Schriften der Max freiherr von oppenheiM-Stiftung 18 herausgegeben von Wolfgang röllig 2013 . harrassowitz verlag Wiesbaden 100 Jahre archäologische feldforschungen in nordost-Syrien – eine Bilanz internationales Symposium des instituts für vorderasiatische archäologie der freien universität Berlin und des vorderasiatischen Museums der Staatlichen Museen zu Berlin vom 21. Juli bis 23. Juli 2011 im pergamonmuseum für das institut für vorderasiatische archäologie der freien universität Berlin und das vorderasiatische Museum der Staatlichen Museen zu Berlin herausgegeben von Dominik Bonatz und Lutz Martin 2013 . harrassowitz verlag Wiesbaden Inhaltsverzeichnis Benutzungshinweise / Note on conventions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . VII Vorwort. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . IX Preface . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . XI Joan OATES Archaeological Research in Northeastern Syria: The First 100 Years (1850 – 1950) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 Abdel Masih BAGHDO Les fouilles actuelles dans le nord-est de la Syrie – Al-Hassake . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17 Samer Abdel GHAFOUR From Tell Halaf to Aleppo – The Tell Halaf Collection in the Aleppo National Museum. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21 Peter M.M.G. AKKERMANS Tell Sabi Abyad, or the Ruins of the White Boy: A Short History of Research into the Late Neolithic of Northern Syria . . . . . . . . . . . 29 Jörg BECKER Tell Halaf – Die prähistorischen Schichten – Neue Einblicke. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 45 Augusta MCMAHON Tell Brak: Early Northern Mesopotamian Urbanism, Economic Complexity and Social Stress, fi fth – fourth millennia BC. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 65 Dietrich SÜRENHAGEN Die Hausinventare von Habuba Kabira-Süd und das Ende der Stadt . . . . . . . . . . . . . 79 Harvey WEISS Tell Leilan and the Dynamics of Social and Environmental Forces across the Mesopotamian Dry-Farming Landscape . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 101 Jan-Waalke MEYER Stadtgründung, Stadtstruktur und Zentralität – Zur Stellung von Tell Chuera bei der Urbanisierung Nordostsyriens . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 117 Alexander PRUSS A Synopsis of the Euro-Syrian Excavations at Tell Beydar. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 133 Marilyn KELLY-BUCCELLATI Landscape and Spatial Organzation: An Essay on Early Urban Settlement Patterns in Urkeš . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 149 Hirotoshi NUMOTO, Daisuke SHIBATA, and Shigeo YAMADA Excavations at Tell Taban: Continuity and Transition in Local Traditions at (cid:789)ābatum/(cid:789)ābetu during the second Millennium BC . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 167 Oskar KAELIN Tell al-Hamidiyah/Ta(cid:421)idu? – Residenzstadt des Mitanni-Reiches. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 181 Raffaella PIEROBON BENOIT Tell Barri: recherches 2006 – 2010. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 193 VI Inhaltsverzeichnis Dominik BONATZ Tell Fekheriye – Renewed Excavations at the “Head of the Spring” . . . . . . . . . . . . . 209 Hartmut KÜHNE Tell Sheikh Hamad – The Assyrian-Aramaean Centre of Dūr-Katlimmu/Magdalu. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 235 Mirko NOVÁK Gōzān and Gūzāna – Anatolians, Aramaeans, and Assyrians in Tell Halaf. . . . . . . . . 259 Bibliografi e . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 281 Autorenverzeichnis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 309 Skizze der Referenzgrabungsorte . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 311 Tell Leilan and the Dynamics of Social and Environmental Forces across the Mesopotamian Dry-Farming Landscape* Harvey Weiss Rain-fed northern Mesopotamia, the complement of irrigation agriculture southern Meso- potamia, was selected for a Yale University research program in 1978 because its late prehistoric-early historic, fourth to second millennium BC, developmental trajectory was virtually unknown. Further research quickly led the endeavor to Tell Leilan, an alluring site and hinterland laboratory for defi ning the dynamics of environmental and social forces across the Mesopotamian dry-farming landscape. Tell Leilan is located in the center of the extensive cereal production Khabur Plains of northeast Syria, maximizing cultivable land between the foothills of the Tur Abdin to the north and the Wadi Radd swamp to