projecto arqueológico «Médio Eufrates Sírio»: resultados provisórios da primeira campanha. Revista Portuguesa de Arqueologia 9(2): 109– 126. Sachau, E. 1883. Reise in Syrien und Mesopotamien. Leipzig: F.A. Brockhaus. Sarre, F. and Herzfeld, E. 1911. Archaeologische Reise im Euphrat-und Tigris-Gebeit. Berlin: D. Reime. 16. Tell Qsubi -Tell Qalaa The site of Tell Qsubi is located on the right bank of the Euphrates, c. 70 km to the west of Raqqa and 56 km to the east of Deir ez-Zor, 250 m south of the river’s course, to the north of the village of al-Qsubi (Figure 360). Previous research According to Montero,174 Tell Qsubi attracted the attention of various travellers, e.g. Gasparo Balbi, who visited it during a journey to the region between 1579-1588, and recording his account in 174

Montero 2016: 128.

243

The Fertile Desert

Figure 360. Location of Tell Qsubi.

Viaggio dell’Indie Orientali (1590).175 More recent researchers have included Sarre, Herzfeld,176 and Lauffray.177 Sachau178 also included the site on his map of Khanuqa. In 1922 the French military official Charles Herault179 organized a boat expedition along the Syrian Euphrates from Jerables on the Turkish border to Abu Kamal in Iraq and cited the site of Tell Qsubi. The recent Syrian-Spanish expedition investigated the site for two seasons between 2005 and 2007, and in 2010, a team from the University of Chicago carried out urgent rescue work there. Description of the site The Tell Qsubi site (450 m x 230 m) is located at the entrance of the Khanuqa Gorge; there is a small acropolis and a lower town. A rectangular structure was distinguished just beneath the top of the mound, containing numerous rooms. The collected sherds fragments from the surface indicate Bronze Age as well as Abbasid Islamic activity.180 The stratigraphy demonstrates that the site was occupied during Early Bronze Age IV, i.e. c. 2000 BC (Figure 361).181 The last excavations at the site were carried out by the Syrian-American expedition. The aim was to document the sites threatened by the construction of the Khanuqa Gorge dam on the Middle Euphrates, in the area near Halabiya and Zenobia. The expedition’s work in the Tell Qsubi area documented several levels of occupation. Based on its topography the site, was divided into six Balbi 1590. Sarre and Herzfeld 1911. Lauffray 1983. 178 Sachau 1883. 179 Herault 1922. 180 Montero et al. 2006: 115. 181 Sanjurjo, Fernandez and Montero 2008: 22. 175 176 177

244

The occupation of the territory Description of the investigated sites

Figure 361. General view of Tell Qsubi (after Montero et al. 2006: 115).

sectors: (1) an acropolis (TQ1), featuring basalt constructions dated to Late Islamic and Ottoman periods; (2) the eastern slope (TQ2), revealing fragments of early Islamic and Byzantine glazed ceramics; (3) the southern slope (TQ3), where were found the remains of Early Islamic and Hellenistic and Bronze Age activities; (4) the modern Islamic cemetery (TQ4), with Hellenistic and Late Assyrian finds; (5) the northwestern slope (TQ5), where Islamic period remains were identified; (6) the area of modern houses (TQ6), where Middle Bronze Age (Shakanaku) material was found.182 References Balbi, G. 1590 (2009). Viaggio dell’Indie orientali, digitized by the University Autonoma, Madrid. Hérault, Ch. 1922. Une mission de reconnaissance de l’Euphrate en 1922: 85, carte XXXIII. Damascus. Lauffray, J. 1983. Halabiyya-Zenobia, place forte du limes oriental et la Haute-Mésopotamie au VIe siècle. Paris: Geuthner. Montero Fenollés, J.-L. 2016. Le défilé de Khanuqa: Geografie e histoire au Moyen Euphrate meridional. ISIMU, Soundings on the Archaeology and the History of the Near East 13: 125–136. Montero, J-L., Marquez, I., Caramelo, F. and Vidal, J. 2006. O projecto arqueológico «Médio Eufrates Sírio»: resultados provisórios da primeira campanha. Revista Portuguesa de Arqueologia 9(2): 109– 126. Sachau, E. 1883. Reise in Syrien und Mesopotamien, Leipzig: F.A. Brockhaus. Sanjurjo, J., Fernández, D. and Montero, J.-L. 2008. TL and OSL dating of sediment and pottery from two Syrian archaeological sites. Geocronometria 31: 21–29. Sarre, F. and Herzfeld, E. 1911. Archaeologische Reise im Euphrat-und Tigris-Gebeit. Berlin: D. Reime.

182

Montero et al. 2006: 115.

245

The Fertile Desert

Figure 362. Location of the Tomb of Qsubi.

16. Tomb of Qsubi Location of the tomb The ‘tomb of Qsubi’ is in the southern part of the modern village of Qsubi, c. 200 m south of the Euphrates. The Directorate General of Antiquities and Museums DGAM organized a rescue expedition there (2013) to protect it from water damage and further plundering (Figure 362).183 Description of the tomb The monument (8.91 m x 6.92 m, and 3.25 m high) consists of a semicircular space, 8 m in diameter. Immediately beneath the entrance (1.22 m), to the east of the space, there are three similar, semicircular niches, with their floors 0.36 m below the semicircular space. To the west of the first niche, another space was discovered; unfortunately, this had been destroyed by clandestine digging and by water irrigation to the trees directly above the tomb.184 The tomb was dug into the bedrock at the edge of the tell, with an access shaft and a chamber divided into three parts; it is thus classified as a shaft and chamber tomb. Inside the tomb were a few human bones and over two hundred ceramic vessels; no other grave goods were documented, it probably having already been looted in ancient times (Figure 363).185 Pottery assemblage The tomb contained of a large number of complete vessels, as well fragments and incomplete ones (i.e. jars, cups, bowls, lids, etc.). The assemblage included examples of the four known ware Al Khabour 2013. Al Khabour 2013. 185 Alachkar and Shohan 2009. 183 184

246

The occupation of the territory Description of the investigated sites

Figure 363. Schematic section and photograph of the tomb of Tell Qsubi (after Alachkar and Showhan 2019: 275).

types from the Middle Euphrates of the Early Bronze Age: ‘Simple Ware’, ‘Black Euphrates Ware’, ‘Combed Wash Ware’ and ‘Cooking Ware’.186 References Alachkar, S. and Showhan, Y. 2019. Découverte d’une tombe du Bronze ancien à Tell Qsubi (MoyenEuphrate, Syrie). Syria 96 : 273–292. Al Khabour, A. 2013. Histoire de l’occupation de la vallée de l’Euphrate entre Balikh et Khabour jusqu’à la conquête d’Alexandre, in J.-L. Montero Fenollos (ed) Bibliotheca Euphratica, Vol I: 163– 175. Coruña: Universidade da Coruña. 17. Qleb al Hemma The Syrian Directorate General of Antiquities and Museums, motivated by the construction of a new dam on the Euphrates in the Khanuqa Gorge, organized an expedition to carry out a survey of the area known as Qleb al-Hemma. Directed by Michael Al-Maqdissi, the archaeological survey was undertaken between the 7th – 14th June 2011. Location of Qleb al Hemma Qleb al Hemma is 1.5 km north of the highway between Raqqa and Deir ez-Zor, 47 km east of Deir ez-Zor and 71 km west of Raqqa, just on the Euphrates right bank (Figure 364). The Mound of Qleb al Hemma The region features numerous valleys and mounds. Qleb al-Hemma, known also as ‘Gleb al-Hemma’ or ‘Jleb al-Hamma’, derives its name from the Arabic for ‘volcanic heart’, from the nature of the local lava rock. The site, c. 35 m above the surrounding area, and 125 m above the level of the river, has an elongated shape. The survey Al-Maqdissi187 chose to divide the survey into five main axes: Axis 1, from the northwestern part to the southeast, then going east, up to the mound that overlooks the tombs north of Halabiya; Axis 2, from the north of the mound, to Sabat al-Wasaa, southeast; Axis 3, from the south of Halabiya, turning to the north of Halabiya; Axis 4, from Ras al-Butain, southwest of the mound, to Sabat al-

186 187

Alachkar and Shohan 2019: 275. Al Maqdissi 2011.

247

The Fertile Desert

Figure 364. Location of Qleb al Hemma.

Wasaa in the southeast; and Axis 5, from the northwest to Ras al-Butain, to the southwest (Figure 365). Axis 1 Axis 1, extending 5 km, started from the northwest of the mound, heading south from Darb alWawi, to cross the mound from the north, reaching the Sadr a-Muharab area. It continues south, reaching the Saba valley, overlooking the tombs of Halabiya (Tombs T5 and T6). Jean Lauffray refers the eastern part of the axis as Sadr al-Muhareb, a name that does not exist on the Syrian maps; perhaps the name was given to Lauffray by locals. Axis 1 includes the following the sites: Site 13.1. The site consists of oval-shaped basalt units, whose diameters range from 4 m to 7 m. The units feature a single course of stones and may be parts of burial mounds. The ceramics collected here, as well as the lithic artifacts, point to the 3rd millennium BC, although the chronology may extend to other periods. Site 13.2. The site contains basalt units in the centre of the mound. Lauffray suggests that these units were part of the meridian wall of Halabiya, built against Bedouin attacks, which gives it a dating to Roman times, contemporary with the Palmyra period of the history of Halabiya. Site 13.3. The site represents prehistoric temporary camps, where the basalt units are spread out, forming simple structures. Axis 2 Axis 2 starts from the southeast, Sabat al-Wasaa, towards the centre, reaching the highest small mound, the eponymous Qleb el Hemma, and then continues north of the mound. This axis includes the following sites: 248

The occupation of the territory Description of the investigated sites

Figure 365. The five axes of survey at Qleb al Hemma.

Site13.4. This site is made up of rectangular units; the lithic finds indicate a prehistoric camp. Site 13.5. A prehistoric temporary camp, semi-rectangular in shape (60 m x 40 m); in the centre there are basalt units in a semi-circular shape. The camp is related to other circular units built using basalt, with diameters of 8 m – 9 m. The interiors are divided into four spaces, perhaps used for animals. Site 13.6. This site is near the top of the mound and is a rectangular camp (70 m x 40 m). It resembles the rest of the temporary camps in the area. Within the site there are basalt units driven into the ground, which may have been used to place wooden columns. From the south it communicates with a low elevation part, which contains basalt units in the form of parallel lines. Site 13.7. This site is a dense grouping of basalt units, oval and circular in shape, which perhaps had a funerary or storage function. There is a considerable presence of lithic artifacts. Site 13.8. In this flat area there are some circular units (diameters 8 m – 11m) with no remains inside; the distances between the units sometimes reach 40 m. There are lithic artifacts present. Site 13.9. The mound of Qleb al Hemma is the mouth of the volcano, whose lava formed the entire mound. Ceramics dated to the Byzantine period have been collected on the surface, but there were no architectural units found. Site 13.10. An elevation with two basalt units. In the eastern part there are basalt walls, which form buildings with a grooved aspect; up to six buildings have been identified. There were no ceramic or flint finds to help give with the dating – probably it belongs to modern times. Site 13.10A. Consists of a large necropolis, with tumulus tombs belonging to Bedouin groups from the beginning of the last century. 249

The Fertile Desert Axis 3 Axis 3 starts from the south of Halabiya, turning into the valley, in which the town lies. It includes the following sites: Site 13.11. A grouping of buildings near Halabiya. To the south of these buildings there is a wall, probably it was a defense point of the previous buildings and the funeral area. The site is mentioned by Lauffray. As for remains, finds of Byzantine pottery are recorded. Site 13.12. This site was also mentioned by Lauffray in 1983, as a square, fortified building (40 m x 40 m), with semicircular towers at the corners. There is a high presence of lithic artifacts from prehistoric times. Site 13.13. The site is oval in shape. Inside there are basalt units that may be furnaces or fireplaces; there are also lithic artifacts. Site 13.14. A rectangular site (40 m x 40 m), from which prehistoric lithic artifacts were collected. Site 13.15. This site consists of two circular units connected to each other; their diameters are 11.5 m, and 14 m. They were perhaps stables for cattle. The walls are made up from a basalt base that reaches 80 cm in height, however the entrances could not be located precisely. The documented remains are from the Byzantine period, contemporary to the city of Halabiya. Site 13.16. Located to the west of 13.15, the site consists of stone units forming six circles, in two parallel lines 41 m long and 25 m wide. Each circular unit has a diameter ranging from 11.5 m – 14m. The function of the units is unknown, perhaps stabling for cattle. The pottery collected indicates the Byzantine period, contemporary with Halabiya. Axis 4 Axis 4 starts at Ras al-Butain, to the southeast of the mound, then continue to the east. It was noted that the prehistoric sites are in the western part of the axis, while in the eastern part there were no remains of settlements or camps, perhaps because this area has been much disturbed by vehicles. The axis contains the following sites: Site 13.17. This site includes groups of temporary camps, almost rectangular in shape (50 m x 30 m). Walkways and paths between these units have also been identified on the east, south and west sides, which overlook the central area – circular in shape with a diameter of 13 m. These camps would appear to have been important judging by their organization. Site 13.18. Consists of an oval-shaped unit with a diameter of 30 m. The exact function of the unit is not known, although it may have been a prehistoric camp. Lithic artifacts are distributed above the unit. Byzantine pottery is also found. Site 13.19. Here several large stone clusters (9 m x 6 m) were found destroyed; they were probably part of a cemetery of tumulus tombs. No materials of any kind were found, making exact dating impossible. Site 13.20. With the same characteristics as 13.19. It was not possible to collect materials to date the site. Site 13.21. The site is formed of parallel lines of stone groups, giving the site an elongated shape. There were no ceramics or lithic artifacts to aid with precise dating, and the function of the site has not been determined. 250

The occupation of the territory Description of the investigated sites Site 13.22. This feature is a large building (37.5 m x 36 m) with a central courtyard surrounded by rooms of c. 8 m2. The entrance could not be located due to its poor state of conservation. The collected pottery belongs to the Byzantine period, contemporary to Halabiya. The function of the unit is unknown, but it could have been a meeting place for shepherds, an administrative site, or even a place from which the events of the mound were organizes. Site 13.23. A feature, rectangular in shape (57 m x 24 m), located on top of a small elevation. There were no remains to help give a precise date to the site. Axis 5 Axis 5 covers the western area of the mound, going from the northwest, from the station to the south, ending at Ras el-Butain. The area helps sheds light on ancient human presence at the far end of Qleb al Hemma and includes the following sites: Site 13.24. The site is northwest of the mound and contains burial mounds; there is a possibility that they are not ancient. There were no ceramics or artifacts to help date the site. Site 13.25. This consists of units of circular shape with diameters between 15 m – 16 m; the walls are c. 1 m wide. The units were probably open to the west as the walls do not continue in that direction. The form suggests that they were U-shaped spaces/hides, used to hunt animals. Only few flint artifacts have been found and no accurate dating is possible. Site 13.26. The feature consists of two basalt units. The first has a diameter of 15.4 m and its interior is made of stone, placed in an orderly manner. The second has a diameter of 13.4 m. The two units form to make a maximum width of 18 m x 40 m. The walls were built with a single course of basalt blocks, with a width of 90 cm. Many flints and Byzantine pottery sherds have been collected. The site was possibly used for hunting; the units are open to the west and there is a hole or entrance for animals to enter. Site 13.27. A small mound that contains basalt units. These units are difficult to relate to each other and may represent an architectural unit of some unknown kind. The collected pottery belongs to the Early Bronze Age, including a ‘combed’ pottery fragment belonging to a small vessel. Site 13.28. The feature consists of units of basalt lines that form different geometric shapes, whose function has not yet been determined. There were no remains to help date the site. Site 13.29. Is an important building constructed on a basalt elevation, formed by two circles, 12 m high and 7.5 m wide. The base of the large walls is made of basalt and its width is 80 cm. Its function has not been determined, although it could possibly represent a location to exercise control over the area. There was no pottery that could help with the dating. Site 13.30. The site of quite a large camp, although it was difficult to determine its exact architecture. It extends for more than 50 m2, and prehistoric lithic artifacts are spread over it. Settlement phases and conclusion The survey carried out at Qleb al-Hemma sheds light on the different periods of temporal settlement at most sites of the mound, as well as on its importance to the Euphrates Valley and the ancient city of Halabiya. The occupation settlements are divided into four phases: Phase one covers the periods of prehistory and is characterized by temporary camps, located mainly at the ends of the mound. These places allowed access to the most important resource – the water 251

The Fertile Desert of the Euphrates. These camps occupied parts of the north, east and south of the mound, in some cases being related to hunting structures. The camps shared a wide area occupied in different ways. Inside they had simple basalt units, perhaps used to place wooden columns, ovens, or make places where daily work was carried out. These units have typically been associated with elevated areas, including basalt buildings and walls, which may have served for storage and food preservation. Although many lithic artifacts have been collected, it has been difficult to determine where these were manufactured. Phase two relates to burial mound-type cemeteries of the 3rd or first half of the 2nd millennium BC, however the scarcity of ceramics prevented the expedition teams from determining their exact dates. The cemeteries are mainly found in the northwest and west parts of the mound and along the area of the fourth axis; they correspond to nomadic groups, who passed by the mound and buried their dead here; their burial rites differ from those in the fixed settlements along the Euphrates. Phase three is that of the Byzantine period, and is mainly found in the surroundings area of Halabiya. The sites of this period had hunting structures and stables, and they extend along the southern part of Halabiya and south of the central mound. Phase four is represented by tumulus cemeteries that correspond to modern Bedouin groups, from the beginning of the last century or perhaps the century before. They are found in the area that overlooks the village of Qsubi. Some pottery remains indicate the end of the Ottoman period in Syria. In conclusion, the site of Qleb al Hemma has witnessed active human presence since prehistoric times, in the form of temporary camps. During the Bronze Age it was densely used and was part of an area that witnessed the formation of large settlements along the Euphrates, while the mound was used for burials of nomadic groups. During the Byzantine period the site was equally active, and clearly related to the city of Halabiya. There was no significant evidence regarding the Islamic period, although in modern times Bedouin groups built their tombs here. References Al Maqdissi, M. 2011. Report of the Directorate General of Antiquities and Museums at Qleb al Hemma (in Arabic). Unpublished.

18. Tell et-Tibni Near the village of Tibni there is a mound, elevated some 7 m above the surrounding land, knowns as Tell Tibni. Numerous surveys have been made of the site, including a Finnish expedition in 2005 and the Syrian-Spanish expedition in 2007/8. Location Near Tibni village, the tell of the same name is to be found 82 km east of Raqqa, 43 km west of Deir ez-Zor, and 130 m from the highway between Raqqa and Deir ez-Zor (Figure 366), and just over 1 km south of the Euphrates course (in front of the site of Tell Abu Makiya).

252

The occupation of the territory Description of the investigated sites

Figure 366. Location of Tell Tibni.

Description The tell is a large site (200 m x 150 m), accessible from Raqqa and Deir ez-Zor highway. The surface of the mound now includes modern Islamic graves since it has been used as a cemetery for the neighbouring village (Figures 367, 368).188 Previous archaeological works Tell et-Tibni was cited by both Friedrich Sarre and Ernest Herzfeld.189 A. Poidebard (1934) confirmed that Tell et-Tibni was Mambri, the fortress of Diocletian I, c. 7 km southeast of Zenobia.190 The French architect Jean Lauffray191 visited the site in the 1940s, and it was mentioned in the publication by Besançon and Sanville (1981).192 In 1984 the German archaeologist Kay Kohlmeyer193 re-confirmed the site. The Finnish expedition undertook a survey in 2005, publishing the results in 2011.194 The Syrian-Spanish expedition of the Middle Euphrates investigated the surface of the mound in 2007 and 2008, dating it from the Middle Bronze Age, up to Classical and then Islamic times.195 Montero et al. 2006: 116. Sarre and Herzfeld 1911. Montero 2016: 130. 191 Lauffray 1983. 192 Sanlaville and Besançon 1981. 193 Kohlmeyer 1984. 194 Lonnqvist et al. 2010. 195 Montero 2016: 136. 188 189 190

253

The Fertile Desert

Figure 367. General view of Tell Tibni (after Montero et al.:2006).

Figure 368. General view from southwest (photo by the author).

254

The occupation of the territory Description of the investigated sites

Figure 369. Ceramics from the Bronze Age and Iron Age from Tell Tibni (after Lonnqvis et al. 2010:220).

Occupation periods at the site The surface finds at Tell et-Tibni indicated a long range of use – Palaeolithic, Neolithic, Uruk, Middle Bronze Age, Late Bronze Age, Classical, and Islamic periods. Some scholars have suggested various derivations of the ancient name of Tell Tibni – considering factors such as geographical data and written texts from the capital, Mari, located to the south on the Euphrates. The location of the settlement, on the northern edge of the rocky plateau of the Mt Bishri range and the village of el-Inabah, just near Tibni, is known for its large quantities of marble and gypsum, indicating that the inhabitants in and around Tell et-Tibni were involved in transporting material towards the south, into Mesopotamia, via the Euphrates. According to Durand,196 the ancient name of the site could be Ganibatum, the port of Dur YahdunLim, mentioned in a text from the Mari archive. Ganibatum functioned at that time as a port for shipping stone from the Middle Euphrates towards central and southern Mesopotamia. The ceramic sherds collected from the site are contemporary with the influence of the Mari kingdom during the Middle Bronze Age, the apogee of Amorite control in the region. This in turn leads us to references of ‘Mount Tidnum’, a site associated in the texts of King Gudea with Mt Bishri, considered a major source of marble, alabaster, and gypsum from the end of the 3rd millennium BC.

196

Durand et al. 2005: 64–67.

255

The Fertile Desert Cultural contacts with Emar and Ebla are reflected in the pottery production, not surprising for a site located on the great river flowing into the heart of Mesopotamia. The same can be said for the repertoire of the Late Bronze Age and Iron Age, allowing us to correlate the site with the Assyrian-Aramaean presence in the region (Figure 369).

Figure 370. Fragment of Uruk pottery from Tell Tibni (after Lonnqvist et al. 2010: 220).

Some kilometers south of Tell et-Tibni, salt mines are located around the village of Buyetieh, the products of which were transported by river towards the south, into Mesopotamia. G. Bucellati197 associates the production of Uruk vessels with the salt trade; Tell et-Tibni, not far from these salt mines, has in its ceramic assemblages many examples of Uruk pottery (Figure 370).198 Conclusion

The latest archaeological works at the site of Tell et-Tibni, even though they were superficial surveys, demonstrate that the site played a meaningful role in various historical periods, however there is need, of course, for confirmation of all the data by systematic excavations in and around the site. References Buccellati, G. 1990. Salt at the Dawn of History: The Case of the Bevelled-Rim Bowls, in P. Matthiae, M. Van Loon and J. Weiss (eds) Resurrecting the Past: A Joint Tribute to Adnan Bounni: 17–40. Istanbul: Nederlands Historisch-Archeologisth Instituut. Durand, J.-M., Nicolle, Ch. and Marti, L. 2005. Le culte des Pierres et les monuments commémoratifs en Syrie amorrite. Florilégium marianum VII. Paris: Société pour l’étude du Proche-Orient ancien. Kohlmeyer, K. 1984. Euphrat-Survey. Die mit Mitteln der Gerda Henkel Stiftung durchgeführte archäologische Geländebegehung im Syrischen Euphrattal. Mitteilungen der Deutschen OrientGesellschaft 116: 95–118. Lauffray, J. 1983. Halabiyya-Zenobia, place forte du limes oriental et la Haute-Mésopotamie au VIe siècle. Paris: Geuthner. Lonnqvist, M., Tora, M., Lonnqvist, K. and Nuñez, M. 2011. Jebel Bishri Focus: remote sensing, archaeological surveying, mapping and GIS studies of Jebel Bishri in central Syria by the Finnish project SYGIS. British Archaeological Reports International Series 2230. Oxford: Archaeopress. Montero Fenollés, J.-L. 2014. De Uruk a Mari. Innovaciones tecnológicas de la Primera Revolución Urbana en el Medio Éufrates meridional. Anejos de Nailos: Estudios interdisciplinares de arqueología 1: 139–155. Montero Fenollés, J.-L. 2016. Le défilé de Khanuqa: Geografie e histoire au Moyen Euphrate meridional. ISIMU, Soundings on the Archaeology and the History of the Near East 13: 125–136. Montero, J-L., Marquez, I., Caramelo, F. and Vidal, J. 2006. O projecto arqueológico «Médio Eufrates Sírio»: resultados provisórios da primeira campanha. Revista Portuguesa de Arqueologia 9(2): 109– 126. Sanlaville, P. and Besançon, J. 1981. Aperçu géomorphologique sur la vallée de l’Euphrate syrien. Paléorient 7(2): 5–18. Sarre, F. and Herzfeld, E. 1911. Archaeologische Reise im Euphrat-und Tigris-Gebeit. Berlin: D. Reime. 197 198

Bucellati 1990. Montero 2014.

256

The occupation of the territory Description of the investigated sites 19. Tell Abu Fahd The Syrian-Spanish expedition (DGAM and the University of Coruña, within the project Proyecto Arqueológico Medio Éufrates Sirio) realized in 2005/6 two excavation seasons at the site of Abu Fahd. The aim was to investigate the Khanuqa Gorge on the Middle Euphrates, an area that played a large role in controlling the commercial routes when the river was navigable, and determine the occupation periods in the site. Location The site of Abu Fahd is on the left bank of the Euphrates, c. 2.5 km north of the river’s course, and 40 km to the west of Deir ez-Zor, near the village of Kasra (Figure 371). Description The mound (390 m x 100 m) is oval in shape and covers an area of 6 ha. The site maintains part of the exterior town walls, constructed of basalt and mudbricks (Figure 372). In the northeastern corner there is a rectangular tower (18 m x 10 m x 2.5 m high) formed of five courses of mudbricks, the width of the tower walls is 3 m. It is constructed of blocks of basalt 0.5 m x 0.7 m, and 0.5 m x 0.3 m (Figures 373, 374). The expedition opened a trench in the southwestern side to obtain detailed stratigraphy of the site (Figure 375). According to Lauffray’s description,199 the site was occupied during the Roman and Islamic periods. However, the collected surface sherds also indicate characteristics of Middle Bronze Age II (1850–1750 BC).200 Conclusion The expedition applied new archaeological techniques to obtain more precise data on the collected material from the site, e.g. Thermoluminescence (TL) was used to date fired materials, such as

Figure 371. Location of Tell Abu Fahd. 199 200

Lauffray 1983. Montero 2016: 133; Montero et al. 2006a: 114; Montero et al. 2006: 114.

257

The Fertile Desert

Figure 372. View of the Tell (after Montero and Vidal: 2009: 215).

Figure 373. The tower in the northeast corner (after Montero, Marquez, Caramelo and Vidal: 2006: 114).

258

The occupation of the territory Description of the investigated sites

Figure 374. The tower in the northeast corner (after Montero, Marquez, Caramelo and Al-Sabib: 2006).

Figure 375. The tower in the northeast corner (after Montero, Marquez, Caramelo and Al-Sabib: 2006).

259

The Fertile Desert pottery and flint.201 The excavations by the Syrian-Spanish expedition at Tell Abu Fahd shed light on the fortification system and defensive architecture within the Euphrates Valley during the Middle Bronze Age, and its connection to the Mari kingdom. According to cuneiform texts, there was a border town protecting the western edge of Mari known as Dur-Yahdun-Lim – a fortification constructed by the Mari king Yahdun-Lim (1810–1794 BC). The location of this fortification is still unknown, but clearly it should be a location controlling the fluvial trade, and the best candidate is on the natural border, the Khanuqa Gorge on the Euphrates. The expedition’s work confirmed the contemporaneous occupation of the Khanuqa sites and the Mari kingdom. Montero202 has suggested that the site of Abu Fahd is, indeed, the fortification of Yahdun-Lim, based on its location, fortifications, and the archaeological evidence dated to the Middle Bronze Age II (the Lim dynasty according to the Mari sequence). Further research and excavations should be able to confirm or reject this hypothesis. References Lauffray, J. 1983. Halabiyya-Zenobia, place forte du limes oriental et la Haute-Mésopotamie au VIe siècle. Paris: Geuthner. Montero Fenollés, J.-L. 2006. El Proyecto Arqueológico Medio Éufrates Sirio. Una iniciativa para el estudio de las civilizaciones del Oriente antiguo. De culturas, lenguas y tradiciones. II simposio de estudios humanísticos 2. Montero Fenollés, J.-L. 2016. Le défilé de Khanuqa: Geografie e histoire au Moyen Euphrate meridional. ISIMU, Soundings on the Archaeology and the History of the Near East 13: 125–136. Montero Fenollés, J.-L. and Vidal, J. 2009. The Fortification System in Tell Abu Fahd (Syrian Euphrates Valley). Aula Orientales Supplementa 23: 203–216. Montero, J-L., Marquez, I., Caramelo, F. and Al-Shbib, Sh. 2006. Report of the archaeological excavation season 2006. (Unpublished report). Montero, J-L., Marquez, I., Caramelo, F. and Vidal, J. 2006. O projecto arqueológico «Médio Eufrates Sírio»: resultados provisórios da primeira campanha. Revista Portuguesa de Arqueologia 9(2): 109– 126. Sanjurjo, J., Fernández, D. and Montero, J.-L. 2008. TL and OSL dating of sediment and pottery from two Syrian archaeological sites. Geocronometria 31: 21–29. 20. Tell As-Sin The Syrian-Spanish expedition (DGAM and the University of Coruña, within the project Proyecto Arqueológico Medio Éufrates Sirio) continued their archaeological researches in the province of Deir ez-Zor, east of Syria, between the Khanuqa Gorge in the north, down towards Tell as-Sin in the south, c. 60 km of the Middle Euphrates’ course. Location of Tell As-Sin Tell As-Sin is on the left bank of the Euphrates, 450 m from the river’s course and 10 km to the southeast of Deir ez-Zor (Figure 376). Description Tell As-Sin, meaning in Arabic ‘the mound of the teeth’ (but its ancient name still unknown), extends over 25 ha and is divided into three sections, including the main mound to the southwest, from which the lower town extends in an irregular pentagon shape, delimited by a walled mudbrick 201 202

Sanjurjo et al. 2008: 21–29. Montero 2006: 49–50.

260

The occupation of the territory Description of the investigated sites

Figure 376. Location of Tell As-Sin.

enclosure to the north, northeast and east. It is a natural elevation that reaches 211 m.a.s.l. The wall has disappeared from the south and west due to aggressive erosion. The northern wall is 212 m, the northeastern 425 m, and the eastern 275 m long.203 The defensive system is completed with a moat excavated into the rocks. The town’s large cemetery is extramural, extending towards the north and northeast. The archaeology confirmed the occupation of Tell As-Sin during the Byzantine period. A Dutch expedition in the 1970s, and the Syrian-Spanish expedition later, also confirmed evidence of Neolithic occupation in the southeastern part of the site (Figure 377).204 Previous work at the site The German traveller Eduard Sachau205 mentions the site (in his Reise in Syrien und Mesopotamien) as Tell Essinn; he found it with help of the Bedouins of Shammar, who accompanied him in 1879/80. His pupil in Berlin, Bernhard Moritz,206 also visited the site and wrote of it in his Zur antiken Topographie der Palmyrene of 1889. The description and location correspond to Tell As-Sin. A British general, one Francis Rawdon Chesney,207 on a lengthy visit to the Euphrates (1835–1837) refers to the site in his map, located a few kilometers from Deir ez-Zor. John Punnett Peters,208 director of an expedition to Babylonia (1888–1889), also gives the site, not far from Deir ez-Zor. In 1911 the site was visited by Sarre and Herzfeld,209 who list Tell As-Sin as a castrum of the RomanByzantine period. The indefatigable Gertrude Bell210 also mentions the site on her travels along the Euphrates. In 1978, the Dutch expedition put in a small trench realized on the southeastern Montero et al. 2006: 117. Montero 2006: 45. 205 Sachau 1883. 206 Moritz 1889. 207 Chesney 1868. 208 Peters 1897. 209 Sarre and Herzfeld 1911. 210 Bell 1924. 203 204

261

The Fertile Desert

Figure 377. Plan of Tell As-Sin (after Montero and Al Shabib 2008).

slope of the mound and documented ceramic sherds of the Neolithic PPNB period.211 In 1978, Asaad Mahmoud and a team from the Museum of Deir ez-Zor explored the site’s Late Roman hypogeum. Rescue excavations were carried out in 2003 at the cemetery, certain graves being at risk due to the construction of a new highway through the site. The Syrian-Spanish expedition (2005–2007) undertook systematic study of the entire Tell As-Sin cemetery.212 Archaeological work at the site The Syrian-Spanish expedition referred to above carried out three seasons of excavation between 2005–2007, targeting the Byzantine period. The investigations demonstrated the importance of Tell As-Sin within the defensive system of the eastern borders of the Roman and Byzantine Empires against Persian and Sassanian attacks in the 6th century AD until the Islamic conquest.213 The site has provided much valuable information on the defensive

Figure 378. Shaft tomb with two lateral niches (after Montero and Al Shabib 2008). Roodenberg 1979–1980; Akkermans et al. 1981: 493. Montero and Al-Shbib 2008; Montero and Márquez 2008. 213 Montero et al. 2006: 118. 211 212

262

The occupation of the territory Description of the investigated sites system, living conditions, socioeconomic administration, and religious beliefs of the Christians who dwelled in this area of the Middle Euphrates.214 During its three seasons, the team excavated 170 tombs at Tell As-Sin, within a zone extending 25 ha (the total area was reduced because of fluvial erosion to the south and east of the site). It is possible to calculate that the funerary area contained more than one thousand tombs, each grave contained up to seven individuals, in turn suggesting that during the inhabitation period, the cemetery contained more than seven thousand deceased. There is no other contemporary cemetery with the same characteristics along the Euphrates Valley, in terms of organization and size.215 Tomb typology The Tell As-Sin tombs are of two types: shaft and hypogeum arcosolium. Shaft tombs: There are only seven of this type (4% of the total of 170 documented tombs at Tell As-Sin). This form is simple, Figure 379. Tomb excavated in the rock (after Montero and Al Shabib 2008). with rectangular shafts varying from 5.23 m3 – 7.52 m3 in volume. The shafts can contain one or two lateral funerary niches (one facing north, the other south), sealed with flat tiles (20 cm x 40 cm) and joined with plaster (Figure 378). Hypogeum arcosolia: This is the main interment type at Tell As-Sin (96% of the documented graves), represented by an underground space, entirely dug into the gypsum rock terrace on which the mound sits (Figure 379). There are several main characteristics of these tombs, as described by the excavators:216 (1) an access stairway with a variable number of steps (Figure 380); (2) a ‘landing’ or gap in front of the door; (3) a small access door to the funerary chamber, with the shape of the entrance being either rectangular, or a semi-circular or lowered arch, but always facing east (Figure 381); (4) to seal the door, a large slab was used (or several stones of gypsum or limestone, or even plaster mortar); (5) occasionally there might be a step after going through the door, designed to bridge the gap between the outer landing and the floor of the chamber; (6) The funerary chamber (roof domed, flat, or a combination) formed a central quadrangular, rectangular, or slightly trapezoidal room, with an average area of 3.34 m2, comprising three acrosolia, or sepulchral niches, one in front of the door (west) and another on each side (north and south). The only exceptions to this scheme were a tomb having five niches and another with two. In the necropolis, ‘sarcophagi’ were found in the form of simple rectangular graves, carved into the Montero 2006: 48. Montero et al. 2006. 216 Montero and Al-Shbib 2008; Montero et al. 2006: 120–121. 214 215

263

The Fertile Desert

Figure 380. Stairs of hypogeum tomb (after Montero and Al Shabib 2008).

264

The occupation of the territory Description of the investigated sites

Figure 381. Door of one hypogeum tomb (after Montero and Al Shabib 2008).

265

The Fertile Desert

Figure 382. Tomb with five niches (after Montero and Al Shabib 2008).

Figure 383. Tomb with central pilar (after Montero and Al Shabib 2008).

rock (Figure 382). Four tombs had a central pillar in the burial chamber, whose function could have been as aesthetic as architectural, as the rock in which they are excavated is very crumbly in nature (Figure 383). The composition formed by the central room, the three niches, and the access staircase gave the hypogeum a cruciform plan. The fact that acrosolia were also used in necropolises in other areas of the Euphrates Valley shows the extensive use of this funerary architecture in Late Antiquity in Syria. The human remains found show no differences in terms of representation by gender or age. Children were placed in small niches at the tomb entrance. Remains were also found of iron nails and wood in the tombs, as well as textile fragments, indicating the use of coffins; in later times the tombs were dug directly into the rock rather than using coffins.217 The grave goods were generally simple, except for a single golden pendant, sophistically made. Various types of funerary artifacts were collected inside the necropolis, including stone beads, glass, bone rings, ceramics, wooden combs, iron and bronze bracelets, ceramic lamps and vases, and plaster for mirror frames. Christian symbols and funerary inscriptions were found. Of the five inscriptions, four were in Greek and one in Syriac (Figure 384). The Greek inscriptions included the names Andreas and Tomas, obviously names of the deceased in the tombs.218 217 218

Montero and Al-Shbib 2008; Montero et al. 2006: 121. Márquez 2008: 12.

266

The occupation of the territory Description of the investigated sites

Figure 384. Christian symbols and inscriptions in one of the tombs (after Montero and Al Shabib 2008).

All in all, the archaeological efforts of the Syrian-Spanish expedition at Tell As-Sin have revealed that the site was a fortified Byzantine enclave of great importance; under its main mound there is evidence of Roman, Hellenistic, and Neolithic occupation. References Akkermans, P., Fokkens, H. and Waterbolk, H.T. 1981. Stratigraphy, architecture and lay-out of Bouqras, in J. Cauvin and P. Sanlaville (eds) Préhistoire du Levant: 485–501. Colloques Internationaux de Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique 598. Paris: CNRS. Bell, G. 2014 (1924). Amurath to Amurath. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Chesney, F.R. 1868. Narrative of the Euphrates Expedition. Carried on by Order of the British Government during the years 1835, 1836, and 1837. London: Longman, Green, and Co. Márquez, I. 2008. Las inscripciones funerarias y los símbolos cristianos, in J.-L. Montero and Sh. Al-Shbib (eds) La necrópolis bizantina de Tall as-Sin (Deir ez-Zor, Siria). Memorias del Proyecto Arqueológico Medio Éufrates Sirio I, 12. Madrid: University of Madrid. Montero Fenollés, J.-L. 2006. El Proyecto Arqueológico Medio Éufrates Sirio. Una iniciativa para el estudio de las civilizaciones del Oriente antiguo. De culturas, lenguas y tradiciones. II simposio de estudios humanísticos 2. Montero, J.-L. and Al-Shbib, Sh. 2008. La necrópolis bizantina de Tall As-Sin (Deir ez-Zor, Siria). Biblioteca Del Próximo Oriente Antiguo 4. Marid: Consejo Superior de Investigaciones Científicas. Montero, J.-L. and Márquez, I. 2008. Tall as-Sin en la historiografía moderna, in J.-L. Montero and Sh. Al-Shbib (eds): La necrópolis bizantina de Tall as-Sin (Deir ez-Zor, Siria). Memorias del Proyecto Arqueológico Medio Éufrates Sirio I, 17. Madrid: University of Madrid. Montero, J.-L., Marquez, I., Caramelo, F. and Vidal, J. 2006. O projecto arqueológico «Médio Eufrates Sírio»: resultados provisórios da primeira campanha. Revista Portuguesa de Arqueologia 9(2): 109– 126. Moritz, B. 2012 (1889). Zur antiken Topographie der Palmyrene. Berlin: De Gruyter. Peters, J.P. 1897. Nippur: Or, Explorations and Adventures On the Euphrates. Babylonian Expedition of the University of Pennsylvania. New York: Putnam & Sons. Roodenberg, J.J. 1979-180. Sondage des niveaux néolithiques de Tell as-Sinn, Syrie. Anatolica 7: 21– 34. Sachau, E. 1883. Reise in Syrien und Mesopotamien, Leipzig: F.A. Brockhaus Sarre, F. and Herzfeld, E. 1911. Archaeologische Reise im Euphrat-und Tigris-Gebeit. Berlin: D. Reime. 267

The Fertile Desert 21. Tell Bouqras I In 1965, W.J. Van Liere realized the first excavations at Tell Bouqras, opening five trenches next to each of 4 m x 4 m, reaching the virgin soil. The animal bones found at the site were studied in Groningen using C-14. Between 1976 and 1978, the universities of Groningen and the Amsterdam carried out three excavation seasons at the site, directed by H.T. Waterbolk and M.N. Van Loon. Tell Bouqras is one of the representative sites of the Neolithic in the Euphrates Valley, dating from the second half of the 7th millennium BC. Location Tell Bouqras is 35 km east of Deir ez-Zor, just opposite the mouth of the Khabour. The site is on the right bank of the Euphrates, very close to the village of Bouqras Fouqani, an important location in terms of connecting this part of the Euphrates to Palmyra (Figure 385).219 Description The site of Tell Bouqras is oval in shape and measures c. 2.75 ha (250 m x 100 m). In the centre of the mound a deposit of occupation was found, c. 5 m deep,220 now covered by a modern Islamic cemetery. The elevation of the mound is 204 m.a.s.l. The C-14 dates from the charcoal samples indicated that the site was occupied during the late Pre-Pottery Neolithic B (PPNB), between 6900– 5900 BC.221

Figure 385. Location of Tell Bouqras. Akkermans et al. 1983: 335–336. Van Zeist and Waterbolk 1985: 131. 221 Akkermans et al. 1983: 338. 219 220

268

The occupation of the territory Description of the investigated sites

Figure 386. House walls on the southern slope of Tell Bouqras (after Akkermans et al. 1981: 490).

Archaeological work at the site The Dutch expedition started by mapping the site, followed by surface sampling collecting, finding ceramic fragments, obsidian, and beads. The inventory of surface samples contained 250,000 items. The next stage was to map the architecture visible on the site’s surface, which provided a plan of the architecture of the settlement, including the houses (Figure 386).222 The site contained three chronological phases of construction. In general, the architecture sequence indicates a regular pattern of house reconstruction. Walls were constructed above remains of the preceding level, mudbricks were used, and the foundation of the walls were sometimes wider than the upper parts . The reconstruction phases are: Phase 1 – representing the uppermost architectural remains; Phase 2 – representing the main occupation of the site; and Phase 3 – representing the ancient phase of occupation at the site (Figure 387).223 The Dutch expedition focused on the centre of the mound, it was divided into ten levels, assigned with numbers from 1 descending to 10. The occupation date is from the 7th millennium BC. The plan of the houses showed topographic coherence at the site. Most of the houses had a tripartite plan, e.g. Houses 16–20 (Figure 388). The walls were constructed from rectangular mudbricks, the rooms were small, rectangular, opening onto a spacious courtyard, which had an oven in one of the corners. The houses were sometimes roofed and the walls plastered with gypsum or mudplaster – occasionally more than thirty layers were applied, indicating the maintenance and long use of these structures. The total documented number houses is 180, suggesting a population of c. 700–1000.224 The excavations also revealed another type of house, but only rarely represented, consisting of an elongated form with rooms extending over the total width of the building, e.g. House 26 (Figure 389).225 Akkermans et al. 1981: 486; Akkermans et al. 1983: 338. Akkermans et al. 1983: 338. 224 Akkermans et al. 1981: 495. 225 Akkermans et al. 1981: 496. 222 223

269

The Fertile Desert

Figure 387. Contour map of Tell Bouqras (after Akkermans et al. 1983: 339).

270

The occupation of the territory Description of the investigated sites

Figure 388. Houses 16, 17 and 18 seen from the SW (after Akkermans, Fokkens and Waterbolk 1981: 496).

Palaeobotanic Study The site of Tell Bouqras is in a zone of annual precipitation of 125 mm, the rains falling from October to March. As might be expected, the summers are hot and dry and the natural vegetation is steppe or desert-steppe. Tell Bouqras was probably too arid during the Neolithic period to practise intensive agriculture, as seems to be confirmed by the results of the excavations carried out at the site. Remains of steppe plants were identified, and they continue, more or less, to grow to this day in the area. It should be noted that at contemporary sites, such as Tell Abu Hurayra, agriculture was practised in this period. Barley, lentils and peas, however, have all been identified at Tell Bouqras, indicating that some rainfed agriculture, albeit modest in nature, was carried on in the river valley. Cereals do not appear at the site, but the presence of mills and sickles indicate that the inhabitants did depend to a degree on a vegetable diet, but this is scant evidence of agricultural practices.226 Zoological study The diet was based mainly on meat from sheep and goats, which formed an important part of the diet of Neolithic peoples. The number of goat bones exceeds that of sheep. There was no indication, from the study of the bones, that the sheep had been domesticated, while the goats are believed to have been. A single gazelle tooth was found, and some bones of jackal, fox, dog, pig, and even a vulture, were also identified.227

226 227

Van Zeist and Waterbolk 1985: 131–147. Boerma 1979: 61–74.

271

The Fertile Desert

Figure 389. Plan of the houses at the southwest of the site (after Akkermans, Fokkens and Waterbolk 1981: 496).

272

The occupation of the territory Description of the investigated sites

Figure 390. Stone ware from Tell Bouqras (after Akkermans et al. 1983: 357).

Human remains Studies were carried out on the human skulls of the five individuals (children and adults) found on the site. All the human remains come from House 12, one of the houses located on the southwest of the site. C-14 analysis of some samples from this house points to 5995 BC.228 Small finds The site provided a wide repertoire of small finds, including lithic materials – flint and obsidian, chopping tools, grinding and rubbing stones, and arrowheads (Byblos and Amuq types). There were also finds of bone objects – ornaments, figurines, pins, and tubes. Limestone and other harder stones were used to make dishes, cups, and vases (Figure 390). One small stamp seal (1.9cm x 1.1 cm) with geometric pattern of chevrons was found as well as impressions of seals.229 Conclusion Tell Bouqras is a significant settlement of the Neolithic PPNB from the late 7th millennium BC. Lithic objects collected from the site, especially the Byblos and Amuq arrowheads, were helpful in terms of identifying the PPNB nature of the settlement. The material culture at the site (architecture, gypsum, pottery) showed a similarity with other settlements that practised agriculture in the 228 229

Solecki et al. 1992. Akkermans et al. 1983: 349–356.

273

The Fertile Desert north of Iraq, e.g. Um Dabaghiyah, as well as sites from south Mesopotamia. There are parallels, too, at Neolithic sites on the Euphrates Valley, e.g. Tell as-Sin and Tell Abu Hurayra. The house plans showed a similarity with other sites in Iraq, e.g. Yarim Tepe. Occupation at the Tell Bouqras site ended, on part of the main mound, in c. 6000 BC, although it continued a little later at the southern section. References Akkermans, P., Fokkens H. and Waterbolk, H.T. 1981. Stratigraphy, architecture and lay-out of Bouqras, in J. Cauvin and P. Sanlaville (eds) Préhistoire du Levant: 485–501. Colloques Internationaux de Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique 598. Paris: CNRS. Akkermans, P., Boerma, J., Clason, A., Hill, S., Lohof, E., Meiklejohn, C., le Mière, M., Molgat, G., Roodenberg, J. Waterbolk-van Rooyen, W. and van Zeist, W. 1983. Bouqras revisited: preliminary report on a project in eastern Syria. Proceedings of the Prehistoric Society 49(1): 335–372. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Boerma J.A.K. 1979. Soils and natural environment of the tell Bouqras area (east Syria). Anatolica 7: 61–74. Solecki, R., Akkermans, P., Agelarkis, A., Meiklejohn, Ch. and Smith, P. 1992. Artificial cranial deformation in the proto-Neolithic and the Neolithic Near East and its possible origin: evidence from four sites. Paléorient 18(2): 83–97. Van Zeist, W. and Waterbolk, H.T. 1985. The Palaeobotany of Tell Bouqras, Eastern Syria. Paléorient 11(2): 131–147.

274

Chapter 4

Analysis of the historical and cultural processes in the investigated area Historical evidence: analysis of the historical and cultural process in a work on the Euphrates section. Introduction Once all the sites in the considered area have been catalogued, in this third part, I propose a reconstruction of the historical and cultural process, considering the established framework and how much the data provided by all the sites contribute. The following Table presents the chronological-historical data of each of the sites studied in the previous chapter. The sites are identified by their consigned inventory number, following the order established in the previous chapter, from north to south, from Tell Biaa on the Balikh (No. 1) to Bouqras at the confluence of the Khabour (No. 68). To distinguish the different types of sites, i.e. urban settlements, camp-type settlements, funerary monuments or cemeteries, as well as the degree of certainty in terms of their identification, the following nomenclature has been followed: 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6.

Inhabited site (secure dating) Funerary site (secure dating) Other type of sites (secure dating) Inhabited site (uncertain dating) Funerary site (uncertain dating) Other type of sites (uncertain dating)

For the periods, the conventional sequence in archeology and ancient history of the Near East has been chosen for the great pre-classical periods: Palaeolithic – Neolithic Pre-Pottery PPNA / PPNB – Neolithic – Halaf – Ubaid – Uruk – Early Bronze Age – Middle Bronze – Late Bronze Age – NeoAssyrian – Neo-Babylonian-Achaemenid. To complete the collected information for each of the studied sites, the Classical, Byzantine and Islamic periods have also been included, despite the fact that their chronology is outside the study framework itself. To make the Table easier to read, historical occupation periods in question have been simplified by means of a letter, i.e.: A = Palaeolithic B = Pre-Pottery Neolithic PPNA/PPNB C = Neolithic D = Halaf E = Ubaid F = Uruk G = Early Bronze Age

H = Middle Bronze Age I = Late Bronze Age J = Neo-Assyrian K = Neo-Babylonian-Achaemenid L = Classical M = Byzantine N = Islamic

275

The Fertile Desert Recapitulative table of dates 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. 16. 17. 18. 19. 20. 21. 22. 23. 24. 25. 26. 27. 28. 29. 30. 31. 32. 33. 34. 35. 36. 37. 38. 39. 40. 41. 42. 43. 44. 45. 46. 47. 48. 49. 50.

A

B

C

D

E

1

1

F 1

G 1

4 4

4 4 1 1 4 4 4 2

1 3

2 1 1

3 1 1

1

2 3 1 3 1 2 3 1 1 1 1 1

3

1

1 1

K

L 1

M 1

2 2

5 1 2

1

1

1

1

1

1

2

1

1

276

N 1

2

1 1

1 1 1 1

J 1

1

2 1 2 2 1 2 2 2 2 1

I

2

1 1 1 1 1

5

2

H 1

Analysis of the historical and cultural processes in the investigated area

51. 52. 53. 54. 55. 56. 57. 58. 59. 60. 61. 62. 63. 64. 65. 66. 67. 68.

A

B

C

D

E

1

1 1 1 1 1

F

G 1

1

1

4

1

1 1

1

1 1 1 1

I

J

4

K

L

1 1 1 1 1

1

N

1

1

1 1

1

1-2

1

1

2

1

M

1

1

1

1

H

1 1

1 1

Comments on the Table As can be seen, the Table has two dominant readings, horizontal and vertical, in addition to many others combined. Horizontal: relation by sites. The occupation of the site can be seen throughout history. For example, site 1, Tell Biaa, was occupied from the Uruk period to the Middle Bronze Age uninterruptedly, to be reoccupied after an abandonment during the Late Bronze Age; it was reoccupied from the NeoAssyrian until the Islamic periods, again continuously. Again, the same applies for the site of the cairn fields northwest of the Mt Bishri range, site number 20, where people who lived from the Middle Bronze Age to the Late Bronze Age were buried, and where there was previously a presence during the Pre-ceramic Neolithic PPNB. Vertical: the vertical reading provides the list of the occupied sites during the same historical period. For example, during the Pre-Ceramic Neolithic, sites 18, 19, 20, 28, 56, 61 and 68 were occupied, i.e. Wadi Ubeid, Jabal Tbuq, the cairn fields northwest of the Mt Bishri range, Tell Beilouni, Nadra, Tell as-Sinn, and Bouqras. This reading provides the history of the occupation of the territory between the Balikh and the Khabour, and for this reason it will form the content of this third part of the present study. Additionally, the combined horizontal and vertical readings provide essential information for what we can call parallel settlement patterns, e.g. Tell Zeidan and Tell Humeidha share the same historical sequence of settlement. Both sites were founded or occupied for the first time during the Ubaid period, and they remained inhabited during the following Uruk phase. As already mentioned, these ‘linear’ and ‘crossed’ readings form the essence from which the results discussed on the following pages are drawn. Occupation of the territory along the Euphrates Valley between the Balikh and the Khabour, by historical periods After analyzing the data from the list of the studied sites, we may consider the historical evolution of the valley according to the chronological process and starting with the Palaeolithic until the late periods. The information from each period allows us to propose the settlement pattern during each period. The phases are divided from the Palaeolithic to the Neo-Babylonian-Achaemenid to obtain the clearest image of the Euphrates area between the Balikh and Khabour rivers. The Classical and 277

The Fertile Desert Islamic phases have also been included in the Table of sites and in addition to the chronological extension of the historical eras, the comparison with the areas beyond the Balikh and Khabour is essential to complete the information on the settlement patterns in the investigated region. To this end I have made comparisons with the settlement pattern along the course of the Euphrates in Syria, Turkey, and Iraq. The Palaeolithic Introduction In the Euphrates Valley, formed during the Tertiary Period, the climate has changed dramatically since the last Ice Ages. Its fluvial terraces were systematically flooded during spring floods, as well as the marshy areas and mouths of tributary valleys. The latter were covered with grasslands, undergrowth, and shrubs, creating areas that are habitats for those mammals, aquatic birds, and steppe animals who came in search of the main source of life: water. For humans this area is suitably attractive on account of the opportunities for food, as well as for the raw material to make artifacts, especially flint and limestone, used in construction and the manufacture of other objects.1 In referring to the Palaeolithic here we mean the period between 700,000 and 10,000 BC, divided into three archaeological phases: Lower, Middle, and Upper. The Palaeolithic sites According to our catalogue, the following sites in the valley have been occupied during the Palaeolithic: 10, 11, 17, 19, 21, 28, 35, 39, 40, 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50, 52, 56, 57, 58, 59, 60.

Figure 391. Location of the Paleolithic sites.

1

Sanlaville and Besançon 1981.

278

Analysis of the historical and cultural processes in the investigated area The Palaeolithic sites can be divided into four groups according to their geographical distribution. These groups maintain approximately a distance of 40 km from each other, except for Jabal Tbouq and Nadra, which are to the south and west of the four mentioned groups: Group one – Includes the sites of the zone of Wadi Kharrar: 10 = Wadi Qutena; 11 = Jibli; 17 = Zor Shammar Foqani; 21 = Wadi Kharrar; 28 = Tell Beilouni. This zone extends c. 80 km northeast of the area of el Kowm, northeast of Palmyra, where various Palaeolithic sites are documented, e.g. el Kowm, Jerf el Ajla, Um el Tlul, and Dawara cave. Group two – Includes the sites of Wadi Abu Shahri and the mound of Qleb al Hemma: 35 = Wadi Abu Shahri; 39 = Qleb al Hemma 13.1; 40 = Qleb al Hemma 13.3; 41 = Qleb al Hemma 13.4; 42 = Qleb al Hemma 13.5; 43 = Qleb al Hemma 13.6; 44 = Qleb al Hemma 13.7; 45 = Qleb al Hemma 13.8; 46 = Qleb al Hemma 13.12; 47 = Qleb al Hemma 13.13; 48 = Qleb al Hemma 13.14; 49 = Qleb al Hemma 13.17; 50 = Qleb al Hemma 13.18; 52 = Qleb al Hemma 13.30. They are situated 100 km northeast of the zone of El Kowm. Group three – Consists of the sites 19 = Jabal Tbuq and 56 = Nadra, situated in the Mt Bishri area, northeast of the zone of El Kowm. Group four – Confirmed by the sites: 57 = Tell Tabus; 58 = Tell Khraita; 59 = Tell Ain Abu Jemaa; 60 = Tell Ayyash. They are situated on the fluvial terrace of the Euphrates, on the right bank, some 110 km east of the zone of El Kowm (Figure 391). General observations From a geographical point of view, it is noted that all the Palaeolithic sites are located on the right bank of the Euphrates. The first and second groups are found north of the rocky plateau of Mt

Figure 392. Location of El Kowm in relation to the studies sites.

279

The Fertile Desert Bishri, near the river terrace of the Euphrates. The third group is on Mt Bishri itself, while the last group is to be found on the fluvial terrace of the river. The latest excavations in the El Kowm desert area, carried out by the Syrian-Swiss expedition, uncovered more than 186 Palaeolithic sites in an area 20 km in diameter around El Kowm (Figure 392), located between the Palmyra Oasis and the Euphrates River, which, thanks to the available resources, were able to establish themselves in the area since ancient times.2 We know that the remains of the first human being are to be found in East Africa, and that with the passage of time, Homo Erectus spread and occupied more territories, reaching Europe through known paths. One of the routes that ancient man took was through the Middle East, logically, because then it had a suitable climate for settlement. The other route was the Strait of Gibraltar, entering through the Iberian Peninsula. The latest excavations show that the eastern coasts of Africa, the Nile Valley, and the basins of the Dead Sea were all natural paths to the Euphrates and Tigris valleys, crossing areas that are now desert. These same investigations indicate that the Syrian desert witnessed several lithic civilizations. The remains of Homo Erectus in the El Kowm area, at the Nadaouiyeh and Bir al-Hummal sites,3 confirm a very early establishment in the region, as well as the similarity of lithic artifacts between European and Near Eastern settlements from this remote Palaeolithic era.4 For example, grave goods and ornaments found in the Malata area of Russia and the Sungir site near Moscow show similarities to sites in Siberia: both have animal figurines made of bone. The same similarity is recorded in the sites of Africa, e.g. the Blombos caves have revealed stone bead ornaments like those found in the al-Skhul caves in the Near East, as well as at Palaeolithic sites in the Iberian Peninsula, e.g. Atapuerca.5 This general historical-archaeological framework is reflected in the distribution of the studied sites in the present work. The first group contains the sites in the Wadi Kharrar area, 80 km north of El Kowm. We can see that there was a diachronic change in land use/occupation. This change is represented in the use of the territory. For example, the occupation of the Palaeolithic period is more frequent on the terraces of Wadi Kharrar than in the valleys located to the east and west of it, which, for the most part, belong to the Bronze Age, while the occupied terraces in the Bronze Age are scarce in Wadi Kharrar. The Wadi Kharrar area offered very varied advantages, such as the possibility of obtaining water in the tributaries of the Euphrates. Additionally, the geomorphology of the valley and its north-south orientation facilitated movement and access to the travel routes that populations took at that time. Perhaps the tributary valleys, which are in an east-west direction, formed natural obstacles for those prehistoric wandering groups who went through the valleys oriented in a north-south direction. Coming from the south, the El Kowm area was an attractive region for Palaeolithic communities.6 The third group of sites consists of the Jabal Tbouq and Nadra sites, situated almost in the El Kowm area, a huge aggrupation of sites from the Palaeolithic Age. The second group, the sites of Wadi Abu Shahri and the mound of Qleb al Hemma, as well as the last group, Tell Ain Abu Jemaa, are in the Euphrates basin, which has preserved the traces of the first artifact makers in the Palaeolithic in numerous sites along its course.7

2 3 4 5 6 7

Le Tensorer 2007a. Le Tensorer 2007b. Jagher et al. 1997. Arsuaga 1997. Nishiaki 2010. Westaway et al. 2009.

280

Analysis of the historical and cultural processes in the investigated area In the Euphrates Valley, six Quaternary river terraces have been identified – QF5 being the oldest, and reaching QF0. The second group of sites is the area of Qleb al Hamma and Wadi Abu Shahri, where utensils have been found – lithics of QF3. This region of the Euphrates Valley perhaps represents the oldest human existence outside of Africa. The last group, Ain Abu Jemaa, belongs, according to Paul Sanlaville’s classification, to the QfF2 river terrace, Wadi Abu Shahri to the QF1 terrace, whose basaltic soils are 25 m above the river level, where Levallois-like artifacts were collected.8 In general, Levallois artifacts are rare around the Middle Euphrates Valley, except for the Balikh Valley sites, e.g. Tell Rhayat, and Tell Chnineh (east and west), located north of Raqqa.9 Conclusion The investigated area has provided very important data on the Palaeolithic settlements, the time the immigration of Homo Erectus took place from Africa to Eurasia, through routes protected by large rivers, such as the Euphrates, to spread north and south, eventually reaching Europe, eastern Asia, and those desert areas which had more suitable climate then they do today.10 The Euphrates Valley was part of this pathway system, as evidenced by the sites divided in this present work into four groups, according to their geographical location: (1) the group linked to the Kowm area in the Syrian desert on Mount Bishri; (2) another group of sites located to the north of the rocky plateau of Mount Bishri and very close to the river terraces of the Euphrates; (3) the group of the Qleb al Hemma area; (4) and the group of the sites located on the fluvial terrace of the river. We may take it that the banks of the Middle Euphrates, especially the area near the Khanuqa Gorge, witnessed the early establishment of the first prehistoric communities, which underlines the importance of the Euphrates Valley from the very earliest steps of man. References Arsuaga, J.-L., Martínez, I., Gracia, A. and Lorenzo, C. 1997. The Sima de los Huesos crania (Sierrade Atapuerca, Spain). A comparative study. Journal of Human Evolution 33(2-3): 219 –281. Aurenche, O., Le Miére, M. and Sanlaville, P. 2004. From the River to the Sea: the Paleolithic and the Neolithic on the Euphrates and in the Northern Levant: Studies in Honour of Lorraine Copeland. British Archaeological Reports International Series 1263. Oxford: Archaeopress. Demir, T., Westaway, R., Bridgland, D. and Seyrek, A. 2007. Global correlation of Late Cenozoic fluvial deposits: IGCP Project No. 449. Quaternary Science Reviews 26(22–24): 2693–3016. Jagher, R., Le Tensorer, J.-M., Morel, P., Muhesen, J., Renault-Miskovsky, J., Rentzel, P. Schmid, P. 1997. Découvertes de restes humains dans les niveaux acheuléens de Nadaouiyeh Aïn Askar (El Kowm, Syrie Centrale). Paléorient 23(1): 87–93. Le Tensorer J.-M. et al. 2007a. Raport scientifique intermédiaire 2006-2007. Le Paleolithique d’El Kowm (Syrie). Résultats de la campagne 2006. Basel: University of Basle. Le Tensorer, J.-M., Jagher, R., Rentzel, P., Hauck, T., Ismail-Meyer, K., Pümpin, C. and Wojtczak, D. 2007b. Long-term site formation processes at the natural springs Nadaouiyeh and Hummal in the Kowm Oasis, Central Syria. Geoarchaeology 22(6): 621–640. Muhesen, S. 2002. The Earliest Paleolithic Occupation in Syria, in T. Akazawa, K. Aoki and O. BarYosef (eds) Neandertals and Modern Humans in Western Asia: 95–105. New York: Kluwer. Nishiaki, Y. 2010. Archaeological evidence of the Early Bronze Age communities in the Middle Euphrates steppe, North Syria. Al-Rāfidān: Journal of Western Asiatic Studies, Special Issue 2010: 37–48. Tokyo: Kokushikan University. Sanlaville, P. and Besançon, J. 1981. Aperçu géomorphologique sur la vallée de l’Euphrate syrien. Paléorient 7(2): 5–18. Aurenche et al. 2004. Demir et al. 2007. 10 Muhesen 2002. 8 9

281

The Fertile Desert Westaway, R., Bridgland, D.R., Sinha, R. and Demir, T. 2009. Fluvial sequences as evidence for landscape and climatic evolution in the Late Cenozoic: a synthesis of data from IGCP 518. Global and Planetary Change 68(4): 237–253. Pre-Pottery Neolithic Introduction The Pre-Pottery Neolithic is the basis of development towards the Neolithic period and the so-called Neolithic revolution, which consisted, among other phenomena, in the generalized expansion of agriculture and pottery. This stage was not reached quickly, but was the result of the accumulation of previous knowledge and experiences, whose maturation gave way to the Neolithic revolution in all its aspects and with all its advantages. The Pre-Pottery Neolithic is made up of two main eras: PPNA and PPNB. Pre-Pottery Neolithic A (PPNA) This period covers the time between 9500 and 8300 BC. The PPNA is normally divided into three phases: Natufian, Khiamian, and Mureybetian. The Natufian phase - In the Euphrates Valley, the site of Abu Hureyra represents this period. Groups of hunters and gatherers settled on the right bank of the Euphrates c. 9000 BC. Then there was a global climate change, becoming more arid and drier. However northern Syria was not excessively affected by climate change, as there are indications that rainfall in the Natufian era amounted to 230 mm, while in the Mureybetian period it reached 280 mm. This phase is characterized by the fact that individuals stopped living in caves and began to build simple dwellings, circular in shape. In addition, there are indications of the domestication of some animals, such as dogs, at Tell Abu Hureyra. Artifacts made of bones are scarce, although the traditions of the time will continue throughout the following eras.11 The Khiam phase – There are few sites of this culture, which occur in the oldest phases in Mureybet, between 9700 BC and for three or four centuries later. It is characterized by the absence of geometric artifacts. Instead, Khiamian-type arrowheads appeared. At the end of this phase, the Helwan arrowheads and elongated arrows will take the place of the Khiamian and the aforementioned geometric artifacts. Bone tools were highly developed in this phase, as well as needles, straighteners, and punches. At this time there were also figurines made of limestone, without specific shapes, in addition to items of ‘jewellery’.12 The Mureybet phase – The dwellings in this phase remain circular and large, straight walls appear inside, paved with river stones. They are documented in the Euphrates sites, such as Mureybet, Tell Sheikh Hasan, and Jerf al-Ahmar. This type of dwelling continued in use in the following period (PPNB) at Jadat al-Maghara. In this phase the number of rodents seems to have increased, indicating that there were grain stores. Weeds have also been recorded, which could suggest that agriculture was already taking place in Mureybet and Jerf al-Ahmar. Although the first attempts to practise agriculture date back to the 9th millennium at Tell Halula, it seems that its real origins only date back to the Mureybetian era. The practice of agriculture was associated with the development of various lithic tools, such as axes, mills, mortars, and crushers. Among the lithic artifacts, arrowheads became larger. This technique continued until the following phase (PPNB).

11 12

Ibáñez 2009. Akkermans 2004.

282

Analysis of the historical and cultural processes in the investigated area

Figure 393. Pre-Pottery Neolithic sites in the investigated area.

Female figurines made of limestone have been documented, as well as a figurine representing a snake, found at Jerf al-Ahmar.13 Pre-Pottery Neolithic B (PPNB) This phase is a continuity of the previous era and extends between 8500 and 7000 BC. At Mureybet and Jaadat al-Maghara it is maintained between 8600–8200 BC. The dwellings of this time were rectangular in shape. A funerary culture begins, as the dead were buried beneath the dwellings. In addition, there was a change in perception concerning religion, represented by the conservation of skulls, moulded with plaster, a clear indication of an ancestor cult. In addition, unbaked clay female figures became widespread, as a symbol of the cult of the Mother Goddess and fertility. The lithic artifacts in the PPNB developed enormously, especially in relation to agriculture. The arrowheads of the Khiam disappeared, more elongated ones taking replacing them, e.g. those from Byblos-Jebel, weighing ten times more. This indicates that there was an advance, in turn, in the manufacture of bows. The Tell Halula arrows suggest that hunting was of special importance. It is noteworthy that stone/plaster vessels appeared.14 At that time oxen (Jaadat al-Maghara), sheep and goats were already domesticated. In this present study, the Pre-Pottery Neolithic sites near the investigated area are: • PPNA: Mureybet; Jerf al-Ahmar. • PPNB: Abu Hurayra; Jaadat al-Maghara (Dja’de El Mugara); Sheikh Hasan; Tell Halula; Tell as-Sin; Bouqras on the Euphrates. • In the Balikh Valley: Tell Sabi Abyad; Tell Aswad. • In the Bishri area: El Kowm; Qdeir; Um Telel. 13 14

Asouti 2006. Akkermans and Schwartz 2003.

283

The Fertile Desert At the end of this period, ceramics appeared, thus marking the beginning of the Neolithic Age. Pre-Pottery Neolithic sites in the investigated area The present catalogue highlights several Pre-Pottery Neolithic sites (Figure 393): 18 = Wadi Ubaid; 19 = Jabal Tbuq; 20 = the cairn fields northwest of Mt Bishri (Wadi al-Hajana I); 28 = Beilouni; 56 = Nadra; 61 = Tell As-Sinn; 68 = Tell Bouqras I. General observations In recent years, the importance of studies oriented to the analysis of the diffusion routes of raw materials during the Pre-Pottery Neolithic has increased largely. The importance resides in that the sources of extraction of the raw material can provide us with an image of the movements of Pre-Pottery Neolithic communities. To analyze the sites included in this work, it is essential to consider the archaeological context of the area, the basis for the extraction of raw materials, especially obsidian, and the corresponding routes.15 For Syrian sites, Anatolia has always been the main source of raw material, particularly the regions of Cappadocia, Taurus, Lake Van, and Armenia. During the PPNA, obsidian from Cappadocia was imported to the settlements of Tell Mureybet and Jerf el Ahmar. Similarly, in the PPNB, the obsidian used at the Euphrates sites (Jaadat al-Maghara, Tell Mureybet, Tell Cheikh Hasan, Tell Halula) was also imported from Cappadocia.16 At Tell Sabi Abyad, on the other hand, the obsidian came from Lake Van, in eastern Anatolia, about 350 km northeast of the site.17 The Syrian desert sites, however, e.g. as El Kowm, Um Telel, Douara cave, Qdeir, show similarity to the Euphrates sites, especially Tell Bouqras and Abu Hureyra. Similarly, there is the presence of obsidian with other foreign material in the desert sites, which raises the question of whether there were contacts and interactions of some kind with the northern sites and extraction sources located in Anatolia.18 This would indicate varied contacts with other populations.19 In this way, relationships with other communities are attested by a circulation of goods that reveal the continuity of long-distance exchanges (obsidian, ceramics, etc.).20 In view of this, we must accept that there were routes connecting the sites of the Syrian desert with the valleys of the Euphrates and Balikh, the main route between the Pre-Pottery Neolithic settlements and the sources of raw material in Anatolia. Until very recently, these ways were unknown, or at least supposed. But with this present catalogue, unprecedented data comes to light, based on the location of sites 18 = Wadi Ubeid, 19 = Jabal Tbuq, 20 = Wadi al-Hajana I, and 28 = Beilouni. These sites form a line that functioned as a connecting route between the sites of the Syrian desert and the Euphrates Valley (Figure 394). Conclusion The Pre-Pottery Neolithic era was present in Syria through the Syrian Upper and Middle Euphrates sites, the Balikh Valley, and the Syrian desert. All the settlements of that time have exchanged products over long distances. In the case of the Syrian desert sites there was a missing link in their connection with the other sites, now discovered. In this present work, and through the latest archaeological investigations carried out by the Syrian-Japanese expedition in the Mt Bishri region, four sites have been documented: Wadi Ubeid, Jabal Tbouq, Wadi al-Hajana I and Beilouni. Their data allow us to outline the hypothesis that the mentioned sites formed the connection between Cauvin et al. 1997. Cauvin 1991. Pardo 2003. 18 Stordeur 2000. 19 Stordeur 1996. 20 Molist 1996. 15 16 17

284

Analysis of the historical and cultural processes in the investigated area

Figure 394. Distribution of the PPNB sites on the Euphrates and Balikh Valleys (after Akkermans 1999: 531).

the Euphrates Valley and desert sites, such as El Kowm and Qdeir. Although pending confirmation by future archaeological work – which should include more surveys and excavations – the material, geography and chronology presented here would seem to underscore this hypothesis. References Akkermans, P. 1999. Pre-Pottery Neolithic B Settlement Patterns along the Balih and Euphrates Fact or Fiction?, in G. del Olmo Lete and J.-L. Montero Fenollós (eds) Archaeology of the Upper Syrian Euphrates, the Tishrin Dam Area. Proceedings of the International Symposium held at Barcelona: 523– 533. Barcelona: Editorial Austa. Akkermans, P. 2004. Hunter-Gatherer Continuity: The Transition from the Epipalaeolithic to the Neolithic in Syria, in O. Aurenche, M. Le Miére and P. Sanlaville (eds) From the River to the Sea: the Paleolithic and the Neolithic on the Euphrates and in the Northern Levant: Studies in Honour of Lorraine Copeland: 281–293. British Archaeological Reports International Series 1263. Oxford: Archaeopress. Akkermans, P. and Schwartz, G. 2003. The Archaeology of Syria From Complex Hunter-Gatherers to Early Urban Societies (c. 16,000–300 B.C). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Asouti, E. 2006. Beyond the Pre-Pottery Neolithic B interaction sphere. Journal of World Prehistory 20: 87–126. Cauvin, M.-C. 1991. Du Natoufien au Levant Nord? Jayroud et Mureybet (Syrie), in O. Bar-Yosef and F.R. Valla (eds), Natufian Culture in the Levant: 295–314. International Monographs in Prehistory. Charlottesville: University of Virginia. Cauvin, M.-C., Pernicka, E. and Keller, J.1997. Obsidian from Anatolian sources in the Neolithic of the Middle Euphrates region (Syria). Paléorient 23(1): 113–122. Ibáñez, J.-J. 2009. El origen del Neolítico. Investigacion y Ciencia : Edición española de Scientific America (Barcelona) 398 (Nov.): 72–79. Molist, M. 1996. Tell Halula, in Syrian European Archaeology Exhibición: 41–46. Damascus: Editións d’Institut Français d’Études Arabes de Damas. 285

The Fertile Desert Pardo, M. 2003. Las materias primas del Neolítico Pre-Pottery A y B (PPNA Y PPNB) en los asentamientos del Próximo Oriente. Asociación Española de Orientalistas XXXIX: 89–108. Alicante: Biblioteca Virtical de Miguel de Cervantes. Stordeur, D. 1996. El-Kowm et Qdeir, in Syrian-European Archaeology exhibición: 35–40. Damascus: Editións d’Institut Français d’Études Arabes de Damas. Stordeur, D. 2000. El Kowm 2: une île dans le désert – La fin du néolithique précéramique dans la steppe syrienne. Paris, CNRS Editions. Neolithic Introduction The Neolithic is the term referring to the period between 7000 BC – 4000 BC. It includes several cultures: proto-Hassuna, Hassuna, Samarra and Halaf, of which the culture of Halaf will be treated in a specific section, given its peculiarities. This period is considered the time of the most profound innovations in human history, although, of course, the changes do not represent a cultural break with the history of the successive phases of the period,21 but a continuation, i.e. the development of prior knowledge. At this time, signs of the Pottery Neolithic appear in the same sites typical of previous eras (Pre-Ceramic Neolithic, PPNB): e.g. Tell Aswad in the Balikh Valley, where pottery appears for the first time in the middle of the 7th millennium. The stratigraphy of the deep excavations carried out at this site was divided into eight levels of occupation, within which the ceramics appear in levels 7 and 8. The previous levels are therefore considered to be from the Pre-Ceramic Neolithic.22 The Neolithic has in a way become synonymous with ‘stable’ life, because the temporary settlements of hunter-gatherers become relatively fixed and are now associated with agriculture. This practice requires regular work on the land and protection of crops. In the new phase, humans produced plant foods and domesticated animals. It was then, as V. Gordon Childe writes, that man became ‘an active partner with nature, rather than a parasite on nature’.23 At an architectural level, circular houses disappeared and the stability and reoccupation of the earlier period settlements resulted in a growth of stability, consequently architecture became more complex. Initially, the settlements were generally small: built high above the river level, they arranged their nearby lands for cultivation, especially along the banks of rivers. The number of settlements was high, but they were small, and, in many cases, they were established in previously sparsely inhabited areas, i.e. the Balikh (Tell Damishliya and Tell Sabi Abyad) and Khabour (Tell Bouayed) valleys.24 The domestic architecture presents houses of several rooms, rectangular in shape. There are also indications that there was ‘religious’ dimension to life, manifesting itself in the treatment of death: funeral rituals seem more complex, and burials take place outside dwellings. In the investigated area (Figure 395), we have only one secure site from the Neolithic, located in the Middle Euphrates, between the Balikh and the Khabour, another, Tell Tabus (57), may possibly also belong to this period. The confirmed site is Tell Bouqras I (64); the settlement was already inhabited in the previous era (PPNB).

Verhoeven 2002. Copeland 1979. 23 Akermans 2004. 24 Akkermans 1999; 2004; Akkermans et al. 2006. 21 22

286

Analysis of the historical and cultural processes in the investigated area

Figure 395. Neolithic sites in the investigated area.

General observations There is a significant scarcity of Neolithic sites in the Euphrates Valley between the Balikh and Khabour rivers, the area of our work. This scarcity may be due to several reasons: their locations next to the river, making it feasible that they now lie the river terraces (i.e. the remains of the 3rd millennium at Tuttul). Another factor is the extreme erosion caused by modern cultivation of the Euphrates terraces, which has made small settlements disappear.25 Both the site of Tell Bouqras and nearby Tell as-Sin were inhabited during the PPNB, although Tell es-Sin was abandoned at the end of that time, while Tell Bouqras remained populated during the Neolithic.26 In the Balikh valley area, the number of settlements increased at the end of the PPNB; 24 are known, mainly along the northern part of the river’s course.27 The same phenomenon is repeated in the Khabour Valley. The debate on settlement patterns in the Neolithic is interesting, although far from being resolved, especially in view of the available data. The dense occupation of new areas and the population expansion towards the north in the valleys of the three rivers raise several questions. Why do the settlements disappear in the Middle Euphrates, while they appear in the north, in the Euphrates Balikh and Khabour valleys? Was this a population movement or a form of colonization? Was the transformation towards the establishment and cultivation of the land due to climate change, or a change of thinking within the semi-nomadic society? Akkermans28 believes that the transition in the Neolithic was not motivated by climate change, especially during the Dryas phase. He argued that the transition of the population from the hunting Akkermans 1999: 225. Akkermans and Schwartz 2003. 27 Akkermans 1999. 28 Akkermans 1999. 25 26

287

The Fertile Desert and gathering stage to the agricultural one did not begin as a result of gradual climate change, since hunting and gathering activities continued, in parallel, for some two thousand years. Agriculture was part of the transition associated with new ways of thinking, the search for other means of subsistence, the changes in burial methods and cultural aspects. The transformation also required a change in settlement patterns, manifesting itself in the proliferation of more stable lifestyles after 7500 BC. Even the appearance of towns in sparsely inhabited regions in earlier times was associated with the increase in population, with colonizing movements. But it would be better to interpret it as a transformation of the existing groups, hunter-gatherers, i.e. from men and women who have left behind them fewer archaeological remains, to those more stable communities, who consequently left greater amounts of archaeological evidence. This was a change produced by Neolithic hands, with no external intervention.29 References Akkermans, P. 1999. Pre-Pottery Neolithic B Settlement Patterns along the Balih and Euphrates – Fact or Fiction?, in G. del Olmo Lete and J.-L. Montero Fenollós (eds) Archaeology of the Upper Syrian Euphrates, the Tishrin Dam Area. Proceedings of the International Symposium held at Barcelona: 523– 533. Barcelona: Editorial Austa. Akkermans, P. 2004. Hunter-Gatherer Continuity: The Transition from the Epipalaeolithic to the Neolithic in Syria, in O. Aurenche, M. Le Miére and P. Sanlaville (eds) From the River to the Sea: the Paleolithic and the Neolithic on the Euphrates and in the Northern Levant: Studies in Honour of Lorraine Copeland: 281–293. British Archaeological Reports International Series 1263. Oxford: Archaeopress. Akkermans, P. and Schwartz, G. 2003. The Archaeology of Syria From Complex Hunter-Gatherers to Early Urban Societies (c. 16,000–300 B.C). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Akkermans, P., Cappers, R., Cavallo, Ch., Nieuwenhuyse, O., Nilhamn, B. and Otte, I. 2006. Investigating the Early Pottery Neolithic of Northern Syria: New Evidence from Tell Sabi Abyad. American Journal of Archaeology 110(1): 123–156. Copeland, L. 1979. Observations on the prehistory of the Balikh Valley, Syria, during the 7th to 4th millennia B.C. Paléorient 5: 251–275. Verhoeven, M. 2002. Transformations of Society: The Changing Role of Ritual and Symbolism in the PPNB and the PN in the Levant, Syria and South-east Anatolia. Paléorient 28(1): 5–13. Halaf Introduction The name of the Halaf culture comes from the Tell Halaf site in northern Syria, located on the banks of the Khabour River. Characteristics of the Halaf culture are painted pottery, seals, some circular buildings (tholoi), and different types of burial. This culture spread between the Mediterranean to the west, and the Zagros Mountains to the east, from the middle of the 5th millennium BC.30 During the Halaf culture, which belongs to the Neolithic era, social differences, regional groupings, hierarchical divisions, and property appeared. Typical Halaf painted pottery is characterized by using naturalistic and geometric themes, such as the double ax. The emergence of the Halaf culture comes from a gradual local and cultural process from the Late Neolithic. This is supported by the site of Tell Sabi Abyad, in the Balikh valley, where, on the Halaf levels, remains were found of painted pottery from the pre-Halaf culture, dating from 5200 BC, typical of the Samarra style.31

Akkermans 1999. Akkermans and Schwartz 2003. 31 Banzo 2005. 29 30

288

Analysis of the historical and cultural processes in the investigated area

Figure 396. Halaf sites in the investigated area.

The areas of the Halaf culture can be divided into five main geographical areas:32 the Mosul region, Sinjar, the Balikh Valley, the Khabour Valley, and the Middle Euphrates Valley.33 The most important excavated sites in Syria are: Tell Halaf, Tell Brak, Tell Aqab, and Chagar Bazar, in the Khabour Valley; Tell Aswad, Tell Mefesh, Tell Sabi Abyad and Tell Zeidan, in the Balikh Valley; and Tell Shams ed-Din and Tell Halula, in the Middle Euphrates Valley. Two Halaf culture sites have been documented in the areas investigated within this present study, i.e. 2 = Tell Zeidan, and 56 = Nadra (Figure 396). General observations According to Hijara,34 Halaf culture experienced a great expansion throughout the Middle East, reaching a number of 300 sites in Iraq alone, with a density of one site c. every 15 km2. Comparing the number of Halaf settlements in the studied area with the Balikh Valley, we can see that these are still very rare, with as many as 40 Halaf sites being documented in the latter region. In the Euphrates Valley, from the confluence of the Balikh upstream of the Euphrates, there are more than ten sites dated to this period.35 In the Balikh, in the area around Tell Munbatah, there are numerous representative sites of the Halaf culture. It seems that Tell Munbatah played a fundamental role as an organizing/governing centre for the central area of the Balikh.36 Conversely, in our area there is only one site that has been securely documented as Halaf. This is Tell Zeidan (site 2), located at the confluence of the Balikh and the Euphrates.37 There is another site mentioned in the survey carried

Davidson 1977. Banzo 2005. Hijara 1980. 35 Akkermans 1999: 225; Becker 2011. 36 Akkermans 1989. 37 Córdoba: 1988: 156 32 33 34

289

The Fertile Desert

Figure 397. Distribution of Halaf sites on the Balikh and Euphrates valleys (after Akkermans 1999: 533).

out by the Finnish expedition, east of Mt Bishri, Nadra (site 56), that we cannot clearly ascribe to the Halaf culture, so we have not included it within the results of the present work. The available data from the confirmed Tell Zeidan site allow us to consider several settlements with the Halaf culture, all located on the Euphrates and running towards the north, following the course of the Balikh, giving a concentration of sites in the middle of the latter’s valley, as well as in the north. Thus, we conclude by following what is proposed by several researchers that during Halaf period, there was a continuity of settlement in the Balikh, along its entire course (Figure 397). References Akkermans, P. 1989. The Neolithic of the Balikh Valley, Northern Syria: A First Assessment. Paléorient 15(1): 122–134. Akkermans, P. 1999. Pre-Pottery Neolithic B Settlement Patterns along the Balikh and Euphrates – Fact or Fiction?, in G. del Olmo Lete and J.-L. Montero Fenollós (eds) Archaeology of the Upper Syrian Euphrates, the Tishrin Dam Area. Proceedings of the International Symposium held at Barcelona: 523– 533. Barcelona: Editorial Austa. Akkermans, P. and Schwartz, G. 2003. The Archaeology of Syria From Complex Hunter-Gatherers to Early Urban Societies (c. 16,000–300 B.C). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Banzo, B. 2005. Orígenes, emergencia i desenvelopament de la cerámica halaf a siria. Unpublished PhD dissertation, University of Barcelona. Becker, J. 2011. Frühe Siedler am Tell Halaf. Zur Bedeutung der Halaf-Kultur, in N. Cholidis and L. Martin (eds) Die geretteten Götter aus dem Palast vom Tell Halaf. Begleitbuch zur Sonderausstellung des Vorderasiatischen Museums, “Die geretteten Götter aus dem Palast vom Tell Halaf”, vom 28.1. – 14.8.2011 im Pergamonmuseum: 345–351. Regensburg: Schnell & Steiner. Córdoba, J. 1988. Prospección en el valle del río Balih (Siria). Informe provisional. Aula Orientalis 6: 149–188.

290

Analysis of the historical and cultural processes in the investigated area Davidson, T. 1977. Regional Variation Within the Halaf Ceramic Tradition. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press. Hijara, I. 1980. The Halaf Period in northern Mesopotamia. Unpublished PhD dissertation, University of London, Institute of Archaeology. Ubaid Introduction The culture of Ubaid covers the period between the beginning of the 5th millennium BC until the middle of the 4th millennium BC. It is characterized by the advancement of agriculture and the development of irrigation.38 The pottery was made with a wheel, whose themes are geometric and with finer decorations compared to those of the previous culture (Halaf), and the walls of the vessels are also thinner.39 During this period, religious life experienced a great development, manifested in the monumental buildings and the first temples. Later, these temples, with the passage of time, developed into ziggurats, i.e. temples with several terraces of decreasing width. Cylinder seals also appeared at this time, demonstrating the advancement of commercial activity.40 The concept of culture is applied to distinguish several sites that share the same styles in terms of cultural materials.41 The Ubaid culture was thus characteristic of a series of sites from southern Mesopotamia to the Upper Euphrates.42 In the Euphrates Valley, between the Balikh and Khabour,

Figure 398. Ubaid sites in the investigated area. Akkermans and Schwartz 2003. Frankfort 1932. 40 Pollock 1999. 41 Akkermans and Schwartz 2003. 42 Nishiaki and Matsutani 2003. 38 39

291

The Fertile Desert there are three representative sites from the Ubaid period: 2 = Tell Zeidan; 34 = Tell Humeida; 58 = Tell Khraita (Figure 398). General observations The documented sites from the Ubaid period in the investigated area are located on both banks of the Euphrates, approximately 50 km apart. The first is Tell Zeidan, at the confluence of the Balikh and the Euphrates.43 Here the development towards the Ubaid period was the result of a local advancement of the people who lived at the site since the previous period, the Halaf. The latest excavations carried out by the Syrian-North American expedition, documented the existence of floors and walls dating from the transition period, between the Ubaid and Halaf. It is a very important stage in terms of understanding how the Ubaid culture spread from southern Mesopotamia to replace the existing Figure 399. Distribution of Ubaid sites in Mesopotamia (after Adams culture (Halaf) in northern Syria. 1981: figure 9). There are clear indications that this transition was peaceful.44 The other 45 site is Tell Humeidha, also situated on the left bank of the river, while the other relevant site, Tell Khraita,46 is on the right bank of the Euphrates. Comparing the location of the sites of our present work with Ubaid ones in Mesopotamia along the Euphrates, we note that the occupation of the territory tended to be concentrated on the left bank of the Euphrates, with few exceptions. As for the Ubaid sites in Syria, there are two, one on the left bank and one on the right (Figure 399). Apparently, there was a settlement pattern during the Ubaid period, with a preference for the waterways from southern Mesopotamia to the north, following the course of the Euphrates, on both banks, reaching the area under investigation here and where we documented three sites. Tell Zeidan connected the northernmost area of the Euphrates with the south; it also connected the Euphrates valley with the Balikh, where, about 100 km north of Tell Zeidan, we find the Ubeid site of Hamam et-Turkman. From the latter site, the commercial route of the Balikh reaches Harran, and connects the valley with Urfa and Anatolia. This, the second main route on the Euphrates, opened commercial and connecting routes between Mesopotamia and the Mediterranean.

Córdoba 1988. Stein and Al-Khabour 2008. 45 Montero et al. 2009. 46 Lonqvist et al. 2011. 43 44

292

Analysis of the historical and cultural processes in the investigated area Conclusion The studied area offered good insights into Ubaid occupation in Syria, providing an opportunity also to study the early development of societies in northern Syria. The variety of the material culture from excavations at Tell Zeidan (obsidian, basalt, ceramics, etc.) indicate the existence of local and long-distance trade during the Ubaid period; this can be backed up by the long-distance exchanges and on-site copper smelting. The finds demonstrate the emergence of ruling elites, connected ideologically with those from northern Iraq, showing evidence of ancient relationships between the investigated area and other contemporaneous sites in northern Mesopotamia. References Adams, R. 1981. Heartland of Cities: Surveys of Ancient Settlements and Land Use on the Central Floodplain of the Euphrates. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Akkermans, P. and Schwartz, G. 2003. The Archaeology of Syria from Complex Hunter-Gatherers to Early Urban Societies (c. 16,000–300 B.C). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Córdoba, J. 1988. Prospección en el valle del río Balih (Siria). Informe provisional. Aula Orientalis 6: 149–188. Frankfort, H. 1932. Archeology and the Sumerian Problem, in Studies in Ancient Oriental Civilization 4. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Lonnqvist, M., Tora, M., Lonnqvist, K. and Nuñez, M. 2011. Jebel Bishri Focus: remote sensing, archaeological surveying, mapping and GIS studies of Jebel Bishri in central Syria by the Finnish project SYGIS. British Archaeological Reports International Series 2230. Oxford: Archaeopress. Montero, J.-L., Al-Shbib, Sh., Márquez, I. and Caramelo, F. 2009. IV campaña del Proyecto Arqueológico Medio Éufrates Sirio. Sondeos en Tall Qabr Abu al-‘Atiq: de los orígenes de la ciudad al período Asirio Medio, in Excavaciones en el exterior: 191–199. Madrid: Ministerio de Cultura. Nishiaki, Y. and Matsutani, T. (eds) 2003. Tell Kosak Shamali: The archaeological investigations on the Upper Euphrates, Syria. Vol. 2. Chalcolithic technology and subsistence. Paléorient 29(2): 157–158. Pollock, S.1 999. Ancient Mesopotamia. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Stein, G. and Al Khabour, A. 2008. Report on the first season of the excavation at Tell Zeidan by the SyrianAmerican expedition, Raqqa (in Arabic): 1–19. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Uruk Introduction As is well known, the Uruk period and culture are named after the eponymous site in Mesopotamia. After its diffusion through Mesopotamia, colonies and merchants extended its influence through Syria, Turkey, and Iran during the second half of the 4th millennium BC.47 The phase covers the time between 3500 BC and 2900 BC and the culture can be divided into three sub-periods: • Early Uruk (3500 BC – 3200 BC): the great settlements and the first signs of writing appear, consisting of simple numerical annotations. • Late Uruk (3200 BC – 3000 BC): the settlements are true cities, and we find the first archaic texts. • Jemdet Nasr (3000 BC – 2900 BC): is the transition phase to the Sumerian period that scholars also consider as Late Uruk; it did not extend to all Mesopotamia.48 The Uruk period is characterized by a veritable explosion of urban centres, their size being unprecedented. The city of Uruk itself reached 70 ha in the Early period and up to 100 ha in the Late; but, of course, there were small settlements around. In addition to the advanced networks of 47 48

Liverani 1986; 2017; Algaze 2005. Del Cerro 2006.

293

The Fertile Desert

Figure 400. Uruk sites in the investigated area.

colonies outside Mesopotamia, they maintained and confirmed their relationships with indigenous communities.49 The phase is also characterized by its great monumental architecture, the use of cylindrical seals, and its administrative control; it also witnessed the important development of crafts and luxury goods. The most important innovation from that period was the birth of the writing system and the development of long-distance trade.50 The urban settlements The settlements of Uruk were customarily located close to rivers to take advantage of the means of irrigation and the vital role played by the rivers for transportation. The urban settlements of the Uruk period were genuine cities, and for the first time in history we can be certain of this fact. In the centre, on what one might call the acropolis, there are palaces, temples, and public buildings and warehouses, all surrounded by walls of enormous thickness. The Uruk city model was exported to various regions (north, northwest, northeast, and east of Mesopotamia) where real colonies copying the Uruk system were created, e.g. Habuba Kabira on the Syrian Euphrates.51 In the area studied in this work we have seven sites dated to the Uruk period (Figure 400): 1 = Tell Biaa; 3 = Tell Masri I (?); 4 = Tell Masri II (?); 23 = Abu Hamad cemetery (?); 53 = Tell Tibni; 34 = Tell Humeida; 36 = Tell Qabr Abu al-Atiq (?). General observations In this regional study, as just mentioned, seven sites have been documented with varying degrees of certainty regarding their dating as settlements from the Uruk period. Five are located on the left bank of the Euphrates and two on the right. The settlements are relatively large compared to the settlements of the previous period, but they do not reach the typical size of the main settlements of the Uruk period. It is also noted that the settlements tend to occupy key positions, dominating Algaze 2005. Liverani 1986; 2017. 51 Butterlin 2003. 49 50

294

Analysis of the historical and cultural processes in the investigated area

Figure 401. Map of Uruk stations (after Algaze 2005: 49).

areas such as the Khanuqa Gorge and the site of Tell Biaa (Tuttul) at the confluence of the Balikh and the Euphrates. As mentioned above, the settlements are normally very close to the course of the river, the main source for agricultural irrigation, as well as for long-distance communication and trade. For a clearer image of the investigated area in this work, the presence of the Uruk period along the banks of the Euphrates, upstream from our area, must also be taken into account, i.e. three large sites in the Tabqa Dam area – Habuba Kabira Sur, Tell Qannas, and Jabal Aruda. It should also be noted that the survey carried out in 1985 by Kay Kohlmeyer52 documented other, smaller, settlements, all located on the left bank of the Euphrates.53 The Greyer and Monchambert survey,54 however, did look at two settlements on the right bank, downstream of the investigated area (Tell Qraya and Tell Ramadi) (Figure 401). Comparing these data with ours in the region between Balikh and Khabour, we can introduce some modification in the route proposed by Algaze for Uruk settlements. I agree with the proposed route from the right bank of the Euphrates to the Khabour, and also with part of the route along the left bank of the Euphrates, as a route, after the Balikh, to Meskeneh. But Tell Tibni (site 53), the only Kohlmeyer 1986. Algaze 2005. 54 Geyer and Monchambert 2003. 52 53

295

The Fertile Desert site on the right bank of the studied region, would, in my opinion, indicate that the original route followed from the road proposed by Algaze, and along the right bank, to Tell Tibni, which was the point from which to cross the Euphrates, and from there they continued, to the left, to Tuttul. I would also catalogue in this section several further sites of the Uruk period, e.g. Tell Humeida (34) Tell Qabr Abu al-Atiq (36), as well as Tuttul (1); from there the path follows the route proposed by Algaze. Conclusion The Uruk culture spread from the south of Mesopotamia to the north (the Taurus Mountains, the Silver Mountains), following the fluvial routes, especially the Euphrates. This expansion left its traces in the form of settlements on both banks of the river. The studied area in this work has provided data for a more complete image of this cultural route of the populations of this period. The region of the Khanuqa Gorge on the Middle Euphrates witnessed these movements, as attested by the presence of settlements belonging to this culture. Further archaeological work will surely provide a more complete image of the cultural movement of the Uruk culture in this region. References Algaze, G. 2005. The Uruk World System. The Dynamics of Expansion of Early Mesopotamia Civilization (2nd edn). Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Butterlin, P. 2003. Les temps proto-urbains de Mésopotamie: contacts et acculturation à l’époque d’Uruk au Moyen-Orient. Paris: CNRS Editions. Del Cerro Linares, C. 2006. Cuenco mesopotámico de cerámica (Eridu, Iraq). Madris: Museo Arqueológico Nacional. Geyer, B. and Monchambert, J.-Y. 2003. La basse vallée de l’Euphrate syrien du Néolithique à l’avènement de l’islam : géographie, archéologie et histoire. Beirut: Institut Français du Proche-Orient. Kohlmeyer, K. 1986. Euphrat-Survey 1984. Zweiter Vorbericht über die mit Mitteln der Gerda Henkel Stiftung durchgeführte archäologische Geländebegehung im Syrischen Euphrattal. Mitteilungen der Deutschen Orient-Gesellschaft 118: 51–65. Liverani, M. 1986. L’origine de la città. Roma: Editori Riuniti. Liverani, M. 2017. Uruk la prima città. Roma: Editori Laterza. Early Bronze Age Introduction The Early Bronze Age (EBA) in our region is commonly understood as the period between the Uruk phase and the Iron Age, approximately between 3300 BC and 1200 BC. At that time, bronze metallurgy of bronze was fully developed, alloying copper with tin, and allowing the manufacture of high-quality axes, blades, and multiple tools, this alloy being much stronger than copper. The Bronze Age is divided into three main epochs: Early (EBA), Middle (MBA), and Late (LBA). Overall, it is characterized by the abandonment of lithic artifacts and by developments such as advanced states, large agricultural exports, public works, literature, commerce and trade, international relations, social classes, advanced laws and, in short, historical society in all its fullness. Early Bronze Age: 3300 BC – 2100 BC The EBA in our area is commonly divided into four phases: 3300 BC – 3000 BC = EBA I; 3000 BC – 2700 BC = EBA II; 2700 BC – 2200 BC = EBA III; 2200 BC – 2100 BC = EBA IV. In the present work, we have classified the following settlements (Figure 402) as EBA (in our Table they appear under the letter G): Tell Biaa = 1; Tell Masri I = 3; Tell Masri II = 4; Tell Mazar (Ratla, or Sheikh Asaad) = 5; Tell Shennan = 6; Rabtat Abyad = 7; Maqbarat Al Karama = 8; Maqbara Qadima = 296

Analysis of the historical and cultural processes in the investigated area

Figure 402. Map of the Early Bronze Age sites in the investigated area.

