archeological perspectives on the ......old babylonian statue, and that there is no reason to doubt...

1

JCS 58 (2006)

One of the proudest achievements of theAkkadian king Naram-Sin was the conquest ofArmanum and Ebla.

1

These events are describedin an Old Babylonian copy of an inscription on amonument erected in the city of Ur (

UET

I 275 =U 7756, IM 85461):

Whereas, for all times since the creation of mankind,no king whatsoever had destroyed Armanum and Ebla,the god Nergal, by means of (his) weapons opened theway for Naram-Sin, the mighty, and gave him Armanumand Ebla. Further, he gave to him the Amanus, theCedar Mountain, and the Upper Sea.

2

Although it is clear that Naram-Sin’s campaignpassed through Ebla (Tall Mardikh) on its way tothe Mediterranean coast and the Cedar Mountain,the exact geographical position of Armanum re-mains uncertain. It is now generally accepted thatArmanum should be identi˜ed with Armi/Armiumof the Ebla texts and not, as had previously been

suggested, with Halab (modern Aleppo).

3

But Armiis also unlocalized, even though it is the most fre-quently mentioned place name in the Ebla textsafter Mari and Emar.

The Naram-Sin inscription contains, after thedescription of his victories, copies of captions thatrecord the dimensions of an unusually high andstrongly defended forti˜cation, which in all prob-ability was Armanum itself (see below). On the onehand this representation, with its exact measure-ments, gives the impression of an accurate depic-tion of the structure, but on the other hand the factthat this forti˜cation is described as a hill mightlead one to doubt its accuracy since, until recently,no Early Bronze Age forti˜cations on a naturalhill have been identi˜ed.

Here I discuss ˜rst the description of Armanumin this well-known text, then the evidence of therecently investigated Early Bronze Age citadel ofBanat-Bazi at the Middle Euphrates and its pos-sible identi˜cation with Armanum. I examine theinformation about Armi/Armium derived fromthe study of the Ebla texts to see if it is consistent

1. Apart from the extensive passage in

UET

I 175, theseachievements are mentioned in other inscriptions whereNaram-Sin is described as “the conqueror of Armanum andEbla” and as “the conqueror of Armanum, Ebla and Elam”(

RIME

2, Naram-Sin E2.1.4.27).2. Col. I 1–29 after

RIME

2, Naram-Sin E2.1.4.26.

3. For the identi˜cation of Armanum with Halab, basedpartly on Naram-Sin’s description of Armanum as having animpressive citadel, see

RGTC

1 (1977) 18;

RGTC

2 (1974) 15.The frequent occurrence of a religious center called

{

alam/bin the texts from Ebla has shown that this suggestion was notjusti˜ed (Lambert 1990b: 641–43; Bonechi 1990b). ManfredKrebernik informs me that the equation Armium = Armanumis only possible if a plural is postulated. This ˜ts well withthe Banat-Bazi cluster consisting of several parts.

ARCHEOLOGICAL PERSPECTIVESON THE LOCALIZATION OF

NARAM-SIN’S ARMANUM

Adelheid Otto (Ludwig-Maximilians-Universit

ä

t, M

ü

nchen)

A short version of this paper was presented at the 52ndRencontre in M

ü

nster, during which I had the possibilityto discuss the topic with Maria Giovanna Biga and AlfonsoArchi. My thanks are to them as well as to Walther Sallaberger,Manfred Krebernik, and Michael Roaf for comments on anearlier draft of this paper.

ADELHEID OTTO2

with this proposal, and suggest that the archaeo-logical and textual evidence taken together sug-gests that Armanum/Armi, like Ebla, was alreadyin decline at the time of Naram-Sin’s Syriancampaign.

UET

I 275: The Description of Armanum

in Naram-Sin’s Inscription

The Old Babylonian tablet

UET

I 275 with acopy of Naram-Sin’s inscription was found in theOld Babylonian residential quarter of Ur in thehouse that Leonard Woolley named no. 7 QuietStreet, and was ˜rst published by C. J. Gadd andL. Legrain in 1928. In 1948 F. R. Kraus publisheda detailed study of the text in an article entitled“Ein altakkadisches Festungsbild.” B. Foster under-took a new investigation in 1982. Further treat-ments of this text are included in the corpora ofOld Akkadian royal inscriptions produced by I. J.Gelb and B. Kienast in 1990 and D. R. Frayne in1993 (with previous literature).

After the description of the greatest extent ofNaram-Sin’s conquests, achieved with the helpof Nergal’s weapon (I 1–29), the narrative depictshow Naram-Sin, assisted by the god Dagan, con-quered Armanum, Ebla, and the Euphrates region(I 30–II 23). More speci˜cally, it describes how,again with Dagan’s help, he captured king Rida-Adad of Armanum (III 2) / R

ÿ

d-Adad (III 28) “inthe middle of his entrance” (II 29–III 10). Afterthe description of the construction of a dioritestatue of the king, which presumably bore theinscription, there is an unusually detailed recordof the dimensions of a forti˜cation, which had aseries of three walls (IV 20–VI 17; see ˜g. 1).Gadd and Legrain (1928) thought that the descrip-tion of this forti˜cation, whose name was written“Si-ku-ma-num” in col. V 15, was written onanother monument, namely on a statue of Sin-eribam of Larsa (VI 19), an opinion followed bySollberger and Kupper (1971: 108), and Astour(2002: 64), although Kraus (1948: 81–82) haddemonstrated how unlikely it was that an OldAkkadian text should have been written on anOld Babylonian statue, and that there is no reasonto doubt that it belongs to the monument of

Naram-Sin. Noting that there are various otherscribal errors in the Ur copy, Kraus (1948: 89)suggested emending Si-ku-ma-num to Ar-ma-num(V 15), and this reading has been accepted byHirsch (1963: 21), Foster (1982), Gelb-Kienast(1990) and Frayne (1993).

It is strange that the scribe (even if this text wasa copy produced in the course of his education)wrote the signs in V 15 Si-ku- . . . , when he hadcopied the ˜rst sign of the name six times pre-viously as Ar- . . . . Perhaps this is explained by thefact that the inscription was written on top of therepresentation of the forti˜cation, and thus wasmore di¯cult to read. In the following discussionI accept the opinion of the majority of scholarsthat these captions belonged to a depiction of theforti˜ed Mount Armanum.

This depiction was carved on a statue ofNaram-Sin (D

Ù

L-

su

t

á

m-si

!

-

l

[

í

]), which stood inthe temple of Sin. According to notes writtenwith Old Babylonian sign forms, the monumentof Naram-Sin was ˘anked on one side by a greatstatue of the king of Larsa, Sin-eribam, and theother side was oriented towards a part of thetemple known as the Ekisalamma (Foster 1982).The appearance of the statue can be imaginedfrom the surviving examples of Old Akkadianstatuary.

4

The fortress could have been depicted

4. Either this was a seated statue (similar to the one ofMani

s

tusu; Amiet 1976, no. 11+12), or more probably a stand-ing statue of the king, showing him about lifesized, dressed ina long mantle, which let only his feet free in a window-likeopening (comparable to two extant lower parts of king Mani

s-

tusu, Amiet 1976, nos. 13. 15). The limestone statue Sb 48,with its socle still 1.34 m high, bears no inscription, but can beattributed to Mani

s

tusu‘s reign on stylistic grounds (Amiet 1976:126–27; it is highly improbable that someone other than theking was depicted in a nearly lifesized triumphal statue). Itscharacter as a triumphal statue is especially apparent throughthe socle relief, which shows four lying, defeated enemies, whoare identi˜ed by captions as princes of named cities. On thebasis of Old Babylonian copies, Buccellati (1993) reconstructeda triumphal statue of Rimu

s

with its pedestals with decoratedand inscribed plaques set on them. Given the fact that Akkadiankings apparently illustrated concrete victories on their statues,it is conceivable that an especially impressive citadel couldhave been depicted on the Naram-Sin statue as well (a depic-tion to scale of a groundplan can be found on the slightly laterstatue of Gudea as architect, Louvre AO 2). The Naram-Sin steleshows that representations of conquered territory made use

THE LOCALIZATION OF NARAM-SIN’S ARMANUM 3

on the massive cylindrical lower part of the statueor could have formed the pedestal at its base.

The text contains many scribal errors and,although it is carefully written, it may well havebeen a copy, made by an apprentice scribe, of aless-than-perfect transcription of the original(“vielleicht schon fehlerhaften, von Original undErstabschrift wahrscheinlich weit entferntenVorlage”; Kraus 1948: 91). This is presumablythe reason why the interpretation of several textpassages is di¯cult and why the measurements donot add up to the sum given in the text (see below).

of spectacular heights. Programmatic depictions of conqueredcities and defeated kings are also found on a (genuine?) mold,probably from the time of Naram-Sin. It shows the dei˜ed kingon a high, stepped, architectonic element near a river. Thewarlike I

s

tar, sitting opposite him, holds the ropes of two de-feated mountain gods and two defeated enemies standing ontheir buildings or walled cities (Aruz 2003: no. 133). Captionsare already found on a stele of Sargon (Amiet 1976: no. 1).

Fig. 1. The text

UET

I 275, col. IV–VI(after Gadd and Legrain 1928).

ADELHEID OTTO4

One Line Short

The captions are divided into two groups, oneof which was written on the side of the depictionof the structure facing the statue of Sin-eribam andthe other on the side facing the Ekisalamma. Thereconstructions by Kraus and Foster of the appear-ance of the depicted structure are shown in ˜g. 2.The following dimensions are given for the struc-tural elements:

1. Captions on the side of the depiction facing the

É

-kisal

?

-am-ma:IV 20–26:

i

s

-tum

B

À

D

da-ni-im ana

B

À

D.GAL10+10+10 (Foster: 60

!

+60

!

+10; Roaf:3

x

60

5

) K

Ù†

SUKUD SA.TU-

im

40, 4K

Ù†

SUKUD B

À

DFrom the mighty wall to the greatwall: 30(?) (Foster: 130

!

, Roaf: 180

!

)cubits height of the hill, 44 cubitsheight of the wall

V 1–7:

i

s

-tum

B

À

D

k

à

-r

í

!

-im

/

k

à

-wi

!

-im

ana

B

À

D

da-ni-im

3

x

60 K

Ù†

SUKUDSA.TU-

im

30 K

Ù†

SUKUD B

À

DFrom the

k

a

rum

wall/outer wall tothe mighty wall: 180 cubit height ofthe hill, 30 cubits height of the wall

V 8–13:

†

U.N

Í

GIN 6

x

60, 40, 4 [x] K

Ù†

SUKUD

i

s

-tum q

á

-q

á

-r

í

-im a-na

SAG B

À

DTotal: 404 [X] cubits height from theground to the top of the wall

2. Captions on the side of the depiction facing thestatue of Sin-eribam:VI 1–9:

i

s

-tum

Í

D

a-na

B

À

D

k

à

-r

í

!

-im

/

k

à

-wi

!

-im

3

x

60, 10, 6 K

Ù†

SUKUD SA.TU-

im

20 K

Ù†

SUKUD B

À

DFrom the river to the

k

a

rum

wall/outer wall: 196 cubits height of thehill, 20 cubits height of the wall

VI 10–17:

i

s

-tum

B

À

D

k

à

-r

í

!

-im

/

k

à

-wi

!

-im

(seebelow)

a-na

B

À

D da-ni-im 2x60,30, 6 KÙ† SUKUD SA.TU-im 30 KÙ†SUKUD BÀD

From the karum wall/outer wall untilthe mighty wall: 156 cubits height ofthe hill, 30 cubits height of the wall

These measurements pose several problems, asfollows:

1. Are they based on real, accurately measureddistances?

2. The sum of 404 cubits given in V 8 is di¯cultto reconstruct from the numbers given in the in-scription (the reason for much of the confusionwith the numbers may be the transformation ofthe Old Akkadian numbers, written with roundelements, to Old Babylonian cuneiform signs).Kraus (1948: 84) proposed that the total of 404cubits included the sum of the “height of the hill”and the “height of the wall “from the ground tothe the karum wall/outer wall,” a dimension thatwas not recorded in the captions and that Krauscalculated to have been 120 cubits (120+180+30+30+44 = 404).6 Foster (1982: 34) suggestedthat the thirty cubits between the mighty walland the great wall was a scribal error and thatthe copyist, instead of writing two verticals andone Winkelhaken (60+60+10 = 130), wrote threeWinkelhaken (10+10+10) and that the originallywritten distance was 130 cubits. Adding up theseemended distances, gives the total of 404 (20+180+30+130+44 = 404). This also appears morereasonable because otherwise the two tallest wallson this high hill would have been separated onlyby a height of 30 cubits. A simpler emendationwould be to read 180 cubits (three vertical wedgesinstead of three Winkelhaken) for the height ofthe hill between the two upper walls and to addthe height of the vertical wall (44 cubits), whichcorresponds best to “from the ground to the topof the wall” (V 8–13).

3. In Col. V 2, VI 5 and VI 11 Gelb and Kienast(1990) read: BÀD kà-wi !-im, “outer wall,” following

5. This proposal is due to Michael Roaf. It is in fact theeasiest way to arrive at the sum of 404 cubits (180+180+44 =404).

6. Kraus proposed that the distance from the ground (qaq-qarum) to the top of the wall was measured on the side of thedepiction, where the distance from the ground to the outerwall was not indicated. This would give x+180+30+30+44 =404, and thus x (distance ground to outer wall) = 120.


Fig. 2. The depiction of the citadel of Armanum according to Naram-Sin’s description. Figures redrawn by the author after the reconstructions by Kraus (1948) and

Foster (1982).

ADELHEID OTTO6

a suggestion by Klaas Veenhof. In contrast, Foster(1982) and Frayne (1993) read BÀD kà-rí !-im“karum wall.” Neither of these readings can beaccepted as certain as the sign in question is nottypical of either rí or wi and indeed is writtendiêrently in VI 5 and VI 11. The existence of akarum (a separate merchant’s quarter or port) inArmanum is therefore a possibility, but is notcertain.

4. In the ˜rst series of measurements on theEkisalama side (on the left in the sketches ofKraus and Foster, see ˜g. 2) the distances betweenthe outer/karum wall and the mighty wall andbetween the mighty wall and the great wall aregiven. In the second series of measurements (onthe right) the distances from the river to theouter/karum wall and from this to the mightywall were recorded, but the distance from themighty wall to the great wall was not given. Ithas been suggested that this was not necessarybecause it was already recorded in the ˜rst seriesof measurements. Another possibility is that thegreat wall did not extend to the side of the depic-tion (see below). It is, however, evident that thetwo sides of the forti˜ed hill were not identicaland that for this reason diêrent measurementswere given.

5. How do we interpret these measurements?At ˜rst glance one would assume that the dimen-sions in cubits are vertical heights, since the sameword SUKUD (height) is used both for the SUKUDSA.TU-im (height of the hill/mountain) and theSUKUD BÀD (height of the forti˜cation/wall).Even if the vertical height of a steep slope couldhave been measured in the Akkadian period, itis di¯cult to believe that the total height of thefortress was as much as 404 cubits (approximatelytwo-hundred meters, reckoning one cubit as aboutone-half meter). To my knowledge there is no pre-Iron Age site in the Near East of anything likesuch a height.7 To solve this di¯culty I suggest that

the SUKUD SA.TU-im referred to the length of asteep slope and not the horizontally or verticallymeasured distance. Foster (1982: 36) suggestedthe length of the slope was meant because themeasurements record the ascent the besiegers hadto make, from bottom to top (to him the illustrationwas not primarily of the citadel, but of how itsconquest was achieved with troops attacking fromtwo sides). This proposal, which is based on thediêrent measurements given on the two sides, isnot necessary if the sides of the hill were actuallydiêrent (see below).

Archaeology: The Search for a

Forti˜ed Hill Dating to the

Early Bronze Age IV

UET I 275 describes a hill of considerable heightsituated beside a river, defended by several forti-˜cation walls and therefore not a forti˜ed tell ortell of the sort that is frequently found in EBAtimes.8 The forti˜ed structure of Armanum withseveral BÀD (forti˜cations, walls) may either becalled a citadel or a fortress.9 It is quite diêrentfrom the hundreds of BÀD that are mentionedin the Ebla texts (such as the ˜fty-two namedBÀD belonging to the city of Lu’atumki, which

7. Omitting the 44 meters of the mighty wall gives a heightof ca. 180 meters (360 cubits) or assuming that the total of 404meters is wrong, that the other recorded heights were correctand that the height of the forti˜cation was the sum of the“heights of the hill” between the walls gives either ca. 105 m

8. For an overview of forti˜ed Early Bronze Age tells innorthern Mesopotamia, see Anastasio et al. , Subartu XIII(2004). At least twelve forti˜ed settlements existed in thevalley of the Middle Euphrates between Tuttul and Karkamisduring EB II–IVa. Some of them might have had structuralsimilarities to the forti˜ed hill of Armanum, although thesehad been transfered to a tell structure. Zettler (1997: 170) states:“By the third millennium Tell es-Sweyhat, with its outer andinner forti˜cation walls and terraced central mound, wouldhave come to resemble the sort of tiered city ostensiblydescribed in Naram-Suen’s inscription commemorating hisconquest of Ebla and Armanum.”

9. We deñe a citadel as a forti˜ed and often elevated partof a settlement that has a special (administrative, cultic, mili-tary) function. We deñe a fortress as a forti˜ed structurewith a military purpose, although it may contain domesticelements.

(180+30 cubits) on one side or ca. 90 meters (156+30 cubits).These heights are considerably greater than the recordedheights of such important citadels and sites as those at Assur(max. 49 m), Niniveh (ca. 30 meters), Jebel Aruda (ca. 60meters), Emar (ca. 40 meters), and Karkamis (ca. 37 meters).


was governed by an en).10 This type of “BÀD”cannot be a “fortress/fortezza/Festung” but is inall probability a small settlement surrounded bya wall.11

Until recently no Early Bronze Age citadels orfortresses situated on high natural hills had beenfound in North Mesopotamia or Syria.12 Such anunusual feature as a forti˜ed natural hill beside ariver could only occur in particular geographicalsituations such as along the Euphrates wherethe valley is ˘anked by limestone hills. Withinthe Middle Euphrates valley, which was denselysettled during this period,13 the only forti˜edhill was perhaps Emar.14 Since it was frequentlymentioned in the Ebla texts, it cannot be iden-tifed with Armi/Armanum.

An unexpected discovery made in the excava-tion campaign in 2004 was the discovery of anEarly Bronze Age building on top of the citadelhill of Bazi.15 This citadel is built on a natural spur

of the plateau that rises sixty meters above thevalley level. On three sides it slopes steeply downtowards the valley. On the fourth side, the weakpoint of the defensive system, it was protected bya deep, forty-meter-wide arti˜cial ditch cut throughthe rock to separate the citadel from the surround-ing elevated plateau.16 This mountain spur wasprotected by a series of stone walls built directlyon the natural rock (˜gs. 3, 4).

Until 2001, our investigations on the stronglyforti˜ed citadel were restricted to a trench downthe east slope as well as to sondages on the topof the citadel and in the vicinity of the rock-cutcistern at the northwest corner.17 Although a fewEarly Bronze Age ñds, such as pottery sherdsand terracotta ˜gurines, were recovered in theseexcavations, as well as from the surface of themound, we thought that these had been broughtto the top of the citadel together with the dirtused to make the mudbricks employed in the con-struction of Middle and Late Bronze Age andRoman buildings. It was only in 2004 that we un-covered Early Bronze Age levels that cast doubton our previous belief that the hill had ˜rst beenoccupied in the Middle and Late Bronze Age.

The citadel of Bazi is not an isolated structure,but belongs to a much greater settlement com-plex (˜g. 5). In the Early Bronze Age this included,in addition to the citadel of Bazi, the settlementof Banat (village) covering an area of approxi-mately thirty hectares,18 a massive town wall, themonumental tumulus mound Tall Banat North

10. MEE X 34 (TM 75.G.1975); see Milano and Rova (2000:723); A. Archi, Seb 4 (1981) 1–17.

11. The translation of BÀD diêrs: “fortezza” (e.g., ARET 4;ARET 7); “fortezza; mura” (ARET 11), “castello” (ARET 13);“Festung, teilweise mit Tor (KÁ)” (Edzard, QuSem 18 [1992]192); “Niederlassung” (B. Kienast, HSAO 2: 231); “fortress”(Milano and Rova 2000: 724); “stronghold” resp. “cities withtheir own territory” (Milano and Rova 2000: 723).

12. No Early Bronze Age citadel on a hill has been discov-ered so far in the densely settled plain around Tilmen Höyük,in the Orontes valley, in the Euphrates valley further to thenorth or the south, or in the Balih region or the Habur triangle.A location of Armium further to the southeast is excludedbecause it did not belong to Mari’s sphere. At Jerablus tahtani,immediately south of Karkamis, a three-hundred-square-meter“fort” existed in the Early Bronze Age. Its outer wall, still pre-served to a height of ca. six meters, was reinforced by a glaçis;however, this “fort” was built directly in the Euphrates alluvialplain (Peltenburg 1999: 97–105).

13. The Big Bend area of the Euphrates is in the latest EarlyBronze Age periods one of the most densely settled in allUpper Mesopotamia (see Anastasio et al. 2004: map 37, PeriodL, Akkad/EB IVa; and map 42, Period M, Ur III/EB IVb).

14. The latest excavations at Emar by U. Finkbeiner havebrought to light Early Bronze Age levels, but it is still uncertainif the whole Early Bronze Age city lies below Middle andLate Bronze Age Emar (U. Finkbeiner, BaM 32 [2001] 41–120;BaM 33 [2002] 111–46; BaM 34 [2003] 9–100).

15. The excavations of the citadel of Bazi are conductedby the Ludwig-Maximilians-Universität München under thedirection of Berthold Einwag and Adelheid Otto, ñanced bythe Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft. We thank the Syrian

16. A nine-meter-wide moat, cut into the river gravel con-glomerate, separated Selenkahiya on one side from the sur-rounding area (Meijer and van Loon 2001: 3.93). Emar andFaq’us show broad ditches towards the high plateau of theEuphrates valley. In Emar this is called the “vallée arti˜cielle”(Margueron 1982: 17–19).

17. Einwag, Kohlmeyer, and Otto (1995), Einwag and Otto(1996), Einwag and Otto (1999; in press). The focus of our1993–1999 investigations was on the lower town, until it was˘ooded.

18. Porter and McClellan (1998); McClellan (1999); Akker-mans and Schwartz (2003: 246–50).

Antiquity Service for the continuous support. The excavationsare part of the salvage projects in the Tishreen dam area.Shorty after the dam was closed in 1999, Banat, Kabir, and thelower parts of Bazi were ˘ooded.

ADELHEID OTTO8

(also known as the White Monument (McClellan1998, 2004); Porter (2002a; 2002b) situated to thenorth of the town wall, and a further tall (TallKabir) lying about one kilometer northwest of

Banat, where a temple area was investigated(Porter 1995; Cooper 1998; 1999: 321–32). Thisconstellation of exceptional Early Bronze Agestructures may be called the Banat-Bazi Com-

Fig. 3. The Citadel of Bazi. The eastern slope with a huge wall consisting of big stone blocks halfway up the hill, and a lower wall at the foot of the hill.

Fig. 4. Detail of the huge wall built from large stone blocks laid on the worked surface of the natural rock.


plex19 while the name Bazi-Banat Complex refersto the Late Bronze Age remains. The Banat-BaziComplex covers an area of about forty hectaresand is thus one of the largest Early Bronze Agesites in northern Syria.20

In the city quarters of Banat, public buildings aswell as extensive workshop areas were uncovered.

The period of greatest prosperity of Banat (village)and Tall Banat North was Banat period IV (datedto 2600–2450 B.C.) and period III (ca. 2450–2300B.C.) corresponding to the Early Bronze Age III andIV (Porter 2002; for correlation with other sitesand periodization schemes, see Akkermans andSchwartz 2003: 236). There may have been smallergrave mounds inside the settlement similar to theexceptional White Monument outside the townwall as well as other remarkable funeral structures(Porter 1995a; 2002a; 2002b) including Tomb 7, anexceptional structure consisting of ˜ve chambersand constructed using ashlar stone blocks withbitumen mortar, a type of construction totally

19. A name agreed to in discussions with Tom McClellanand Anne Porter, the excavators of Banat village, Tall BanatNorth and Tall Kabir.

20. By comparison, Ebla measures ca. ˜fty hectares, andTuttul ca. 36 hectares. For sizes of eight of the largest third-millennium sites in the Big Bend area of the Euphrates, seeMcClellan (1999: 413).

Fig. 5. The settlement cluster of Banat-Bazi, Tall Banat North, and Tall Kabir (from Porter 2002a: ˜g. 2).

ADELHEID OTTO10

unexpected at this period in Syria. This tomb,although heavily looted, still contained preciousgrave goods, including a miniature stone wig ofa composite statuette, a decorated ostrich eggvessel, and various gold, lapis lazuli and other

stone objects that show that the Banat-Bazi Com-plex was an extremely wealthy city with far-reaching connections during EB IVA (Aruz 2003:nos. 109d, 122–26; McClellan and Porter 1999:107–16).

Fig. 6. The Citadel of Bazi with the partly excavated Early Bronze Age IV building remains on the top of the plateau and the encircling walls on the slopes.


This city of Banat is encircled on the north andon the east by a wall. To the south, this wall con-tinues as a broad elevation that runs to the footof the Bazi Citadel, a fact that puzzled us at ˜rst.In the Spring of 2004 when we discovered theremains of a substantial Early Bronze Age build-ing (Building 2) near the rock-cut ditch on thesouth side of the Citadel, we realized that thewhole Citadel including its forti˜cation walls,the arti˜cial ditch, and most probably even thecistern, originated in the Early Bronze Age.

Building 2 (level 9) was in its earliest phase amonumental gate building, the central elementof which was a chamber gate (˜g. 6). In its secondphase further rooms were added (˜g. 7). This

second phase was thoroughly destroyed by amilitary event, as it was covered with thousandsof sling bullets and numerous ˘int arrowheads(˜g. 8). The heavily damaged building was ˜lled into a depth of three meters, repaired, and reusedin a third and ñal phase (level 8) before it wasdestroyed forever. Even today Building 2 standsin places to a height of ˜ve meters.

In the following level (level 7) diêrent build-ings and alleyways were constructed above theruins of Building 2, covering it completely (seeTable 1). According to the pottery and other ñds,the earliest phase of Building 2 (level 9) datesto the Early Bronze IVA (= Mardikh IIB1) andlevel 7, after Building 2 had been abandoned, dates

Fig. 7. Three-dimensional model of Building 2 (EBA IVA) close to the arti˜cial ditch of theCitadel of Bazi.

ADELHEID OTTO12

Fig. 8. The entrance to Building 2 (level 9a) covered by thousands ofsling bullets.


to the early Middle Bronze period.21 Level 8, theñal phase of occupation of Building 2, can prob-ably be dated to the late Akkadian period.

The largest wall on the slope of the Citadel issituated at an elevation of ca. 348 m above meansea level and consists of large, roughly workedstone blocks, some of them 1 to 1.5 meters long(˜gs. 3, 4). They were placed on the natural rockof the hill that in places had been cut to providebedding for the stones. This wall is 1.8 to 2.5meters wide, consists of two skins of stonework,and can still be traced over a large part of the cir-cuit of the Citadel. Only a small part of it (ca. 120m at the northeast corner) has been cleared anddrawn.22 Like all the walls on the Citadel’s slope,this big wall was built in separate sections,which jog in and out at their junctions. Its build-ing technique and material correspond exactly tothose of Building 2.23

Below this big wall there is a stone wall atthe foot of the Citadel close to the wadi. It runstowards the Early Bronze Age city wall of Banat atthe northeast corner of the Citadel (˜g. 6; Einwag,Kohlmeyer, and Otto 1995: Taf. 9b).

Evidence for a Possible Identi˜cation of

the Citadel of Bazi with Armanum

The Citadel of Bazi is a forti˜ed, astonishinglyhigh and steep hill situated near a river, featuresit shares with the Armanum described in Naram-Sin’s inscription. Moreover, its location to the eastof Ebla matches the order of places recorded in thecourse of Naram-Sin’s campaign: ˜rst Armanum,

then Ebla, and then further west to Amanus, theCedar Mountain, and the Upper Sea.

A further important indication that Armanumwas situated within the area of the Middle Eu-phrates or in the bordering zone is the mentionof the god Dagan:24 in UET I 275 the god Nergal25

opened the way to the West for Naram-Sin andgave him Armanum, Ebla, the Cedar Mountainand the Upper Sea (I 11–29). By contrast, Naram-Sin conquered with the weapon of Dagan, Ar-manum and Ebla (I 30–II 7), but not the areafurther west. Dagan gave him the people fromthe side of the Euphrates (II 8–19), and Dagandelivered Rida-Adad, the king of Armanum, intoNaram-Sin’s hands (II 29–III 6). Moreover, Naram-Sin himself is reported to say, “the god Dagangave me Armanum and Ebla” (III 23–27), but theAmanus and the Upper Sea were not mentionedin association with the activities of the god Dagan.The area ruled by Dagan—the banks of the Eu-phrates, Armanum, and Ebla—was clearly diêr-entiated from the area that was conquered withNergal’s weapon—Syria west of Ebla to theAmanus and to the coast. In the third millen-nium, Dagan was mainly the major deity wor-shipped in the Middle Euphrates region, and hehad his cult center at Tuttul (Tall Bi’a). His in-˘uence may have reached as far west as Ebla, butprobably no further (see Feliu 2003; Otto 2006).