the south. Here seasonal rainfall (300 – 500 mm/annum), self-mulching soils, and fl at, unbroken topography together provide for the highest rain-fed cereal production in Syria and, along with the plains of Tell Afar and Mosul, probably ancient northern Mesopotamia as well.1 Equally signifi cant, Tell Leilan also offered defi nition of an early historic developmental para- digm. On May 21, 1878 Hormuzd Rassam looked south from the crest of Do Gir, along the road from Turbe Spid (Qubur el-Bid, Khatuniyah) to Nusaibin, and on the horizon spied Tell Leilan, which he was “told has a wall round it like most of the Assyrian sites of importance.”2 Thereafter, Assyriologists and archaeologists frequently visited the site, and by mid-century had speculated often that it was ancient Šubat-Enlil, the capital city of Šamšī-Adad’s “Kingdom of Upper Mesopotamia.”3 In the summer of 1978, the nascent Tell Leilan Project generated the fi rst map of Leilan, its wall-enclosed 90 hectare topography, its 15-hectare Acropolis alongside the Wadi Jarrah, and the surface ceramic distributions to encourage archaeological excavations, regional surveys, and paleoenvironmental researches (Fig. 1). Seven research problems at the intersection of environmental and social dynamics have since been addressed with excavation- and survey-retrieved data, high-resolution radiocarbon dating, and paleoenvironmental research. * The Yale University Tell Leilan Project acknowledges the support and assistance of the Direction Géné- rale des Antiquités et des Musées, Damascus, especially Bassam Jamous, Michel al-Maqdissi, and the late Adnan Bounni, and the collaboration of many friends at Tell Leilan, Tell Barham, and Qahtaniyah. The research reported here was made possible by the National Science Foundation, the National Endowment for the Humanities, Barbara Clay Debevoise, The Metropolitan Museum of Art, Raymond and Beverly Sackler Foundation, Malcolm Wiener, Leon Levy Foundation, Roger and Barbara Brown, and Yale University. 1 Weiss 1983a,b; Weiss 1986. 2 Rassam 1897: 232 – 233. 3 Falkner 1957; Hrouda 1958; Van Liere 1963. 102 Harvey Weiss Fig. 1 Topographic map of Tell Leilan and excavation areas 1979 – 2008. All Figures: © Yale University Tell Leilan Project. The Late Uruk Expansion and Collapse A 26-meter long step trench on the Acropolis, Operation 1, and its subsequent expansions, established the Tell Leilan occupational sequence and ceramic chronology, beginning with the late northern Obeid period.4 The Leilan Region Survey (1984, 1987, 1995, 1997), a 4 Weiss 1983a,b; Schwartz 1988. Tell Leilan and the Dynamics of Social and Environmental Forces 103 30 x 60 km transect from the Iraqi frontier to the Turkish frontier, revealed an early site-size hierarchy that already extended during this period from half-hectare hamlets to small villages to 15-hectare towns.5 Subsequent Uruk period occupations, Leilan period IV, extending to ca. 3200 BC, included al-Andalus, in the Wadi Radd, a 64-hectares site with a signifi cant Mid- dle Uruk occupation, and southern Late Uruk period settlements, such as Sultan et-Tellul, Sharmoukh, Dabagh, and Aweinat ibn Harshan that frame anew the southern Uruk expansion and its sudden, widespread, collapse in rain-fed northern Mesopotamia.6 Six-hectare Shar- moukh is likely a southern Late Uruk colony within the Wadi Radd Late Uruk enclave, and complicates older arguments for the functions of Late Uruk “colony” sites across west Asia.7 The generative forces and ultimate functions of the southern Late Uruk expansion onto the Khabur Plains remain unknown. The causes of the sudden termination of these settlements and their local counterparts have been refocused, however, by the ca. 3200 BC two-century aridifi cation event now documented in paleoclimate proxies from the Mediterranean to the Persian Gulf.8 Suddenly outside the bounds of rain-fed agriculture, many Uruk sites suffered forced abandonment.9 The rapid decrease in Euphrates fl ow to southern Mesopotamia may also be associated with adaptive settlement reduction, agglomeration, and the emergence of cities’ palace political control which is fi rst documented at the end of this period.10 The Ninevite 5 Experience Defi nition of the succeeding settlements within the Operation 1 sounding provided a fi rst stratigraphic defi nition of early “Ninevite 5 painted” assemblages, Leilan period IIIa, and the ceramic keys for identifying such sites within the Leilan Region Survey. The severely reduced Leilan IIIa period population that succeeded the late Uruk