AOF 2_07 Kolinski 08.08.2007 15:10 Uhr Seite 1 Altoriental. Forsch. 34 (2007) 2, 000–000 RafaŁ Koliński The Upper Khabur Region in the Second Part of the Third Millennium BC Any periodization, whether based on historical sources or on archaeological evidence, is, in fact, an attempt to define transitions and to establish in this way a framework for the periods of cultural or historical homogeneity. In cultural terms, transitions may be seen as dynamic phases of the culture/society, whereas cultural periods should be considered as phases of relative stability. As a rule, historic transitions do not need to correspond to cultural ones, as both refer to different classes of sources that are hardly related. Because of the scarcity of internal evidence, the historical scheme formed in Lower Mesopotamia based on Sumerian and Akkadian sources was adapted for the Khabur area, resulting in further inconsistencies in the chronology. In fact, the historic Akkadian period in the North starts with Naram-Su’en, Fig. 1. The most prominent sites of the late 3rd millennium B.C. located in the Upper Khabur region [after Gibson et al. (2002), Fig. 1] AOF 2_07 Kolinski 2 08.08.2007 15:10 Uhr Seite 2 Rafał Koliński, The Upper Khabur Region in the Second Part of the Third Millennium BC not with Sargon, as is the case in the South. Moreover, written sources appear in the Northern Jezirah late in the 3rd millennium (Early Jezirah III B: tablets from Beidar 1 and Chagar Bazar 2) and are relatively rare. Abundant local sources are the only hope for establishing the historical developments in the area and, indeed, tablets found recently at Tell Beidar have helped to shed light on a relatively short episode of the later 3rd millennium history of the Khabur triangle. The bulk of new evidence concerning, among others, the second part of the 3rd millennium BC has come from recent research carried out in the Khabur area and in neighbouring regions. Hence, the intention of this paper is to present an up-to-date view of the “Dark Ages” and transitional periods already identified in earlier research. The aim is to confirm or deny the existence of the “dark ages” and to characterize changes typical of the subsequent transitional periods during the second half of the 3rd millennium BC in the Upper Khabur region. Chronology of the Khabur Area The chronological framework for the Khabur area stems from Sir Max Mallowan’s pioneer survey and excavation work carried out in the mid-thirties of the previous century (Table I).3 His discoveries at Tell Chagar Bazar and at Tell Brak established a cultural sequence for the area and provided chronological and historic parallels to southern Mesopotamia and Assyria. The most important historical link related to the 3rd millennium is a large structure built of bricks stamped with the name of Naram-Su’en of Agade. A group of tablets from Chagar Bazar offered, on the other hand, a clue to link the Khabur Ware pottery of the early 2nd millennium to the period of Šamši-Addu’s kingdom in Upper Mesopotamia. The combined pottery sequence of Chagar Bazar and Brak resembled that of the Niniveh prehistoric pit, excavated also by Mallowan in 1928 and 1929. Archaeological links to the southern Mesopotamian culture of the 3rd millennium were scarce and in fact limited to glyptic and metalwork. Nevertheless, Mallowan introduced a south Mesopotamian term, “Early Dynastic”, to describe pre-Naram-Su’en 3rd millennium layers at Tell Brak 4, a term which is still in use and has only recently begun to be replaced by “Early Jezirah”. It should be stressed that the Brak sequence turned out to be one of the most complete in the area, covering the entire 3rd millennium, though the period of Ninevite 5 pottery (EJ I–II) was under-represented at the site compared to the later pottery. This phase has been identified at Chagar Bazar and also at Brak during recent excavations by R. Matthews.5 The latest part of the Brak sequence (Late Akkadian and post-Akkadian) was 1 2 3 4 5 Ismail et al. (1996); Milano et al. (2004). Gadd (1937). Mallowan (1936); Mallowan (1937); Mallowan (1949). Mallowan (1947), 1–48; for recent attempts at periodizing the 3rd millennium BC, cf. Pfälzner (1997), 240 Pfälzner (1998) 69–71; Lebeau (2000), Table I; Pruß (2004), 13 –16. Matthews (2003). AOF 2_07 Kolinski 08.08.2007 15:10 Uhr Seite 3 3 Altoriental. Forsch. 34 (2007) 2 Tell Brak (Mallowan 1947, Pl. LXIV) Halaf Tell Chagar Bazar (Mallowan 1936, Fig. 2) Niniveh deep sounding (Gut 1995, Tab. 27) “Historical” periods (Oates et al. 2001,Tab. 1) Cultural periods (Lebeau 2000, Tab. II) (Oates et al. 2001,Tab. 1) Levels 6 –14 Niniveh 2c Halaf Chalcolithic 5000– 4500 Ubaid Chalcolithic 4800– 4200 Late Uruk Chalcolithic 3400– 3000 Jemdet Nasr? Early Jezirah 0 3000–2850 Ubaid Uruk Niniveh 3– 4 Jemdet Nasr Early Dynastic Levels 4 –5 Early Dynastic Early Jezirah I–III 2850– 2300 Akkadian Early Jezirah IV 2250– 2150 III Dynasty of Ur Ur III Early Jezirah V 2150– 2000 Hurrian Levels 1–2 (Khabur Ware) Khabur Ware Old Jezirah II 1850– 1600 Subartu Ware Mitanni Middle Jezirah 1550– 1275 Sargonid Level 3 Niniveh 5 Date Table I. Comparison of Sir Max Mallowan’s stratigraphy of the Khabur Area and contemporary historical and archaeological periodization. identified in the final report as the Ur III period. The accuracy of Mallowan’s identification was underestimated despite his familiarity with Ur III pottery, because finds from this period came exclusively from much eroded layers. The chronology of the Khabur region, proposed by Mallowan, survived not only the following twenty years when no activities were held in the area, but also the advent of new research in the late 1950s and a wave of excavations which started in the mid 1970s and reached an apex in the rescue projects of the late 1980s and 1990s. New links to South Mesopotamia were established on sites like Tell Chuera and Tell Hariri, but no site within the Khabur triangle itself yielded direct evidence of such relations. Despite the growing knowledge of local culture, the basic chronological periodization of the 3rd millennium BC followed Mallowan’s proposition, though some of the periods distinguished by him turned out difficult to identify at other sites in the area. The western part of the Khabur triangle and the Khabur valley going south seemed to be deprived of the earliest 3rd millennium settlements; also settlements from the very end of the 3rd millennium turned out to be extremely rare, both in surveys and in excavations carried out in the entire region. The scarcity of historical data for the terminal part of the 3rd millennium, the apparent lack of pottery from this period at many sites located in the area, as well as the specific AOF 2_07 Kolinski 08.08.2007 15:10 Uhr 4 Seite 4 Rafał Koliński, The Upper Khabur Region in the Second Part of the Third Millennium BC situation encountered at the site of Tell Leilan constituted the background for a new hypothesis linking the absence of historical and archaeological sources with a regional collapse of settlement forced by a disaster of an environmental nature. This proposition, launched by Harvey Weiss in 1993 6, stimulated research on environmental conditions not only in the Khabur Triangle, but also in the entire Near East. Recent seasons of excavations in the Khabur Triangle area and the long awaited publication of the ceramic sequence from Brak7 have finally yielded the tools for a re-assessment of area chronology. The evidence of the Ebla archives combined with evidence from Mari and new finds from the Khabur triangle itself (Tell Beidar, Tell Mozan) offered insight into the history of the later part of the 3rd millennium BC. Evidence retrieved during recent excavation seasons have made it possible finally to evaluate the periodization of the second half of the 3rd millennium BC. After a short review of sources, two alleged “Dark Ages” (Early Jezireh V and Old Jezireh I) will be discussed, as well as four “transitional” periods (Early Jezirah III A to III B, Early Jezirah III B to IV, Early Jezirah IV to V and Early Jezirah V to Old Jezirah I). (Table II) Lower Mesopotamia (Historic) Syrian Jezirah (Cultural/ Historic) Syrian Jezirah (archaeological) Western Syria Jemdet Nasr Terminal Uruk? Early Jezirah 0 Early Bronze I Early Dynastic I Early Ninevite 5? Early Jezirah I Early Bronze I Early Dynastic II Ninevite 5/ ED II Early Jezirah II Early Bronze II Early Dynastic III A Late Ninevite 5/ ED III Early Jezirah III A Early Bronze II Early Dynastic III B Late ED III Early Jezirah III B Early Bronze III Akkadian Akkadian Early Jezirah IV Early Bronze IVa Ur III/Guti Ur III? Early Jezirah V Early Bronze IVb Isin/Larsa Old Assyrian? Old Jezirah I Middle Bronze I Transitions (discussed) Table II. Recently suggested chronological framework for the period ca. 3000 –2000 BC [based on Lebeau (2000), Table II]. 6 7 Weiss et al. (1993); Weiss – Courty (1993). J. Oates (2001). “Dark ages” (alleged) AOF 2_07 Kolinski 08.08.2007 15:10 Uhr Altoriental. Forsch. 