The Citadel of Bazi seems to be a good candi-date for Armanum, but are the lengths recordedin the inscription consistent with the extant ar-chaeological remains? As we have seen, there areproblems with the numbers given in the text:some of the measurements are open to debateand others, such as 180 cubits, seem to be roundnumbers that do not inspire con˜dence in the

21. The pottery of level 8 is related, for example, to theone from the Pfeilergebäude at Tuttul, which is securelydated (also by seal impressions) to the late-Akkadian period(Strommenger and Kohlmeyer 2000: 42–52; Otto 2004: 4–16).

22. Einwag, Kohlmeyer, and Otto (1995: 108–9, Abb. 5,Taf. 9–10).

23. The dating of the walls at the slope according to materialand technique is more secure than the dating by ñds, becausethe extant walls were used continously. Many of them stillstood to a height of several meters until the 1950s, when thestone blocks were used to build the socles of many houses atthe foot of the citadel and a canal.

24. M. G. Biga informs me that the text TM.75.G.410 (to bepublished as ARET X 2) from Ebla does not describe a journeyof the god Dagan of Tuttul to Armi, which would have beenanother argument for the location of Armi in the Euphratesvalley (Archi 1990: 197, note 4) but the year name mentions thedefeat or death (TIL) of DU.DU.A of Armi.

25. Nergal = Rasap was one of the most important gods atEbla; F. Pomponio and P. Xella, Les dieux d’Ebla, AOAT 245(1997) 297–315.

One Line Short

ADELHEID OTTO14

Tab

le 1

.P

rop

osed

cor

rela

tion

bet

wee

n h

isto

rica

l ev

ents

an

d a

rch

aeol

ogic

al r

emai

ns

in B

anat

-Baz

i.

Ap

pro

xim

ate

Yea

rsM

esop

otam

ian

/A

kkad

ian

Ru

lers

Eb

la L

evel

sB

anat

/Kab

irA

rch

aeol

ogic

al R

emai

ns

Baz

i L

evel

sB

azi

Cit

adel

Arc

hae

olog

ical

Rem

ain

sH

isto

rica

l ev

ents

in A

rman

um

7a–d

smal

l b

uil

din

gs

Mar

dik

h I

IB2

Kab

ir l

evel

67e

–fB

uil

din

g 2

cove

red

by

bu

ild

ings

an

d s

tree

ts

+ 1

00N

aram

-Sin

Mar

dik

h I

IB2

Des

tru

ctio

nD

estr

uct

ion

by

Nar

am-S

in,

Rid

a-A

dad

cap

ture

d

Nar

am-S

inM

anis

tusu

Rim

us

Sarg

on

Kab

ir l

evel

78

Bu

ild

ing

2, p

has

e 3

(ren

ovat

ed)

en R

ida-

Ad

ad

0L

uga

lzag

esi

Des

tru

ctio

n (

by

Mar

i?)

Ban

at d

eser

ted

/d

estr

oyed

Des

tru

ctio

n,

mil

itar

y ev

ent

Des

tru

ctio

n(b

y M

ari?

)

Ibbi

-zik

ir, l

ast

year

sP

erio

d B

anat

III

9aB

uil

din

g 2,

ph

ase

2A

rmiu

m u

nd

er c

ontr

olof

Eb

la?

(no

en?)

Mar

dik

h I

IB1

un

til

Ibbi

-zik

ir,

˜rst

yea

rs

Per

iod

Ban

at I

II9a

Bu

ild

ing

2, p

has

e 2

(en

larg

ed)

Seve

ral

en, m

ilit

ary

con

˘ic

ts w

ith

Eb

la

- 10

0M

ard

ikh

IIB

19b

Bu

ild

ing

2, p

has

e 1

Seve

ral

en


precision of the survey. Furthermore it is not clearhow and where the measurements were taken.Therefore, the following considerations are to beconjectural.

The largest wall situated about halfway up theslope of the Citadel, consisting of large, roughlyworked stone blocks (see above), could perhapsbe identi˜ed with the BÀD da-ni-im (the mightywall). The distance from this wall to the lowerwall, which joins with the city wall of Banat is—depending where the measurements are taken—ca. 80–95 meters, measured down the slope (˜g. 6).The diêrence in height today is about ˜fteenmeters, but originally was greater because thebottom of the Early Bronze Age city wall iscertainly much deeper (the city wall is coveredby the remains of Middle and Late Bronze Agehouses). This distance suits well the distance of180 cubits between the “outer/karum wall” andthe “mighty wall.” Therefore, the interpretationof the lower wall as the “outer/karum wall” seemspossible.

Both the height of twenty cubits for this outerwall,26 and the height of thirty cubits for the largermighty stone wall built on solid rock seem veryplausible. The larger wall is on average about twometers wide. A rough rule of thumb states that amudbrick wall can be built to a height that is tentimes as much as the width of the wall founda-tions: in this case this rule would give a height ofplus or minus thirty cubits.

What about the BÀD.GAL (“the great wall”or “the great forti˜cation”), 44 cubits high, whichshould have existed at the top 30, 130 or 180cubits away from the “mighty wall?” Several wallsof diêrent periods are visible on the surface atthe edge of the plateau of the Citadel. The upper-most dates from Roman times; immediately beloware walls associated with pottery of Middle andLate Bronze Age date. However, it is generallydi¯cult to date walls constructed on a slopewithout detailed excavation, especially becausethe forti˜cation walls were apparently reused in

diêrent periods. Another possibility is that olderwalls were covered by more recent ones, or thattheir stone blocks were removed and reused inlater structures. Without digging a trench at thetop northern edge of the Citadel, this questioncannot be answered. But in fact, the edge of theplateau is only about 54 meters distant from the“mighty wall.”

Sixty-˜ve meters (130 cubits) from the “mightywall,” about eleven meters further inside the edgeof the plateau, there is a 1.5 meter-wide mudbrickwall with a stone socle. This wall turns a rightangle near the eastern edge of the plateau (˜g. 6).On the associated ˘oor of white Kalkestrich27

there was plenty of pottery indicating that this˘oor was inside a building and that the buildingwas in use in Banat period III (Early Bronze AgeIVA). The white ˘oor is at an elevation of 369.52meters above mean sea level, exactly the sameheight as the white Kalkestrich ˘oor in theentrance of Building 2. It could therefore be con-ceivable that these two parts of buildings, eventhough they are about seventy meters away fromeach might belong to a single construction, butfurther excavations must be undertaken beforethis can be con˜rmed.

Is it possible that the “great wall” does not des-ignate a forti˜cation wall, but the wall of a build-ing? Two arguments speak in favor of this: ˜rst,a sort of a glaçis with a smooth solid slopingsurface and made out of a combination of graveland earth is attached to the wall on the northand, second, the 44-cubit height (ca. 22 meters) ofthe BÀD.GAL is more than one would expect fora free-standing wall, whereas for a multistoreybuilding such a height is reasonable. According tothe pottery, the building went out of use at the endof the EB IVA period, but its outer walls, strength-ened by a glaçis, could still have been standingduring the time of Naram-Sin.

The side of the depiction facing the statue ofSin-eribam gives the distances from the “mightywall” to the “outer/karum wall” and from this wallto the river (˜g. 2). On the northwestern part of the

26. Similar heights of city walls, up to 45 cubits, occurfrequently in Old Babylonian mathematical texts, see Kraus(1948: 87, note 2).

27. Kalkestrich is a solid packing of limestone plaster mixedwith stones that is used for hard-˘oor coverings.

ADELHEID OTTO16

Bazi Citadel, the big wall about half way up theslope can be recognized at approximately the sameelevation as on the northeastern slope (˜gs. 9, 10).Further down the northwestern slope no tracesof walls could be identi˜ed on the surface, becausea modern house with a big garden covered thearea. Either the “outer karum wall,” which wasrecorded as being 156 cubits (78 meters) belowthe “mighty wall,” could have been covered by thishouse, or its stones might have been removedduring the construction of the house. When, in1999, the waters of the Tishreen Lake rose, asection of a 2.38-meter-wide mudbrick wall wasrevealed: this could be dated to the EB IVA periodby a black Syrian bottle on the associated ˘oor.Without further investigation, however, the func-tion of this wall remains obscure.

Measuring down from the “mighty wall” 176 m(156+196 cubits), one arrives at the foot of thehill and the edge of the gravel terrace (˜g. 6).28

The city of Banat-village ends abruptly at thispoint, and the alluvial plain begins (contour line314 meters). Strangely, along the whole westernedge of the Early Bronze Age settlement of Banat-village, a distance of about eight hundred metersnorth to south, no traces of a city wall were found(see ˜g. 5). McClellan and Porter have suggestedthat either this was due to erosion, and the citywall was washed away by a change in the courseof the Euphrates, or there had been no need fora city wall on this side, because the city wassu¯cently protected by the river (McClellan 1999:417). In either case, it is quite probable that abranch of the Euphrates ˘owed close to the cityand the citadel during the Early Bronze Age.29

In the captions on this side no measurementswere recorded from the “mighty wall” to the

“great wall.” At the northwest corner of the BaziCitadel, which must have been the closest part ofthe Citadel to the river, the slope does not con-tinue above the big wall, as it does on the oppositeside of the hill, but a large cistern is cut out ofthe side of the hill (˜gs. 6, 9).30 It is therefore con-ceivable that on this side of the depiction, the dis-tance from the “mighty wall” to the “great wall”was omitted because the “great wall” was notdirectly accessible, and therefore the distancecould not be measured.

To summarize, the correspondence between themeasurements recorded in Naram-Sin’s descrip-tion of Armanum with the distances between theEarly Bronze Age walls and other structures onthe Citadel of Bazi does not prove that Armanumis to be identi˜ed with Bazi. There are too manyuncertainties in the interpretation of the OldBabylonian copy of the text, and too many un-resolved archaeological issues obscured by thereuse of the Early Bronze Citadel during laterperiods and by the limits of the excavations, toremove all doubt. There seem, however, to be nomajor obstacles to the identi˜cation of Armanumwith Mount Bazi, and no more suitable candidatewith a highly forti˜ed hill beside a river has beenproposed in the area in which Dagan exercized hisin˘uence.

Information on the Location of Armi/

Armium from the Ebla Archives and

Comparison with the Archaeological

Evidence from Banat-Bazi

Armi/Armium31 is, after Mari and Emar, themost frequently mentioned city in the archives

28. On this low terrace the Early Bronze Age city of Banatvillage and the Late Bronze Age lower town of Bazi weresituated.

29. Numerous meanders indicate that the course of theEuphrates changed easily within the alluvial plain. Duringthe last decades, the Euphrates ran close to the western edgeof the valley in 2.5 kilometers distance from Banat-Bazi; onebranch of the river is said to have been close to Banat threegenerations earlier, which is corroborated by an aerial photoof 1922: Institut Français de Damas, Une mission de reconnais-sance de l’Euphrate en 1922 (1988), feuille VI, Sandalia Zrir.

30. The cistern probably also dates originally to the EarlyBronze Age. In 2004 we discovered close to it a doorway in-cluding a long staircase with mighty, carefully worked stonesteps. A Syrian bottle and several clay sling bullets in frontof the entrance stress the contemporaneity with Building 2,level 9.

31. According to Bonechi (1990a: 28) and A. Archi et al. ,ARES II, 167, the writing Ar-mi-umki occurs only at the periodof Igris-Halam and Irkab-Damu. Both Ar-mi and Ar-mi-um areattested in ARET IV 17, VIII. In the following lines I refer onlyto the hitherto published evidence, eagerly awaiting the de-tailed treatment of the case of Armi by Biga and Archi.


Fig. 9. Banat-Bazi, view from the north (from the Euphrates valley).

Fig. 10. Map of northern Mesopotamia and Syria in the mid- to late-third millennium B.C.

ADELHEID OTTO18

from Ebla, occurring about as often as Ra’ak(Bonechi 1993: 54). The most detailed treatmentsof Armium can be found in the extremely valuableworks of Bonechi (1990b: 21–31; 1993: 52–55).

Fronzaroli has suggested the following possi-bilities for the etymological origin of the nameArmanum/Armi/Armium: çarmanum “plane tree,”çrm “steep height,” and arman “to throw, to takeup one’s abode in a place (Fronzaroli 1977: 148–49; 1984–1986: 141). Given the character of theCitadel of Bazi, a derivation from çrm is extremelytempting.32

According to the Ebla archives, Armium hada ruler (en) and “Elders” (ábba).33 In addition,the following persons’ functions are attested forpeople from Armium: gurus, KA.DIB, ku-li, lú-kar, maliktum, mazalum, maskim, maskim-e-gi4,na-se11, nagar, and ses-2-ib.34 The political, eco-nomic, and cultic relations between Ebla andArmium were intensive: food ration lists fromthe Ebla palace archive L.2712 mention the nameof Armiki among food recipients who belong tothe palace of the king. L. Milano wondered if thismight mean that periodically bread and beerwas issued to o¯cials from Armium resident atthe Ebla palace (Milano 1987: 519–50). Commoncultic activities were jointly conducted by peoplefrom Ebla and Armium, and some of these tookplace at Ebla itself (Bonechi 1990b: 30–31). ManyLÚ.KAR (merchants) from Armium were busy in

Ebla. Numerous persons from diˆerent places inSyria and Mesopotamia lived in Armium, or wentthere in the course of their business (Bonechi1990b: 28–29). A caravan of people from Armiumwent to the Ebla region (ARET IV 6, §47–49),and a caravan of people from Ebla went toArmium (ARET IV 6, §50–55). Could these beindications that there was indeed a karum atArmium?35

Despite its frequent mentions in the archives,the location of Armium is disputed.36 An earlyview was that Armium was situated near Ebla,because of the close, direct, and intense relationsbetween the two cities. Bonechi (1990b: 22–25),however, doubted this for various reasons, oneof them being the absence of typical Eblaite ele-ments within the personal names of Armium andsuggested that the location of Armium was tothe northwest of Ebla (in Cilicia, in the Amanusregion or on the Syrian coast) and not in the Eu-phrates area.37 He lists four main reasons for thisproposal (Bonechi 1990: 34–37; 1993):38

1. Armium is not mentioned in the Enna-Daganletter.

2. Armium is not mentioned in the Abarsaltreaty.

3. The onomasticon of Armium is not Eblaiticand several names seem to have a northern,possibly Anatolian, origin.

4. Armium is not mentioned in the texts ARETI 1–9, which list deliveries for the rulers (en) ofkingdoms situated close to Ebla.

32. Compare the Late Bronze Age etymology of the nameBasÿru (from semitic *bsr = to tear off, separate), which means“separated location” and thus—like the Early Bronze Agename—refers to the exceptional appearance of the steep citadel,separated by an arti˜cial ditch (Sallaberger, Otto, and Einwag2006).

33. MEE II 50 r. X: 8ss: considerable amounts of gold andsilver objects as property of the elders of A.; ARET VII 110:Rich gifts of precious metal are made by high o¯cials (Bonechi1990: 25–28).

34. Especially the maskim-e-gi4 (special agents) and themazalum (messengers) are typical for the area northeast ofEbla. According to ARES II (1993) 31–36 (“nomi di funzioniriferiti al toponimi”) maskim-e-gi resp. maskim-e-gi4 areattested for Armi, Dulu, Dugurasu, Eden lú Ibal, EN-sar,{alsum, Emar, Ibla, Manuwad, and Sanabzugum; mazalumfor Amadu, Azan, Arhadu, Armi/Armium, Dalazugur, Dulu,Dub, Garmu, Gudadalum, {arran, {arhudu, Ibubu/Ibuib, Ilibi,Kakmium, NI-a-NE-in, Sanabzugum, Sugurlum, Utig, Ursaåum,Zaburrum, Zuhara.

35. In UET I 275 the reading ka-ri-im is as uncertain aska-wi-im (see above).

36. In later periods, Armi/Armium/Armanum does notoccur. Certainly not relevant is the mention of a Late BronzeAge village named Armi near Ugarit (ARES II, 168).

37. In the map of Milano and Rova (2000: 729–30, ˜g. 3),Armi is placed north of {alab and west of Karkamis. In gen-eral, locations on the Mediterranean coast are almost nevermentioned in the Ebla archives, as noted by Archi (1987)and Klengel (1988: 245–51). The attempt of Tangberg (1994)to identify coastal settlements, was unsuccessful.

38. For Bonechi (1990a), the trade route to southern Ana-tolia, the fact that Ugarit is rarely mentioned in Ebla texts,and the river mentioned in Naram-Sin’s inscription (he inter-prets it as a tributary of the Orontes or as a river in Cilicia)are additional arguments.


Let us examine these arguments one by one.

1. The letter of Enna-Dagan of Mari to the rulerof Ebla39 contains a report about the militaryachievements of the kings of Mari in regionsquite close to Ebla, for example in Emar, Ra’aq,and Burman. Most of the places cannot be local-ized, but many of them seem to have been situatedbetween Emar and Mari. Because the mountainridge near Tall Qitar, about ˜ve kilometers down-stream from Banat-Bazi, forms a natural barrier(the routes along the Euphrates valley stopthere and during the Late Bronze Age it prob-ably formed the border between the country ofAstata/Emar and the country of Karkamis), it ispossible that the military campaigns of Mari didnot extend to regions north of this geographicfrontier, and that for this reason, if Armium toolay north of this frontier, it would not have beenmentioned in the Enna-Dagan letter.

2. The preamble of the Abarsal treaty estab-lishes the border between Ebla and Abarsal.40 Theterritory of Ebla certainly reached the Euphrates(Karkamis), and at least in the vicinity of Kar-kamis it probably also included some locations onthe Jazireh (east) side of the Euphrates; for ex-ample GudadaLUM (one of the badalum cities)was probably situated east of the Euphrates.41

Probably only the cities and BÀD of the Eblastate, which bordered on the territory of Abarsal,are explicitly named.42 Within the territory ofAbarsal itself no name of a city or BÀD is men-tioned. Even though the localization of Abarsal isuncertain (at least a situation east of the Euphratesis generally accepted),43 it is plausible that theEuphrates formed the border between Ebla undAbarsal in the region to the south of Karkamis.

In this case, the locations on the east bank of theriver (including Banat-Bazi) would have beenthe property of Abarsal and thus would not havebeen mentioned by name.

3. A collection of personal names from Armiumcan be found in Bonechi’s works (Bonechi 1990b:22–24; 1991) and in ARES II. Bonechi (1990b: 25;1993: 112) noted that many non-Semitic personalnames from Armium have typological analogieswith the onomasticon of DU-luki (names like a-la-lu-wa-du, ba-mi-a-du, etc.; ma-a-LUM occurs inboth cities). He therefore postulated that the twowere not far distant from each other, and localizedDulu in the Syro-Cilician Mediterranean coastalregion as well. Dulu is, however, one of the citieswith an en that occurs in ARET I 1 and 3–7. Be-cause in these texts it is listed between Ursa’um,Utigu, and Iritum, {arran, the city of Dulu isthought to have been located not far from {ar-ran, perhaps near the Balih, near the present daySyrian–Turkish border (for the numerous pro-posals for the location of Dulu see Bonechi 1993:112). Because Dulu does not belong to the “ba-dalum cities,” it should be located to the south ofthe “badalum region” (see ˜g. 10). If Dulu did liebetween the Euphrates and the Balih south of theUrsa’um-{arran axis, the closest city to the south-west of Dulu would in fact have been Banat-Bazi(see below comments on Nagar).

4. The absence of a ruler (en) of Armi in thelists ARET I 1–9 is indeed a problem, becausethe cities listed in these documents seem to coverthe area of the Euphrates bend from downstreamof Emar to upstream from Karkamis. The accountsin ARET I 1–9 list deliveries of goods to manyrulers (called either en or badalum), elders, andother important people of various cities, which,although formally independent from Ebla, never-theless entertained good neighborly relations withthe state. The order of the listed cities is gen-erally interpreted as being based either on theirlocation or on the relative proximity of one settle-ment to another. In this case, Armium would havebeen expected to have been listed relatively closeto Emar, Burman (probably somewhere near theEuphrates bend), Ra’aq (probably between the Eu-phrates and the Balih), Du-ub (= T¿b, tentatively

39. TM.75.G.2420: ARET XIII 4; Edzard (1981b); A. Archi,MARI 4 (1985) 63–85; M. Geller, Eblaitica 1 (1987) 141–45.

40. ARET XIII 5; Sollberger (1980: 129–55), Edzard (1992).41. For the area between the upper Balih valley and the

Gaziantep region, which is characterized by state o¯cialscalled badalum see Milano and Rova (2000: 728–29).

42. Edzard (1992: 192).43. Bonechi (1993: 8–10), Archi (1989: 15–19). If Abarsal is

identical with Apisal, it could be situated north of Karkamis,West or East of the Euphrates: M. V. Tonietti, MARI 8 (1997)232–33; D. Charpin and N. Ziegler, MARI 8 (1997) 243–47.

ADELHEID OTTO20

identi˜ed by several scholars with Umm el-Marra;see Bonechi 1993: 109), Ursa’um (Ur-sá-um;Ursum of the second millennium B.C. , northwestor northeast of Karkamis), Irritum (between theEuphrates and the Balih), and {arran (˜g. 10).

There are four possible explanations for the ab-sence of an en of Armi/Armium in ARET I 1–9:

• Armium lies far from the Euphrates region;• between the group of settlements situated

at the bend of the Euphrates close to Emarand those to the north around Ursa’um und{arran, perhaps only cities to the west ofthe Euphrates are mentioned, thus the listwould follow a curving arc moving clockwisefrom Emar and T¿b to the north and north-east and not touching the area east of theEuphrates;

• at the time the texts ARET I 1–9 werewritten, Armi was no longer independentand had no en; or,

• relations between between Ebla and Armihad deteriorated to the point that the en ofArmi was no longer among the rulers bene-˜ting from Ebla distributions.44

If one supposes that the texts ARET I 1–9 dateto the very last years of Ibbi-zikir, that is the yearsimmediately before the destruction of Ebla,45 thereare, in my opinion, many arguments in favor ofthe third or fourth possibility:

• In ARET I 1–9 textile deliveries are men-tioned to persons from Armium, but not tothe en of Armium. This could either indi-cate that Armium still existed but had lostits en or that the en did not receive gifts dueto unfavorable mutual relations.

• For the preceding period, lists of textile allo-cations mention the en of Armium togetherwith other ens of the Euphrates region; e.g.,in MEE II 37, the en of Armium appears(r. XI 5u–6u) before the en of Kakmium (r. XI17u–18u) and the son of the en of Manuwat(v. I 6–7). Also, precious metal allocations (e.g.,MEE X 27) mention, after the en of Armium(v. III:1–2), the en of Manuwat (v. V: 1–2), andthe son of the en of Ra’aq (v. V: 7–8).

• Another argument in favor of the third ex-planation could be the fact that importantcities seem to have lost their independenceat the time of Ibbi-zikir; e.g., references tothe en of {azuwan stop with Ibrium (Milanoand Rova 2000: 730). Furthermore, the exis-tence of an en during the very last years ofEbla is not absolutely certain. At ˜rst glanceit seems that Armium was governed by an enfor the duration of the Ebla archives: MEEX 27 passim (time of the kings Igris-Halab orIrkab-damu of Ebla), ARES II 168 (ministerArrukum), MEE X 4 r. VI: 5 (year when kingIrkab-damu died). Also during the time ofminister Ibrium there is evidence of an enof Armium (TM.75.G.1457). So far, thirteenreferences to an en of Armium have beenpublished.46 From the time of minister Ibbi-zikir (the last seventeen years of Ebla) threetexts mention the en of Armium47: MEE X29, dated to the year Ibbi-zikir 4 or 5,48 andARET VIII 534, r. XII: 12u–13u.49 This text(TM.76.G.534), one of the Annual Accounts

44. This explanation, which at the moment seems to be thebest, was pointed out to me by M. G. Biga. She observes thatthe behavior of Ebla towards the en of Armi would in this casebe paralled by Ebla’s behavior towards the ruler of Mari, bothexcluded from the distribution of gifts at this time.

45. According to Biga (1996: 32) ARET I 1–8 and ARET VIII523, 531 refer to a sequence of years, which include year Ibbi-zikir 8 or 9 (TM.75.G.2428 is related to ARET I 1) and thereforeshould date from the Ebla’s very last years. For the chronologyof kings and ministers of Ebla see Archi and Biga (2003).

46. ARET III 232 r.I:4u; ARET III 686 v.I:3; ARET VII 22r.I:5; ARET VII 79 v.I:3; ARET VIII 534 r.XII:13u; MEE II 37r.XI:6; MEE X 4 r. VI:5; MEE X 27 r. VIIu:1–2, VIIIu:5–6, IXu:6;v. III: 2; MEE X 29 r. V:12,23; MEE X 35 r. III:2, III:6, IV:4,V:6 (royal family of Armium: en, maliktum, dumu-munus en,dumu-nita en).

47. To the two texts MEE X 29 and ARET VIII 534 can beadded another text (RAM 10074) of the year Ibbi-zikir 7 (in-formation kindly provided by A. Archi).

48. For the dating of the texts, see Archi (1996: 73–99). Theposition of the texts within the ˜rst ˜ve years of Ibbi-zikir iscertain according to the sequence of priestesses (˜rst Tini-TUM-Dulum + Tarib-Damu, than Amaga + Tarib-Damu).

49. (r. XII: 11u–15u): níg-mul(AN.AN.AN.AN) en ar-miki

níg.kas4 ì-ti.


of Delivery of Metals (CAM), is tentativelydated to the year Ibbi-zikir 12 (Archi andBiga 2003: 9; Archi 1996: 78–93), but Archistressed the uncertain position of this text,because it is fragmentary and the personalnames, which serve to establish the texts’sequence, are largely destroyed.

• There are several arguments in favor of thefourth explanation: The deterioration ofthe Ebla-Armi relations is underlined bynumerous military actions against Armium,mentioned in the later administrative textsfrom Ebla.50 Apparently several armed con-˘icts between Armium and Ebla duringIbrium’s time precede the defeat of Armiumat the time of Ibbi-zikir.51 ARET III 737 r. V1u–11u mentions a military campaign (MÈ)of Ibrium against Armi.

• An important moment in the fate ofArmium is described in ARET XIII 16–17(TM.75.G.1689/TM.75.G.2320)52; the textbegins (§ 1): ar-miki ì-ti si-in 1 su iriki wa al6-tus nu-su-ra dan-gub-ma nu-íl, which maypossibly be interpreted as: “Armi came intothe hands of the city (= Ebla) and keeps quietwithout ˜ghting, it does not set up the An-gubbu gods.” It continues with instructionsfor rites, which seem to be associated with themaintenance of the peace between Armiumand Ebla. The text is dated to Ibbi-zikir andmay refer to the capitulation of Armium andits incorporation into the sphere of in˘uenceof the Eblaite state. Perhaps related to thisevent is the re˘ex of a treaty between Eblaand Armium in TM.75.G.1477 (MEE III 66;ARET XIII 18): the people of Armi have tocon˜rm their alliance with Ebla every year;in case of breach of contract they could getthe death penalty. In the following § 5,

Armium’s position on the route to Nagar isstressed, which could be a clue as to thebackground of this alliance (see below s.v.Nagar). In the text ARET XIII 16–18, onlythe inhabitants of the city of Armium arementioned, not the en.

• ARET XIII 18, quoted above, as well as thefrequent mention of LÚ.KAR of Armium,could indicate that Armium’s special impor-tance for Ebla lay in its position on the routefrom Ebla to the Habur triangle, especiallyto Nagar (Tell Braq). According to Archi andBiga (2003: 13), Ebla utilized two routestowards the East, the southern route, lead-ing down the Euphrates and passing by Mari,and thus being sometimes problematic, andthe northern route, controlled by Ebla up toNagar. A route high up in the north, approxi-mately at the height of Karkamis and {arran,or even further north, in the region of Titri§Höyük, would have required a considerabledetour. Therefore, its course further to thesouth, but far enough away from Tuttul andthe southern part of the Balih valley, whichbelonged to the sphere of Mari (Archi andBiga 2003: 11), seems more reasonable(˜g. 10). Banat-Bazi was the starting point ofthe southernmost route crossing the westernJezira region between the Euphrates andthe Balih.53 One of the easy crossings of theEuphrates was located near Banat-Bazi andwas used until 1999. The frequent mentionof merchants and messengers to and fromArmium in the Ebla texts may indicate theimportance of Banat-Bazi as a transit stationon this route.

• Several texts mention Armium connected totransactions with Nagar. Especially at thetime of Ibbi-zikir, the relations between Eblaand Nagar seem to have been strengthened,probably as a reaction to the dominance of

50. Therefore Bonechi wonders if Armium actively con-tributed to the end of Ebla (1993: 54).

51. As M. G. Biga stated at the ARCANE-workshop in July2006 in Munich, there were military expeditions against Armiin at least the years Ibrium 8 and Ibbi-zikir 14 (I am gratefulto her for this information).

52. = ARET II 34; see also Krebernik (1996: 22).

53. The results of our survey conducted in this regionhave not yet been published. For short preliminary reportssee Einwag (1993: 23–43; 1993/1994: 299–301; note that thecaption to the ˜gure has been omitted).

ADELHEID OTTO22

Mari.54 Text TM.75.G.1248 may refer to amilitary expedition to Armium (níg-kas4 Ar-miki), which was conducted on one side byIbbi-zikir of Ebla, on the other side by thekings of Nagar and Kis (Biga 1998: 18–19).55

Afterwards we see the king of Nagar travel-ing to Ebla because of the dynastic marriagebetween Ebla and Nagar. It seems as ifArmium was violently deprived of its in-dependence when relations between Eblaand Nagar intensi˜ed. The numerous ref-erences to Armium (but not of the en ofArmium) within the ˜nal three years ofEbla (ARET IX), in particular point to Ar-mium’s role as a point of transit betweenEbla and the Habur triangle. Merchantsand messengers from Armium, Darhatu, andDulu heading for Nagar are frequentlymentioned with the same order sequence ofthe place names (e.g., ARET IX 82–84), thusperhaps referring to an itinerary fromArmium towards the Balih (see above forthe location of Dulu between the Euphratesand the Balih).

Further arguments for the identi˜cation ofArmium with Banat-Bazi can be derived fromthe mentioning together with other cities in theEuphrates region and in the Jezira: In ARET VIII522 (§ 15) a joint action of 120 people (na-se11)from Armium and of 180 people from A-ba-tumheading for GudadaLUM is mentioned. We neednot therefore assume a large distance betweenA-ba-tum and Armium. A-ba-tum should in allprobability be identi˜ed with the Old BabylonianAbattum, which is to be located in the impressiveTall eth-Thaidiyain between modern Tabqa andMansura.56 GudadaLUM, which is mentioned in

ARET I 1–9 mostly after Sanabzugum or Ur-sa’um, has to be located somewhere between theEuphrates and the Balih. On the other hand,Armium is mentioned together with {arran andUtigu (ARET VIII 527, §14; Bonechi 1990b: 27).57

For further occurences of Armium together withother locations of the Middle Euphrates regionsee above.

The Historical Situation of Armium

and Ebla from their First Destruction

to the Campaign of Naram-Sin

From the evidence of the texts from Ebla it isthus probable that Armium still existed in the lastyears before Ebla was destroyed, that is, in thesecond half of the period when Ibbi-zikir wasminister, but that its relations with Ebla deterio-rated and it perhaps even came under the controlof Ebla after a series of military campaigns in thetime of Ibrium and at the beginning of the ruleof Ibbi-zikir. With the end of the Ebla archives,all information concerning Armium comes to anend as well. When, almost a century later, Naram-Sin came to destroy Armium, it was once againruled by an independent king.

In Banat-Bazi there are several indications inthe archaeological record for at least two majorhostile attacks (Table 1). Banat (period III) withits monumental o¯cial building and its largefunerary monuments seems to have been aban-doned at the end of Early Bronze IVa and wasnot reoccupied until the Late Bronze Age. Build-ing 2 (level 9) on the citadel of Bazi was partlydestroyed. Its violent end is attested by the thou-sands of sling bullets and numerous arrowheadsfound in the entranceway and around the buildingas well as by the hurried blocking of the gateway(˜g. 8). During this attack, Building 2 was so badlydamaged that only after the rooms had been ˜lledto a height of three meters could it be reused.In addition, we found the remains of a humanskeleton mixed in with the sling bullets in the ˜llof one of the rooms. This last reuse phase of Build-

54. Archi (1998: 1–15). Several journeys of Ibbi-zikir toNagar are attested, e.g., ARET IX 93. 94. 95; Archi and Biga(2003).

55. M. G. Biga was able to reconstruct the two texts concern-ing this event completely: 75.G.1249+10082+4058 (= ARET III937) and 75.G.1250+10081+5314 (= ARET XII 874).

56. Kohlmeyer (1984: 112; 1986: 52). Meyer (1996: 165 withnote 110) concluded that A-ba-tum of the Ebla archives couldnot be identical with Old Babylonian Abattum, because he con-sidered the location of Armium in western Syria as de˜nite.

57. Utigu is mentioned in ARET I 1–4, 6, 7 betweenUrsa’um and Dulu or Irritum and {arran.

One Line Long


ing 2 (level 8) was violently destroyed as well.Afterwards the area was built over with quitediêrent structures.

How can the information derived from the textsbe correlated with the archaeological remains?There are two possible candidates for the attackerwho put an end to Banat period III and Bazi-Citadel level 9: either the people of Ebla, or thesame enemy who was responsible for Ebla’s de-struction (Mardikh IIB1), which, if Archi and Biga(2003) are correct, would be Mari. Because thedestructions are so massive, and because they puta complete end to the lower town of Banat, Mariis a more likely candidate than the people of Eblawho had a vivid interest in this important stageon the caravan route to the east and especially toNagar. When Ebla lost control over this region, itwas possible again for a ruler to be installed atArmium.58

The archaeological evidence could be inter-preted as follows: Building 2 beside the rock-cutditch, as well as any other buildings that werestanding on the citadel, were repaired and re-occupied for a last time (Bazi level 8).59 Accord-ing to the excavators, the lower town of Banatexperienced its ˘oruit in the Early Bronze III(Banat Period IV) and Early Bronze IVa (BanatPeriod III = Mardikh IIB1) periods.60 In the EarlyBronze IVb period (= Mardikh IIB2), it seemsmostly to have been abandoned, with the excep-tion of the workshop quarter where pottery pro-duction continued in Area G, for example. Themound of Tall Kabir not far to the northwest ofBazi continued to be occupied.61

What sort of structure was erected on thecitadel plateau apart from the gateway building(Building 2) has not yet been investigated, but itis likely that there were one or more importantbuildings (such as a temple or a palace) as other-wise the top of the citadel would not have beenso intensively forti˜ed. Given the presence on thecitadel of a huge 38-meter-long temple, which wasin use from the Middle to the Late Bronze Age,62

and the fact that there are many instances wheresacred sites remained in use over long periods,the existence of an Early Bronze Age templeshould be taken into consideration.

UET I 275 states that Naram-Sin capturedRida-Adad, the king of Armi, “in the middle ofhis entryway” (qabx-li na-ra-ab-ti-su i-ik-mi-ù-sú)(iii 8–10). This unusual way of describing wherethe event took place has led scholars to speculatewhether the entryway was that of a temple or ofa palace.63 In my view, the place described at thispoint in the inscription, the climax of the narra-tive, could not have been merely the entrance ofa building that was not named but must havebeen a special, distinctive structure, where theñal events that determined Armi’s fate took place.Could it therefore be that the narabtum of Rida-Adad, where the decisive attack took place, was infact Building 2, the gateway with massively thickwalls that controlled the access to the citadel atthe weakest point of the defences?64 As describedabove, Building 2 in its latest occupation phasefell victim to a further violent destruction afterwhich it was not repaired; it was abandoned andlater buildings with a quite diêrent character(Bazi level 7f) were erected above its ruins. Thedate of the pottery sherds found in this level(see above) supports the suggested chronologicalsequence.

58. A parallel case is recorded from Tall Sweyhat not farto the south of Banat-Bazi: its rise occured only when Ebla’spower had ceased (Zettler 1997).

59. We are at the very beginning of the investigation of theEarly Bronze Age citadel.

60. The terminology concerning these periods is a problemand the target of several current projects. In this paper, con-cerning mainly the relationship with Ebla, I have chosen theterminology of Ebla.

61. This period, which is attested at Tall Kabir and on thecitadel of Bazi, but not very well at Banat, is named “BanatPeriod III”; Porter (2002), Cooper (1998), Akkermans andSchwartz (2003: 246–50). The ancient settlement of Banat wasat most places directly overlain by the village of Banat, whichrendered large-scale excavations impossible. Therefore it isdi¯cult to tell if parts of the settlement continued to be used.

62. Sallaberger, Otto, and Einwag (2006), Otto and Einwag(2005: 27–29).

63. “Jacobsen proposes that ‘his entryway’ refers to Dagan’stemple, where the captured king was brought bound, but Isee, rather, the defeated king making a futile last stand in thedoorway of his own palace” (Foster 1982: 34).

64. Narabtum can mean not only an entrance but also a(mountain) pass and so would also describe vividly the locationof an attack that went up the steep rock-cut ditch towardsBuilding 2.

ADELHEID OTTO24

By the time of Naram-Sin, the ˘orescence ofEbla had long been over. The all-powerful Ebladescribed in the archive of Palace G, one of thethe most important cities of the twenty-fourthcentury in Syria, had been destroyed about a cen-tury earlier (Archi and Biga 2003); even if it wasrebuilt soon after (Mardikh IIB2), it had lost mostof its power.65 In the words of Archi (ARES II[1993] 168), “All’epoca di Naram-Sin l’Ebla degliarchivi era già scomparsa, ma permaneva il ricordodella sua potenza.” The decline in the power ofEbla is not contradicted by Naram-Sin’s boastful,if untrue, assertion that he was the ˜rst ruler tohave destroyed Armium and Ebla (Michalowski1993). The situation of Armium may have been

comparable to that of Ebla, with the diêrencethat the lower town (Banat) had not been resettledafter the destruction.

The fact that the statue of Naram-Sin depictsonly the citadel may be attributable to the factthat the lower town (Banat) lay in ruins (at leastpartly), while the fortress, situated on the hill, stillremained an imposing and exceptional monument.Our excavations in 2005 showed that Building 2protecting the weakest point of the defences hadbeen repaired following the ˜rst attack, which, Ihave suggested, was carried out by the forces ofMari. These measures, however, failed to providea successful defence against the might of Naram-Sin. His attack brought about the ñal end of theEarly Bronze Age city Armanum/Armi/Armium,whose location may have been at Banat-Bazi withits impressive forti˜ed mountain citadel beside theriver.

65. For Mardikh IIB2-levels see Matthiae (1989: 126–32:areas A, B, C, N).

References

Akkermans, P. M. M. G., and Schwartz, G. M.2003 The Archaeology of Syria. Cambridge: Cam-

bridge University Press.Amiet, P.

1976 L’art d’Agade au Musée du Louvre. Paris:Éditions des musées nationaux.

Anastasio, S.; Lebeau, M.; and Sauvage, M.2004 Atlas of Preclassical Upper Mesopotamia.

Subartu XIII. Turnhout: Brepols.Archi, A.

1987 Ugarit dans les textes d’Ebla? RA 81: 185–86.1989 La ville d’Abarsal. Pp. 15–19 in Re˘ets des

deux ˘euves. Volume de Mélanges oêrts àA. Finet, eds. M. Lebeau and P. Talon. Leuven:Peeters.

1990 Tuttul-sur-Balih à l’âge d’Ebla. Pp. 197–207in De la Babylonie à la Syrie, en passantpar Mari. Mélanges oêrts à M. J.-R. Kupperà l’occassion de son 70e anniversaire, ed.Ö. Tunca. Liège: Université de Liège.

1996 Les comptes rendus annuels de métaux (CAM).Amurru 1: 73–99.

1998 The Regional State of Nagar According to theTexts of Ebla. Subartu IV/2: 1–15.

Archi, A., and Biga, M. G.2003 A Victory over Mari and the Fall of Ebla. JCS

55: 1–44.Aruz, J. (ed.)

2003 Art of the First Cities. New Haven: Yale Uni-versity Press.

Astour, M. C.2002 A Reconstruction of the History of Ebla,

Part 2. Eblaitica 4: 57–195.Biga, M. G.

1996 Prosopographie et datation relative des textesd’Ébla. Amurru 1: 29–72.

1998 The Marriage of Eblaite Princess Tagris-Damu with a Son of Nagar’s King. Subartu IV/2: 17–22.

Bonechi, M.1990a Sulle alternaze gra˜che a Ebla: la toponomas-

tica. NABU 1990: 28.1990b Aleppo in eta’ arcaica, a proposito di un’ opera

recente. SEL 7: 15–37.1991 Onomastica dei testi di Ebla: Nomi propri

come fossili-guida? SEL 8: 59–79.1993 Répertoire Géographique des Textes Cunéi-

formes XII/1, I nomi geogra˜ci deitesti di Ebla.Wiesbaden: Harrasowitz.

Buccellati, G.1993 Through a Tablet Darkly. A Reconstruction of

Old Akkadian Monuments Described in OldBabylonian Copies. Pp. 58–71 in The Tabletand the Scroll. Near Eastern Studies in Honorof W. W. Hallo, eds. M. E. Cohen and D. C. Snelland D. B. Weisberg. Bethesda: CDL.

Cooper, E. N.1998 The EB–MB Transitional Period at Tell Kabir,

Syria. BCSMS 33: 271–80.

One Line Long


1999 The EB–MB Transitional Period at Tell Kabir,Syria. Pp. 321–32 in Archaeology of the UpperSyrian Euphrates, The Tishreen Dam Area,Proceedings of the International SymposiumHeld at Barcelona, January 28th–30th 1998,ed. G. del Olmo Lete and J.-L. MonteroFenollós. Barcelona: Editorial AUSA.

Edzard, D. O.1981a Der Text TM.75.G.1444 aus Ebla. StEb 4:

35–60.1981b Neue Erwägungen zum Brief des Enna-

Dagan von Mari. StEb 4: 89–97.1992 Der Vertrag von Ebla mit A-bar-QA. QuSem 18:

187–217.Einwag, B.

1993 Vorbericht über die archäologische Gelände-begehung in der Westgazira, DaM 7 (1993)23–43.

1993/1994

Der Survey in der Westgazira. AfO 40/41:299–301.

Einwag, B.; Kohlmeyer, K.; and Otto, A.1995 Tall Bazi: Vorbericht über die Untersuchungen

1993. DaM 8: 95–121.Einwag, B., and Otto, A.

1996 Tall Bazi: Vorbericht über die Untersuchungen1994–1995. DaM 9: 15–45.

1999 Tall Bazi. Pp. 179–91 in Archaeology of theUpper Syrian Euphrates, The Tishreen DamArea, Proceedings of the International Sym-posium Held at Barcelona, January 28th–30th1998, ed. G. del Olmo Lete and J.-L. MonteroFenollós. Barcelona: Editorial AUSA.

In press Tall Bazi 2000 und 2001: Die letzten Unter-suchungen auf der Zitadelle und in der Nord-stadt. DaM 15.

Feliu, L.2003 The God Dagan in Bronze Age Syria. Leiden:

Brill.Foster, B. R.

1982 The Siege of Armanum. JANES 14: 27–36.Fronzaroli, P.

1977 West Semitic Toponimy in Northern Syria inthe Third Millennium B.C. JSS 22: 148–49.

1984–1986

Semitic Place Names of Syria in the Ebla Texts.OrSu 33–35: 139–48.

Gelb, I. J., and Kienast, B.1990 Die altakkadischen Königsinschriften des

dritten Jahrtausends v. Chr. FAOS 7. Stuttgart:Franz Steiner Verlag.

Hirsch, H.1963 Die Inschriften der Könige von Agade. AfO

20: 1–82.Klengel, H.

1988 Ebla im Fernhandel des 3. Jahrtausends. HSAO2: 245–51.

Kohlmeyer, K.1984 Euphrat-Survey. MDOG 116: 95–118.1986 Euphrat-Survey 1984. MDOG 118: 51–65.

Kraus, F. R.1948 Ein altakkadisches Festungsbild. Iraq 10:

81–92.Krebernik, M.

1996 Neue Beschwörungen aus Ebla. Vicino Oriente10: 7–28.

Lambert, W. G.1990 {alam, Il-{alam and Aleppo. MARI 6: 641–43.

Margueron, J.1982 Topographie. Pp. 17–22 in Meskéné – Emar,

ed. D. Beyer. Paris: Editions Recherche sur lescivilisations.

Matthiae, P.1989 Un imperio ritrovato. Torino: Giulio Einaudi.

McClellan, T.1998 Tell Banat North: The White Monument.

Subartu 4/1: 243–71.1999 Urbanism on the Upper Syrian Euphrates.

Pp. 413–25 in Archaeology of the UpperSyrian Euphrates, The Tishreen Dam Area,Proceedings of the International SymposiumHeld at Barcelona, January 28th–30th 1998,ed. G. del Olmo Lete and J.-L. MonteroFenollós. Barcelona: Editorial AUSA.

2004 Funerary Monuments and Pastoralism.Amurru 3: 63–67.

McClellan, T., and Porter, A.1999 Survey of Excavations at Tell Banat: Funerary

Practices. Pp. 107–16 in Archaeology of theUpper Syrian Euphrates, The Tishreen DamArea, Proceedings of the International Sym-posium Held at Barcelona, January 28th–30th1998, ed. G. del Olmo Lete and J.-L. MonteroFenollós. Barcelona: Editorial AUSA.

Meijer, D. J. W., and van Loon, M. N.2001 Architecture and Stratigraphy. Pp. 25–119 in

Selenkahiye, ed. M. N. van Loon. Leiden: Ned-erlands Historisch-Archaeologisch Instituut.

Meyer, J.-W.1996 Oˆene und geschlossene Siedlungen. AoF 23:

132–70.Michalowski, P.

1993 Memory and Deed: The Historiography ofthe Political Expansion of the Akkad State.HANE-S 5: 69–90.

Milano, L.1987 Food Rations at Ebla. MARI 5: 519–50.

Milano, L., and Rova, E.2000 Ceramic Provinces and Political Borders in

Upper Mesopotamia in the Late Early Dy-nastic Period. Pp. 709–49 in Studi sul vicinooriente antico dedicati alla memoria di Luigi

ADELHEID OTTO26

Cagni, ed. S. Graziani. Napoli: Istituto Univer-sitario Orientale.

Otto, A.2004 Siegel und Siegelabrollungen, Tall Bi’a/Tuttul

– IV. WVDOG 104. Saarbrücken: SaarbrückerDruckerei.

2006 Das Oberhaupt des westsemitischen Pan-theons ohne Abbild? Überlegungen zur Dar-stellung des Gottes Dagan. ZA 96: 242–68.

Otto, A., and Einwag, B.2004 Wettlauf mit der Zeit: Rettungsgrabungen in

Tall Bazi. Welt und Umwelt der Bibel 1: 64–69.2005 Ein Tempel für den Ältestenrat. Alter Orient

aktuell 6. Berlin: Deutsche Orient-Gesellschaft.Peltenburg, E.

1999 Tell Jerablus tahtani 1992–1996: A Summary.Pp. 97–105 in Archaeology of the Upper SyrianEuphrates, The Tishreen Dam Area, Proceed-ings of the International Symposium Held atBarcelona, January 28th–30th 1998, ed. G. delOlmo Lete and J.-L. Montero Fenollós. Barce-lona: Editorial AUSA.

Porter, A.1995a Tell Banat–Tomb 1. DaM 8: 1–50.1995b The Third Millennium Settlement Complex at

Tell Banat: Tell Kabir. DaM 8: 125–64.2002a The Dynamics of Death: Ancestors, Pastoral-

ism, and the Origins of a Third-MillenniumCity in Syria. BASOR 325: 1–36.

2002b Communities in Con˘ict: Death and the Con-test for Social Order in the Euphrates RiverValley. NEA 65: 156–73.

Porter, A., and McClellan, T.1998 The Third Millennium Settlement Complex

at Tell Banat: Results of the 1994 Excavations.DaM 10: 11–63.

Sallaberger, W.; Einwag, B.; and Otto, A.2006 Schenkungen von Mittani-Königen an die

Einwohner von Basÿru. Die zwei Urkundenaus Tall Bazi am Mittleren Euphrat. ZA 96:69–104.

Sollberger, E.1980 The So-Called Treaty between Ebla and Ashur.

StEb 3: 129–55.Sollberger, E., and Kupper, J.-R.

1971 Inscriptions royales sumériennes et akka-diennes. LAPO 3. Paris: Éditions du Cerf.

Strommenger, E., and Kohlmeyer, K.2000 Die Schichten des 3. Jahrtausends v. Chr. im

Zentralhügel E, Tall Bi’a/Tuttul. WVDOG 101.Saarbrücken: SDV.

Tangberg, A.1994 Der geographische Horizont der Texte aus

Ebla. ATS 42. St. Ottilien: Eos Verlag Erzabtei.Zettler, R.

1997 Subsistence and Settlement in a MarginalEnvironment. MASCA Research Papers inScience and Archaeology 14. Ann Arbor:Cushing-Malloy.

archeological perspectives on the ......old babylonian statue, and that there is no reason to doubt...

Documents