collapse was settled in small dispersed villages. Excavations at Leilan and elsewhere betray no local Leilan IIIa social or cultural remnants from the southern Late Uruk expansion, and settlements of this period lacked public architecture but for single-room chapels. Populations grew slowly for the following several centuries, as shown by settlement distributions for the Leilan IIIb and IIIc periods, with small villages surrounding a few towns no larger than 15 hectares.11 North- ern Mesopotamia and southern Mesopotamia seem to have been isolated and without cultural or economic contact during this period, for reasons yet unexplored. This slow Khabur Plains settlement growth and the regional isolation underscore the sudden transformation of Tell Leilan and the Leilan region landscape at ca. 2600 BC. 5 Weiss et al. 2002; Brustolon/Rova 2007. 6 Mayo/Weiss 2003. 7 Brustolon/Rova 2007. 8 Weiss/Bradley 2001. 9 Weiss 2003. 10 Staubwasser/Weiss 2006. 11 Rova/Weiss 2003. 104 Harvey Weiss Secondary State Formation and the Second Urban Revolution At the very end of the Ninevite 5 ceramic period, around 2600 BC, during Leilan period IIId, Leilan settlement expanded rapidly from 15 to 90-hectares, as regional population nucleated, and a city wall was built around the settlement.12 On the Leilan Acropolis a monumental wall and adjacent storerooms were erected in Operation 1 stratum 15d, and rebuilt repeatedly over the next three hundred years.13 Regional population nucleation, centralized store rooms, and public building construction are here, as elsewhere, signposts for the transition to state- level political and economic organization. Confounding many archaeological assumptions, however, the Leilan IIId period urban and state transformation – the period IIa Subarian state – was not accompanied by a synchronous change in ceramic production. Changes in pottery manufacture and styles, from labor-intensive, highly decorated, terminal Ninevite 5/ Leilan IIId vessels to uniform “mass-produced” Leilan period IIa wares, only began about 100 years after Leilan urbanization and state formation.14 Seal impressions on the period IIa stratum 14 fl oor of Acropolis storerooms included many with the local, northern-style iconography derived from Early Dynastic II – III periods south- ern Mesopotamian “banquet scenes”, legitimating through emulation of southern iconog- raphy the new political and economic order.15 The later period IIa storerooms included a grain storage room subsequently destroyed by fi re. Preserved were much barley, emmer, and durum wheat, mixed with burned roofi ng materials that included microscopic lignite, molten clay spherules, and phytoliths.16 At the Lower Town South a planned and walled straight street, 4.5 m wide leading to the Acropolis was set upon virgin soil in Leilan IIId times (Fig. 2).17 The street and its residential structures indicate that Leilan was now one of the unexplained planned radial-street cities, accompanied by state-level political organization, that suddenly dominated the Khabur Plains and western Syria beginning in the 26th century, as revealed most clearly at Tell Chuera.18 Lower Town houses here were built within wall-divided sectors and against street walls un- broken but for water-drain alleys. Pig bones in large percentage were a waste deposit in the sherd-laden street – where the tooth of the earliest domesticated equid in northern Mesopota- mia was also retrieved.19 Apart from large quantities of fl at-base “s i l a-bowls” in the Akka- dian period, phases 3 – 5, there were no administrative artifacts in the Lower Town residential area.20 The Akkadian period Lower Town South residential occupation and occupation in the northern Lower Town exposures terminated synchronously and abruptly at ca. 2200 BC.21 12 Weiss 1990a – c; Ristvet 2007. 13 Calderone/Weiss 2003; Wetterstrom 2003. 14 Weiss 1990a – c. 15 Parayre 2003. 16 Weiss et al 2002; Weiss 2002. 17 Weiss 1990a – c. 18 Meyer 2010a,b. 19 Weiss et al 1993. 20 Senior/Weiss 1992. 21 The Lower Town South is the subject of Monica Arrivabeni’s Freie Universität Berlin doctoral dissertation project. Tell Leilan and the Dynamics of Social and Environmental Forces 105 Fig. 2 L89, Lower Town South excavation. Akkadian Imperialization The urbanization of Leilan and its regional distribution of towns and villages in periods IIId and IIa were pre-adaptations that facilitated region-wide Akkadian imperialization in Leilan period IIb. This southern Mesopotamian penetration of the Leilan region is fi rst documented in the late Akkadian scribal room of Leilan period IIb3 on the Acropolis Northeast, across a stone paved street from a period IIa palace that is yet unexcavated. The scribal room is radiocarbon dated by two grain samples hand-picked from the room’s fl oor, 2433 – 2315 BC (68.2%), a date surprisingly earlier than epigraphy-based “middle chronologies” for this period.22 Fifteen whole and fragmentary tablets, both round school texts and administrative texts, were situated in a corner of the scribal room fl oor, probably in a mudbrick box.23 This small building is, therefore, an intriguing relic of the initially peaceful Akkadian penetration of the region. It raises anew the often ignored question of imperial motivation: what were the internal forces that pushed Akkadian movement into northern Mesopotamia? What forced the immediately subsequent conquest and imperialization of the northern realms? Akkadian forces destroyed the Leilan IIa palace leaving behind razed and levelled walls and burnt room debris. In period IIb2, an Akkadian Administrative Building was built upon and against the ruins of the IIa palace. The palace controlled the Leilan region for about fi fty years to judge from the IIb sequence of Leilan IIb radiocarbon dates. 22 Weiss et al. 2012. 23 Ristvet/Guilderson/Weiss 2004; De Lillis-Forrest et al. 2004; De Lillis-Forest/Milano/Mori 2007. 106 Harvey Weiss Akkadian Administrative Building The Akkadian Administrative Building, the fortifi ed rebuilding in period IIb2 of the destroyed and partially razed period IIa palace (Fig. 3), was retrieved in 2006 and 2008 with one thou- sand square meters of the palace, encompassing seventeen rooms. 24 The earlier Period IIa glacis wall on the north was restored by the Akkadians with mud pack and mud plaster, and remnant Period IIa walls, built with rectangular bricks, were reused along with the Palace’s northern wall. The western portion of the Palace was delimited by the 6.6-meter Period IIa wall rebuilt with large basalt boulders set within the facade of new walls built with square Akkadian bricks. The Room 6 gallery included fl oor remains with numerous ground stone grain processing tools, querns and rubbers, and plastered work surfaces. The unique Granary, a 3 meter x 3 meter mudbrick construction, was lined with a baked brick fl oor and interior walls, and an upper course of baked bricks with air fl ues, presumably for cereal-drying pur- poses as lenses of cereal grain ash lined the Granary’s fl oor. The middle corridor of the Palace was a central oven area, presumably for grain cooking. Here were concentrated 12 large ov- ens, each still fi lled with voluminous quantities of ash and phytoliths. North of room 13 was an over-the-wall dump of oven waste 1.6 meters high.25 Akkadian administrative activities are evident within the partial exposure of room 12’s terminal fl oor: a large grain storage vessel, a ground basalt 2-liter grain measure in front of clay balls for tablet preparation, and clay balls fl attened into yet-uninscribed tablets (Fig. 4). Across the palace rooms, ninety-seven clay sealings of various functions, both imperial Akkadian and earlier period IIa style, document the activities of both foreign and local ad- ministrators in Akkadian Administrative Building service.26 The goal of the Akkadian adventure, here and across northern Mesopotamia, to judge from the available epigraphic and archaeological data, was agro-imperialism: the generation and extraction of cereal harvest surpluses and their shipment to the imperial capital in southern Mesopotamia.27 Regional settlement, identifi ed by the Leilan IIb assemblage featuring sila- bowls and other fl at-based ceramics, was altered to centralize and streamline the Akkadian administration.28 This was now complexly organized around a 140-hectare conurbation that included 50-hectare Tell Mohammed Arab, eight kilometers to the east.29 Understanding the forces that drove Akkadian agro-imperialism requires research programs not yet imagined. The Unfi nished Building On the southern side of the Acropolis street, a last Akkadian occupation phase, period IIb1, saw the initial construction stages of a building larger than 17 x 13 meters, situated upon razed and truncated Period IIa white-plastered walls, that was unfi nished when it was aban- 24 Weiss et al. 2012. 25 Smith 2012. 26 McCarthy 2012. 27 Glassner 1986; Powell 1990; Weiss /Courty 1993; Sommerfeld/Archi/Weiss 2004. 28 Senior/Weiss 1992; Arrivabeni 2010. 29 Weiss et al. 1993; Ristvet/Guilderson/Weiss 2004; Ristvet 2005; Nicolle 2006.