34 (2007) 2 Seite 5 5 Sources A. Historical evidence Internal sources. Written sources of the 3rd millennium BC from the Khabur area are scarce. The only more substantial archive to be published is the one found at Tell Beydar, a site located in the central part of the area. The Beydar corpus, which is composed of about 240 tablets and inscribed bullae, consists of a single large archive of economic tablets stemming from the palace administration and a number of dispersed texts, some of which form another small archive. Texts have also been found at Tell Mozan (3 tablets 8 and some seal legends have been published), Tell Chagar Bazar (2 tablets 9) and Tell Brak (46 texts, including some inscribed bullae and school tablets 10). New texts of the 3rd millennium were recently excavated at Tell Beidar, Tell Mozan and Tell Muhammad Diyab, but have not been published yet. External sources. Two other Syrian archives provide information concerning the Khabur area. The most important source is the royal archive from palace G at Ebla. Numerous cities located in Syria and northern Mesopotamia and persons going to or coming from them are mentioned in the texts.11 The archives from neighbouring Mari are limited to around 40 texts of mainly administrative character.12 The historical evidence of the southern archives, both of Sumer and Akkad, did not offer much assistance. Akkadian kings rarely raided this area, being probably more interested in the Ceder mountains of the West. The extensive administrative archives of the Ur III period, which offered a specific insight into the administration of the Mesopotamian kingdom of the rulers of the Third Dynasty of Ur, seldom mention the names of Syrian cities, but even less often those of North Mesopotamian towns. It is clear that Syria, and the Khabur area specifically, was located outside the sphere of interest of the Ur III kings, this having extended along the Tigris as far as and including Ashur and Urbilum, which were still in the state, and even further to the vassal cites of Niniveh and the unidentified Šimanum.13 The most often mentioned locality of Syria is Mari: Ur-Nammu’s son marries a daughter of Apil-kin, king of Mari, and messengers from this city often appear in the messenger texts. Other cities, as Ebla, Tuttul or Terqa, are sporadically mentioned, marking the commercial trail leading upstream along the Euphrates toward the Mediterranean; some others cities listed cannot be located on the map as yet (Abarnium, Mukiš, Uršu).14 For the Khabur area, the name of Nagar appears only when offerings to the “Lady of Nagar” are mentioned in the Drehem texts, while Urkeš, known also from the lion inscription of Tiš-atal, is mentioned only once, in relation to a person coming from this city to visit the south. 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Milano (1991); Volk (2004). Gadd (1937), 178, nos. A.391, A.392. Eidem et al. (2001). Archi (1998). Charpin (1987); Charpin (1990). Steinkeller (1987) Fig. 6. Owen (1992). AOF 2_07 Kolinski 6 08.08.2007 15:10 Uhr Seite 6 Rafał Koliński, The Upper Khabur Region in the Second Part of the Third Millennium BC B. Archaeological evidence More than 30 archaeological sites of the 3rd millennium BC have been excavated in the Upper Khabur area.15 Digs were carried out on both large sites (cities) and small tells (villages, farms), the first as extensive, multi-annual research projects, the latter usually as salvage operations. In consequence, small sites tend to be tightly clustered in the areas of rescue excavation, while large sites are more or less evenly spaced. Several local surveys have also been undertaken, mainly around larger sites (Tell Brak, Tell Leilan, Tell Hamukar, Tell Beidar) 16, but a more extensive survey was carried out by Meijer in the area east of Jaghjagh only.17 The remaining part of the Khabur Triangle was surveyed, but not systematically by Lyonnet.18 The chronological resolution of both these surveys in respect to the later 3rd millennium was rather low. Lyonnet distinguished only between the earlier and the later part of the 3rd millennium BC. Meijer differentiated pottery of EB I (Ninevite 5), EB II, EB III (Metallic Ware) and EB IV date19, but some of his “index fossiles”, especially for the badly represented EB IV period, have very little correspondence with the recently published “post-Akkadian” (period N) pottery of Brak. Consequently, his identification of the late 3rd millennium sites is dubious at the very least. Decades of archaeological work in the Khabur region resulted finally in a high resolution pottery sequence for the area.20 This sequence, based mainly on the exchange of unpublished information, will be developed in the framework of an international project devoted to the pottery of Northern Mesopotamia, led jointly by M. Lebeau and E. Rova. Recent seasons of fieldwork, available in the form of interim reports 21, has also revealed that the settlement of the terminal 3rd millennium BC was much more extensive than it had been thought only ten years ago. Four settlements: Chagar Bazar, Hamukar, Barri and Arbid are to be added to Mozan (Urkeš) and Brak (Nagar), the sites already known for this period. The alleged dark ages at the end of the third millennium BC 1. Early Jezireh V A break in the Tell Leilan sequence of strata at the end of the Akkadian (Leilan II) period, observed during the excavations and dubbed Khabur hiatus 1, has been interpreted as a 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 Anastasio (1995), 191–228 and map on page 248; Anastasio et al. (2004), Maps 35, 40, 42. Cf. map in Ur (2002b), Fig. 1. Particular bibliography: Tell Brak: Fielden (1979), Eidem – Warburton (1995); Tell Leilan: Stein – Wattenmaker (1990); Stein – Wattenmaker (2003); Tell Hamukar: Ur (2002a), Ur (2002b); Tell Beidar: Wilkinson (2000). Meijer (1986). Lyonnet (2000). Meijer (1986), 32–33, Figs. 17–19; Lyonnet (2000), 18–19 and Table 3. Lebeau (2000). Tell Mozan: Buccellati – Kelly-Buccellati (2000); Buccellati – Kelly-Buccellati (2001); Buccellati – Kelly-Buccellati (2002); Buccellati – Kelly-Buccellati (2004); Dohman-Pfälzner – Pfälzner (2001); Dohman-Pfälzner – Pfälzner (2002); Pfälzner et al. (2004); Tell Chagar Bazar: McMahon et al. (2001); Tell Hamoukar: Gibson et al. (2002); Ur (2002b); Tell Arbid: Bieliński (2000); Bieliński (2001); Bieliński (2002), Rutkowski (2006); Tell Barri: Pecorella (2002); Pecorella – Pierobon Benoit (2004). AOF 2_07 Kolinski 08.08.2007 15:10 Uhr Altoriental. Forsch. 34 (2007) 2 Seite 7 7 reflection of a regional trend in the settlement pattern.22 Harvey Weiss attempted to explain the collapse of the settlement and the abandonment of the Khabur Triangle area on the basis of the results of environmental research carried out in the Khabur triangle in the early 1990s.23 Weiss’s original thesis was that a drastic change of environmental conditions towards aridity, which occurred at the end of the Akkadian period, was triggered by a punctual cataclysm, most probably of volcanic origin, which left thin layers of ashes identified on a number of the Khabur area sites, Tell Leilan included. According to Weiss, this volcanic event resulted in increased wind activity, temperature drop and reduced and less regular rainfall. Rapid deterioration of agricultural conditions forced abandonment of settlements existing in the Khabur area and migration towards southern Mesopotamia, where the increase of population during the Ur III period is evidenced.24 The change of climate had a supra-regional character and may be observed throughout a large part the northern hemisphere (lake level reductions from East Africa to Tibet, settlement structure collapse from Portugal to the Indus).25 According to Weiss, the catastrophe coincided with a collapse of Akkadian authority in the area at the end of the Akkadian period, and forced the Akkadians’ withdrawal, evidenced by the planned abandonment and filling of some of the Brak public structures.26 The hypothesis has been very well received by other archaeologists 27, despite it contradicting the Brak evidence from Mallowan’s dig, and Mallowan’s familiarity with the Ur III material can hardly be doubted after his participation in the excavations at Ur itself. Weiss’s thesis was an incredible stimulus for further research on the environmental conditions in the area, resulting in a better understanding of environmental changes, their causes, results and impact on ancient society.28 Old pollen cores were re-examined, on-site and off-site sediments analysed and compared, climatic proxy data gathered in order to reconstruct ancient environmental conditions and, as an end outcome, understand the course of events which led to the alleged collapse. The results of this recent research have introduced several corrections into Weiss’s original proposition, which he has continued nonetheless to update and develop in a series of papers published after 1993.29 1. Despite a spectral analysis of “tephra”-ashes from Leilan, scholars were not able to identify the volcano responsible for the explosion that triggered environmental change. Moreover, historical and modern sources both have shown that climatic disturbances re- 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 Weiss (1997). Weiss et al. (1993); Weiss – Courty (1993); Courty (1994); Courty – Weiss (1997). Weiss – Courty (1993), 143–5. Weiss (2000a), 210–12; Weiss – Bradley (2001), 610. Weiss (2000), 85–88. To illustrate the impact of Weiss’s hypothesis on archaeologists I will quote from a recent paper by Peltenburg: “Having ruined the indigenous political and economic infrastructure, the departure of Akkad created a political vacuum that left communities ill-equipped to deal with declining agricultural productivity and competition for reduced high-yield lands. This coincides with Leilan collapse phase 2, when conditions of low agricultural activity prevailed”. [Peltenburg (2000), … ??]