9; Wadi Qutena = 10; Jibli 9F = 12; Jibli 9E = 13; Jibli 9D = 14; Wadi Aain = 15; Tell Hamadin = 16; Wadi Dabaa (cemetery) = 22; Abu Hamad (cemetery) = 23; Wadi Shabout (cemetery) = 24; Tell Ghanem al-Ali = 25; Wadi Jazla (cemetery) = 26; Tell Mugla as-Sagir (Tell Beitha) = 27; Tell Beilouni = 28; Tell Sheikh Mousa = 29; Tell Sweda = 30; Tell Saghir = 32; Tell Ahmar = 33; Tell Qabr Abu al-Atiq = 36; Tell Qsubi – Tell Qalaa = 37; Tomb of Qsubi = 38; Qleb al Hemma 13.1 = 39; Qleb al Hemma 13.27 = 51; Nadra = 56 General observations The first thing that catches our attention when seeing the distribution of the EBA sites is the great abundance of settlements from the Balikh to the area of the Khanuqa Gorge of Halabeya, and then to suddenly vanish further south. It is very curious to note that more than thirty archaeological sites, catalogued between settlements and cemeteries, are in a natural corridor of 75 km. We calculate (as a guide) that there is a site every 2.5 km. This leads us to understand that the valley of the Middle Euphrates, from the Balikh to the gorge, was the scene of dense occupation and movements along the same bank, and, what is more surprising, from one bank to another, which means that they crossed the river with ease. Even more surprising is the total absence of population (or almost total, if the presence of a possible EBA settlement at Tell Khraita is confirmed, as the Finnish expedition suggested – see site 58 in the Catalogue) among the settlements of any kind between the Khanuqa Gorge and the confluence of the Khabour on the Euphrates. Historically, from the end of this period, we have information from King Lugalzagizi (Lugal-Zagesi), from around 2350 BC. It is in the form of a votive inscription, in which he claims his victory from the ‘Lower Sea’ (the Persian Gulf) to the ‘Upper Sea’ (the Mediterranean). It is possible that this included temporary control over the trade routes, taking in, of course, the Euphrates. In addition, at the end of the Old Bronze Age, Akkad and Syria (MAR-TU) maintained relations: the Akkadians

297

The Fertile Desert

Figure 403. Northern Syrian Euphrates EBA sites (after Cooper 2006).

organized military campaigns along the Euphrates. In a text (CBS text 13972) King Sargon (ŠarruKinu) is said to have stopped at Tell Biaa (Tuttul) to venerate the god Dagan. 55 The monarch Naram-Sin (2254 BC – 2218 BC) reached Tuttul in his war campaigns (at least), and mentioned the god Dagan among the protective gods of his expedition (Text IM 77823).56 All of this is a clear indication that the area played an important role during the Early Bronze Age. But the scarcity of settlement patterns between Tuttul and the Khanuqa Gorge could be explained as follows: focusing on the Tell Ghanem al-Ali area, where a large group of the sites is located, we can see that the occupation of land in the EBA is linked to large sites such as Tell Biaa, Tell Ghanem al-Ali, and Tell Hamadin. This is confirmed by the dense distribution of burial areas, especially related to the location of the last two sites. The tombs are usually in the valleys that overlook the large sites, and if we compare the EBA sites in the investigated area with the series of settlements catalogued by Cooper57 in the Tabqa Lake area (Figure 403), it seems logical to conclude that the area of our study was more stably related to the north than to the south.58

Oliva 2008. Oliva 2008. 57 Cooper 2006. 58 Geyer and Monchambert 2003: 114. 55 56

298

Analysis of the historical and cultural processes in the investigated area But in the light of this, however, the case of Tell Qubr Abu al-Atiq (36) would have to be reconsidered, especially in view of the role assigned to it. Indeed, archaeological evidence brought to light at Tell Qabr Abu al-Atiq by the Syrian-Spanish expedition in their 2008/9 campaigns59 might well suggest that the foundation of the EBA city would have been assisted by the kings of Mari, interested in establishing their presence on the northern border of their kingdom. This reading of the data, mainly from ceramics, as well as in view of the circular perimeter of the wall detected by GPR survey, would contrast with the view I propose above, as there are no contemporary documented sites between the Khanuqa Gorge and Mari, i.e. there would have been a surprising lack of colonization by Mari between the Khabour and the Khanuqa Gorge.60 On the other hand, we must remember that settlements with a circular plan, such as Tell Chuera,61 Tell Siannu, Mishirfe, Tell Shairat, Tell Mabtouh Foqa, etc.,62 did not have to depend on, or be culturally, and therefore politically, related to the kingdom of Mari. Thus, my interpretation takes onboard all the relevant factors, as it responds to the logic of the settlement pattern and the void itself: Tell Qabr Abu al-Atiq should be seen in relation to the north, not to its southern neighbours. The chronological horizon is also crucial. If, as it seems, the foundation of Tell Qabr Abu al-Atiq does not go back beyond the year 2600 BC,63 it must be considered that the circular urban plan is a distinctive element of the so-called II Urbanization,64 with which Tell Qabr’s dependence on Mari seems less possible. Conclusion The date generated by this work raises important questions. What is the explanation for the concentration of EBA sites between the Khanuqa Gorge and the confluence of the Balikh and the Euphrates? Why is there this settlement breakdown behind the gorge, practically as far as Mari territory? Whatever the suggestions, there is still much to debate about when discussing this area of the Middle Euphrates. References Alachkar, S. and Showhan, Y. 2019. Découverte d’une tombe du Bronze ancien à Tell Qsubi (MoyenEuphrate, Syrie). Syria 96: 273–292. Al- Maqdissi, M. 2010. Matériel pour l’étude de la ville ancienne en Syrie. Al-Rāfidān: Journal of Western Asiatic Studies, Special Issue: 131–145. Tokyo: Kokushikan University. Cooper, L. 2006. Early Urbanism on the Syrian Euphrates. London: Routledge. Geyer, B. and Monchambert, J.-Y. 2003. La basse vallée de l’Euphrate syrien du Néolithique à l’avènement de l’islam : géographie, archéologie et histoire. Beirut: Institut Français du Proche-Orient. Margueron, J.-Cl. 2004. Mari, métropole de l’Euphrate au IIIe et au début du IIe millénaire av. J.C. Paris: Picard. Meyer, J.-W. 2010. Tribal community and state: the change of settlement patterns in Upper Mesopotamia during the 3rd millennium B.C., a re-evaluation. Al-Rāfidān: Journal of Western Asiatic Studies, Special Issue: 203–211. Tokyo: Kokushikan University. Montero, J.-L., Al-Shbib, Sh., Márquez Rowe, I. and Caramelo, F. 2010. Tell Qubr Abu al- ‘Atiq: From an Early Dynastic City to a Middle Assyrian Fort. Fifth Season Report of the Proyecto Arqueológico Medio Éufrates Sirio (2009). Aula Orientalis 28: 73–84. Oliva, J.-C. 2008. Textos para una historia política de Siria-Palestina I: El Bronce Antiguo y Medio. Madrid: Ediciones AKAL.

Montero et al. 2010. Margueron 2004. Meyer 2010. 62 Al-Maqdissi 2010. 63 Montero 2010. 64 Al-Maqdissi 2010. 59 60 61

299

The Fertile Desert

Figure 404. Middle Bronze Age sites in the investigated area.

Middle Bronze Age Introduction The Middle Bronze Age (MBA) covers the period between 2000 BC – 1550 BC, commonly divided into four phases: 2000–1900 BC = MBA I; 1900–1750 BC = MBA IIA; 1750–1650 BC = MBA IIB; 1650– 1550 BC = MBA IIC. It is a time when there was a strong development in many aspects of social, economic, and cultural life. Additionally, at that period appeared a reformation of legislative systems that regulated daily life and social relations. This period witnessed relevant advancements in science, mathematics, medicine, etc. The commercial exchange with remote areas expanded and it is well documented that the larger rivers were used for navigation, expansion, and commercial connections. But the most relevant characteristic was the emergence of new states and ethnic mixing, especially in the Euphrates Valley, between the Balikh and the Khabour, the investigated area in this work. In the investigated area (Figure 404) we have highlighted sixteen representative sites of the period: Tell Biaa = 1; the cairn fields northwest of Bishri Mountains = 20; Wadi Shabout (cemetery) = 24; Tell Ghanem al-Ali = 25; Wadi Jazla (cemetery) = 26; Tell Qsubi-Tell Qalaa = 37; Tell Tibni =53; Tell Abu Makiya = 54; Tell Abu Fahd = 55; Nadra = 56; Tell Et-Tabie II = 62; Tell Mohasan I = 63; Tell Es-Salu V = 65; Tell Buseire I = 66; Tell Safat Ez-Zerr II = 67. General observations To understand the results of our map it is essential to see the historical context of the area in general and the kingdom of Mari, in particular. At the beginning of the 2nd millennium BC, the Amorites took power in Syria, from the Mari region to the Mediterranean. The Assyrians founded many trading centres meeting ‘Kārum’ on the trade route through northern Syria and Anatolia. In this way, the area became, since the dawn of the Middle Bronze Age, an active commercial space.65 65

Veenhof et al. 2008; Oliva 2008.

300

Analysis of the historical and cultural processes in the investigated area At that period, the intensity and political tension between the different emerging kingdoms and states, including the kingdoms of Amurru and the small states of Balikh and Khabour, formed a complex ethnic mixture, from which a koine emerged. Between the years 1800–1600 BC there were profound changes towards more consolidated political structures. The Amorites built a powerful state in Babylon, which maintained relations with Mari and Aleppo. They forced a policy opposed to the Assyrians during the reign of Shamshi Adad I. The Euphrates continued to play an important role as the main route of communication. The monarch Yahdun-Lim was very active in his confrontations with neighbouring states because of territorial issues, undertaking military operations that ensured permanent control over the Middle Euphrates.66 From the distribution map, we can see that the sites extend along both banks of the river, occupying key locations so as to dominate the Euphrates Valley and its tributaries. The first area is Tuttul, and its confluence of the Balikh and the Euphrates; the second key area is the Khanuqa Gorge, where the sites of Tell Qsubi, Tibni, Abu Makiya and Abu Fahd are located, all very important in terms of dominating this pivotal point of the river. There is also the confluence of the Khabour and its fluvial plain, located a few kilometers before it, where we have five documented sites.67 The last grouping is the area south of Tell Ghanem al-Ali, where there are two burial areas to the south of the main site – cemeteries at the last meeting point between the rocky plateau of the Bishri and the fluvial plain of the Euphrates. The kingdom of Mari had to build numerous settlements in the region to guarantee both its trade route and sources of the raw material.68 The investigated sites in this present study are typical of this period of expansion of the kingdom of Mari. In the Mt Bishri area, on both the western and eastern slopes, the presence of MBA populations has been documented,69 but in the form of burial areas and cairn tombs with no stable settlements found in the mentioned region. The proposed explanation could be linked to the above-mentioned areas, with their presence of nomadic groups mentioned in the Mari texts,70 referring to the Amorites. There are many studies in connection with the Amorite presence on Mt Bishri (Ba-sa-ar).71 The ranges of Mt Bishri (Basar-Basalla) were mentioned in the Sumerian and Akkadian epigraphic texts as the land of origin of the Amorites (the Naram-Sin victory stele and the Gudea statue).72 During the MBA, according to the texts discovered at Mari, the area was considered as the land of the Bene-Simal tribes (‘sons of the left’), referring to their territory on the left bank of the Euphrates.73 Likewise, the texts refer also to the Bene-Yamina (‘sons of the right;), i.e. those who are related to the city of Tuttul (Tell Biaa). The architecture of Tuttul has revealed an MBA palace that bears a resemblance to the Amorite palaces at Qatna and Mari.74 The data obtained from the excavations of the Syrian-Japanese expedition on Mt Bishri demonstrate the existence of nomadic groups in the region, although the sites are classified as cemeteries and burial areas represented by burial mounds. However, they support the hypothesis that the Amorites came from Mt Bishri – a debate which remains active. References Anbar, M. 1991. Les tribus amurrites de Mari. Orbis Biblicus et Orientalis 108. Freiburg/Göttingen: Universitätsverlag/Vandenhoeck Ruprecht. Oliva 2008. Geyer et al. 2003. 68 Margueron 2004: 435–442. 69 Fujii et al. 2010. 70 Charpin 2004. 71 Buccellati 1966; Kupper 1957; Anbar 1991; Durand 2004. 72 Charpin 2004. 73 Charpin and Durand 1986. 74 Strommenger and Kohlmeyer 1998. 66 67

301

The Fertile Desert Bucellati, G. 1966. The Amorites of the Ur III Period. Naples: Instituto Orientale di Napoli. Charpin, D. 2004. Nomades et sédentaires dans l’armée de Mari du temps de Yahdun-Lîm, compte-rendu de la XLVIe Rencontre assyriologique internationale (Paris, 10–13 juillet 2000). Paris: Éditions Recherche sur les Civilisations. Charpin, D. and Durand J.-M. 1986. Fils de Sim’al: Les origines tribales des rois de Mari. Revue d’Assyriologie 80(2): 141–183. Durand, J.-M. 2004. Peuplement et societes a l’epoque amorrite (I): les clans bensim’alites, in C. Nicolle (ed.) Amurru 3: nomades et sedentaires dans le Proche-Orient ancien: 89–111. Paris: Éditions Recherche sur les civilisations. Fuji, S. and Adachi, T. 2010. Archaeological investigations of Bronze Age cairn fields on the Northwestern flank of Mt. Bishri. Al-Rāfidān: Journal of Western Asiatic studies, Special Issue: 61– 77. Tokyo: Kokushikan University. Geyer, B. and Monchambert, J.-Y. 2003. La basse vallée de l’Euphrate syrien du Néolithique à l’avènement de l’islam : géographie, archéologie et histoire. Beirut: Institut Français du Proche-Orient. Kupper, J.-R. 1957. Les nomads en Mésopotamie au temps des rois de Mari. Bibliothèque de la Faculté de philosophie et lettres de l’Université de Liège. Fascicule CXLII. Paris: Les Belles Lettres. Margueron, J.-Cl. 2004. Mari, métropole de l’Euphrate au IIIe et au début du IIe millénaire av. J.C. Paris: Picard. Oliva, J.-C. 2008. Textos para una historia política de Siria-Palestina I: El Bronce Antiguo y Medio. Madrid: Ediciones AKAL. Strommenger, E. and Kohlmeyer, K. 1998. Ausgrabungen in Tall Bīʻa, Tuttul I.: Die Altorientalischen Bestattungen. WVDOG 96. Saarbrücken: Saarbruckener Druckerei und Verlag. Veenhof, K.R., Wäfler, M. and Eidem, J. 2008. Mesopotamia. The Old Assyrian Period. Orbis Biblicus et Orientalis 160/5. Fribourg: Academic Press. Late Bronze Age Introduction The Late Bronze Age (LBA) in our area covers the period between 1550 BC – 1200 BC; it is subdivided into three phases: 1550–1400 BC = LBA I; 1400–1300 BC = LBA IIA; 1300–1200 BC = LBA IIB. In the 14th century, the Mittani Kingdom (Hanigalbat) ruled all northern Mesopotamia from the Tigris in the east to the Euphrates in the west. The capital was based in the Khabour triangle, in the cities of Waššukanni and Taidu.75 The state of Mittani dominated its territories through the establishment of dunnu, a form of settlement that functioned as administrative center and controlled agriculture. In addition, at such sites, caravans and trade taxes were collected, trade and diplomatic contacts were formed, and a force that protected crops and rural population resided. The Assyrians of that time paid tribute to Hanigalbat.76 When the monarch Shuttarna came to the throne of the Hanigalbat kingdom, he freed the Assyrians from paying tribute. Soon after, there were internal conflicts in the Mittani court with his rival and his allies the Hittites over the accession to the throne, which resulted in Assyrian troops coming to support Shuttarna. The Assyrian king Adad-Narari I (1295–1264 BC) attacked Hanigalbat and forced its king to pay tribute to Assyria, he turned his kingdom into a vassal kingdom of the Assyrians. Some years later, he attacked them again and installed one of the Assyrian administrators in Hanigalbat and built a palace in Taidu.77 In the reign of Shalmanasar I (1263–1234 BC), there is a large amount of written information from Assyrian royal inscriptions, both from the capital Assur, and from the settlements in Hanigalbat.78

Wilhelm 1989; De Martino 2000. Duistermaat 2008. 77 Akkermans and Schwartz 2003; Harrak 1987. 78 Harrak 1987. 75 76

302

Analysis of the historical and cultural processes in the investigated area The Assyrians adapted the dunnu system in various places and their officials inhabited them. They also built several palaces and centres in the territory, which included Hanigalbat as an Assyrian province. Thus, the Assyrian settlements amounted to a form of colonial system to ensure domination of the territory.79 Under the reign of Tukulti-Ninurta I (1233–1197 BC), the Assyrian empire reached its peak. There are numerous texts from Assur, Kar Tukulti-Ninurta, Hattuša, DurKatlimmu, Tell Chuera, Sabi Abyad, and, recently, from Tell Qabr Abu al-Atiq.80 Tukulti-Ninurta I continued the policy of his father, and the new Hanigalbat province was to be ruled by a Grand Vizier, who also bore the title of King of Hanigalbat, and who was to belong to the royal family.81 After the death of Tukulti-Ninurta, his successors Aššur-Nadin-Apli (1196–1194 BC), Aššur-Narari III (1193–1188 BC), and Enlilkudurri-Usur (1187–1183 BC), maintained a continuity policy in Hanigalbat. The Middle Assyrian occupation continued in the Khabour region during the reign of Tiglatpileser I (1114–1076 BC), as evidenced by the sites of Tell Bderi (Dur Aššur-ketti-lešer), Tell Taban (Tabetu), Tell Barri (Kahat), and Tell Brak.82 Late finds of administrative texts from Giricano Hoyük, in southern Turkey, indicate that the Middle Assyrian dunnu system continued until the reign of Aššur-bel-kala (1073–1056 BC), albeit to a lesser extent and in a slightly different form. Risks to the region derived from Aramaic nomads and local city states, causing the Assyrians to lose power in several recently conquered regions until the 9th century BC, and the rise of the NeoAssyrian empire. The reasons for the collapse are still not well understood, although excessive

Figure 405. Late Bronze Age sites in the investigated area.

Duistermaat 2008; Bonacossi Morandi and Bunnens Bonacossi 2000. Kühne 2009. 81 Harrak 1987. 82 D’Agostino 2009. 79 80

303

The Fertile Desert exploitation of indigenous agricultural populations, and increased political pressure on local nomadic groups, were likely contributing factors (Rouault 2009). In the area investigated, the Tell Sabi Abyad texts mention Tuttul (Tell Biaa) as a dunnu, but excavations have not yet brought to light the remains from the Late Assyrian period.83 Between 1200 and 1175 BC, the Assyrians abandoned the fortress of Sabi Abyad, which was destroyed by fire. At that period, a great crisis within the major palaces took place.84 The empire of the Hittites disappeared, the power of the pharaohs of Egypt began to be eroded by the wars against the ‘Sea Peoples’, and the Assyrian empire was also weakened. All of this gave way to an era in Syria that has come to be called the Dark Ages.85 From that time in the MBA, the archives of Tell Sabi Abyad have provided texts documenting the period. Apparently, the Assyrians contacted the Hittites, their traditional enemy, to organize a military campaign. This indicates that the Assyrians and the Hittites had a common enemy. Although the tablets do not mention the Aramaeans directly, but the Suteans,86 in that period, the Aramaic nomads threatened the security of the Syrian steppe in the south. Was it the invasion of the Arameans that caused the collapse of this phase?87 In the investigated area between the Balikh and the Khabour we have two LBA sites (Figure 405): Tell Hamadin = 16; Tell Qabr Abu al-Atiq = 36. General observations The scarcity of settlements during the LBA between the Balikh and Khabour valleys is clear and we only have two sites dating to this period, located on both banks of the river. During this period, the Assyrian capital of the Jazira region was Dūr-Katlimu (Tell Sheikh Hamad) in the lower valley of the Khabour. The choice of Dūr Katlimu as capital was motivated by its central location and its proximity to the Assyrian capital, which made contact with it via an east-west route.88 No excavations were carried out at Tell Hamadin (16), but a survey by the Syrian-Japanese expedition there returned with LBA ceramics. It seems that the settlement pattern in this period followed a line of construction of control centres, as was the case at Tell Qabr Abu al-Atiq (36), where the Syrian-Spanish expedition carried out excavation seasons and revealed an administrative centre. The cuneiform tablets found in the settlement are from the Eponym of Abattu, son of Adad-shumu-leshir, i.e. from year eleven of Tukulti-Ninurta I. Apparently, during the Late Bronze Age the Assyrians established several dunnu-type settlements along the communication routes, i.e. in the Khabour Valley, at Dūr Kattlimu, as the headquarters of the Assyrians; in the Euphrates Valley, at Tell Qabr Abu al-Atiq and at Tell Biaa (Tuttul), although excavations at Tuttul have not yet brought to light remains from the Middle Assyrian period, although the Middle Assyrian ‘Dunno texts’ at Tell Sabi Abyad mention it. The location of Tuttul connects the Euphrates with the Balikh Valley, and on the course of the Balikh are the sites of Sahlala (Tell Sahlan) and Tell Sabi Abyad, as well as Tell Chuera (Jerba), east of the Balikh. These data confirm that in the Late Bronze Age the settlement pattern followed the rivers to dominate these communication routes. Along the way the Assyrians built administrative centres to collect taxes, assert agricultural and commercial controls (i.e. customs), ensure diplomatic and Akkermans and Wiggermann 2015: 89–125. Liverani 1987; Rouault 2009. Akkermans and Schwartz 2003. 86 Wiggermann 2002. 87 Kepinski and Tenu 2009; Masetti-Rouault 2009. 88 Akkermans and Schwartz 2003; Durand 2010: 49–66. 83 84 85

304

Analysis of the historical and cultural processes in the investigated area economic communication, as well as to offer protection to caravans. The information gathered by the various survey teams and excavators confirms that the investigated area was an integral part of the Assyrian country.89 References Akkermans, P. and Schwartz, G. 2003. The Archaeology of Syria From Complex Hunter-Gatherers to Early Urban Societies (c. 16,000–300 B.C). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Akkermans, P and Wiggermann, F. 2015. West of Aššur: The Life and Times of the Middle Assyrian Dunnu at Tell Sabi Abyad, Syria, in B.S. Düring (ed.) Understanding Hegemonic Practices of the Early Assyrian Empire: 89–125. Leiden: Nederlands Instituut voor het Nabije Oosten. Bonacossi Morandi, D. and Bunnens, G. 2000: The Syrian Jezireh in the late Assyrian period. A view from the countryside. in Essays on Syria in the Iron Age. Ancient Near Eastern Studies, Supplement 7: 349–396. Leuven: Peeters. D’Agostino, A. 2009. The Assyrian-Aramaean interaction in the Upper Khabour: The archaeological evidence from Tell Barri Iron Age levels. Syria. Archéologie, art et histoire 86: 17–41. De Martino, S. 200. Il regno horita di Mitanni: profile storico politico. La parola passato 55: 68–102. Duistermaat, K. 2008. The pots and potters of Assyria. Technology and organisation of production, ceramic sequence and vessel function at Late Bronze Age Tell sabi Abyad, Syria. Leiden: Brepols. Durand, J.-M. 1010. Šēh Hamad / Dūr-Katlimmu Dur Katlimu, How and Why?, in H. Kohne (ed.) DūrKatlimmu 2008 and beyond: 49–66. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz. Harrak, A. 1987. Assyria and Hanigalbat: A historical reconstruction of bilateral relations from the middle of the fourteenth to the end of the twelfth centuries B.C. Hildesheim: Georg Olms Verlag. Kepinski, Ch. and Tenu, A. 2009. Avant-propos. Interaction entre Assyriens et Araméens. Syria. Archéologie, art et histoire 86: 7–15. Kühne, H. 2009. Interaction of Aramaean and Assyrians on the Lower Khabour. Syria. Archéologie, art et histoire 86: 43–54. Liverani, M. 1987. The collapse of the Near Eastern Regional System at the End of the Bronze Age: The Case of Syria, in M. Rowlands (ed) Centre and Periphery in the Ancient World: 66–73. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Masetti-Rouault, M.-G. 2009. Cultures in contact in the Syrian Lower Middle Euphrates Valley: Aspects of the local cults in the Iron Age II. Syria. Archéologie, art et histoire 86: 141–147. Rouault, O. 2009. Assyrians, Aramaeans and Babylonians: The Syrian Lower Middle Euphrates Valley at the end of the Bronze Age. Syria. Archéologie, art et histoire 86: 133–139. Tenu, A. 2009. L’expansion médio-assyrienne. Approche archéologique. British Archaeological Reports International Series 1906. Oxford: John and Erica Hedges. Wiggermann, F.A.M. 2002. The distant ancestor of the alphabet. Artissage 23(2): 54–59. Heidelberg: Vernissage Verlag. Wilhem, G. 1989. The Hurrians. Warminster: Aris and Phillips. Neo-Assyrian Period Introduction The Neo-Assyrian period extended from the end of the 10th (934 BC) to the 7th century BC, when the destruction of Nineveh, the capital, took place in 612 BC. The Neo-Assyrian empire spread north and west on a constant search for resources, i.e. metals and horses; they frequently clashed with the newly founded Aramaic states. The monarchs left a treasure of inscriptions on their war campaigns, which covered the entire Middle East between Iran and the Mediterranean, and even the borders with Egypt.90

89 90

Tenu 2009. Grayson 1972: 213.

305

The Fertile Desert

Figure 406. New-Assyrian sites in the investigated area.

The Eastern Mediterranean region witnessed at that time intense commercial, cultural, and political activities, which began at the end of the Late Bronze Age; various populations and ethnic groups participated in creating this koine.91 During the Neo-Assyrian Period, the size of its cities and capitals experienced unprecedented growth. In turn, rural settlements expanded thanks to the development of the irrigation system.92 During these two centuries, the capital city changed its location several times between Assur, Kalhu, Dur-Sharrukin, and finally Nineveh.93 More explicitly, in 879 BC, Assurnasirpal (883–859 BC) moved his capital from Assur to Kalhu (Nimrud) for no reasons that remain unclear. In 706 BC, King Sargon II (721–705 BC) moved the capital again to Dur-Sharrukin, his former stronghold (today’s Khorsabad). Later, his son Sennacherib (704–681 BC) left to form his capital in Nineveh. During the 9th and 8th centuries BC, occupation focused on the agricultural lands, without attempting to occupy desert or mountainous areas, with a system of governors providing the central administration, collecting tributes and taxes.94 In the investigated area of concern to us we have six sites from the Neo-Assyrian period (Figure 406): Tell Biaa = 1; Tell al-Maqam = 31; Tell Qsubi – Tell Qalaa (in all probability) = 37; Tell Abu Makiya = 54; Tell Es-Sabha I (in all probability) = 64; Tell Safat Ez-Zerr II = 67. General observations From the map of the investigated area, we can see that the Neo-Assyrian sites cluster on the left bank of the Euphrates, except for Tell Qsubi (the Neo-Assyrian presence is not confirmed, but we give it as possible). The settlements are in key areas of the Euphrates course: at the confluence of the Balikh and the Euphrates (Tell Biaa), before the Khanuqa Gorge (Tell Maqam, Tell Qsubi) and after it (Tell Abu Makiya),95 as well as at the confluence of the Khabour and the Euphrates (Tell EsSabha I and Tell Safat Ez-Zerr II).96 Klengel 2000: 21–30. Wilkinson et al. 2005: 23. Rander 2011: 321–329. 94 Rander 2011: 321–329. 95 Kohlmeyer 1986: 116. 96 Geyer and Monchambert 2003: 81–82; Sanjurjo et al. 2008: 21–29. 91 92 93

306

Analysis of the historical and cultural processes in the investigated area

Figure 407. New-Assyrian sites between the Balikh and the Euphrates (after Bonacossi Morandi: 2010).

Beyond the investigated area Comparing the number of settlements in the investigated area with the Euphrates Valley to the north, we observe that there is also a scarcity of sites. In this area we have only two documented, i.e. Tell Sweyhat (50) and Tell Sheikh Hasan (51) (Figure 407). In the region from the Balikh Valley to the west, towards the Euphrates, sites have been documented (53–79) (Figure 408). In the region from the Khabour Valley to the east, including Wadi Ajij and Jabal Abd el-Aziz, there are many settlements from this period, which makes logistical sense, given the proximity of the capital. 224 settlements (80–304) have been documented in this area (Figure 407). 307

The Fertile Desert

Figure 408. New-Assyrian sites on the Khabour Valley, Wadi Ajij and Jabal Abd al-Aziz (after Bonacossi Morandi: 2010).

308

Analysis of the historical and cultural processes in the investigated area Conclusion The settlement pattern in the Neo-Assyrian period indicates tremendous expansion in northern Mesopotamia, especially in those areas near the Empire’s capitals. However, the density and number of settlements gradually reduced as they moved away from the centres of power.97 The settlements are mostly small, sometimes very small, not even measuring 1 ha;98 these settlements were villages or gardens, typical of the residences of the Assyrian elite. In the Euphrates Valley, between the Balikh and Khabour rivers, Neo-Assyrian settlements are generally scarce. These are normally concentrated in key points of trade and communication routes, such as the Khanuqa Gorge and the areas that link the Euphrates Valley with other more densely inhabited areas, such as the Balikh Valley, the Wadi Ajij area, or the Khabour Valley. References Bonacossi Morandi, D. and Bunnens, G. 2000. The Syrian Jezireh in the Late Assyrian period. A view from the countryside, in Essays on Syria in the Iron Age. Ancient Near Eastern Studies, Supplement 7: 349–396. Leuven: Peeters. Geyer, B. and Monchambert, J.-Y. 2003. La basse vallée de l’Euphrate syrien du Néolithique à l’avènement de l’islam : géographie, archéologie et histoire. Beirut: Institut Français du Proche-Orient. Grayson, A.K. 1972. Assyrian Royal Inscriptions I: From the Beginnings to Ashur-resha-ishi I. Records of the Ancient Near East. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz. Klengel, H. 2000. The crisis years and the new political system in Early Iron Age Syria, some introductory remarks, in G. Bunnens (ed.) Ancient Near Eastern Studies, Supplement 7: 21–30. Leuven: Peeters. Kohlmeyer, K. 1986. Euphrat-Survey 1984. Zweiter Vorbericht über die mit Mitteln der Gerda Henkel Stiftung durchgeführte archäologische Geländebegehung im Syrischen Euphrattal. Mitteilungen der Deutschen Orient-Gesellschaft 118: 51–65. Liverani, M. (ed.) 1995. Neo-Assyrian Geography. Quaderni di geografia storica 5. Roma: Università di Roma La Sapienza. Rander, K. 2011. The Assur-Nineveh-Arbela triangle: Central Assyria in the Neo-Assyrian Period, in P. Miglus and S. Mühl (eds) Between the cultures: the central Tigris region from the 3rd to the 1st millennium BC: conference at Heidelberg, January 22nd – 24th, 2009: 321–329. Heidelberg: Heidelberger Orientverlag. Sanjurjo, J., Fernández, D. and Montero, J.-L. 2008. TL and OSL dating of sediment and pottery from two Syrian archaeological sites. Geocronometria 31: 21–29. Wilkinson, T., Ur, J., Wilkinson, E. and Altaweel, M. 2005. Landscape and Settlement in the NeoAssyrian Empire. Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Research 340 (Nov.): 23–56. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press on behalf of The American Schools of Oriental Research. Neo-Babylonian-Achaemenid Period Introduction In 616 BC the Neo-Babylonian Empire arose against the Assyrians and ended Assyrian power c. 612 BC. The new epoch is marked by the dominion of Babylon, which would soon end, in the year 539 BC. It lasted less than a century. The Achaemenid Empire followed, reaching its peak in 500 BC, this Persian empire would last until the arrival of Alexander the Great in 330 BC. In the investigated area we have no sites from this period.

97 98

Liverani 1995. Morandi Bonacossi 2000: 349–396.

309

Chapter 5

Summary and final conclusions The area of the Euphrates Valley between the Iraqi region of Ramadi Hit and the Lake al-Assad (Tabqa dam) in Syria remains little known despite emblematic sites on the Syrian side, such as Dura Europos and Mari. The area around Mari might indicate the contrary, especially since JeanClaude Margueron conducted works there. But, although it is true that the Mari area is today better understood, especially the network of its channels and nearby locations, the dominant view remains excessively focused on Mari itself and its role. The general impression, however, is that much needs to be studied and discovered between Hit and Raqqa. Partial reports, isolated interventions, or the proposals for a hypothetical reconstruction of the relationship and processes of cultural expansion between Mesopotamia and the Jazira or Syrian Euphrates region, suggest that the Euphrates corridor had always been a well-trafficked road; however suggestions on a map must be confirmed on the ground and only thus can the possibility and probability of the presumption alluded to be checked. Notwithstanding the absence of accurate data, many theories have been put forward on topics that include: the alleged expansion of the Ubaid; the first urbanization culture from the southern Iraqi plain up to, e.g., the bend of the Euphrates, Anatolia, or the Jazira highlands; the significant presence of the Mari kingdom and its interests in the Jazira, or its relationships with Aleppo and the rest of the Amorite culture in Syria. However, when looking at the usual tools for gathering information, or the relevant archaeological charts, such as the Tübinger Atlas, we face a paradox, for, apart from a few well-known sites, a surprising void clouds over the archaeological landscape between Ramadi-Hit and Raqqa. The earlier date of publication of such investigations does not explain alone this absence; even today there is little to be added, with the sole exception of the ARCANE Project. The difficult circumstances suffered by most of the region since the late 1980s, especially on the Iraqi side, not only hindered explorations, but made them even more problematic, if not impossible. Fortunately, on the Syrian side things were different, and during the 1990s and into the present decade, expeditions from the Republic of Syria and other countries, as well as joint projects, have intensively worked on the tributary basins, on the Euphrates valley itself, and on the northern and southern open regions of the Jazira. The possibilities have changed, and the time has come for a review aiming at a reconstruction – and such has been our goal. With this research, we have tried to reconstruct the history of a part of the Euphrates valley that, surprisingly, had remained undocumented. The longest stretch of the valley has been selected for our attempt, comprising the region between the mouths of the Balikh and Khabour rivers. Several surface surveys, archaeological expeditions, interventions by the Directorate General of Antiquities of the Republic of Syria, and the present author’s own involvement with the Syrian teams, have made available significant amounts of data, mostly unpublished, that will contribute to improving our general perception. Not only new and modern archaeological research works, but also new and valuable multidisciplinary information on paleogeography and geomorphology, paleobotany and zooarchaeology, as well as the use of current means for regional study, such as satellite imagery, accurate GPS location, Geo-radar survey, etc., have increased dating accuracy, providing a more exact relationship with the environment and the network of potential early communications. Checking these data against the written sources, the Mari archives in particular, but also new texts discovered over the past few decades, adds a degree of certitude to the historical reconstruction, although extensive excavations in many of the above-mentioned sites have still to be undertaken.

310

Summary and final conclusions Based on the catalogue of existing sites in the Euphrates Valley, we have tried here to describe the history of human occupation through the periods that stretch far back into the past. More sites there may well be, but probably 99% of the sites have been accounted for, e.g. cemeteries, rock shelters, workshops, hunting aids (petroforms) and temporary camps, attested from the origins of human presence until Classical times. After completing the catalogue, and analyzing the data from each site, we have here proceeded to put forward an overall reconstruction of the several periods of human culture in the region, facing unexpected problems that field experience alone allows, to classify and adjust to the most feasible solutions. If in the prehistoric phases, sensu stricto, ordering is less problematic, it is a very different matter for more clearly historic phases. As it has pointedly been said, the accurate classification and marking out of sites within their strict framework is a major problem. Indeed, when we descend a continuous stratigraphic sequence, from the later to the earlier records, we soon perceive the difficulty in connecting our categories with the reality of the materials found, and we see that Bronze Age traditions continue well into the Iron Age, for example, or that a proper Early Bronze horizon extends to quite later periods. How can it be delimited? How should we accurately order the occupation of the area? The clear separation of historic periods in order to characterize the process in a region is a major problem, especially when a high percentage of data derives from surface surveys. True, pottery is easier to classify than lithic artifacts, but the continued occupation of a region results in unexpected problems, such as the coexistence of characterizations that, according to the usual charts, should be successive. Another problem frequently faced is the apparent contradiction between the information provided by reliable written sources and the information offered by archaeological excavations, sometimes even between the nature of the former and the actual results from the latter. For historical purposes, written sources usually speak of the ruling classes, while archaeological remains usually refer to the lower groups of population, and even to non-urban groups, such as shepherds or hunters in rural areas. Sometimes, however, the contradiction between data of a different nature has a simpler explanation. In the surveyed area, the Middle Assyrian archives of Tell Sabi Abyad refer to the existence of a dunnu in Tuttul, but at least until now Tuttul has not offered us anything like it, not even significant material from the period. Obviously, the cause must lay with the progress of the site excavation, and will have an archaeological solution in the near future. Notwithstanding the difficulties referred to, and many others that at this point we may skip over, a reconstruction of the history and occupation of the territory in the area of study is hereby proposed. One of the keys used to ensure chronological and relational accuracy was to consider the environment in its own right and in its economic reality. This is the reason for believing that one of the contributions that deserves to be highlighted is that the ordering ‘rule’ relies on the consideration of settlement pattern and its relationship with the environment, i.e. on the actual possibilities of land exploitation, whether agricultural, as hunting grounds, or as a possible way of communication. Bearing in mind this premise, which greatly depends upon a direct knowledge of the landscape and geography of the region, the 68 cataloged sites might be distributed with a high probability both in time and space. We may thus conclude by summarizing the proposed reconstruction of the prehistory and ancient history of the Euphrates Valley between the Balikh and Khabour, together with the new results that the present research has offered. Occupation of the valley in the Palaeolithic This is well documented through 25 sites, that seem to have been organized in four groups, c. 40 km apart. Obviously, hunters favoured the right bank of the river, specifically the areas where game was abundant, among which the region of the Khanuqa Gorge must have been a popular one. From our present research, the relationship between the Euphrates and the region of Mt Bishri region can also be established. Based on the studied tools and remains, the Paleolithic occupation should be, from now on, considered as another link in the chain connecting the earlier African homo erectus grouping with those in other parts of Asia. 311

The Fertile Desert Pre-Pottery Neolithic and Pottery Neolithic Occupation of the valley during the Pre-Pottery and Pottery Neolithic is also well documented. For the Pre-Pottery Neolithic we offer evidence from seven new sites, and from other significant and well known examples, such as Tell Bouqras. Our research, however, provides interesting evidence, such as the link between the El Kowm area settlements, in the Syrian desert, and the sites on the Euphrates referred to, revealing a thus far unknown aspect of the regional interrelationship and the use of Mt Bishri region which would continue for several thousands of years. During the Pottery Neolithic, occupation of the valley seems to be scarcer, probably because irrigation was not fully controlled and dry farming was impossible. To the north and already outside of the survey area, Abu Hureya defines the period and trod out the routes, but in the surveyed region only two sites merit a mention: Tell Bouqras and one other. It is also possible that the apparent scarcity has more to do with the evolution of the Euphrates terraces and the preferred location of settlements at the time, since along our stretch the river conditions are slightly different to those in the area of Abu Hureya or Mureybet. Halaf The research offered interesting results for the Halaf period in the valley. It is well known that the Halaf was the first great unitary culture in the Jazira, and basically corresponded to a dry farming horizon. The populations seemed firmly settled along the riverbanks, enjoying the advantages that watercourses provide. The significant density of sites in the Balikh Valley and the area of the sources of the Khabour is an indication of the origins of the culture itself. However, the Halaf culture would also colonize the Euphrates; upstream of the surveyed region lies a reference site – Halula. Nevertheless, in the surveyed area only two sites merit a mention: Tell Zeidan, on the mouth of the Balikh, and another site well into the southern steppe. In my opinion this indicates that the Halaf culture remained stable in a region that was its own, with neither the need nor desire to leave such areas where rainfall was sufficient, or where, in times of drought, the permanent river could be relied upon. Ubaid The situation seems to change somewhat during the Ubaid period: the distances between the three catalogued sites seems logical if we take into account the origin of the culture itself. The sites are c. 50 km apart, and, although both riverbanks are used, unlike the Paleolithic and Neolithic settlers the Ubaid colonizers seem to have favoured the left bank of the river. It is noteworthy that one of the sites is at Tell Zeidan, already occupied during the previous phase. We witness now the gradual adaptation of the Ubaid, while keeping an interest horizon fixed on the previous period, e.g. the role of obsidian and its route. This constant would have consequences in terms of road usage, and preferences that will extend during the 1st Urbanization and fully historical periods. With this present research, the link between both the Southern and Northern Ubaid is clearly documented in terms of both enclaves and routes. 1st Urbanization/Uruk Period in the Euphrates Valley With seven sites documented and dated, but mostly unpublished, the occupation and communication routes of the 1st Urbanization/Uruk period in the Euphrates valley represents one of the most interesting horizons revealed by our research. The surprising findings at Habuba Kabira and Jebel Aruda, in the late 1960s and early 1970s, brought a new way of perception and general imaging of the Uruk period and 1st Urbanization culture. The discovery of colonies connected with their environment, and linked to mother-towns in Mesopotamia, indicated that the Euphrates Valley ought to have always been an ‘open way’, both on land and water. The remote isolation of those colonies, and of those later discovered upstream from Raqqa, seemed to make no sense. Through 312

Summary and final conclusions joint interventions and surveying, we have been able to document the above-mentioned seven, considerably sized sites of this period: five on the left bank and two on the right (and, again, only a few are published). The distances between these sites can perhaps be put down to strategic reasons, with the Khanuqa Gorge acting as a middle point. Of greater interest, in our opinion, is the proposed correction of the route outlined by G. Algaze. My own proposal reveals the installation of Uruk colonies and stages along this stretch of the river, while confirming at the same time the existence of land routes with a modified course which probably supplemented the river route, along which most of the movements of goods and people took place. Early Bronze Age For the Early Bronze Age, my conclusions appear striking, with land occupation recording a veritable explosion of activity: 30 documented sites, on both riverbanks, although all or most of them are concentrated in the area between the Khanuqa Gorge and the mouth of the Balikh. The density of occupation was such that there is a site documented almost every 2.5 km. On the other hand, between the Khanuqa Gorge and the Khabour there is barely a site. The materials and nature of these sites suggest the existence of three large enclaves: Tell Bi’a (1), Tell Hamadin (16), and Tell Ghanem al-Ali (25). It seems clear that they acted as ‘hubs’, around which most of the remaining sites were organized. Should this be the case, although the archaeological excavations have yet to be extended, it would suggest that population dispersion followed an established pattern. Whether this pattern is to be explained by the political units of the valley itself, or from the Trans-Euphrates, or Cis-Euphrates Syria, or whether it was a factor of the valley’s control by Southern powers (often so expressive on their conquests and presence in Syria), will only be revealed over time. In any event, what is striking about our results is that, for the first time, with an accurate archaeological chart, the continuity and conclusiveness of the valley occupation during the 3rd millennium BC has been evidenced. Middle Bronze Age A similar conclusion can be drawn regarding the history of this stretch of the Euphrates Valley during the Middle Bronze Age. Our research has documented 16 sites, most of them unpublished, while some others have been partially of more fully excavated. The period corresponds to the Mari era of Amorite impetus, the first Assyrian integration, and the temporary presence of Babylon. Since written sources are both numerous and significant, it might be thought that our current research had very little to add, but this has not been the case. The dispersion of catalogued sites, especially in three areas – the mouths of the Balikh and Khabour rivers and the Khanuqa Gorge – must follow criteria relating to land control and political horizons. On the other hand, the excavations and surveys have for the first time charted the Mt Bishri region on the map of the actual historical process, accurately documenting the nature of its relationship with the lives of nomadic groups in the period, groups with such relevance at the time and in the region, that the concept of a ‘dimorphic state’ can be introduced Late Bronze Age The situation of the valley in the Late Bronze Age is entirely different, and only two sites can be securely dated to this period, one of which is still unpublished – Tell Hamadin (16). Situated some tens of kilometers from each other, both sites are located upstream from the Khanuqa Gorge. Tell Qabr Abu al-Atiq (36), excavated by a joint Syrian-Spanish expedition, has proved to belong to the Middle Assyrian administration at some point in time. But, since Assyrian presence is particularly strong on both the Khabour and the Balikh (Tuttul), it might be thought that the concentration of sites downstream from the gorge had no longer to do with their integration in the immediately preceding phase; Mitanni, and the Assyrian presence, would just be a continuation of the former. On the contrary, the apparent depopulation of the valley downstream from Khanuqa to the southern 313

The Fertile Desert limit of the surveyed area might be connected to a new hypothesis we propose, i.e. that Karduniaš did not occupy wide territories in central Mesopotamia, an area for a long time disregarded by the great powers as a buffer zone, or a march separating both powers. Iron Age – Neo-Assyrian Period During the Iron Age, and in particular during the Neo-Assyrian Period, the Euphrates Valley between the Balikh and the Khabour presents a picture of scattered occupation, around three settlement centres. The number of settlements is undeniably scarce, with only six being documented in this present research. It is still symptomatic that most sites are on the left bank and organized around three areas: the mouths of the Balikh and Khabour, and the Khanuqa Gorge. Since we know that the Jazira and the course of these rivers were, during the Assyrian Empire, part of a national territory densely occupied, the location of these sites does not lack, in our opinion, some logic in the way it faces to the north, rather than to the Euphrates line, with the sole exception represented by the Khanuqa Gorge itself, a cul-de-sac for caravan routes crossing the Syrian desert, and where even echoes of the caravan traffic from Southern Arabia reached. Babylonian and Achaemenid Empires Lastly, for the period after the Assyrian control, either during the Babylonian Empire or during the longer Achaemenid Empire, no site has so far been documented. This does not mean that there were no settlements: some occupation, even if scattered, must have existed, although it is highly probable that this occupation was reduced to some of the sites from the previous phase, where continuity of the pottery horizon may have hidden this fact during surface survey. As in many other instances, only archaeological excavation may corroborate this hypothesis. By way of concluding, what this research has proved, however, is that the Euphrates valley, in the stretch between the Balikh and the Khabour, has continuously been occupied from the origins of mankind until at least the end of the period here considered. This evidence was achieved through documenting 68 sites, most of them still unpublished. It has also been shown that the occupation of the territory throughout the Paleolithic, Neolithic, Halaf and Ubaid, Uruk, and into the third, second, and first millennia BC, has preferences partly linked to the nature of the relevant cultures and their corresponding backgrounds, and from where the driving forces originated and to where they are directed. It has furthermore been shown that the communication routes not always followed the same bank, that there were fords, unknown until now, that forced changes in the routes, perhaps linked to the political horizon or to the particular needs of historical moments. Whatever the story, I believe this research represents evidence for the first time that this stretch of the Euphrates Valley is a complete ‘historical space’, and one that will require much deeper investigation in the future.

314

Consolidated References Adams, R. 1981. Heartland of Cities: Surveys of Ancient Settlements and Land Use on the Central Floodplain of the Euphrates. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Akkermans, P. et al. 1983. Bouqras revisited: preliminary report on a project in eastern Syria. Proceedings of the Prehistoric Society 49 (1): 335–372. Akkermans, P. 1989. The Neolithic of the Balikh Valley, Northern Syria: A First Assessment. Paléorient 15(1): 122–134. Akkermans, P. 1999. Pre-Pottery Neolithic B Settlement Patterns along the Balih and Euphrates Fact or Fiction?, in G. del Olmo Lete and J.-L. Montero Fenollós (eds) Archaeology of the Upper Syrian Euphrates, the Tishrin Dam Area. Proceedings of the International Symposium held at Barcelona: 523– 533. Barcelona: Editorial Austa. Akkermans, P. 2004. Hunter-Gatherer Continuity: The Transition from the Epipalaeolithic to the Neolithic in Syria, in O. Aurenche, M. Le Miére and P. Sanlaville (eds) From the River to the Sea: the Paleolithic and the Neolithic on the Euphrates and in the Northern Levant: Studies in Honour of Lorraine Copeland: 281–293. British Archaeological Reports International Series 1263. Oxford: Archaeopress. Akkermans, P. and Schwartz, G. 2003. The Archaeology of Syria from Complex Hunter-Gatherers to Early Urban Societies (c. 16,000–300 B.C). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Akkermans, P and Wiggermann, F. 2015. West of Aššur: The Life and Times of the Middle Assyrian Dunnu at Tell Sabi Abyad, Syria, in B.S. Düring (ed.) Understanding Hegemonic Practices of the Early Assyrian Empire: 89–125. Leiden: Nederlands Instituut voor het Nabije Oosten. Akkermans, P., Boerma, J., Clason, A., Hill, S., Lohof, E., Meiklejohn, C., le Mière, M., Molgat, G., Roodenberg, J. Waterbolk-van Rooyen, W. and van Zeist, W. 1983. Bouqras revisited: preliminary report on a project in eastern Syria. Proceedings of the Prehistoric Society 49(1): 335–372. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Akkermans, P., Cappers, R., Cavallo, Ch., Nieuwenhuyse, O., Nilhamn, B. and Otte, I. 2006. Investigating the Early Pottery Neolithic of Northern Syria: New Evidence from Tell Sabi Abyad. American Journal of Archaeology 110(1): 123–156. Akkermans, P., Fokkens, H. and Waterbolk, H.T. 1981. Stratigraphy, architecture and lay-out of Bouqras, in J. Cauvin and P. Sanlaville (eds) Préhistoire du Levant: 485–501. Colloques Internationaux de Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique 598. Paris: CNRS. Alachkar, S. and Showhan, Y. 2019. Découverte d’une tombe du Bronze ancien à Tell Qsubi (MoyenEuphrate, Syrie), Syria 96: 273–292. Algaze, G. 2005. The Uruk World System. The Dynamics of Expansion of Early Mesopotamian Civilization (2nd edn). Chigago: University of Chicago Press. Al Khabour, A. 2012. El Proyecto Arqueológico sirio-japonés en la región del Bishri (Siria, Raqqa), in Del Cerro et al. (eds) Ideología, identidades e interacción en el Mundo Antiguo: 259–266. Madrid: Universidad Autónoma de Madrid. Al Khabour, A. 2013. Histoire de l’occupation de la vallée de l’Euphrate entre Balikh et Khabour jusqu’à la conquête d’Alexandre, in J.-L. Montero Fenollos (ed) Bibliotheca Euphratica, Vol I: 163– 175. Coruña: Universidade da Coruña. Al Khabour, A. 2016. Tell Zeidan, in Y. Kanjou and A. Tsuneki (eds) A History of Syria in One Hundred Sites: 88-90. Oxford: Archaeopress. Al Khabour, A. 2017. Urbanism, material culture and soil occupation during the Middle Bronze Age in the Middle Euphrates Valley. Al-Rāfidān: Journal of Western Asiatic Studies 38: 79–89. Tokyo: Kokushikan University. Al Khabour, A. 2018. Burials and funerary practices along the Middle Euphrates Valley during the Early Bronze Age. Isimu: Soundings on the Archaeology and the History of the Near East 20: 161–191. Madrid: Universidad Autónoma de Madrid. Al- Maqdissi, M. 2010. Matériel pour l’étude de la ville ancienne en Syrie. Al-Rāfidān: Journal of Western Asiatic Studies, Special Issue: 131–145. Tokyo: Kokushikan University. Al Maqdissi, M. 2011. Report of the Directorate General of Antiquities and Museums at Qleb al Hemma (in Arabic). Unpublished. Anastasio, S. et al. 2004: Atlas of Preclassical Upper Mesopotamia. Turnhout: Brepols. 315

The Fertile Desert Anbar, M. 1991. Les tribus amurrites de Mari. Orbis Biblicus et Orientalis 108. Freiburg/Göttingen: Universitätsverlag/Vandenhoeck Ruprecht. Arsuaga, J.-L., Martínez, I., Gracia, A. and Lorenzo, C. 1997. The Sima de los Huesos crania (Sierrade Atapuerca, Spain). A comparative study. Journal of Human Evolution 33(2-3): 219 –281. Asouti, E. 2006. Beyond the Pre-Pottery Neolithic B interaction sphere. Journal of World Prehistory 20: 87–126. Aurenche, O., Le Miére, M. and Sanlaville, P. 2004. From the River to the Sea: the Paleolithic and the Neolithic on the Euphrates and in the Northern Levant: Studies in Honour of Lorraine Copeland. British Archaeological Reports International Series 1263. Oxford: Archaeopress. Balbi, G. 1590 (2009). Viaggio dell’Indie orientali, digitized by the University Autonoma, Madrid. Banzo, B. 2005. Orígenes, emergencia i desenvelopament de la cerámica halaf a siria. Unpublished PhD dissertation, University of Barcelona. Becker, J. 2011. Frühe Siedler am Tell Halaf. Zur Bedeutung der Halaf-Kultur, in N. Cholidis and L. Martin (eds) Die geretteten Götter aus dem Palast vom Tell Halaf. Begleitbuch zur Sonderausstellung des Vorderasiatischen Museums, “Die geretteten Götter aus dem Palast vom Tell Halaf”, vom 28.1. – 14.8.2011 im Pergamonmuseum: 345–351. Regensburg: Schnell & Steiner. Bell, G. 2014 (1924). Amurath to Amurath. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Besançon, J. and Sanlaville, P. 1981. Aperçu géomorphologique sur la vallée de l’Euphrate Syrien. Paléorient 7(2): 5–18. Boerma, J.A.K. 1979. Soils and natural environment of the tell Bouqras area (east Syria). Anatolica 7: 61–74. Bonacossi Morandi, D. and Bunnens, G. 2000: The Syrian Jezireh in the late Assyrian period. A view from the countryside. in Essays on Syria in the Iron Age. Ancient Near Eastern Studies, Supplement 7: 349–396. Leuven: Peeters. Borrel, A. 2010. Characterizing flint outcrops in secondary position, in H. Alarashi et al. (eds) Regards croisés sur l’étude archéologique des paysages anciens. Nouvelles recherches dans le Bassin méditerranéen, en Asie centrale et au Proche et au Moyen-Orient: 117–128. Lyon: Maison de l’Orient et de la Méditerranée. Bösze, I. 2009. Analysis of the Early Bronze Age Graves in Tell Bi`a (Syria). British Archaeological Reports International Series 1995. Oxford: Archaeopress. Bucellati, G. 1966. The Amorites of the Ur III Period. Naples: Instituto Orientale di Napoli. Buccellati, G. 1990. Salt at the Dawn of History: The Case of the Bevelled-Rim Bowls, in P. Matthiae, M. Van Loon and J. Weiss (eds) Resurrecting the Past: A Joint Tribute to Adnan Bounni: 17–40. Istanbul: Nederlands Historisch-Archeologisth Instituut. Butterlin, P. 2003. Les temps proto-urbains de Mésopotamie: contacts et acculturation à l’époque d’Uruk au Moyen-Orient. Paris: CNRS Editions. Caramelo, F. and Montero-Fenollós, J.-L. (eds) 2009. IIe rencontre syro-franco-ibérique d’archéologie et d’histoire ancienne du Proche-Orient. La basse et moyenne vallée de l’Euphrate syrien : zone de frontière et d’échanges. Estudos Orientais X: 53–79. Cauvin, M.-C. 1991. Du Natoufien au Levant Nord? Jayroud et Mureybet (Syrie), in O. Bar-Yosef and F.R. Valla (eds), Natufian Culture in the Levant: 295–314. International Monographs in Prehistory. Charlottesville: University of Virginia. Cauvin, M.-C., Pernicka, E. and Keller, J.1997. Obsidian from Anatolian sources in the Neolithic of the Middle Euphrates region (Syria). Paléorient 23(1): 113–122. Chapot, V. 1907. La frontière de l’Euphrate, de Pompée à la conquête arabe. Paris: A. Fontemoing. Charpin, D. 2004. Nomades et sédentaires dans l’armée de Mari du temps de Yahdun-Lîm, compte-rendu de la XLVIe Rencontre assyriologique internationale (Paris, 10–13 juillet 2000). Paris: Éditions Recherche sur les Civilisations. Charpin, D. and Durand J.-M. 1986. Fils de Sim’al: Les origines tribales des rois de Mari. Revue d’Assyriologie 80(2): 141–183. Chesney, F.R. 1868. Narrative of the Euphrates Expedition. Carried on by Order of the British Government during the years 1835, 1836, and 1837. London: Longman, Green, and Co. Cooper, L. 2006. Early Urbanism on the Syrian Euphrates. London: Routledge. Copeland, L. 1979. Observations on the prehistory of the Balikh Valley, Syria, during the 7th to 4th millennia B.C. Paléorient 5: 251–275.

316

Consolidated References Córdoba, J. 1988. Prospección en el valle del río Balih (Siria). Informe provisional. Aula Orientalis 6: 149–188. Córdoba, J. 2006. Campesinos e imperios en una región ignorada: prospecciones y sondeos en el valle del Balih (Siria), in J.Mª. Córdoba and M.C. Pérez Díe (eds) La arqueología española en Oriente: 51–54. Madrid: Ministerio de Cultura. D’Agostino, A. 2009. The Assyrian-Aramaean interaction in the Upper Khabour: The archaeological evidence from Tell Barri Iron Age levels. Syria. Archéologie, art et histoire 86: 17–41. Davidson, T. 1977. Regional Variation Within the Halaf Ceramic Tradition. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press. Del Cerro Linares, C. 2006. Cuenco mesopotámico de cerámica (Eridu, Iraq). Madris: Museo Arqueológico Nacional. De Martino, S. 200. Il regno horita di Mitanni: profile storico politico. La parola passato 55: 68–102. Demir, T., Westaway, R., Bridgland, D. and Seyrek, A. 2007. Global correlation of Late Cenozoic fluvial deposits: IGCP Project No. 449. Quaternary Science Reviews 26(22–24): 2693–3016. Dossin, G. 1995. L’inscription de fondation de Iahdun-Lim, roi de Mari. Syria 32: 1–28. Duistermaat, K. 2008. The pots and potters of Assyria. Technology and organisation of production, ceramic sequence and vessel function at Late Bronze Age Tell sabi Abyad, Syria. Leiden: Brepols. Durand, J.-M. 2004. Peuplement et societes a l’epoque amorrite (I): les clans bensim’alites, in C. Nicolle (ed.) Amurru 3: nomades et sedentaires dans le Proche-Orient ancien: 89–111. Paris: Éditions Recherche sur les civilisations. Durand, J.-M. 1010. Šēh Hamad / Dūr-Katlimmu Dur Katlimu, How and Why?, in H. Kohne (ed.) DūrKatlimmu 2008 and beyond: 49–66. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz. Durand, J.-M., Nicolle, Ch. and Marti, L. 2005. Le culte des Pierres et les monuments commémoratifs en Syrie amorrite. Florilégium marianum VII. Paris: Société pour l’étude du Proche-Orient ancien. Frankfort, H. 1932. Archeology and the Sumerian Problem, in Studies in Ancient Oriental Civilization 4. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Fuji, S. 2008. The General Survey of Pre-Islamic Cairns in the Northern Flank of Jabal Bishri. AlRāfidān: Journal of Western Asiatic Studies 29: 61–77. Tokyo: Kokushikan University. Fuji, S. 2009. A brief sounding at Rujum Hedaja 1. Al-Rāfidān: Journal of Western Asiatic Studies 30: 138–165. Tokyo: Kokushikan University. Fuji, S. and Adachi, T. 2010. Archaeological investigations of Bronze Age cairn fields on the Northwestern flank of Mt. Bishri. Al-Rāfidān: Journal of Western Asiatic Studies: 61–77. Tokyo: Kokushikan University. Fuji, S., Adachi, T. and Suzuki, K. 2009. The Second Field Season at Rujum Hedaja 1. Al-Rāfidān: Journal of Western Asiatic Studies 30: 180–187. Tokyo: Kokushikan University. Fuji, S., Adachi, T., Endo, H., Nagaya, K. and Suzuki, K. 2010a. Archaeological Investigation at the Tor Rahum Cairn Fields on the Northwestern Flank of Mt. Bishri. Al-Rāfidān: Journal of Western Asiatic Studies 31: 101–107. Tokyo: Kokushikan University. Fuji, S., Adachi, T., Endo, H., Nagaya, K., Suzuki, K. and Inoue, K. 2010b. Archaeological Survey and Sounding of Bronze Age Cairn Fields on the Northwestern Flank of Jabal Bishri. Al-Rāfidān: Journal of Western Asiatic Studies 31: 163–168. Tokyo: Kokushikan University. Fuji, S., Adachi, T., Akashi, Ch. and Suzuki, K. 2011. Wadi al-Hajana 1: A Preliminary Report of 2010 Excavation Season. Al-Rāfidān: Journal of Western Asiatic Studies 32: 134–145. Tokyo: Kokushikan University. Fuji, S., Adachi, T., and Yamafuji, M. 2013. Farkat Bidewy 1 and 2: Archaeological Investigation around Bir Rahum, 2011 (Spring). Al-Rāfidān: Journal of Western Asiatic Studies 33: 1–12. Tokyo: Kokushikan University. Gaborit, J. 2008. La géographie historique du Moyen-Euphrate de la conquête d’Alexandre à l’Islam. PhD dissertation, Université de Paris I-Sorbonne. Geyer, B. and Monchambert, J-Y. 2003. La Basse vallee de l’Euphrate Syrien, du Neolithique a l’avenement de l’Islam : geographie, archeologie et histoire (2 vols). Mission Archéologique de Mari VI/BAH 166. Beyrouth: Institut Français du Proche-Orient. Goto, T. and Hasogawa, H. 2007. Investigation of the Tell used by Soviet Military Map. Unpublished. Grayson, A.K. 1972. Assyrian Royal Inscriptions I: From the Beginnings to Ashur-resha-ishi I. Records of the Ancient Near East. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz. Harrak, A. 1987. Assyria and Hanigalbat: A historical reconstruction of bilateral relations from the middle of the fourteenth to the end of the twelfth centuries B.C. Hildesheim: Georg Olms Verlag. 317

The Fertile Desert Hasegawa, A. 2010. Sondage at the site of Tell Ghanem al-Ali Al-Rāfidān: Journal of Western Asiatic Studies, Special Issue: 25–36. Tokyo: Kokushikan University. Hasegawa, A. 2011. Sondage in Squares 7 and 8 of Tell Ghanem al-Ali. Al-Rāfidān: Journal of Western Asiatic Studies 32: 158–163. Tokyo: Kokushikan University. Hérault, Ch. 1922. Une mission de reconnaissance de l’Euphrate en 1922: 85, carte XXXIII. Damascus. Hijara, I. 1980. The Halaf Period in northern Mesopotamia. Unpublished PhD dissertation, University of London, Institute of Archaeology Ibáñez, J.-J. 2009. El origen del Neolítico. Investigacion y Ciencia : Edición española de Scientific America (Barcelona) 398 (Nov.): 72–79. Jagher, R., Le Tensorer, J.-M., Morel, P., Muhesen, J., Renault-Miskovsky, J., Rentzel, P. Schmid, P. 1997. Découvertes de restes humains dans les niveaux acheuléens de Nadaouiyeh Aïn Askar (El Kowm, Syrie Centrale). Paléorient 23(1): 87–93. Kepinski, Ch. and Tenu, A. 2009. Avant-propos. Interaction entre Assyriens et Araméens. Syria. Archéologie, art et histoire 86: 7–15. Khalil, I. and Sultan, A. 2010. Sondage in Square 101 of Tell Ghanem al-Ali. Al-Rāfidān: Journal of Western Asiatic Studies 31: 176–177. Tokyo: Kokushikan University. Kiuchi, T. 2008. Trench excavation in Square 2 of Tell Ghanem al-Ali. Al-Rāfidān: Journal of Western Asiatic Studies 29: 178–181. Tokyo: Kokushikan University. Klengel, H. 2000. The crisis years and the new political system in Early Iron Age Syria, some introductory remarks, in G. Bunnens (ed.) Ancient Near Eastern Studies, Supplement 7: 21–30. Leuven: Peeters. Kohlmeyer, K. 1984. Euphrat-Survey. Die mit Mitteln der Gerda Henkel Stiftung durchgeführte archäologische Geländebegehung im Syrischen Euphrattal. Mitteilungen der Deutschen OrientGesellschaft 116: 95–118. Kohlmeyer, K. 1986. Euphrat-Survey 1984. Zweiter Vorbericht über die mit Mitteln der Gerda Henkel Stiftung durchgeführte archäologische Geländebegehung im syrischen Euphrattal. Mitteilungen der Deutschen Orient-Gesellschaft 118: 51–65. Krebernik, M. and Strommenger, E. 1998. 1980–1995: Tuttul (Tell Bi’a), Ausgrabungen in der Stadt des Gottes Dagan, in G. Wilhelm (ed.) Zwischen Tigris und Nil: 126–137. Mainz: Von Zabern. Kühne, H. 2009. Interaction of Aramaean and Assyrians on the Lower Khabour. Syria. Archéologie, art et histoire 86: 43–54. Kume, S., Sultan, A., Ono, I. and Akashi, Ch. 2011. Sondage at Early Bronze Age Cemetery near Tell Ghanem al-Ali. Al-Rāfidān: Journal of Western Asiatic Studies 32: 163–170. Tokyo: Kokushikan University. Kupper, J.-R. 1957. Les nomads en Mésopotamie au temps des rois de Mari. Bibliothèque de la Faculté de philosophie et lettres de l’Université de Liège. Fascicule CXLII. Paris: Les Belles Lettres. Larsen, M.T. 1979. The tradition of Empire in Mesopotamia, in M.T. Larsen (ed) Power and Propaganda: A Symposium of Ancient Empires: 75–103. Copenhagen: University of Copenhagen. Lauffray, J. 1983. Halabiyya-Zenobia, place forte du limes oriental et la Haute-Mésopotamie au VIe siècle. Paris: Geuthner. Le Tensorer J.-M. et al. 2007a. Raport scientifique intermédiaire 2006-2007. Le Paleolithique d’El Kowm (Syrie). Résultats de la campagne 2006. Basel: University of Basle. Le Tensorer, J.-M., Jagher, R., Rentzel, P., Hauck, T., Ismail-Meyer, K., Pümpin, C. and Wojtczak, D. 2007b. Long-term site formation processes at the natural springs Nadaouiyeh and Hummal in the Kowm Oasis, Central Syria. Geoarchaeology 22(6): 621–640. Liverani, M. 1986. L’origine de la città. Roma: Editori Riuniti. Liverani, M. 1987. The collapse of the Near Eastern Regional System at the End of the Bronze Age: The Case of Syria, in M. Rowlands (ed) Centre and Periphery in the Ancient World: 66–73. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Liverani, M. (ed.) 1995. Neo-Assyrian Geography. Quaderni di geografia storica 5. Roma: Università di Roma La Sapienza. Liverani, M. 1998. Le Lettere di el-Amarna, Volume (1) Le lettere dei ‘Piccoli Re’. Turin: Paideia Editrice. Liverani, M. 2017. Uruk la prima città. Roma: Editori Laterza. Lonnqvist, M., Tora, M., Lonnqvist, K. and Nuñez, M. 2011. Jebel Bishri Focus: remote sensing, archaeological surveying, mapping and GIS studies of Jebel Bishri in central Syria by the Finnish project SYGIS. British Archaeological Reports International Series 2230. Oxford: Archaeopress.

