Functional Analysis of Space in Syro-Hittite Architecture

In ricordo di mio padre, Guido

Pucci, Marina 2008 Functional Analysis of Space in Syro-Hittite Architecture. British Archaeological Reports, International Series 1738. Oxford: Archaeopress.

WORD OF AUTHOR AND ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

This book is the result of a PhD research carried out during the years 1999-2003 at the Freie Universität Berlin. The thesis was disputed on the 21st December 2003 in Berlin under the supervision of Prof. Dr. Harmut Kühne and Prof. Dr. Hansjörg Schmid. A Phd work is usually dependent on a scientific support from scholars and a financial support from institutions, and this work is no exception. Therefore it is my pleasant duty to record my thanks to the “Deutsche Akademische Austauschdienst” and to the “Freie Universität Berlin” for having given me the grants which allowed my stay in Berlin and this research. Prof. Hartmut Kühne, my first supervisor, kindly supported the subject of this research and envolved me in the excavation at Tell Shekh Hamad, where I have had and still have the chance to learn in practice what I tried to analyse in theory. Prof. Bau. Ing. Johannes G. Schmid provided me with numerous precious advices, critical notes and support. Best thanks are due to them. I express my gratitude to Prof. Stefania Mazzoni, who supported me personally, and scientifically both during and after this research. Acknowledgments are due to Prof. Tim Harrison and Prof. Aslihan Yener, who gave me the opportunity to access the unpublished written documentation of Tell Tayinat. To Mr. Chris Arthus, who checked during these five years the English grammar and syntax of the text I owe a debt of gratitude. Thankfully Dr. Heather Snow and Annie Caruso helped me editing the text for the publication. To my colleagues and friends at the Freie Universität in Berlin, Lorenzo, Chiara, Kimioshy, Janoscha, Jens and Christoph I would like to address my thanks for having provided at the Institute a nice and pleasant atmosphere and at the same time for frequent and productive discussions. Finally I acknowledge the support that I received from my friends in Italy. To Corrado, who not only helped me and gave me excellent advices for this research, but also primarily supported me in my frequent moments of frustration and mourn I address my warmest thank. I am grateful to my family: they accepted my choices, which were not always painless. Therefore, I thank my mother Maria Teresa, my sister Rita, and my grandparents; they are all my point of reference. I regret not to be able to thank my father, Guido: to his memory this work is dedicated.

Pucci – Contents

CH. I. INTRODUCTION: BASIS AND AIMS OF THE RESEARCH 1 IA. HISTORY OF RESEARCH AND AIMS OF THIS WORK 1 IB. THE GEOGRAPHICAL AREA 2 IC. HISTORY OF EXCAVATIONS AND AVAILABLE DATA 2 IC1. The archaeological campaigns in the SyroHittite town centres. Research goals and methodology 2 IC2. Status of documentation 4 CH. II. RESEARCH METHODS 6 IIA. ARCHITECTURE AS CULTURAL FEATURE 6 IIB. ARCHITECTURE AS A COMMUNICATION SYSTEM 6 IIC. METHODS OF ANALYSIS 7 IIC1. The Built Structure 7 IIC2. Interpreting the materials 8 IIC3. Interpreting the image 9 IIC4. The Writing on the Wall 10 IID. WORKING PROCEDURE: ANALYSIS OF SPACE 10 IID1. Initial Research: the Building Sequence 10 IID2. The damaged sign, the “noises” 11 IID3. Functional Analysis 11 CH. III. BUILDING PERIODS AT ZINCIRLI 15 IIIA. THE BUILDING PHASES AT ZINCIRLI: PROBLEMS 15 RAISED BY THE RESEARCH IIIB. THE EXCAVATED AREAS AND BUILDING 16 NUMBERS IIIC. TOWN WALL AND TOWN GATES: THE EXTERNAL DEFENCE 17 IIID. THE ENTRANCE TO THE CITADEL: THE GATES 18 AND THE ROUTES IIID1. The Access to the Citadel and the town wall: Gate D and the Mound wall 18 IIID2. The area limited by the gates and the second citadel gate: E, LG, Ab1 and QM 20 IIID3. The structures on the east: the so-called casemate (F and IM) 22 IIID4. Conclusion: the progressive delimitation of the entrance to the mound 23 IIIE. THE NORTH-EASTERN AREA: THE ISOLATED 25 BUILDINGS G AND HI IIIE1. The lower structures: HI, GK and WH 25 IIIE2. The higher structures: G and Ab2 26 IIIE3. The building sequence in the north-eastern area 28 IIIF. THE NORTH-WESTERN BUILDING COMPLEX: STRUCTURES SURROUNDING THE COURTYARDS (J-M, Q-R 29 AND THE HILANIS) IIIF1. Structures surrounding the southern courtyard R: the “Hallenbauten” and the Hilani II and III 30 IIIF2. The middle area 33 IIIF3. The buildings in front of courtyard M: J-L and the entrance Q 34 IIIF4. The north-western complex: progressive addition of buildings surrounding open areas 37 IIIG. CONCLUSIONS: BUILDING SEQUENCE OF ZINCIRLI 38 IIIG1. Period I: the earliest layout of the town 39 IIIG2. