fortification system in tell abu fahd

Reconstruyendo el Pasado Remoto

Estudios sobre el Próximo Oriente Antiguo en homenaje a Jorge R. Silva Castillo

Reconstructing a Distant Past

Ancient Near Eastern Essays in Tribute to Jorge R. Silva Castillo

AULA ORIENTALIS – SUPPLEMENTA Director: G. del Olmo Lete

--------------------------------------------------- 25 --------------------------------------------------

:

La edición de este volumen ha sido posible gracias a la genersosa financiación ofrecida por el

Vicerectorat de Relacions Internacials, La Facultat de Filologia y el Institut del Pròxim Orient

Antic de la Universitat de Barcelona, junto a otras contribuciones de amigos del homenajeado.

© 2009 by Diego Barreyra Fracaroli, Gregorio del Olmo Lete y demás autores

© 2009 Editorial AUSA

Apartado de Correos 101

E-mail: [email protected]

08280 Sabadell (Barcelona) Spain

ISBN

Dep.Legal

Impreso por

Reconstruyendo el Pasado Remoto

Estudios sobre el Próximo Oriente Antiguo en homenaje a Jorge R. Silva Castillo

Reconstructing a Distant Past

Ancient Near Eastern Essays in Tribute to Jorge R. Silva Castillo

Editado / Edited by

Diego A. Barreyra Fracaroli and Gregorio del Olmo Lete

EDITORIAL AUSA

Apdo 101 – 08280 SABADELL - BARCELONA

E-mail: [email protected]

Jorge Rolando Silva Castillo (México, D.F., 6-VII-1934)

Contents

Los Editores / The Editors, Prólogo a modo de semblanza y ofrenda

Preface : Biographical Sketch and Tribute ix

Bibliografía de Jorge R. Silva Castillo xii

Daniel Arnaud, Le roi perse, les oblats et le clergé en Babylone

d’après une lettre de Larsa 1

Diego A. Barreyra Fracaroli, Fear of Census. State policies and tribal ideology

in the Mari Kingdom during the period of Samsi-Addu 15

Alberto Bernabé, El extraordinario embarazo de Kumarbi 25

Marcelo Campagno, Parentesco y Estado en los conflictos entre Horus y Seth 33

José Carlos Castañeda Reyes, En torno a algunas obras literarias “pesimistas”

del Medio Oriente Antiguo 47

Miguel Civil, The Mesopotamian Lexical Lists: Authors and Commentators 65

Gregorio del Olmo Lete, Los persas en la Biblia Hebrea 73

Jean-Marie Durand, Un conflit diplomatique évité 93

Lluis Feliu – Adelina Millet, An Old Babylonian Text Concerning Acrobats and Wrestlers 99

Daniel E. Fleming, The Heavens Were 7ot Enough: Humanity and God’s Home in the Book of Genesis 105

Florence Malbran-Labat, Aperçu sur la stratigraphie du vocabulaire akkadien 119

Ignacio Márquez Rowe, Pain,bière et la culture d’Uruk. De Gilgamesh au bol à bord biseauté 135

Susana B. Murphy, The Thinking of Marc Bloch and a 7ew Survey of Ancient Eastern Studies 149

Gonzalo Rubio, Scribal secrets and antiquarian nostalgia: Tradition and scholarship in Ancient Mesopotamia 155

Joaquín Sanmartín, La construcción social del pasado en la Época Tolemaica: Entre el recuerdo y la historia. 183

Jack M. Sasson, The Trouble with 7ūr-Sin. Zimri-Lim’s Purchase of Alaḫtum 193

Jordi Vidal – Juan-Luis Montero Fenollós, The Fortification System in Tell Abu Fahd (Syrian Euphrates Valley) 205

Juan-Pablo Vita, Hurrian as a living language in Ugaritic society 221

vii

203

The Fortification System

in Tell Abu Fahd (Syrian Euphrates Valley)∗

Jordi Vidal – Barcelona/London Juan-Luis Montero Fenollós - Universidade da Coruña

Tell Abu Fahd is a site located about 6 km southwest of the Gorge of Hanuqa, on the left bank of

the Middle Euphrates (fig. 1)1. It was one of the sites surveyed in the northern area of the Syrian province of Deir ez-Zor in the 2005-2007 campaigns in the framework of the Proyecto Arqueológico Medio Éufrates Sirio (PAMES), a project coordinated by the Directorate-General of Antiquities and Museums, Damascus (Syria) and the Universidade da Coruña (Spain). The site is currently occupied by the village of Abu Fahd2. This situation makes archaeological study of it difficult. However, the fortifications of the site are still partially visible. The main architectural elements of these fortifications are:

1.- Several sections of the 3 m wide basalt foundations of the city wall. The superstructure was probably made of mudbricks.

2.- A new 4·70 m section of the city wall in the southwest border of the tell is visible due to erosion caused by a well. The preserved height of this section is 1·60 m (5 courses) and it was built by the technique of using smaller stones (25 x 20 cm) to fill the space between two parallel walls made of large stones (45 x 50 cm and 35 x 60 cm). Blocks are joined by clay mortar, and frequently small stones and basalt splinters fill up interstices (fig. 2).

3.- A large rectangular tower (18 x 10 m) built with large blocks of basalt (50 x 70 and 50 x 30 cm) is located at the northeast of the tell. Currently, five courses are preserved, up to a total height of 2.50 m (fig. 3). It must be noted that remains of mudbricks, each measuring 45 x 45 x 10 cm, cover three sides of the tower. Mudbricks are clearly connected with the tower (figs. 4 and 5) and they could be the remains of a glacis or platform built in order to protect the tower. Archaeological research is necessary in order to verify this hypothesis.

4.- A gate could have been located in the western section of the wall, where now there is only a gap. According to the topographical study of this zone, this gate might have been protected by two towers (fig. 8).

5.- There is a depression in the southern and western areas of the tell, outside the city wall. It could be interpreted as a former moat, now considerably altered by agricultural activities (fig. 6) (Montero et al. 2006:100; Montero 2007:318).

∗ We are grateful to Dr. Bassam Jammous and Dr. Michel al-Maqdissi (DGAM) for the facilities granted to the Proyecto

Arqueológico Medio Éufrates Sirio (PAMES). PAMES is directed by Shaker al-Shbib and Juan-Luis Montero, and is funded by several Spanish (Ministerio de Cultura, Xunta de Galicia –Projet PGIDIT07 PXIB167227PR –, Ayuntamiento de Ferrol, CSIC, Universidade da Coruña) and Syrian (Fondation Osmane Aïdi) institutions. We are also grateful to Ester Blay and Wilfred G.E. Watson for their help in writing this paper. Of course, any mistakes are our own. On the other hand, the contribution by Jordi Vidal has been possible thanks to a postdoctoral fellowship granted by the Departament d’Educació i Universitats de la Generalitat de Catalunya in the School of Oriental and African Studies (University of London).

1. On the possibility of Tell Abu Fahd being ancient Dur-Yahdun-Lim see Montero 2007: 321. 2. See Lauffray 1983: 75 for previous research on Tell Abu Fahd.

JORDI VIDAL – JUAN-LUIS MONTERO FENOLLÓS

204

The study of the visible remains of the fortifications of Tell Abu Fahd, undertaken by the architects of the project, shows that the site has an oval shape with an area of roughly 6 ha (figs. 7 and 8). A magnetometry survey will allow the perimeter of the tell to be reconstructed in more detail.

Middle Bronze II pottery, of the same kind as found in Mari, City III (c. 1850-1761 BCE) (Montero et al. 2008: 89; Pons, 1999), was recovered from the surface of the mound and in a southern stratigraphical sounding3 (fig. 9). Since no pottery from other periods has been found, it seems reasonable to date the fortifications of Tell Abu Fahd to MB II.

The aim of this study is to analyse the fortifications of Tell Abu Fahd in the historical context of Middle Bronze siege warfare in the Ancient Near East.

SIEGE WARFARE: TOWERS AND BATTERING RAMS Siege warfare is the type of confrontation which is most attested in the Old Babylonian period,

specially in the Mari texts (Charpin 1993 and 2004: 289ff.; Durand 1998: 287ff.). This allows us to reconstruct the development of this kind of confrontation in the Middle Bronze in some detail. This reconstruction is relevant for us because the design of Middle Bronze fortifications like those on Tell Abu Fahd was conditioned by the development of new siege engines, particularly the siege tower and the battering ram.

The use of siege towers (gišdimtum) is well attested in the Mari texts. Unfortunately, these texts offer us few details of their specific features and use during sieges. ARM 28 152 is one of the more informative texts, telling us about two siege towers 5 qanûm high. It is usually accepted that 1 qanûm = 3 m (Powell 1987-1990). Therefore the towers mentioned in the text were 15 m high. However, some scholars consider this to be an unrealistic height. Thus, Lafont points out that in Mari 1 qanûm = 1.20 m (Lafont 1992: 102f.), so the towers mentioned in ARM 28 152 would actually have been 6 m high. Kupper considers this as a more realistic possibility, bearing in mind the height of the walls and the manoeuvrability of the machine (Kupper 1997: 128). However, a 15 m high siege tower cannot be ruled out completely, particularly if we take into consideration the existence of very high walls.

Unfortunately there are scarce data on the height of the walls. Only one Mari text provides information on this matter, stating that the city wall of Saggaratum was 3 qanûm high4, i.e. 3.60 or 9 m, depending on the measure of qanûm we adopt. Outside the Mari archives, an inscription of Naram-Sin provides a description of the city wall of Armanum. According to this text, the city had an outer wall 10 m high, the wall of the lower town was 15 m high, and the wall of the acropolis was 20 m high5. Finally, an Old Babylonian text states that the wall of Larsa was 15 m high and 1 m wide at that time6.

Turning to archaeological data, study of the 10 m wide stone foundation of the inner wall of Mari (the city of the Šakkannakku) suggests an estimated height of 12 m (Margueron 2004: 346). In the fortress of Buhen, in Lower Nubia, an 11 m high section of the inner fortification wall was preserved (Emery – Smith – Millard 1979: 4ff.).

According to these examples, and bearing in mind that the siege towers must have been taller than the walls in order to be useful, the existence of siege towers 15 m high is admissible.

3. A charcoal sample collected in the stratigraphic section of Tell Abu Fahd has been dated through 14C at 3220±35 in

Uppsala University (Sanjurjo et al. 2008: 28). Calibration at 1 sigma 1516-1448 cal ANE [1’00] and calibration at 2 sigmas 1606-1574 cal ANE [0’059026], 1557-1551 cal ANE [0’00777] and 1537-1419 cal ANE [0’933204], according to calibration curve Intcal04.

4. A.4192+. 5. RIME 2 Narām Sîn E2.1.4.26. See Burke 2008: 60. 6. TCL 10 3.

THE FORTIFICATION SYSTEM IN TELL ABU FAHD (SYRIAN EUPHRATES VALLEY)

205

On the other hand, the use of the determinative giš confirms that the towers were made of wood. Concerning their use during the siege, they could have functioned as large, protected ladders in order to scale a city wall. To this end, siege towers probably had wooden ramps (hummudāyum) tied to the tower by ropes (ARM 26/1, p. 212; Kupper 1997: 130; Durand 1998: 297f.). But the main function of the siege towers was to serve as freestanding firing platforms, from which archers could provide covering fire to protect sapping, tunnelling, breaching, or scaling operations, and to neutralize the weapons of the defenders (Yadin 1963: 71; Burke 2008: 38).

The use of battering rams (yašibum) is already attested in the Ebla texts (c. 2300 BCE) under the logogram GUD.SI.DILI (Steinkeller 1987). However, in the absence of archaeological or iconographic data, the Mari texts provide us with the bulk of information on battering rams in the Bronze Age (Kupper 1997)7. Concerning their specific features, we know that the body of the machine was made of cedar, ash or poplar8, whereas the head was made of bronze9. Here it must be pointed out that mudbrick walls, the kind of wall typical in the Ancient Near East, were harder to breach than stone walls due to their softness – brick yields to pressure and weakens the force of the thrust. That is why mudbrick walls were better tackled with a borer. Thus, it is reasonable to assume that the machines attested in the Mari texts had a narrow ram-head to destroy mudbrick.

The mention of two tanners in connection with a battering ram10 suggests that some parts of the machine were made of leather. Finally, several texts allude to the application of oil and animal fat to the battering rams, probably in order to facilitate their movements11 (Sasson 1969: 33f.; Kupper 1997: 123).

Battering rams, like siege towers, were shipped in boats across the river, probably in pieces12, and afterwards transported by chariot to the place of the siege13. Only one Mari text provides relevant information about the use of battering rams during a conflict. Thus, in a letter of Yakun-Dagan to queen Akatiya it is stated that a battering ram opened a considerable breach in a city wall:

The battering ram has come closer to the wall and has pulled down 6 qanûm of the wall. This construction is in ruins14. Some battering rams were named and became cult objects, thus showing the importance granted to

this type of siege engine (Sasson 1969: 34; Durand 1997: 582 n. c; Kupper 1997: 124). This is recorded in a letter of Bahdi-Lim to the king of Mari15, where the sender mentions a battering ram named ‘Haradan’16, which Zimri-Lim had ordered to be placed in a sanctuary of his father.

Siege towers and battering rams are usually mentioned together. This has indicated the possibility that both were in fact a single composite siege engine, in which the battering ram would have been hanging from the tower (ARM 21, pp. 348f.; Durand 1998: 295). However, various texts refer to the use of several siege towers but only one battering ram17, which probably rules out the possibility of the

7. On the possible representations of battering rams on Early Bronze Age Syrian cylinder seals see Nadali 2009. 8. ARM 6 63, ARM 27 8. 9. ARM 22 204+: col. iii l. 27’ = Lacambre 1997: 95; Dossin 1970: 25 nº 7. 10. ARM 6 65. 11. ARM 7 16, ARM 7 63, ARM 7 69, ARM 21 141. 12. ARM 18 17. 13. ARM 2 7, ARM 2 107. 14. ARM 10 171: 9-14. 15. ARM 6 63. 16. This battering ram is named after an animal: harādum (“onager, wild ass, wild donkey”; CAD Ḫ p. 88; CDA p. 107;

Durand 1998: 296). 17. ARM 2 7, ARM 14 45, ARM 27 8.


206

composite siege machine (Kupper 1997: 130)18. Iconographic information seems to confirm this. Thus, in Tomb no. 2 at Beni Hasan (Egypt), dated to 1910 BCE, a mobile structure covers three Egyptian soldiers who are shown wielding a long pole with a sharp tip against a fortification wall. Yadin considers the siege engine depicted at Beni Hasan as the earliest illustration of a battering ram (Yadin 1963: 70, 158ff.)19. Although the battering rams mentioned in the Mari texts may be different from the one depicted at Beni Hasan, the fact is that both texts and iconography seem to confirm that battering rams did not function as part of a siege tower.

WALLS AND TOWERS As we have said above, the wall in Tell Abu Fahd had a 3 m wide stone (basalt) foundation,

identical with or similar to the width attested in Emar (3 m), Tell Mašin (3 m) and Tell Afis (3.5-4 m) (see Table 1). The most remarkable aspect, in contrast with other sites of the region, is precisely the stone foundation of the wall, which was made possible due to the abundance of basalt in the gorge of Hanuqa. The superstructure of the wall was made of mudbrick.

A 3 m wide wall is not enough as a defensive device on its own and requires other architectural elements to guarantee the defence of the city, basically a moat and a glacis. These elements are fully attested in Middle Bronze Syrian fortification systems, over a considerable period in the region20.

Table 1. MB Syrian city walls

Site Width Material Tell Abu Danna21 2.1 m 10 m (acropolis) mudbrick,

stone foundation mudbrick

Tell Afis22 3.5 - 4 m mudbrick, stone foundation

Tell Bi’a (Tuttul)23 3.6 - 4.8 m mudbrick Tell Gindaris24 8 m stone foundation Tell Habuba Kabira25 2.8 m fired brick Tell Hadidi26 3-4 m mudbrick,

stone foundation Tell Hammam27 5.5 m mudbrick

18.. See Kupper 1997: 126f. and Durand 1998: 294ff. for a discussion on other terms probably referring to siege machines

(hammanum, simmiltum, kalbānatum, etc.). 19. Instead, Burke considers it more appropriate to identify it as a “siege pole” (Burke 2008: 39). 20. This is attested, for example, in the 6th Byzantine fortress of Tell as-Sin (Deir ez-Zor). There, a 3.90 m wide mudbrick

wall is protected by a moat dug into the rocky terrace (Montero 2006: 27f.; fig. 2). 21. Tefnin 1980: 192; Tefnin 1981-1982: 202. 22. Mazzoni 1998: 15. 23. Miglus – Strommenger 2002: 18f. 24. Khadour – Suleiman – Sürenhagen 1997: 119. 25. Heusch 1980: 174. 26. Dornemann 1979: 132 and 1980: 225. 27. Meijer 1988: 80; Van Loon – Meijer 1988: 699. See also Burke 2008: 171.


207

Site Width Material Tell Hariri (Mari)28

2.4 m (outer wall, ville III, Phase a) 7-9 m (outer wall, ville III, Phase b) 10 m (inner wall, ville III)

mudbrick

mudbrick mudbrick,

stone foundation Tell Leilan (Šehna, Šubat-Enlil)29

5 m mudbrick

Tell Mašin30 3 m mudbrick, stone foundation

Tell Meskene (Emar)31 3 m mudbrick, stone foundation

Tell Nebi Mend (Kadeš)32

2.5 m mudbrick, stone foundation

Tell es-Selenkahiye33 2.5 m (Wall I) 2.5 m (Wall II) 3.6 m (Wall III)

mudbrick, stone foundation mudbrick,

stone foundation mudbrick,

stone foundation Tell aṣ-Ṣur34 5 m stone foundation Tell Tuqan35 4.5 m

2 m mudbrick,

stone foundation mudbrick

Umm el-Marra36 1.5-2 m (NW Area) 7 m (W side of Area A)

1.5 m (citadel fortification wall)

mudbrick mudbrick mudbrick

Another relevant element is the rectilinear tower in the northeast of the Tell Abu Fahd wall, which

was probably protected by a glacis. The fact that it remains clearly isolated in that section of the wall raises some interpretative problems. In the first place, an isolated tower is not useful to eliminate all the dead space in the field of fire of archers stationed along the top of the wall. Eliminating dead space requires building towers at spaced intervals, as in Terqa (Buccellati – Kelly Buccellati 1983: 47) or Mari (Margueron 2004: 343ff., 443ff.).

In the second place, the northeastern tower of Tell Abu Fahd did not protect a gate or another weak point of the city wall. In fact, and bearing in mind its location, the purpose of the tower was probably

28. Margueron 2004: 343ff. The outer wall of Mari (phase c) was reinforced by an inner glacis probably during the reign of

Yahdun-Lim (Margueron 2004: 444f.). See Margueron 2000: fig. 2 on the development of the outer wall of Mari from a dike (City I) to the wall of the City III.

29. Stein 1990: 554. 30. Du Mesnil du Buisson 1935: 131. 31. Finkbeiner – Leisten 1999-2000: 5-57. 32. Parr 1983: 106. 33. Meijer 2001: 51ff. 34. Burke 2008: 220. 35. Matthiae 1982: 316; Baffi Guardata 1990: 66. 36. Schwartz et al. 2000: 426 and 2003: 341f.


208

control. The tower offers excellent visual control over the exit of the Euphrates from the Gorge of Hanuqa (6 km NW) and over the so-called Semiramis canal (Montero 2007: 319). Therefore, the tower could have been built in order to control water-borne traffic through the river and the canal.

Topographical study has allowed us to identify two other possible towers protecting the city gate in the western part of the tell. The function of these possible towers as a defensive element for the protection of a weak point of the wall would be clear.

MOATS As mentioned before, there is a light depression in front of the south and western sections of the

Tell Abu Fahd wall. This depression may be the remains of an ancient moat which would have surrounded part or the whole of the city wall, but this is unclear. Only archaeological research could confirm or eliminate the existence of such a moat in Tell Abu Fahd37. In any case its presence in the site would not be at all anomalous. Both archaeological data and written sources attest the existence of moats in the fortification systems of the region38.

Unfortunately, we must admit that very few Syrian moats have been well examined (see Table 2). This is because moats have often been neglected in excavations. Moreover, erosion has in some cases destroyed the original shape of the moat. Finally, it must be noted that very few of all known moats have been fully excavated and several others have only been vaguely described (Oredsson 2000: 175ff.).

Table 2. EB and MB Syrian moats

Site Width Depth Tell Ašara (Terqa)39 ? ? Tell Huera40 15 m ? Carchemiš41 ? 5 m Tell Hadidi42 4.2 m 2.1 m Tell Leilan (Šehna, Šubat-Enlil)43 ? ? Tell Mardikh (Ebla)44 ? ? Tell Mišrife (Qatna)45 70 m 5 m Tell Safinat-Nouh46 20 m 4.5 m Telles-Selenkahiye47 9 m 3 m Tell aṣ-Ṣur48 8-30 m 3- 4 m Umm el-Marra49 ? ?

37. As Oredsson points out: “[a]s moats are very difficult to detect once they are filled up, excavation is often the only way to

find them” (Oredsson 2000: 175). 38. According to Herzog, moats “can be considered to be a by-product of removing much needed soil and stone for earthen

fills and construction” (Herzog 1997: 320). 39. Buccellati – Kelly Buccellati 1983: 47. 40. Oredsson 200: 45. 41. Woolley 1921: 44; however see Burke 2008: 211 on the date of the moat. 42. Dornemann 1985: 54. 43. http://leilan.yale.edu/about/dig_sites/acropolis_northwest/index.html (Last review, 04/02/2009). 44. Schwartz et al. 2000: 427 n. 26; Burke 2008: 200. However, Matthiae does not interpret the shallow dip found in front of

the rampart as a moat, although he thinks this possibility remains open (Matthiae 1977: 141). 45. Burke 2008: 215. 46. Tallon 1956: 60. 47. van Loon 1979: 104. 48. Burke 2008: 220.


209

Turning to written sources, the Mari texts mention several cities with moats (hirītum). Thus, in a letter sent to Yasmah-Addu50, Išme-Dagan reported that the Turukkeans had crossed the moat of Amursakkum51. Another letter by Išme-Dagan to Yasmah-Addu52 mentions the moat of Kahat53, which was not a dry ditch as usual but a water-filled trench54. Finally, a royal inscription of Yahdun-Lim55 mentions the moats of Mari, Terqa and Dur-Yahdun-Lim, all moats dug by the king himself according to the text56.

From a tactical point of view, the main aim of Middle Bronze moats was to create an obstacle in front of the city wall to discourage attacking soldiers, battering rams and siege towers57. Moreover, they kept enemies at a distance, making offensive fire less effective and less accurate (Oredsson 2000: 21). The ‘ideal’ defensive moat should have a steep counter scarp, making it difficult for the enemy to escape out of the moat, besides a gentle sloping scarp to prevent them from hiding from archers on the city wall or in towers above. A moat forced the attackers to overcome an often formidable obstacle (see, for example, the moat of Qatna). If the moat was not very deep or it had rather sloping sides, then it would be possible to climb it, although probably under heavy defensive fire. However, the best way to overcome a moat is to fill it up, i.e. to construct a causeway. This is the only method which allows the use of siege machines such as battering rams or siege towers. The main drawback posed by this technique is that it is time-consuming and dangerous, as the constructors of the fill would be under heavy fire from above (Oredsson 2000: 179f.).

CONCLUSIONS

Our knowledge of the fortification system of Tell Abu Fahd is limited by the absence of archaeological excavations in the site. However, surface remains of that fortification system are enough to allow us to assert that Tell Abu Fahd shares the typical features of defensive architecture in Syria during the Middle Bronze.

The Middle Bronze is a crucial time in siege warfare, particularly due to the introduction and consolidation of new siege engines. Defensive architecture had to adopt countermeasures in order to face the new challenges posed by machines like the siege tower or the battering ram, the use of which is well attested by written sources. Those countermeasures, which required the investment of enormous resources and labour, consisted in the widespread use of architectural elements like moats, ramparts and glacis. In this historical context, the fortification system of Tell Abu Fahd shows the usual architectural adaptation to siege warfare in the Middle Bronze.

49. Schwartz et al. 2000: 427. 50. ARM 5 52. 51. A city probably located in the region of Nisibe (Kessler 1980: 209). 52. ARM 1 139. The place name Hiritum, i.e. “The Moat”, is attested in the Mari texts (Durand 1998: 291). 53. A city located in the Idamaraṣ region. Dossin identified it as Tell Barri (Dossin 1961-1962), but Charpin has rejected this

possibility (Charpin 1994: 180). Guichard suggests Kahat = Tell Hamidiya (Guichard 1994: 244). 54. According to Išme-Dagan’s words, aquatic animals called girītum, possibly “Muräne” (AHw p. 291) lived in the moat.

However, Durand rejects this translation: “La traduction “murène” (...) est peu recevable, le Djaghdjagh n’ayant nulle communication avec la mer”. He prefers “anguilles” (Durand 1997: 341f., n. a).

55. RIME 4 E4.6.8.2. 56. However, there is no archaeological evidence for a moat in Mari (Margueron 2004: 436 and 444). 57. On the non-military functions of moats (protection against flooding, propaganda/social prestige, borrow-pit or quarry) see

Oredsson 2000: 178.


210

BIBLIOGRAPHY Baffi Guardata, F. 1990. “Tell Touqan, une ville paléosyrienne”, AAAS 40:64-75. Buccellati, G., Kelly Buccellati, M. 1983. “Terqa: The First Eight Seasons”, AAAS 33:47-67. Burke, A.A. 2008. “Walled Up to Heaven”: The Evolution of Middle Bronze Age Fortification Strategies

in the Levant. Winona Lake. Chapman, R. 1997. “Weapons and Warfare”, in E.M. Meyers (ed.), The Oxford Encyclopedia of

Archaeology in the <ear East. New York – Oxford, pp. 334-339. Charpin, D. 1993. “Données nouvelles sur la poliorcétique à l’époque paléo-babylonienne”, MARI 7:193-23.

Charpin, D. 1994. “Une campagne de Yahdun-Lîm en Haute-Mésopotamie”, in D. Charpin, J.M. Durand (eds.), Florilegium marianum II. Recueil d’études à la memoire de Maurice Birot. Paris, pp. 177-200.

Charpin, D. 2004. “Histoire Politique du Proche-Orient Amorrite”, in P. Attinger – W. Sallaberger – M. Wäfler (eds.): Mesopotamien. Die altbabylonische Zeit. Freiburg, pp. 25-480.

Guichard, M. 1994. “Au pays de la Dame de Nagar”, in D. Charpin, J.M. Durand (eds.), Florilegium marianum II. Recueil d’études à la memoire de Maurice Birot. Paris, pp. 235-272.

Dornemann, R.H. 1979. “Tell Hadidi: A Millennium of Bronze Age City Occupation”, in D.N. Freedman (ed.), Archaeological Reports from the Tabqa Dam Project – Euphrates Valley, Syria. Cambridge, pp. 113-151.

Dornemann, R.H. 1980. “Tell Hadidi : an Important Center of the Mitannian Period and Earlier”, in J.C. Margueron (ed.), Le Moyen Euphrate. Zone de contacts et d’échanges. Leiden, pp. 217-234.

Dornemann, R.H. 1985. “Salvage Excavations at Tell Hadidi in the Euphrates River Valley”, BA 48:49-59.

Dossin, G. 1961-1962. “Le site de la ville de Kahat”, AAS 11-12:197-206. Dossin, G. 1970. “Archives de Sûmu-Iamam, roi de Mari”, RA 64:17-44. Du Mesnil du Buisson, R. 1935. “Souran et Tell Masin”, Berytus 2:121-134. Durand, J.M. 1997. Documents épistolaires du palais de Mari (tome I). Paris. Durand, J.M. 1998. Documents épistolaires du palais de Mari (tome II). Paris. Emery, W.B., Smith, H.S., Millard, A.R. 1979. The Fortress of Buhen: The archaeological report. London.

Finkbeiner, U., Leisten, T. 1999-2000. “Emar and Balis 1996 and 1998: A Preliminary Report of the Joint Syrian-German Excavations with the Collaboration of Princeton University”, Berytus 44:5-57.

Heusch, J.C. 1980. “Tall Habuba Kabira im 3. und 2. Jahrtausend – die Entwicklung der Baustruktuk –”, in J.C. Margueron (ed.), Le Moyen Euphrate. Zone de contacts et d’échanges. Leiden, pp. 159-178.

Kessler, K. 1980. Untersuchungen zur historischen Topographie <ordmesopotamiens nach keilschriftlichen Quellen des 1. Jahrtausends v. Chr. Wiesbaden.

Khadour, M., Suleiman, A., Sürenhagen, D. 1997. “Gindaris”, AJA 101:118-119. Kupper, J.R. 1997. “Béliers et tours de siège”, RA 91:121-133. Lacambre, D. 1997. “La gestion du bronze dans le palais de Mari: collations et joins à ARMT XXII”, in D. Charpin, J.M. Durand (eds.), Florilegium marianum III. Recueil d’études à la mémoire de Marie-Thérèse Barrelet. Paris, pp. 91-123.

Lafont, B. 1992. “Nuit dramatique à Mari”, in J.M. Durand (ed.), Florilegium marianum. Recueil d’études en l’honneur de Michel Fleury. Paris, pp. 93-105.

Lauffray, J. 1983. Ḥalabiyya – Zenobia. Place forte du limes oriental et la Haute-Mésopotamie au VIe siècle. Paris.


211

Margueron, J.C. 2000. “Mari : derniers développements des recherches conduites sur le tell Hariri”, in P. Matthiae et al. (ed.), Proceedings of the First International Congress on the Archaeology of the Ancient <ear East, Roma, pp.909-921.

Margueron, J.C. 2004. Mari. Métropole de l’Euphrate. Paris. Matthiae, P. 1977. Ebla. Un impero ritrovato. Torino. Matthiae, P. 1982. “Fouilles de 1981 à Tell Mardikh-Ebla et à Tell Touqan : nouvelles lumières sur l’architecture paléosyrienne du Bronze Moyen I-II”, CRAIBL 1982:299-331.

Mazzoni, S. 1998. The Italian Excavations of Tell Afis (Syria): from chiefdom to an Aramaean state. Pisa. Meijer, D.J.W. 1988. “Tell Hammam: architecture and stratigraphy”, in M.N. van Loon (ed.), Hammam

et-Turkman I. Report on the University of Amsterdam’s 1981-84 Excavations in Syria (2 vols.). Istanbul, pp. 9-127.

Meijer, D.J.W. 2001. “Architecture and Stratigraphy”, in M.N. van Loon (ed.), Selenkahiye. Final report on the University of Chicago and University of Amsterdam Excavations in the Tabqa Reservoir, <orthern Syria, 1967 – 1975. Istanbul, pp. 25-119.

Miglus, P., Strommenger, E. 2002. Tall Bi’a-Tuttul VIII: Stadtbefestigungen, Häuser und Tempel. Saarbrücken.

Montero, J.L. 2006. “Ciudades fortificadas en el valle del Medio Éufrates. Primeras investigaciones sirio-españolas en el asentamiento bizantino de Tall as-Sin (Siria) “, Erytheia 27:17-41.

Montero, J.L., et al. 2006. “Le Projet Archéologique Moyen Euphrate Syrien: 2e campagne de prospection dans la région de Halabiyé/Hanouqa”, Orient Express 2006/4:99-102.

Montero, J.L. 2007. “Aspectos territoriales del reino sirio-mesopotámico de Mari. Nuevas evidencias arqueológicas para la reconstrucción de la frontera septentrional”, in J.J. Justel, B.E. Solans, J.P. Vita, J.A. Zamora (eds.), Las aguas primigenias. El Próximo Oriente Antiguo como fuente de civilización. Zaragoza, pp. 311-326.

Montero, J.L. et al. 2008. “Le Projet Archéologique Moyen Euphrate Syrien: travaux récents sur la frontière septentrionale du royaume de Mari”, Studia Orontica 2:83-97.

Nadali, D. 2009. “Representations of Battering Rams and Siege Towers in Early Bronze Age Glyptic Art”, Historiae 6:37-51.

Oredsson, D. 2000. Moats in Ancient Palestine. Stockholm. Parr, P. 1983. “The Tell Nebi Mend Project”, AAAS 33:99-117. Pons, N. 1999. “Les principales formes de poterie de l’époque des Šakkanakku à la chute de la ville de Zimri-Lim”, Akkadica 114-115:1-57

Powell, M.A. 1987-1990. “Masse und Gewichte », RlA 7, pp. 457-515. Sanjurjo, J. et al. 2008. “TL and OSL dating of Sediment and Pottery from Two Syrian Archaeological Sites”, Geochronometria 31:21-30

Sasson, J.M. 1969. Military Establishments at Mari. Rome. Schwartz, G.M. et al. 2000. “Excavation and Survey in the Jabbul Plain, Western Syria: The Umm el-Marra Project 1996-1997”, AJA 104:419-462.

Schwartz, G.M. et al. 2003. “A Third-Millennium B.C. Elite Tomb and Other New Evidence from Tell Umm el-Marra, Syria”, AJA 107:325-361.

Stein, G.J. 1990. “Operation 4: The City Wall”, AJA 94:547-555. Steinkeller, P. 1987. “Battering Rams and Siege Engines at Ebla”, <ABU 1987/2: no 27. Tallon, M. 1956. “Une nouvelle enceinte antique en Émésêne”, AAS 6:51-61. Tefnin, R. 1980. “Deux campagnes de fouilles au Tell Abou Danne (1975-1976)”, in J.C. Margueron (ed.), Le Moyen Euphrate. Zone de contacts et d’échanges. Leiden, pp. 179-199.

Tefnin, R. 1981-1982. “Tall Abū Danna”, AfO 28:201-202.


212

van Loon, M. 1979. 1974 and 1975. “Preliminary Results of the Excavations at Selenkahiye Near Meskene, Syria”, in D.N. Freedman (ed.), Archaeological Reports from the Tabqa Dam Project – Euphrates Valley, Syria. Cambridge, pp. 97-112.

van Loon, M.N., Meijer, D.J.W. 1988. “Conclusions”, in M.N. van Loon (ed.), Hammam et-Turkman I. Report on the University of Amsterdam’s 1981-84 Excavations in Syria (2 vols.). Istanbul, pp. 697-701.

Woolley, C.L. 1921. Carchemish: Report on the Excavations at Djerabis, Part II, The Town Defenses. London.

Yadin, Y. 1963. The Art of Warfare in Biblical Lands. New York.

Fig. 1. The Gorge of Hanuqa.


213

Fig. 2. SW Wall.

Fig. 3. NE Tower.


214

Fig. 4. NE Tower and attached mudbrick wall.

Fig. 5. Detail of the external mudbrick wall of the NE Tower.


215

Fig. 6. View of the possible moat next to the W Wall.

Fig. 7. View of the tell with the perimeter of the Wall.


216

Fig. 8. Plan of Tell Abu Fahd


217

Fig. 9. Tell Abu Fahd MB II pottery.