318

Consolidated References Margueron, J.-C. 1980. Le Moyen Euphrate : zone de contacts et d’échanges : actes du colloque de Strasbourg, 10–12 mars 1977. Leiden: E.J. Brill. Margueron, J. 1999. L’Éuphrate: force structurante de la Syrie intérieure, in G. del Olmo and J.-L. Montero Fenollós (eds) Archaeology of the Upper Syrian Euphrates: 481–496. Barcelona: University of Barcelona. Margueron, J.-Cl. 2004. Mari, métropole de l’Euphrate au IIIe et au début du IIe millénaire av. J.C. Paris: Picard. Márquez, I. 2008. Las inscripciones funerarias y los símbolos cristianos, in J.-L. Montero and Sh. Al-Shbib (eds) La necrópolis bizantina de Tall as-Sin (Deir ez-Zor, Siria). Memorias del Proyecto Arqueológico Medio Éufrates Sirio I, 12. Madrid: University of Madrid. Masetti-Rouault, M.-G. 2009. Cultures in contact in the Syrian Lower Middle Euphrates Valley: Aspects of the local cults in the Iron Age II. Syria. Archéologie, art et histoire 86: 141–147. Meyer, J.-W. 1991. Ausgrabungen in Šameseddin und Djerniye. Gräber des 3. Jahrtausends im Syrischen Euphrattal 3. Schriften zur Vorderasiatischen Archäologie 3. Meyer, J.-W. 2010. The cemetery of Abu Hamad: a burial place of pastoral groups. Al-Rafidan 2010, Formation of tribal communities: integrated research in the Middle Euphrates, Syria: 155–163. Tokyo: Kokushikan University. Meyer, J.-W. 2010. Tribal community and state: the change of settlement patterns in Upper Mesopotamia during the 3rd millennium B.C., a re-evaluation. Al-Rāfidān: Journal of Western Asiatic Studies, Special Issue: 203–211. Tokyo: Kokushikan University. Meyer, J.-W. and Al-Khalaf, M. 1993. Ausgabungen in Abu Hamad 1990. Archiv für Orientforschung 40/41: 196–200. Vienna: Institut für Orientalistik. Meyer, J.-W., Falb, Chr., Kransik. K. and Vila. E. 2005. Der Friedhof von Abu Hamad. Gräber des 3. Jahrtausends v. Chr. Schriften zur Vorderasiatischen Archäologie 8. Meyer, J.-W., Falb, Chr. Kransik. K. and Vila. E. 2005. Der Friedhof von Abu Hamad. Gräber des 3. Jahrtausends v. Chr. Schriften zur Vorderasiatischen Archäologie 8. Miglus, P.A. and Strommenger, E. 2002. Ausgrabungen in Tall Bīʻa / Tuttul VIII. Stadtbefestigungen, Häuser und Tempel. WVDOG 103. Saarbrücken: Saarbrückener Druckerei und Verlag. Molist, M. 1996. Tell Halula, in Syrian European Archaeology Exhibición: 41–46. Damascus: Editións d’Institut Français d’Études Arabes de Damas. Montero Fenollés, J.-L. 2006. El Proyecto Arqueológico Medio Éufrates Sirio. Una iniciativa para el estudio de las civilizaciones del Oriente antiguo. De culturas, lenguas y tradiciones. II simposio de estudios humanísticos 2. Coruña: Universidade da Coruña. Montero, J.-L. 2009. Nouvelles recherches archéologiques Dans la région du verrou basaltique de Halabiyé (Moyen-Euphrate syrien). Estudos orientais 10: 123–145. Montero Fenollés, J.-L. 2011. Le site urukéen de Tell Humeida au Moyen Euphrate syrien. Premières recherches archéologiques. Res antiquitatis 2: 205–216. Montero Fenollés, J.-L. 2014. De Uruk a Mari. Innovaciones tecnológicas de la Primera Revolución Urbana en el Medio Éufrates meridional. Anejos de Nailos: Estudios interdisciplinares de arqueología 1: 139–155. Montero, J.-L. 2015. Asirios en el medio Éufrates: la cerámica medio asiria de Tell Qabr Abu a-atiq en su contexto histórico- arqueológico. Cuadernos Mesopotámicos 5: 1–141. Montero Fenollés, J.-L. 2016. Le défilé de Khanuqa: Geografie e histoire au Moyen Euphrate meridional. ISIMU, Soundings on the Archaeology and the History of the Near East 13: 125–136. Montero, J.-L. and Al-Shbib, Sh. 2008. La necrópolis bizantina de Tall As-Sin (Deir ez-Zor, Siria). Biblioteca Del Próximo Oriente Antiguo 4. Marid: Consejo Superior de Investigaciones Científicas. Montero Fenolles, J.-L. and Al-Shbib, Sh. 2016. Tell Qabr Abu al-Atiq (deir ez-Zor), in Y. Kanjou and A. Tsuneki (eds) A History of Syria in One Hundred Sites: 250–252. Oxford: Archaeopress. Montero, J-L. and Márquez, I. 2008. Tall as-Sin en la historiografía moderna, in J.-L. Montero and Sh. Al-Shbib (eds): La necrópolis bizantina de Tall as-Sin (Deir ez-Zor, Siria). Memorias del Proyecto Arqueológico Medio Éufrates Sirio I, 17. Madrid: University of Madrid. Montero Fenollés, J.-L. and Vidal, J. 2009. The Fortification System in Tell Abu Fahd (Syrian Euphrates Valley). Aula Orientales Supplementa 23: 203–216. Montero, J.-L., Al-Shbib, Sh., Márquez, I. and Caramelo, F. 2009. IV campaña del Proyecto Arqueológico Medio Éufrates Sirio. Sondeos en Tall Qabr Abu al-‘Atiq: de los orígenes de la ciudad al período Asirio Medio, in Excavaciones en el exterior: 191–199. Madrid: Ministerio de Cultura.

319

The Fertile Desert Montero, J.-L., al-Shbib, Sh., Márquez Rowe, I. and Caramelo, F. 2010. Tell Qubr Abu al- ‘Atiq: From an Early Dynastic City to a Middle Assyrian Fort. Fifth Season Report of the Proyecto Arqueológico Medio Éufrates Sirio (2009). Aula Orientalis 28: 73–84. Montero, J.-L., Al-Shbib, Sh., Marquez, I. and Caramelo, F. 2011. Excavation in Tell Qabr Abu al-Atiq: from the early city to the Middle Assyrian settlement. Annales Archéologiques Arabes Syriennes 53– 54: 169–177. Montero Fenollés, J.-L., Caramelo, F., Marquez, I., and Al-Abdallah, Y. 2012. Excavaciones arqueológicas en Tell Humeida (Siria): De la colonización de Uruk al Imperio Bizantino. Informes y Trabajos, N2, 2012, Excavaciones en el exterior 2010: 309–315. Montero, J.-L., Márquez, I. and Caramelo, F. 2011. V campaña del Proyecto Arqueológico Medio Éufrates Sirio. Investigaciones en Tall Qabr Abu al-‘Atiq y Tell Ma’adan. Excavaciones en el exterior: 268–277. Madrid: Ministerio de Cultura. Montero, J.-L., Marquez, I., Caramelo, F. and Al-Abdallah, Y. 2011. Tell Qubr Abu al-‘Atiq: A Middle Assyrian Fort in the Gorge of Khanuqa: 6th Season Report of the Proyecto Arqueologico Medio Eufrates Sirio (2010). Aula Orientalis 29: 267–278. Montero, J-L., Marquez, I., Caramelo, F. and Al-Sabib, Sh. 2006. Report of the archaeological excavation season 2006. (Unpublished report). Montero, J.-L., Marquez, I., Caramelo, F. and Vidal, J. 2006. O projecto arqueológico «Médio Eufrates Sírio»: resultados provisórios da primeira campanha. Revista Portuguesa de Arqueologia 9(2): 109– 126. Moritz, B. 2012 (1889). Zur antiken Topographie der Palmyrene. Berlin: De Gruyter. Morris, I. 1987. Burial and Ancient Society: The Rise of the Greek City-State. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Muhesen, S. 2002. The Earliest Paleolithic Occupation in Syria, in T. Akazawa, K. Aoki and O. BarYosef (eds) Neandertals and Modern Humans in Western Asia: 95–105. New York: Kluwer. Nakamura, T., Hoshino, M., Tanaka, T., Yoshida, H., Saito, T., Tsukada, K., . . . Maqdissi, M. 2010. Early Bronze Age Strata at Tell Ghanem Al-Ali Along the Middle Euphrates in Syria: A Preliminary Report of 14C Dating Results. Radiocarbon 52(2): 383–392. Negishi, Y. 2008. Trench excavation in Square 3-5 of Tell Ghanem al-Ali. Al-Rāfidān: Journal of Western Asiatic Studies 29: 181–183. Tokyo: Kokushikan University. Nishiaki, Y. 2008. Prehistoric survey at the northern edge of Jebel Bishri, Raqqa, in K. Ohnuma and A. Al Khabour (eds) Preliminary reports of the Syria-Japan archaeological joint research in the region of Ar-Raqqa, Syria, 2007. Archaeological research in the Bishri region. Report of the third working season: 151–152. Tokyo: Kokushikan University. Nishiaki, Y. 2010. Archaeological evidence of the Early Bronze Age communities in the Middle Euphrates steppe, North Syria. Al-Rāfidān: Journal of Western Asiatic Studies, Special Issue: 37–48. Tokyo: Kokushikan University. Nishiaki, Y. and Matsutani, T. (eds) 2003. Tell Kosak Shamali: The archaeological investigations on the Upper Euphrates, Syria. Vol. 2. Chalcolithic technology and subsistence. Paléorient 29(2): 157–158. Nishiaki, Y., Abbe, M., Kadowaki, S., Kume. S. and Nakata, H. 2010. Archaeological survey around Tell Ghanem al-Ali. Al-Rāfidān: Journal of Western Asiatic Studies 31: 100–124. Tokyo: Kokushikan University. Nishiaki, Y., Kadowaki, S. and Kume, S. 2009. Archaeological survey around Tell Ghanem al-Ali. AlRāfidān: Journal of Western Asiatic Studies 30: 138–165. Tokyo: Kokushikan University. Nishiaki, Y., Kadowaki, S., Nakata, H., Shimogama, K. and Hayakawa, Y. 2011. Archaeological Survey around Tell Ghanem al-Ali (IV). Al-Rāfidān: Journal of Western Asiatic Studies 32: 125–133. Tokyo: Kokushikan University. Nishiaki, Y., Sultan, A., Kadowaki, S., Kume. S. and Shimogama, K. 2012. Archaeological survey around Tell Ghanem al-Ali (V). Al-Rāfidān: Journal of Western Asiatic Studies 33: 1–6. Tokyo: Kokushikan University. Numoto, H. and Kume, S. 2009. Cleaning and survey of the Early Bronze Age shaft graves at Wadi Daba cemetery near Tell Ghanem al-‘Ali. Al-Rāfidān: Journal of Western Asiatic Studies 31: 184–190. Tokyo: Kokushikan University. Numoto, H. and Kume, S. 2009a. Archaeological survey of the Early Bronze Age off-site tombs near Tell Ghanem al- ‘Ali. Al-Rāfidān: Journal of Western Asiatic Studies 30: 193–198. Tokyo: Kokushikan University. 320

Consolidated References Numoto, H. and Kume, S. 2010. Soundings of hilltop burial mounds near Tell Ghanem al- ‘Ali, Preliminary reports of the Syria-Japan archaeological joint research in the region of Ar-Raqqa, Syria, 2009. Al-Rāfidān: Journal of Western Asiatic Studies 31: 132–136. Tokyo: Kokushikan University. Ohnuma, K. 2010. Sondage in Square 6 of Tell Ghanem al-Ali. Al-Rāfidān: Journal of Western Asiatic Studies 31: 129–131. Tokyo: Kokushikan University. Ohnuma, K. 2011. Sondage in Square 6 of the Site of Tell Ghanem al-Ali. Al-Rāfidān: Journal of Western Asiatic Studies 32: 152–180. Tokyo: Kokushikan University. Ohnuma, K. and Al Khabour, A. 2008. Report of the second season of the Syrian-Japanese expedition. Al-Rāfidān: Journal of Western Asiatic Studies 29: 134–149. Tokyo: Kokushikan University. Ohnuma, K. and Al-Khabour, A. 2008a. Archaeological Research in the Bishri Region: Report of the Third Working Season. Al-Rāfidān: Journal of Western Asiatic Studies 29: 150–169. Tokyo: Kokushikan University. Ohnuma, K. and Al-Khabour, A. 2008b. Archaeological Research in the Bishri Region: Report of the Fourth Working Season. Al-Rāfidān: Journal of Western Asiatic Studies 29: 170–193. Tokyo: Kokushikan University. Ohnuma, K. and Al Khabour, A. 2010. Formation of Tribal Communities: Integrated Research in the Middle Euphrates, Syria, in Al-Rāfidān: Journal of Western Asiatic Studies, Special Issue. Tokyo: Kokushikan University. Oliva, J.-C. 2008. Textos para una historia política de Siria-Palestina I: El Bronce Antiguo y Medio. Madrid: Ediciones AKAL. Pardo, M. 2003. Las materias primas del Neolítico Pre-Pottery A y B (PPNA Y PPNB) en los asentamientos del Próximo Oriente. Asociación Española de Orientalistas XXXIX: 89–108. Alicante: Biblioteca Virtical de Miguel de Cervantes. Peters, J.P. 1897. Nippur: Or, Explorations and Adventures On the Euphrates. Babylonian Expedition of the University of Pennsylvania. New York: Putnam & Sons. Pollock, S.1 999. Ancient Mesopotamia. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Porter, A. 2007. Ceramic assemblages of the Third Millennium in the Euphrates region, in M. alMaqdissi, V. Matoïan and C. Nicolle (eds) Céramique de l’âge du bronze en Syrie, II: L’Euphrate et la région de Jézireh: 3–21. Beirut: Institut français du Proche-Orient. Rander, K. 2011. The Assur-Nineveh-Arbela triangle: Central Assyria in the Neo-Assyrian Period, in P. Miglus and S. Mühl (eds) Between the cultures: the central Tigris region from the 3rd to the 1st millennium BC: conference at Heidelberg, January 22nd – 24th, 2009: 321–329. Heidelberg: Heidelberger Orientverlag. Roodenberg, J.J. 1979-180. Sondage des niveaux néolithiques de Tell as-Sinn, Syrie. Anatolica 7: 21– 34. Rouault, O. 2009. Assyrians, Aramaeans and Babylonians: The Syrian Lower Middle Euphrates Valley at the end of the Bronze Age. Syria. Archéologie, art et histoire 86: 133–139. Tenu, A. 2009. L’expansion médio-assyrienne. Approche archéologique. British Archaeological Reports International Series 1906. Oxford: John and Erica Hedges. Sachau, E. 1883. Reise in Syrien und Mesopotamien. Leipzig: F.A. Brockhaus. Sanjurjo, J., Fernández, D. and Montero, J.-L. 2008. TL and OSL dating of sediment and pottery from two Syrian archaeological sites. Geocronometria 31: 21–29. Sanlaville, P. 1979. Quaternaire et préhistoire de Nahr el kébir septentrional: les débuts de l’occupation humaine dans la Syrie du nord et au Levant. Lyon: Éditions de CNRS. Sanlaville, P. 1989. Considérations sur l’évolution de la Basse Mésopotamie au cours des derniers millénaires. Paléorient 15(2): 5–27. Sanlaville, P. 1990. Pays et paysages du Tigre et de l’Euphrate. Réflexions sur la Mésopotamie Antique. Akkadica 66: 1–12. Sanlaville, P. 2000. Le Moyen Orient Arabe, le milieu et l’homme. Paléorient 26: 159–160. Sanlaville, P. and Besançon, J. 1981. Aperçu géomorphologique sur la vallée de l’Euphrate syrien. Paléorient 7(2): 5–18. Sarre, F. and Herzfeld, E. 1911. Archaeologische Reise im Euphrat-und Tigris-Gebeit. Berlin: D. Reime. Solecki, R., Akkermans, P., Agelarkis, A., Meiklejohn, Ch. and Smith, P. 1992. Artificial cranial deformation in the proto-Neolithic and the Neolithic Near East and its possible origin: evidence from four sites. Paléorient 18(2): 83–97. Stein, G. and Al Khabour, A. 2008. Report on the first season of the excavation at Tell Zeidan by the SyrianAmerican expedition, Raqqa (in Arabic): 1–19. Chicago: University of Chicago. 321

The Fertile Desert Stein, G. 2010. Tell Zeidan, 2009–2010. Annual Report of The Oriental Institute. Chicago: University of Chicago. Stordeur, D. 1996. El-Kowm et Qdeir, in Syrian-European Archaeology exhibición: 35–40. Damascus: Editións d’Institut Français d’Études Arabes de Damas. Stordeur, D. 2000. El Kowm 2: une île dans le désert – La fin du néolithique précéramique dans la steppe syrienne. Paris, CNRS Editions. Strommenger, E. and Kohlmeyer, K. 1998. Ausgrabungen in Tall Bīʻa, Tuttul I.: Die Altorientalischen Bestattungen. WVDOG 96. Saarbrücken: Saarbrückener Druckerei und Verlag. Tsuneki, A. 2008. A short history of Ganam al-Ali village. Al-Rāfidān: Journal of Western Asiatic Studies 30: 184–190. Tokyo: Kokushikan University. Van Zeist, W. and Waterbolk, H.T. 1985. The Palaeobotany of Tell Bouqras, Eastern Syria. Paléorient 11(2): 131–147. Veenhof, K.R., Wäfler, M. and Eidem, J. 2008. Mesopotamia. The Old Assyrian Period. Orbis Biblicus et Orientalis 160/5. Fribourg: Academic Press. Verhoeven, M. 2002. Transformations of Society: The Changing Role of Ritual and Symbolism in the PPNB and the PN in the Levant, Syria and South-east Anatolia. Paléorient 28(1): 5–13. Westaway, R., Bridgland, D.R., Sinha, R. and Demir, T. 2009. Fluvial sequences as evidence for landscape and climatic evolution in the Late Cenozoic: a synthesis of data from IGCP 518. Global and Planetary Change 68(4): 237–253. Wiggermann, F.A.M. 2002. The distant ancestor of the alphabet. Artissage 23(2): 54–59. Heidelberg: Vernissage Verlag. Wilhem, G. 1989. The Hurrians. Warminster: Aris and Phillips. Wilkinson, T., Ur, J., Wilkinson, E. and Altaweel, M. 2005. Landscape and Settlement in the NeoAssyrian Empire. Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Research 340 (Nov.): 23–56. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press on behalf of The American Schools of Oriental Research.

322

Appendices Alphabetical list of the sites on the Euphrates between Balikh and Khabour Site Name

Aain, Wadi Abu Hamad, Cemetery Abu Fahd, Tell Abu Makiya, Tell Abu Shahri, Wadi Ahmar, Tell Ain Abu Jemaa, Tell al-Maqam, Tell As-Sinn, Tell Ayyash, Tell Biaa, Tell Beilouni, Tell Bouqras I, Tell Buseire I, Tell Cairn fields at the northwest of Bishri Mountains Es-Sabha I, Tell Es-Salu V, Tell Et-Tabie II, Tell Ghanem al-Ali, Tell Hamadin, Tell Humeida, Tell JazlaWadi, Cemetery Jibli. Jibli 9D Jibli 9E Jibli 9F Kharrar, Wadi Khraita, Tell Maqbarat Al Karama Maqbara Qadima Masri I, Tell Masri II, Tell Mazar, Tell (Ratla, o SheikhAsaad) Mohasan I, Tell Mugla as-Sagir, Tell (Tell Beitha) Nadra, Wadi Qabr Abu al-Atiq, Tell Qleb al Hemma 13.1 Qleb al Hemma 13.3 Qleb al Hemma 13.4 Qleb al Hemma 13.5 Qleb al Hemma 13.6 Qleb al Hemma 13.7 Qleb al Hemma 13.8 Qleb al Hemma 13.12

323

Site number 15 23 55 54 35 33 59 31 61 60 1 28 68 66 20 64 65 62 25 16 34 26 11 14 13 12 21 58 8 9 3 4 5 63 27 56 36 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46

The Fertile Desert Site Name Qleb al Hemma 13.13 Qleb al Hemma 13.14 Qleb al Hemma 13.17 Qleb al Hemma 13.18 Qleb al Hemma 13.27 Qleb al Hemma 13.30 Qsubi, Tell Qsubi, Tomb Qutena, Wadi Rabtat Abyad Safat ez-Zerr II, Tell Saghir, Tell Sheikh Mousa, Tell Shennan, Tell Sweda, Tell Tabus, Tell Tbuq, Jabal Tibni, Tell Ubeid, Wadi Wadi Dabaa, Cemetery Wadi Shabout, Cemetery Zeidan, Tell Zor Shammar Foqani

Site number 47 48 49 50 51 52 37 38 10 7 67 32 29 6 30 57 19 53 18 22 24 2 17

Numerical list of sites on the Euphrates between the Balikh and Khabour Rivers 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. 16. 17.

Tell Biaa Tell Zeidan Tell Masri I Tell Mesri II Tell Mazar (Ratla, o Sheikh Asaad) Tell Shennan Rabtat Abyad Maqbarat Al Karama Maqbara Qadima Wadi Qutena Jibli Jibli 9F Jibli 9E Jibli 9D Wadi Aain Tell Hamadin Zor ShammarFoqani

324

Appendices 18. 19. 20. 21. 22. 23. 24. 25. 26. 27. 28. 29. 30. 31. 32. 33. 34. 35. 36. 37. 38. 39. 40. 41. 42. 43. 44. 45. 46. 47. 48. 49. 50. 51. 52. 53. 54. 55. 56. 57. 58. 59. 60. 61. 62. 63. 64. 65. 66.

Wadi Ubeid Jabal Tbuq Cairn fields northwest of Mt Bishri21Wadi Kharrar Cemetery of Wadi Dabaa Cemetery of Abu Hamad Cemetery of Wadi Shabout Tell Ghanem al-Ali Cemetery of Wadi Jazla Tell Mugla as-Sagir (Tell Beitha) Tell Beilouni Tell Sheikh Mousa Tell Sweda Tell al-Maqam Tell Saghir Tell Ahmar Tell Humeida Wadi Abu Shahri Tell Qabr Abu al-Atiq Tell Qsubi – Tell Qalaa Tomb of Qsubi39Qleb al Hemma 13.1 Qleb al Hemma 13.3 Qleb al Hemma 13.4 Qleb al Hemma 13.5 Qleb al Hemma 13.6 Qleb al Hemma 13.7 Qleb al Hemma 13.8 Qleb al Hemma 13.12 Qleb al Hemma 13.13 Qleb al Hemma 13.14 Qleb al Hemma 13.17 Qleb al Hemma 13.18 Qleb al Hemma 13.27 Qleb al Hemma 13.30 Tell Tibni Tell Abu Makiya Tell Abu Fahd Nadra Tell Tabus Tell Khraita Tell Ain Abu Jemaa Tell Ayyash Tell As-Sinn Tell Et-Tabie II Tell Mohasan I Tell Es-Sabha I Tell Es-Salu V Tell Buseire I Tell Safat Ez-Zerr II Tell Bouqras I

325

The Fertile Desert studies a region of the Euphrates Valley between the Balikh and Khabour in Syria that remains little known. Partial reports, isolated interventions, and proposals for a hypothetical reconstruction of the relationship and processes of cultural expansion between Mesopotamia and the Jazira suggest that the Euphrates has always been a major traffic route. But suggestions on a map must be confirmed on the ground. However, when looking at the usual tools for information or the relevant archaeological charts such as the Tübinger Atlas, we face a paradox: except for a few well-known sites, a surprising void reigns over the archaeological landscape. The difficult circumstances since the outbreak of the war in Syria have made the situation still more problematic. Fortunately, various archaeological expeditions have worked intensively in the region. The possibilities have changed, and the time has come for a review of the evidence. This volume thus attempts to reconstruct the history of the Euphrates Valley between the mouths of the Balikh and the Khabour. Several surveys, archaeological expeditions, and interventions of the Syrian Directorate of Antiquities, most featuring the author’s own participation, have made available a significant number of data, the majority unpublished, which contribute to an improved overview of the region.

Anas Al Khabour was director of the National Museum of Raqqa (2003-2008) and Director of the Antiquities Department of Raqqa (2006-2008). He has led and participated in numerous surveys and excavations in the Euphrates Valley through national, joint and international expeditions including Syrian-Japanese, Syrian-American, Syrian-Italian and Syrian-Spanish teams. He has worked as a researcher and lecturer at Gothenburg University in Sweden, the University Libre de Bruxelles, and was Curator of the Ancient Middle East Collection at the National Museums for World Culture in Stockholm. Currently, he is a researcher at Lund University in Sweden. His research focuses on Ancient Mesopotamian archaeology as well as endangered cultural heritage.

Archaeopress Archaeology www.archaeopress.com