. For instance: Nüzhet Dalles et al. (1997). Weiss (1997b); Weiss (2000a), Weiss (2000b), Weiss (2001). AOF 2_07 Kolinski 8 08.08.2007 15:10 Uhr Seite 8 Rafał Koliński, The Upper Khabur Region in the Second Part of the Third Millennium BC sulting from volcanic activity do not exceed 18 months.30 Consequently, they could hardly be a cause of long-term climatic change on a regional scale, and certainly not of change observable throughout the entire northern hemisphere. 2. Further analyses of the “tephra”-ashes, collected from a number of sites located not only in the Khabur region, but also in Syria and Palestine31, revealed similar mineral composition, including the presence of minerals typical of asteroids. At the 3 rd ICAANE in Paris in 2002 M.-A. Courty proposed that “a violent air blast event” responsible for producing “tephra-like” mineral spherules encountered on the mentioned sites resulted from small bolide entering atmosphere from outer space. This event resulted in a thermal and wind blast, and caused wild fires in the area, leading to the destruction of plant cover and triggering in effect a rapid erosion of ground surface and increased dust deposition.32 Courty believes that the “blast event” effects may be confused with sudden aridification.33 A distant reflection of this event is to be recognised in a South Mesopotamian literary composition, Course of Agade34, describing a period of drought and “flaming pot-sherds” dropping from the sky, though it may be interpreted just as well as the result of a “volcanic event”. 3. “Tephra” and ashes appeared in well stratified contexts at Tell Brak35, namely on the latest floor of the FS Layer 5 public complex which was ritually closed in the early part of the Akkadian period at Brak, thus earlier than previously proposed dates for the “triggering event”. Two C14 samples from the same level give dates of 3990 +50 and 3950 +60 BP (calibrated: 2580 – 2460 BC (± 1s) or 2700 –2300 BC (± 2s)). Consequently, the abandonment of this complex at Brak predates significantly the end of the Akkadian (EJ IV) period on the site. This date correspond with dates of the “tephra” deposits on other sites (Table III). In consequence, the natural disaster which caused the deposition of the “tephra” spherules could be related neither to the abandonment of the Khabur Plain by the Akkadians nor to the settlement collapse in the region during the EJ V period. 4. Off-site analysis of sediments in the area of Leilan and north-east of Hasake revealed steady dust deposition during the entire Leilan II period, resulting most probably from extensive agriculture, as there is no vegetation to protect agricultural land from wind erosion during most of the year. This change was accompanied by slow change in water conditions, consisting first of all of the occasional heavy rain-shower. The “post-event period” features thinner particles of aeolic deposits and evidence for rapid accumulation of the sediment, assumedly as a result of higher-energy wind activity, thin plant cover and low humidity (high humidity acts as a cohesive and prevents soil particles from being blown away). Occasional crusts suggest heavy rain-showers instead of more evenly distributed rainfall.36 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 Courty (2002). Courty (1998); Courty (1999). Courty (2002). Courty (2001), 367. Attinger (1984) lines 120–124 and 175 and commentary on p. 117; Michałowski (1986), lines 127–130 and 303–313. Courty (2001). Leilan: Courty (1993), Courty – Weiss (1997), 116–39; Hamoukar: Wilkinson (2002), 92–98; Beidar: Wilkinson (2000), 3. AOF 2_07 Kolinski 08.08.2007 15:10 Uhr Seite 9 9 Altoriental. Forsch. 34 (2007) 2 Site Laboratory no. Date BP (± 1s) Calibrated date BC (± 2s) Tell Brak, CH 97 Beta – 110930 4040 ± 50 BP 2605 – 2400 BC Tell Brak, CH 97 Beta – 125320 4170 ± 40 BP 2885 – 2595 BC Tell Chuera, CVI: 2a110 Lyon – 473 3980 ± 55 BP 2610 – 2317 BC Tell Leilan, Tr 1.2m lower burnt soil GifA 96233 3790 ± 90 BP 2469 – 1924 BC Tell Leilan, Tr 1.2m Upper burnt soil GifA 96236 3980 ± 70 BP 2832 – 2230 BC Tell Beydar (I) Beta – 10929 3850 ± 50 BP 2460 – 2140 BC Tell Beydar (F) Lyon – 474 3825 ± 55 BP 2442 – 2063 BC Terqa 97 – K1B 225 Beta – 110931 3950 ± 50 BP 2575 – 2300 BC Terqa 96 – K1A 200 GifA 97801 3930 ± 60 BP 2545 – 2290 BC Table III. C-14 dates of the “Akkadian Air Blast Event” on various sites of northern Syria [after Courty (2001), Tab. 59]. More favourable conditions observed again as the changes in soil conditions returned after a period of time. The dynamics of those changes are difficult to date; Weiss 37 assumed that the arid period corresponded to the entire length of Leilan Hiatus 1, i. e., lasted 300 years, but neither the precise date nor the length of this period could be reconstructed based on available data. 5. Climatological simulations of ancient precipitation based on a reconstructed position of the sub-tropical Jet-stream, which determines which area receives winter rainfall in the northern part of the Near East and summer rainfall (monsoon) in the south, demonstrate a rapid decrease of rainfall in the Khabur area from 4600 BP calibrated on.38 Mean annual rainfall at that moment was about 50 mm higher than at present and reached a level of 540 mm (for Qamishli). The rainfall value reached its minimum around 4350 BP at a level about 430 mm per annum and then started to rise gradually, but did not reach the value of present rainfall.39 The rainfall values oscillated between these two levels throughout the 2nd millennium, with another minimum of about 420 mm at around 3300 BP, to decrease significantly just after 3000 BP, when it dropped to the lowest value since the Younger 37 38 39 Weiss et al. (1993), Courty – Weiss (1997), 108–9. Bryson – Bryson (1997), Fig. 5. The present rainfall value of 490 mm used by Bryson and Bryson (1997) is not in accordance with other sources. Wallen and Perin de Brichambaut give for Qamishli a mean value of 432 mm [Wallen – Perin de Brichambaut (1962), Tab. B]; Wirth (1971), 90, Tab. 2 a mean value of about 460 mm; Wilkinson (1997), 74 of 444 mm. In consequence, all figures of rainfall quoted above should be lowered by about 10 %. AOF 2_07 Kolinski 10 08.08.2007 15:10 Uhr Seite 10 Rafał Koliński, The Upper Khabur Region in the Second Part of the Third Millennium BC Dryas (375 mm). This reconstruction does not correspond fully to the reconstruction proposed by Weiss and to other proxy data. According to it, an increasing improvement of the climatic conditions was supposed to occur after “the Akkadian Event” and the rainfall level during the last two centuries of the 3rd millennium and for the first half of the 2nd millennium was very similar and only slightly lower than the present one. This picture is in opposition to archaeological evidence which, according to Weiss, reflects three centuries of settlement collapse in the area, and to pedological evidence, which witnesses decrease of rainfall throughout the entire later part of the 3rd millennium. On the other hand, recently published results of the analysis of plant remains collected at Brak indicate no identifiable variation between the Akkadian and post-Akkadian crop-and-weed assemblages.40 A significant change in environmental conditions has to be reflected in the composition of plant assemblages; in consequence, the similarity of assemblages from subsequent periods points to a similarity of natural conditions. Generally, recently published studies point rather to stable rainfall conditions, probably only slightly less favourable than the conditions today. 6. Recent research did not support the idea of a general abandonment of the Khabur area. Two regional centres of the Akkadian period continued to exist. Brak was ruled by a local dynasty of Hurrian origin 41 and even more powerful kings, bearing the Hurrian title endan, ruled Mozan.42 In Brak no change in the size of the city has been evidenced, and some important buildings, such as the palace of Naram-Su’en, were reconstructed and used.43 The administrative building at Mozan was in use for a relatively short period of time and was later overbuilt with houses.44 The most surprising discovery was a part of an extensive house, which belonged to Puššam, a trader representing in the area a merchant from another city or coming from this city, possibly Tintir in South Mesopotamia (according to the legend on his personal seal, found on more than 250 sealings).45 This direct link to the south is in clear opposition to the South Mesopotamian written sources which, as demonstrated above, hold extremely scanty evidence for contacts with the Khabur area. Beside two large cities: Urkeš and Nagar, a number of smaller settlements of the same date have been identified recently in the area: Chagar Bazar, Arbid, Barri and Hamukar.46 The presence of smaller settlements confirms D. Oates’s thesis that large cities, such as 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 Charles – Bogaard (2001), 325–6. Cf. impression of a seal of Talpuš-atili, “the sun of the country of Nagar”, Matthews – Eidem (1993), 202; Frayne (1997), 460; Eidem et al. (2001), 105, no. 3; Oates – Oates (2001), 393, Fig. 376. Wilhelm (1998). For other rulers of Mozan of this period, who as a rule bear the title of lugal and Hurrian names: Ewrim-atal, Šatar-mat, Atal-šen and, Ann-atal, bearing the title “lord” only, cf. Steinkeller (1998); Buccellati – Kelly-Buccellati (2001), 90 –92, Abb. 19; Buccellati – Kelly-Buccellati (2002), 114, Abb. 3. Oates – Oates (2001), 392. It is also possible that a post-Akkadian palace was constructed over Naram-Su’en’s fort, cf. Oates – Oates (2001), 393. Buccellati – Kelly-Buccellati (2002), 110–15. Dohman-Pfälzner – Pfälzner (2001), 121–27, 135–7; the Puššam seal, cf. Abb. 19. For a different interpretation of the legend of the seal, cf. Buccellati – Kelly-Buccellati (2002), 114 n. 4. Cf. note 21. Cf. settlements in the neighboring areas: Kharab Seyyar [Meyer et al. (2001)] to the West and Tell Rimah [Postgate et al. (1997), 27–29], Tell Taya [Reade (1968), 264], Niniveh [McMahon (1998), 12–17, Figs. 8–9; Gut et al. (2001)] and Tell Jikan [Oguchi (2003), 86–94, Fig. 4] to the east. AOF 2_07 Kolinski 08.08.2007 15:10 Uhr Altoriental. Forsch. 34 (2007) 2 Seite 11 11 Nagar for instance 47, have to be supported by a local network of settlements. The publication of a well stratified assemblage of pottery from this period from Tell Brak has finally provided archaeologists with a precise tool to sort through pottery from surveys and excavations in the area. This will result most likely in the identification of subsequent settlements from the period soon. Two instances of recent identification of EJ V deposits may be quoted to illustrate the hypothesis about the expected rapid increase in the number of settlements dated to this period. The first of them relates to the excavations at Tell Arbid, where pottery predating Khabur Ware and clearly later than the EJ IV assemblage was retrieved already in 1998.48 No definite identification of this pottery was possible prior to June 2001, when Professor J. Oates showed the Brak EJ V pottery to the present author during the latter’s short visit to Cambridge. During the subsequent season more pottery in sound architectural context was found at the site, making the identification of the EJ V settlement sure. The other instance relates to German work at Tell Mozan, where EJ V period settlement was found during the second season of excavations, filling an alleged hiatus in the occupation of the site.49 Due to the recent publication of late 3rd millennium assemblages from Tell Brak50 and increasing knowledge of EJ V pottery from other sites, it is possible to describe pottery types typical of the period. Stone Ware and dark-rim orange bowls continue, as well as ring bases, comb and rope decoration, though both ring bases and comb decoration typical of both periods vary. Ring bases, especially those of fine-ware bowls, are very low. Comb decoration is more complicated now; beside multiple wavy lines, it also includes comb impressions. Conical beakers of concave bottom are now usually string-cut and of very high proportions. New elements include forms of the vessels: recessed bead rim bowls, grooved rim bottles, shallow, irregular bowls of string-cut base, large biconical potstands, rounded and ovoid jars with bead rim. Also the surface treatment is different: horizontal ribbing appears on the shoulders of jars, as well as radially burnished patterns inside flat bowls. Animal appliqué decoration appears as well as sporadically painted motifs, sometimes executed with paint but more often with bitumen. Two typical assemblages of EJ V pottery were identified: one typical of Brak (encountered also at Tell Arbid) and another, typical of Mozan, characterised by bowls with carination and jars of grooved ribbon rim. Harvey Weiss’s hypothesis, assuming a collapse resulting in abandonment that covers the entire post-Akkadian period in the Khabur area, cannot be accepted in the light of recent research. First of all, there is no abandonment phase in the Khabur area during the EJ V period. Two flourishing centres exist in Urkeš and Nagar, supported by a network of smaller settlements, recently identified in the central part of the Khabur area. Pottery of the period, due to the publication of the EJ V assemblages from Brak, is relatively well known (Fig. 6); moreover, two geographic variations of the pottery repertoire exist: one 47 48 49 50 Oates – Oates (2001), 393. Bieliński (2000), 278; Bieliński (2001), 318; Bieliński (2002), 284, 291, Fig. 6; Rutkowski (2006). Cf. stratigraphical tables resulting from the 1999 campaign [Dohmann-Pfälzner – Pfälzner (2000), Abb. 2] and from the 2000 campaign [Dohmann-Pfälzner – Pfälzner (2001), Abb. 5]. J. Oates (2001), 170–77. AOF 2_07 Kolinski 12 08.08.2007 15:10 Uhr Seite 12 Rafał Koliński, The Upper Khabur Region in the Second Part of the Third Millennium BC typical of Brak, encountered also at Chagar Bazar and Arbid, and another one typical of Mozan. Climatic proxy data are not conclusive, but it is clear that the rainfall level did not drop as low as originally suggested by Weiss. Also the natural disaster supposed to trigger climatic changes did not happen at the end of the Akkadian period but earlier, probably in the first part of the period and resulted, most likely, in temporary climatic fluctuation. The EJ V period cannot be considered as a “dark age” anymore. 2. Old Jezirah I No settlement of this period was identified beyond doubt, despite the fact that some major sites in the area reputedly had not been abandoned. A continuity of settlement has been suggested for Mozan and Brak, and also for some sites located outside the Khabur area.51 No characteristic pottery of this period has been recognized, but this does not mean that no such pottery existed. Some examples of sherds, which may date in this period are known from Tell Brak (area SS, dated provisionally to the Isin-Larsa period 52). Some vessels from the earliest graves discovered by Mallowan at Chagar Bazar 53 and some dispersed sherds from Muhammad Diyab 54 may also belong to this early period. Mozan seems to have been occupied throughout this period, at least in areas which have been excavated 55, but no pottery of OJ I date has been published yet. The pottery sequence may be gleaned to some extent from finds at Tell Taya (level V) 56 and Tell Rimah (layer AS3, under the Old Jazirah II period temple).57 Pottery, which, judging from its stratigraphical position, may belong to the OJ I period, has also been excavated at Tell Arbid. The sherds from Tell Arbid are as a rule very coarse slow-wheel products with much coarse vegetable temper. The surface is usually chocolate-brown in colour and wet-smoothed. Painted motifs occur occasionally (horizontal lines, exceptionally also slashed triangles) and are always executed with very thin, semi-transparent plum-red coloured paint, sometimes so thin that it is difficult to notice it on the surface of the sherd.58 Similar colour and technique appear to be 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 Oguchi (1997), 196, Fig. 1, 1–7 (Khabur Ware period 1). Particular sites and regions: Tell Rimah (level A3): Postgate et al. (1997), 27–9, Pls. 59–60; Tell Taya (level V): Reade (1968), 257; Reade (1982), 74; Ashur: (Ishtar temple D) Andrae (1922), 115; (Nabu temple IIIb) Dittmann (1990), 164 For the situation in the Euphrates Valley, cf. Nigro (1998), 274–79, Fig. 3, for the Balikh Valley: Nigro (1998), 280, Fig. 4. Oates (2001), 173– 4, Figs. 206, 416. For instance, Graves G1–3, which may predate the earliest structures of the early phase of layer 1, cf. Mallowan (1936) 55, Fig. 2. Faivre (1992), Figs. 19: 3, 5– 6; 20: 3– 4. The German sector: Level C6A, cf. Dohmann-Pfälzner – Pfälzner (2001), 127–33, Abb. 5; later labeled as level C6 (Dohmann-Pfälzner – Pfälzner (2002), Abb. 3). The American sector: phase 4b in AK, containing graves, pottery kilns and houses over the Ur III period fill of the Royal Store (Buccellati – Kelly-Buccellati (2000), 152, Fig. 7; Buccellati – Kelly-Buccellati (2001), Abb. 2; Buccellati – KellyBuccellati (2002), 115, Abb. 3). Reade (1968), 256–7, Pl. LXXXVII, 25. Postgate et al. (1997), AS phase 3, 27–28, Pl. 59– 60. This assemblage of pottery will be the subject of a Ph.D. dissertation prepared by Agnieszka Piełkowska (Institute of Archaeology, Warsaw University). AOF 2_07 Kolinski 08.08.2007 15:10 Uhr Seite 13 Altoriental. Forsch. 34 (2007) 2 13 characteristic of some of the OJ I sherds from Tell Taya 59, but, on the whole, the pottery of this period varies significantly from site to site. The only argument why there should be an OJ I settlement and pottery in the area is circumstantial. When the Old Assyrian merchants started to lead their caravans to Anatolia prior to 1900 BC 60, the trail went through the Khabur area and local settlements located there were listed as caravan stations in some preserved itineraries. Some of these bear names which correspond to or repeat the names of the settlements known to exist in the area during the late 3rd millennium BC. It is quite unlikely that the names of settlements would survive for a few generations if the entire area had been abandoned. The Old Jazira I period appears as a typical “Dark age” period. No settlement of this period is known, no pottery characteristic of more than a single site has been presented, no information concerning either the history or culture of the area is available. Cultural Transitions of the Second Part of the 3rd Millennium BC (Table IV) 61 1. The EJ IIIA – EJ IIIB transition Period EJ IIIA: During this period local palaces appeared (for instance, the earliest phase of the palace at Tell Beidar 62 and the earlier “public building” at Tell Arbid 63) and are reputedly seats of local rulers. Seals start to be commonly used during this period, as evidenced by numerous seals and sealings discovered in public and private contexts, and this phenomenon points to a rapid development of administrative practices. Pottery typical of this period includes (fig. 2): Local late Excised Ninevite 5, early types of Metallic Ware (red or brown in colour), Painted bichrome Jazirah stands, trumpetshaped stands with cruciform windows, hemispherical bowls, bowls and jars with rounded base, small bowls with tiny flat base, small globular spouted bottles, Cooking Ware pots with triangular handles on the rim, jars with rectangular turned-out rims. Period EJ IIIB: Local palaces exist (cf. later phase of palace at Tell Beidar 64 and later phase of the “public building” at Tell Arbid 65), but some cities in which they function are dependent on regional centres which appear for the first time as political entities. Nagar seems to be the most important centre in the area, mentioned, beside Kish, in the Ebla archives. We know about princesses of Ebla marrying into the royal houses of Kish and Nagar, though in the case of Nagar, it was a daughter of a second-rank wife who was married to the son of the en (king) of Nagar. 66 The Ebla archives inform about the political structure of the area: the king of Nagar accompanied by some satellite rulers travelled to 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 Tell Taya: Reade (1968), 264. Veenhof (2003), 39– 42 and 57. The characteristic pottery changes during subsequent cultural periods follow the model presented by Lebeau (2000), 174–177. Bretschneider – Jans (1997), 72–79; Lebeau – Suleiman (2003). Bieliński (2002), 289–90. Bretschneider – Jans (1997), 79–85; Lebeau – Suleiman (2003). Bieliński (2002), 284 –8, Fig. 5. Biga (1998). AOF 2_07 Kolinski 08.08.2007 15:10 Uhr 14 Seite 14 Rafał Koliński, The Upper Khabur Region in the Second Part of the Third Millennium BC “DARK AGES”: Period Description Evaluation ––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––– ––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––– 1. EJ V 2. OJ I Flourishing settlements at Brak and Mozan (local rulers and archives known), smaller at Chagar Bazar, Arbid, Barri and Hamukar. Distinctive local pottery types not dark at all No settlement known, no pottery known Pitch dark TRANSITIONS: Period History/society Settlement Culture Texts ––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––– ––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––– EJ III A Local palaces, local rulers Medium and small size sites, Urbanization Syrian Seal style Metallic ware No texts known Pottery change Local palaces cease to function Destruction horizons Beidar Chagar 1. EJ III A–III B Cause: Local development EJ III B 2. EJ III B–IV 3. Growth of political entities like Nagar at the expense of smaller centres (Nabula). Progressing nucleisation Maximum extent of cities Cause: External influence, limited environmental stress EJ IV Naram-Su’en fort and administration in Brak Replacement of some local rulers EJ IV-V Cause: environmental stress EJ V Independent Hurrian rulers Commercial ties with the South 4. EJ V-OJ I OJ I Gradual abandonment of small sites General abandonment of small sites, some large sites entirely or partly abandoned Pottery change Brak official buildings cease to function Brak Mozan Pottery change Language change Brak Mozan no OJ I pottery known no texts known Cause: environmental stress no information Total abandonment(?) Old Assyrian trade roads (from mid-20th century BC on) Caravan stations exist Kanish Table IV. “Dark Ages” and “Transitions” in the Upper Khabur region in the later 3rd millennium BC [modified from Lebeau (2000), Tab. IX]. AOF 2_07 Kolinski 08.08.2007 15:10 Uhr Altoriental. Forsch. 34 (2007) 2 Seite 15 15 Fig. 2. A typical pottery assemblage of the Early Jazirah IIIA period [nos. 1–3 from Tell Baydar, cf. Bretschneider (1997), Fig. 2; all others from Tell Brak; numbers provided refer artefact drawings in Oates – Oates (2001)]. AOF 2_07 Kolinski 16 08.08.2007 15:10 Uhr Seite 16 Rafał Koliński, The Upper Khabur Region in the Second Part of the Third Millennium BC Fig. 3. A typical pottery assemblage of the Early Jazirah IIIB period from Tell Brak [numbers provided refer artefact drawings in Oates – Oates (2001)]. AOF 2_07 Kolinski 08.08.2007 15:10 Uhr Altoriental. Forsch. 34 (2007) 2 Seite 17 17 Tuttul to swear peace with Ebla.67 Apparently, the growing influence of Nagar (Tell Brak) resulted in the elimination of at least some local rulers and the subjugation of others.68 This situation is reflected by the archaeological evidence to some extent. The local palace existing in Beidar served as an administrative centre, occasionally visited by the king of Nagar who was the ruler of both cities. His visits are documented on the tablets from Beidar, as food given on these occasions to the King, his courtiers and animals was registered in the local archive.69 Two monumental complexes discovered at Brak date to this period (area SS and the Brak Oval) 70 and represent a new quality in architecture, namely huge administrative and ritual structures reflecting the needs of regional rulers. The IIIB pottery changes consist of the disappearance of Late Ninevite pottery, Bichrome painted stands, jars with rounded bottoms and turned-out rims. New pottery categories that appear include (Fig. 3): Black Metallic Ware, Spiral burnished Syrian bottles, Combed wash Ware, globular bottle with suspension lugs, jars with incision on the internal side of the rim, ovoid jars, cylindrical stands with windows, hemispherical bowls with knob handles, Grey “Stone Ware” and small bowls with flattened base. A rapid change in society is observable, featuring a growing political organization of the area. Small political entities typical of the EJ IIIA period, localized in every township, were dominated by a few larger centres of regional or even supra-regional importance (Nagar, for instance). In Nagar, a new “capital” city emerged, consisting of huge ritual complexes intended to meet cult needs and to articulate royal authority (Brak, area SS). Cuneiform texts are encountered for the first time in the area. A gradual change in pottery accompanies this process. 2. The EJ IIIB – EJ IV transition The end of the EJ IIIB period is marked by abandonment levels encountered on numerous sites, associated occasionally with evidence of conflagration and extensive inventories found in situ. They occurred at Brak (CH, level 6, ER level 5, Oval) 71 and at a number of other sites, both large and small, and are often interpreted in relation to the coming of the Akkadian army.72 The presence of the Akkadians in the area is clear from the existence of the so-called Naram-Su’en palace at Brak (identification by inscriptions on bricks used for its construction). Akkadian influence is evidenced by two fragments of stone vases bearing the name of Rimuš found at Brak, as well as by administrative texts from Brak which use Akkadian formulas.73 It seems that Nagar lost its independence, as monumental com- 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 Archi (1998), 5. Lerberghe (1996); Sallaberger (1998); Sallaberger (1999a); Sallaberger (1999b), 129–30. Sallaberger – Ur (2004). Ismail et al. (1996), texts nos. 79–81, 85, 88–90, 96–98, 101, 106, 109–10, 113–14, 122. The SS complex was erected towards the end of EJ IIIb, cf. Oates – Oates (2001), 380–82, 391–92, but the Brak Oval may be slightly earlier (Emberling et al. (1999), 14; Emberling – McDonald (2001), 35). Oates – Oates (2001), 383–389, Emberling et al. (1999), 14: Emberling – McDonald (2001), 34–35. They may well be evidence of the “air blast event” mentioned above, when discussing the EJ V period. Eidem et al. (2001), 103, texts nos. 1 (Rimuš), 2 (Naram-Su’en), 14, 74, 76. AOF 2_07 Kolinski 18 08.08.2007 15:10 Uhr Seite 18 Rafał Koliński, The Upper Khabur Region in the Second Part of the Third Millennium BC Fig. 4. A typical pottery assemblage of the Early Jazirah IV period from Tell Brak [numbers provided refer artefact drawings in Oates – Oates (2001)]. AOF 2_07 Kolinski 08.08.2007 15:10 Uhr Altoriental. Forsch. 34 (2007) 2 Seite 19 19 plexes in areas FS and SS at Brak were ritually closed and filled with earth during the earlier part of the Akkadian period.74 Nevertheless, some of the local centres were still independent. The best known case is that of Urkeš, where numerous sealings discovered in an extensive public building witness the presence of a local dynasty75, related to the royal house of Agade by a dynastic marriage.76 The repertory of pottery from period EJ IV (fig. 4) include several types known from the EJ IIIB period: Metallic Ware, Stone Ware, Spiral burnished bottle, Combed-wash pottery. Ovoid and rounded shapes disappear, as do forms like the double-mouthed jars. New elements of the repertory include greenish “sila” bowls, truncated conical bowls, beakers with concave base, band-rim bowls, bowls with bead rim and concave base, tall-necked jars, dark-rim orange bowls. Comb, incised and rope decoration patterns appear as well as ring bases and double, tubular lugs. The coming of the Akkadians is widely accepted as the cause of changes characteristic of the EJ IIIB – EJ IV transition. This explains changes in the political situation, such as the subjugation of some centres from the previous period and the replacing of local authority with the royal Akkadian administration (Nagar) or securing Akkadian influence in independent cities by diplomatic ties, royal marriages included (Urkeš). Weiss and Senior have argued that Akkadian influence is traceable also in the economy. The observed intensification of agriculture and the introduction of large-scale food distribution (presence of “sila” bowls) is interpreted as introducing southern economic traditions with which the Akkadians were clearly familiar.77 Less favourable environmental conditions and a growing degradation of the fields resulting from centuries of agriculture during preceding periods are quoted as a reason for these changes in agricultural management. The evidence for the deterioration of agricultural conditions, discussed already above, cannot be considered presently as the reason that forced the Akkadians to use the more intensive and more efficient southern system. It seems more likely that the introduction of Akkadian-rooted administration in Nagar consisted of a mechanical copying of a system which worked perfectly in other parts of the country, despite the fact the local conditions varied considerably from the conditions in the South. On the other hand, this system was well suited to provide local administration with human working power, which would be necessary to carry on such projects as, for instance, building Naram-Su’en’s fort in Brak. Changes in the political situation, as well as changes in the economy are hardly reflected in the pottery assemblages. Changes are not very pronounced and are hardly related to historic events in all likelihood. 74 75 76 77 The date is based on the evidence of seals, cf. Oates – Oates (2001), 389–91. Buccellati – Kelly-Bucellati (2001), 90–93, Abb. 19. Seal impressions of Tar’am-Agade, daughter of Naram-Su’en, married to the ruler (endan) of Urkeš, cf. Buccellati – Kelly-Buccellati (2000), 136– 41, 153–55, Fig. 3. Senior – Weiss (1992). AOF 2_07 Kolinski 20 08.08.2007 15:10 Uhr Seite 20 Rafał Koliński, The Upper Khabur Region in the Second Part of the Third Millennium BC 3. The EJ IV – EJ V transition The end of the EJ IV period is usually referred to the collapse of Akkadian authority in the area. The withdrawal of the Akkadians is a process that is difficult to explain as it is not clear what was its cause and how it had proceeded. Several explanations of this process have been offered in the literature 78, but a convincing reconstruction has yet to be presented. There is no doubt, however, that texts of “Akkadian” formulation cease to exist; Hurian rulers and occasional texts written in Hurrian appear, suggesting not only a switch of power, but also a population change. It is possible that this change started already during the EJ IV period and proceeded with greater intensity once Akkadian rule had come to an end.79 The EJ V period is discussed extensively above, in a section devoted to the analysis of the “Dark Ages”. It has been argued by Weiss that the collapse of settlement triggered by a natural disaster of some kind is characteristic of the period after the withdrawal of Akkadian authority from the north. There is no doubt at present that there was no collapse of settlement in the area. Two important centres of authority continued to exist during this period, one in Mozan and the other at Nagar, both ruled by independent kings of Hurrian origin. As the Oateses 80 have rightly pointed out, it is hard to believe that large centres, such as the two cities mentioned above, could have flourished without a hinterland and indeed some settlements of this period have been recently identified in the area. Also, the unfavourable change of climatic conditions seems to be much less pronounced than held by Weiss. The pottery of period EJ V 81 (fig. 5) varies from that of the previous period with regard to the forms encountered, the technique used for pottery-making, the surface treatment and decoration (for a more specific description, cf. above). A very interesting observation concerns the differences between the pottery assemblage typical of Tell Mozan and that of Tell Brak. It seems that two ceramic provinces may be distinguished, centred in the most important cities of the period. Hence, we have to deal not only with a change in the pottery, but also with a development of pottery provinces characterized by an extent varying from that which was current for the EJ III period.82 4. The EJ V – OJ I transition The settlement and alleged pottery of period OJ I (fig. 6) has been described above in the chapter devoted to the OJ I period. The pottery of the OJ I from the area is hardly known 83 and it is impossible to define any characteristic features. This situation is in clear opposi78 79 80 81 82 83 For instance: Weiss – Courty (1993); Weiss et al. (1993), Weiss (2000a); Peltenburg (2000); Oates – Oates (2001), 392–94. Richter (2004). Oates – Oates (2001), 393. Rutkowski (2006). For the extent of pottery provinces during EJ III–IV, cf. Lebeau (2000), 174–77, Tabs. VI–VIII. Oguchi (1997); Nigro (1998), 280–81. AOF 2_07 Kolinski 08.08.2007 15:10 Uhr Altoriental. Forsch. 34 (2007) 2 Seite 21 21 Fig. 5. A typical pottery assemblage of the Early Jazirah IV period from Tell Brak [numbers provided refer artefact drawings in Oates – Oates (2001)]. 22 08.08.2007 15:10 Uhr Seite 22 Rafał Koliński, The Upper Khabur Region in the Second Part of the Third Millennium BC Fig. 6. Alleged Old Jazirah I period pottery from Tell Brak [numbers provided refer artefact drawings in Oates – Oates (2001)]. AOF 2_07 Kolinski AOF 2_07 Kolinski 08.08.2007 15:10 Uhr Altoriental. Forsch. 34 (2007) 2 Seite 23 23 tion to the EJ V pottery, which is presently well defined. As far as the settlements are concerned, it is not clear whether any of the excavated sites revealed a continuous occupation sequence. Hence, there is again opposition to the situation in the EJ V period, when two huge cities and a number of smaller settlements existed in the area, and the situation during the OJ I period, when no settlement existing at the time can be identified beyond any measure of doubt at the moment. Still, it is a lack of evidence for the OJ I period that is responsible for the opposition between the EJ V and the OJ I period. This situation can easily change once new evidence has been retrieved from excavations and then the nature of the transition will have to be reconsidered. Conclusion This paper contains an analysis of two “dark ages” and four transitions from one cultural period to another, all traditionally identified in the periodization of the later part of the 3rd millennium BC in the Khabur region. The alleged dark ages, the EJ V period and OJ I period, are of a differing nature. Due to recent archaeological work in the area, the EJ V period cannot be considered as a dark age anymore. Beside the two large cities, which were seats of local royal dynasties, a number of smaller settlements has been identified, the pottery of the period is relatively well known and cuneiform texts, though extremely rare, exist. On the contrary, the OJ I period is one of the most mysterious in the archaeology of the region. No settlement of this date has been identified beyond doubt, no typical pottery is known and there is no written evidence from the area. The transitions observed in the culture of the Khabur area in the second part of the 3rd millennium are well established. Moreover, the changes concern not only the material culture, although these changes are the most easily observable to archaeologists, but also local society and are reflected in the history of the region. Factors triggering these changes are of various nature: development of local communities, influence from South Mesopotamia, population movements and environmental stress, the latter being a factor the importance of which has been very much stressed during recent years, but which appears now to have a much more limited influence. Only the last of the transitional periods (EJ V to OJ I) is less understood, mainly because of poor knowledge of the OJ I period. Bibliography Anastasio, S., The Archaeology of Upper Mesopotamia. An Analytical Bibliography for the Pre-Classical Periods, Subartu I, Turnhout: Brepols 1995. Anastasio, S. – Lebeau, M. – Sauvage, M., Atlas of Pre-Classical Upper Mesopotamia, Subartu XIII. Turnhout: Brepols 2004. Andrae, W., Die archaischen Ischtar-Tempel in Assur, WVDOG 39, Leipzig 1922. Archi, A., The Regional State Of Nagar According to the Texts of Ebla, in: M. Lebeau (Ed.), About Subartu, Studies devoted to Upper Mesopotamia, Subartu Vol. IV, 2, Turnhout: Brepols 1998, 1–16. Attinger, P., Remarques à propos de la Malédiction d’Accad, Revue d’Assyriologie 78 (1984), 99 –121. AOF 2_07 Kolinski 24 08.08.2007 15:10 Uhr Seite 24 Rafał Koliński, The Upper Khabur Region in the Second Part of the Third Millennium BC Bieliński, P., Tell Arbid. The Fourth Season. Polish Archaeology in the Mediterranean vol. XI (Reports 1999), 2000, 273–284. Bieliński, P., Tell Arbid. Interim Report of the Fifth Season, Polish Archaeology in the Mediterranean vol. XII (Reports 2000), 2001, 15–26. Bieliński, P., Tell Arbid, The Sixth Campaign Of Excavations. Preliminary Report, Polish Archaeology in the Mediterranean Vol. XIII (Reports 2001), 2002, 279–294. Biga, M. G., The Marriage of Eblaite Princess Tagriš-Damu with a Son of Nagar’s King, in: M. Lebeau (ed.), About Subartu. Studies devoted to Upper Mesopotamia, Subartu IV, 2, Turnhout: Brepols 1998, 17–22. Bretschneider, J., Untersuchungen an den äußeren Wallanlagen (Feld F), in: Lebeau M. – Suleiman A. (eds.), Tell Beydar. Three Seasons of Excavations (1992–1994). A Preliminary Report, Subartu III, Turnhout: Brepols 1997, 193–208. Bretschneider, J. – Jans, G., Palast und Verwaltung – Synchronismen im Khaburgebiet im 3. Jahrtausend v. Chr., UF 29 (1997), 67–93. Bryson, R. A. – Bryson, R. U., High Resolution Simulations of Regional Holocene Climate: North Africa and the Near East, in: H. Nüzhet Dalles – G. Kukla – H. Weiss (eds.), Third Millennium BC Climate Change and Old World Collapse, NATO ASI Series I: Global Environmental Change, Vol. 49, Berlin: Springer 1997, 565–79. Buccellati, G. – Kelly-Buccellati, M., The Royal Storehouse of Urkesh: the glyptic evidence from the southwestern wing, AfO 42/43 (1995/6), 1–32. Buccellati, G. – Kelly-Buccellati, M., The seals of the King of Urkesh: evidence from the western wing of the royal storehouse, WZKM 86 (1996), 65 –107. Buccellati, G. – Kelly-Buccellati, M., The courtiers of the Queen Of Urkesh: evidence from the western wing of the royal storehouse AK, in: M. Lebeau (ed.), About Subartu, Studies devoted to Upper Mesopotamia, Subartu Vol. IV, 2, Turnhout: Brepols 1998a, …. ?? Buccellati G. – Kelly-Buccellati M. (eds.), Urkesh and the Hurrians: Studies in Honour Of Lloyd Cotsen, Bibliotheca Mesopotamica Vol. 26, Malibu: Undena 1998b. Buccellati, G. – Kelly-Buccellati, M., The Royal Palace of Urkesh, Report on The 12 th Season At Tell Mozan/Urkesh: Excavations in Area AA, June–October 1999, MDOG 132 (2000), 133–183. Buccellati, G. – Kelly-Buccellati, M., Überlegungen zur funktionellen und historischen Bestimmung des Königspalastes AP in Urkeš. Bericht über die 13. Kampagne in Tall Mozan/Urkeš: Ausgrabungen im Gebiet AA, Juni–August 2000, MDOG 133 (2001), 59–96. Buccellati, G. – Kelly-Buccellati, M., Die große Schnittstelle. Bericht über die 14. Kampagne in Tall Mozan/Urkeš: Ausgrabungen im Gebiet AA, Juni – Oktober 2001, MDOG 136 (2002), 103 –130. Buccellati, G. – Kelly-Buccellati, M., Der monumentale Palasthof von Tall Mozan/Urkeš und die Stratigraphische Geschichte des ābi: Bericht über die 15. Kampagne 2002, MDOG 136 (2004), 13 –39. Charpin, D., Teblettes présargoniques de Mari, M.A.R.I. 5 (1987), 65 –127. Charpin, D., Nouvelles tablettes présargoniques de Mari, M.A.R.I. 6 (1990), 245–52. Courty, M.-A., Le cadre paléogéographique des occupations humaines dans la bassin du Haut-Khabour, Syrie du Nord-Est. Premiers Résultats. Paléorient 20/1 (1994), 21–60. Courty, M.-A., The soil record of an exceptional event at 4000 BP in the Middle East, in: B. J. Peiser – Y. Palmer – M. E. Bailey (eds.), Natural Catastrophes During the Bronze Age Civilisations, BAR 728, Oxford: Archaeopress 1998, 93–108. Courty, M.-A., The 4000 yr BP impact event: the birth of a scientific hypothesis, The Observatory, a review of Astronomy, 119 (1999), 168–71. Coury, M.-A., Evidence at Tell Brak for the Late EDIII/Early Akkadian Air Blast Event (4kyr BP), in: D. Oates – J. Oates – H. McDonald, Excavations at Tell Brak, Vol. 2: Nagar in the third millennium BC, McDonald Institute Monographs, Cambridge 2001, 367–372. Courty, M. A., Revisiting the nature, age, and social dimension of the Early Bronze Age natural catastrophe in the Ancient Near East, Lecture Given at 3rd ICAANE, Paris, April 16th, 2002. Courty, M.-A. – Weiss H., The Scenario of Environmental Degradation in the Tell Leilan Region, NE Syria, During the Late Third Millennium Abrupt Climate Change, in: H. Nüzhet Dalles – G. Kukla – AOF 2_07 Kolinski 08.08.2007 15:10 Uhr Altoriental. Forsch. 34 (2007) 2 Seite 25 25 H. Weiss (eds.), Third Millennium Bc Climate Change And Old World Collapse, NATO ASI Series I: Global Environmental Change, Vol. 49, Berlin: Springer 1997, 107–47. Dittmann, R., Ausgrabungen der Freien Universität Berlin in Assur und Kār-Tukulti-Ninurta in den Jahren 1986–1989, MDOG 122 (1990), 157–171. Dohman-Pfälzner H. – Pfälzner P., Ausgrabungen der Deutschen Orient-Gesellschaft in der zentralen Oberstadt von Tall Mozan/Urkeš. Bericht über die in Kooperation mit dem IIMAS durchgeführte Kampagne 1999, MDOG 132 (2000), 185–228. Dohman-Pfälzner H. – Pfälzner P., Ausgrabungen der Deutschen Orient-Gesellschaft in der zentralen Oberstadt von Tall Mozan/Urkeš. Bericht über die in Kooperation mit dem IIMAS durchgeführte Kampagne 2000, MDOG 133 (2001), 97–140. Dohman-Pfälzner, H. – Pfälzner P., Ausgrabungen der Deutschen Orient-Gesellschaft in der zentralen Oberstadt von Tall Mozan/Urkeš. Bericht über die in Kooperation mit dem IIMAS durchgeführte Kampagne 2001, MDOG 134 ( 2002), 149–92. Eidem, J. –Warburton, D., In the Land of Nagar: A Survey around Tell Brak, Iraq 58 (1995), 61–64. Eidem, J. – Finkel, I. – Monechi, M., The Third-millennium Inscriptions, in: D. Oates – J. Oates – H. McDonald (eds.), Excavations at Tell Brak. Vol. 2: Nagar in the third millennium BC, Cambridge: McDonald Institute for Archaeological Research, 2001, 99–120. Emberling, G. – Cheng, J. – Larsen, T. E. – Pittman, H. – Skuldboel, T. B. B. – Weber, J. – Wright, H. T., Excavations at Tell Brak 1998: preliminary report. Iraq 61 (1999), 1– 42. Emberling, G. – McDonald, H., Excavations at Tell Brak 2000: Preliminary Report. Iraq 63 (2001), 21–54. Faivre, X., La céramique de Mohammed Diyab, 1990–1994, in: J.-M. Durand (ed.), Recherches en Haute Mésopotamie. Tell Muhammad Diyab, Campagnes 1990 et 1991, Mémoires de N.A.B.U. vol. 2, Paris: SEPOA, 1992, 55– 89. Fielden, K., Archäologische Geländebegehung im Gebiet des Unteren Ğag·ğag· in: H. Kühne (ed.), Ausgrabungstätigkeit in Syrien, AfO 26 (1979), 172. Frayne, D. R., Ur III Period (2122 – 2004 BC), The Royal Inscriptions of Mesopotamia, Early Periods vol. 3/2, Toronto: University Press 1997. Gadd, C. I., Tablets from Chagar Bazar and Tell Brak, Iraq 4 (1937), 178–185. Gibson Mc, G. – Al-Azm, A. – Reichel, C. – Quntar, S. – Franke, J. A. – Khalidi, L. – Hritz, C. – Altaweel, M. – Coyle, C. – Colantoni, C. – Tenney, J. – Abdulaziz, Gh. – Hartnell, T., Hamoukar: A Summary of Three Seasons of Excavation, Akkadica 123 (2002), 11–14. Gut, R., Des prähistorische Ninive. Zur relativen Chronologie der frühen Perioden Nordmesopotamiens, Baghdader Forschungen Bd. 19, Mainz: von Zabern 1995. Gut, R. – Reade, J. – Boehmer, R.-M., Ninive – Das späte 3. Jahrtausend v. Chr. in: J.-W. Mayer – M. Novák – A. Pruß (eds.), Beiträge zur vorderasiatischen Archäologie Winfried Orthmann gewidmet, Frankfurt am Main 2001, 74–129. Ismail, F. – Sallaberger, W. – Talon, Ph. – Lerberghe, K. Van, Administrative Documents from Tell Beydar (seasons 1993–1995), Subartu vol. 2, Turnhout: Brepols 1996. Kerbe, J., Climat, hydrologie et amenagements hydro-agricoles de Syrie, Bordeaux: Presses Universitaires 1987. Lebeau, M., Stratified Archaeological Evidence and Compared Periodizations in the Syrian Jezirah during the Third Millennium BC, in: C. Marro – H. Hauptmann (eds.), Chronologies des pays du Caucase et de l’Euphrate aux IV–IIIe millenaires, Actes du colloque d’Istanbul, 16–19 décembre 1998, Varia Anatolica vol.XI, Paris: De Boccard 2000, 167–192. Lerberghe, K. van, 1996. The Beydar tablets and the history of the Northern Jazirah, in: Ismail F. – Sallaberger W. – Talon Ph., van Lerberghe K., Administrative Documents from Tell Beydar (seasons 1993–1995), Subartu vol. 2, Turnhout: Brepols 1996, 119 –122. Lyonnet, B. (ed.), Prospection archéologique du Haut-Khabur occidental (Syrie du N.E.), vol. I, BAH vol. CLV, Beyrouth 2000. Mallowan, M. E. L., 1936. The Excavations at Tell Chagar Bazar, and an Archaeological Survey of the Khabur Region 1934–5, Iraq 3 (1936), 1– 86. AOF 2_07 Kolinski 26 08.08.2007 15:10 Uhr Seite 26 Rafał Koliński, The Upper Khabur Region in the Second Part of the Third Millennium BC Mallowan, M. E. L., Excavations at Chagar Bazar, and an Archaeological Survey of the Khabur Region, Second Campaign, 1936, Iraq 4 (1937), 91–177. Mallowan, M. E. L., Excavations at Brak and Chagar Bazar, Iraq 9 (1947), 1–259. Matthews, D. – EIDEM, J., Tell Brak and Nagar, Iraq 55 (1993), 201–207. Matthews, R. J. (ed.), Excavations at Tell Brak, vol. 4: Exploring an Upper Mesopotamian Regional Centre, 1994–1996, Cambridge: McDonald Institute for Archaeological Research 2003. McMahon, A., The Kuyunjik Gully Sounding, Niniveh 1989 & 1990 Seasons, Rafidain 19 (1998), 1–32. McMahon, A. – Tunca, Ö. – Bagdo, A., New Excavations at Tell Chagar Bazar, 1999-2000, Iraq 63 (2001), 201–222. Meijer, D. J. W., A Survey in Northeastern Syria, PIHANS vol. LVIII, Istanbul: Nederlands Historischarchaeologisch Institut 1986. Meyer, J.-W., al-Khalaf, M. – Breitwieser, Ch. – Doerner, S. – Hempelmann, R. – Würz, M. – Zysek, A., Die dritte Grabungskampagne in Kharab Seyyar 2000, MDOG 133 (2001), 199–224. Michałowski, P., Lamentation over the Destruction of Sumer and Ur, Winona Lake: Eisenbrauns 1986. Milano, L., Mozan 2. The Epigraphic finds of the Sixth Season, SMS 5/1, Malibu: Undena 1991. Milano, L. – Sallaberger, W. – Talon, Ph. – Lergerghe, K. van, IIIrd Millennium Administrative Documents from Tell Beydar (Seasons 1996 –2000), Subartu XII, Turnhout: Brepols 2004. Nigro, L., Ebla and the Ceramic Provinces of Northern Syria in the Middle Bronze Age: Relationships and Interconnections with the Pottery Horizons of Upper Mesopotamia, in: M. Lebeau (ed.), About Subartu, Studies devoted to Upper Mesopotamia, Subartu vol. IV, 1, Turnhout: Brepols 1998, 271–303. Nüzhet Dalles, H. – Kukla, G. – Weiss, H. (eds.), Third Millennium BC Climate Change and Old World Collapse, NATO ASI Series I: Global Environmental Change, vol. 49, Berlin: Springer 1997. Oates, J., The Third Millennium Pottery, in: D. Oates – J. Oates – H. McDonald (eds.), Excavations at Tell Brak. Vol. 2: Nagar in the third millennium BC, Cambridge: McDonald Institute for Archaeological Research 2001, 151–94. Oates, D. – Oates J., Archaeological Reconstruction and Historical Commentary, in: D. Oates – J. Oates – H. McDonald (eds.), Excavations at Tell Brak. Vol. 2: Nagar in the third millennium BC, Cambridge: McDonald Institute for Archaeological Research 2001, 279 –396. Oguchi, H., A Reassessment of the Distribution of Khabur Ware: An Approach from an Aspect of Its Main Phase, Rafidain 18 (1997), 195–224. Oguchi, H., 20 th Century B. C. North Mesopotamia: An Archaeological Dilemma, Rafidain 24 (2003), 83–100. Owen, D. I., Syrians in Sumerian Sources from the Ur III Period, in: M. Chavalas – J. L. Hayes (eds.), New Horizons in the Study of Ancient Syria, Bibliotheca Mesopotamica vol. 25, Malibu: Undena 1992, 107–176. Pecorella, P., La missione archaeologica italiana a Tell Barri (Syria) – 2001, Orient Express: 2002, 3, 67–73. Pecorella, P. – Pierobon Benoit R., Tell Barri/Kahat. La Campagna del 2001. Relazione preliminare, Firenze 2004. Peltenburg, E., From Nucleation to Dispersal. Late Third Millennium BC Settlement Pattern Transformation in the Near East and Aegean, in: O. Rouault – M. Wäfler (eds.), La Djéziré et l’Euphrate syriens de la prehistoire à la fin du second millénaire av. J.-C. Tendances dans l’interpretation historique des donnes nouvelles, Subartu VII, Turnhout: Brepols 2000, 183–206. Pfälzner, P., Wandel und Kontinuität im Urbanisierungsprozess des 3. Jtsds. v. Chr. Iin Nordmesopotamien, in: G. Wilhelm (ed.), Internationales Colloquium der Deutschen Orient-Gesellschaft, 9.–10. Mai 1996 in Halle/Salle, Saarbrücken: Saarbrücker Druckerei und Verlag 1997, 239–65. Pfälzner, P., Eine Modifikation der Periodisierung Nordmesopotamiens im 3. Jtsd. v. Chr., MDOG 130, 1998, 69–71. Pfälzner, P. – Wissing, A. – Hübner, Ch., Urbanismus in der Unterstadt von Urkeš. Ergebnisse einer geomagnetischen Prospektion und eines archäologischen Surveys in der südöstlischen Unterstadt von Tall Mozan im Sommer 2002, MDOG 136 (2004), 41–86. AOF 2_07 Kolinski 08.08.2007 15:10 Uhr Altoriental. Forsch. 34 (2007) 2 Seite 27 27 Postgate, C. – Oates, D. – Oates, J., The Excavations at Tell al Rimah: The Pottery, Iraq Archaeological Reports vol. 4, Warminster: The British School of Arch), Turnhout: Brepols 2004, 7–21. Reade, J., Tell Taya (1967): Summary Report, Iraq 30 (1968, 234 –264. Reade, J., Tell Taya, in: J. Curtis (ed.), Fifty Years of Mesopotamian Discovery, London 1982, 72–78. Richter, T., Die Ausbreitung der Hurriter bis zur altbabylonischen Zeit: eine kurze Zwischenbilanz, in: J.-W. Meyer – W. Sommerfeld (eds.), 2000 v. Chr. Politische, Wirtschaftlische und kulturelle Entwicklung im Zeichen einer Jahrtausendwende, Saarbrücken: Saarbrücker Druckerei und Verlag 2004, 263 –312. Rutkowski, Ł., 2006, Górna Mezopotamia na przełomie III I II tysiąclecia p.n.e. Analiza postakadyjskiego materiału ceramicznego z Tell Arbid (Upper Mesopotamia at the Turn of the 3rd Millennium BC. Analysis of the post-akkadian pottery assemblages from Tell Arbid), unpublished Ph. D. thesis in Polish, Institute of Archaeology, Warsaw University, Warsaw 2006. Sallaberger, W., Ein Synchronismus der Urkunden von Beydar mit Mari und Ebla?, in: M. Lebeau (ed.), About Subartu, Studies devoted to Upper Mesopotamia, Subartu vol. IV, 2, Turnhout: Brepols 1998, 23–39. Sallaberger, W., Nagar in den frühdynastischen Texten aus Tell Beydar, in: K. van Lerberghe – G. Voet (eds.), At the Crossroads of Civilizations in the Syro-Mesopotamian realm, Proceedings of the RAI 42, Orientalia Lovaniensia Analecta vol. 96, Leuven: Peters 1999a, 393– 407. Sallaberger, W., Die frühdynastischen Tontafeln von Beydar. Einblicke in Kultur und Geschichte einer Stadt Syriens im 3. Jt., in: J. Bretschneider – A. Dietrich (eds.), Beydar. Mitteilungen über die Erforschung eines urbanen Zentrums im Noreden Alt-Syriens, Bd. 3, Münster: Ugarit Verlag 1999b, 111–132. Sallaberger, W. – Ur, J., Tell Beydar/Nabada in its Regional Setting, in: L. Milano – W. Sallaberger – P. Tallon – K. van Lerberghe (eds.), Third Millenium Cuneiform Texts from Tell Beidar (Seasons 1996 –2002), Subartu XII, Turnhout: Brepols 2004, 51–71. Senior, L. – Weiss, H., Tell Leilan “Sila Bowls” and the Akkadian Reorganization of Subarian AgroProduction, Orient-Express 1992: 2, 16 –23. Stein, G. – Wattenmaker, P., The 1987 Tell Leilan Regional Survey, MASCA Journal 7, supplement (1990), 8–18. Stein, G. – Wattenmaker, P., Settlement Trends and the Emergence of Social Complexity in the Leilan Region of the Khabur Plains (Syria) from Fourth to the Third Millennium BC, in: H. Weiss – E. Rova (eds.), The Origins of North Mesopotmian Civilization: Ninevite 5 Chronology, Economy, Society, Subartu IX, Turnhout: Brepols 2003, pp.  Steinkeller, P., Administrative and Economic Organization of the Ur III State, in: G. McGibson – R. D. Biggs (eds), The Organization of Power. Aspects of Bureaucracy in the Ancient Near East, Studies in Ancient Oriental Civilizations vol. 46, Chicago: The Oriental Institute 1987, 19–42. Steinkeller, P., 1998. The Historical Background of Urkesh and the Hurrian Beginnings in Northern Mesopotamia, in: G. Buccellati – M. Kelly-Buccellati (eds.), Urkesh and the Hurrians: Studies in Honour of Lloyd Cotsen, Bibliotheca Mesopotamica vol. 26, Malibu: Undena 1998, 75–98. Ur, J., Surface collection and offsite studies at Tell Hamukar, 1999, Iraq 64 (2002a), 15– 43. Ur, J., Settlement and Landscape in Northern Mesopotamia: The Tell Hamoukar Survey 2000–2001, Akkadica 103 (2002b), 57– 88. Veenhof, K. R., The Old Assyrian List of Year Eponyms from Karum Kanish and its Chronological Implications, Türk Tarih Kurumu, Ser. VI, no. 64, Ankara: Türk Tarih Kurumu 2003. Volk, K., Beschriftete Objekte aus Tall Mozan/Urkeš, MDOG 136 (2004), 87–102. Wallen, C. C. – Perrin de Brichambaut, G., A study of Agroclimatology in Semi-Arid and Arid Zones of the Near East, Rome: FAO 1962. Weiss, H., Tell Leilan, AJA 101 (1997), 126 –129. Weiss, H., Causality and Chance: Late Third Millennium BC Collapse in Southwest Asia, in: O. Rouault – M. Wäfler (eds.), La Djéziré et l’Euphrate syriens de la protohistoire à la fin du IIe millénaire av. J.-C. Tendances dans l’interprétation historique des données nouvelles, Subartu vol. VII, Turnhout: Brepols 2000a, 207–19. AOF 2_07 Kolinski 28 08.08.2007 15:10 Uhr Seite 28 Rafał Koliński, The Upper Khabur Region in the Second Part of the Third Millennium BC Weiss, H., Beyond Younger Dryas: Collapse as Adaptation to Abrupt Climate Change in Ancient West Asia and the Eastern Mediterranean, in: G. Bawden – R. M. Reycraft (eds.), Environmntal Disaster and the Archaeology of Human Response, Maxwell Museum of Anthropology, Anthropological Papers No. 7, Albuquerque: Academic Press 2000b, 75–98. Weiss, H., Unfinished Business: Akkadian Collapse at Tell Leilan, a lecture given at 3rd ICAANE, Paris, April 18th, 2002. Weiss, H. – Bradley, R. S., What Drives Societal Collapse?, Science 291 (2001), 609– 610. Weiss, H. – Courty, M.-A., The Genesis and Collapse of the Akkadian Empire, in: M. Liverani (ed.), Akkad: The First World Empire, Padua: Sargon, 1993, 131–155. Weiss, H. – Courty, M.-A. – Wetterstorm, W. – Guichard, F. – Senior, L. – Meadow, R. – Curnow, A., The Genesis and Collapse of the Third Millennium North Mesopotamian Civilization, Science 261 (1993), 995–1004. Wilhelm, G., Die Inschrift des Tišatal von Urkeš, in: G. Buccellati – M. Kelly-Buccellati (eds.), Urkesh and the Hurrians: Studies in Honor of Lloyd Cotsen, Bibliotheca Mesopotamica 26, Malibu: Undena 1998, 117–145. Wilkinson, T. J., Environmental Fluctuations, Agricultural Production and Collapse: A View from Bronze Age Upper Mesopotamia, in: H. Nüzhet Dalles – G. Kukla – H. Weiss (eds.), 1997. Third Millennium BC Climate Change and Old World Collapse, NATO ASI Series I: Global Environmental Change, vol. 49, Berlin: Springer 1997, 67–106. Wilkinson, T. J., Archaeological Survey of the Tell Beydar Region, Syria 1997, in: K. van Lerberghe – G. Voet (eds.), Tell Beydar. Environmental and Technical Studies, Subartu VI, Turnhout: Brepols 2000, 1–37. Wilkinson, T. J., Physical and Cultural Landscape of the Hamoukar Area, Akkadica 123 (2002), 89–106. Wirth, E., Syrien. Eine geographische Landeskunde, Wissenschaftliche Länderkunden Bd. 4/5, Darmstadt: Wissenschaftliche Buchgesellschaft 1971. Prof. Dr. R. Koliński Uniwersytet im. Adama Mickiewicza Instytut Prahistorii ul. św. Marcin 78 61 - 809 Poznań Polen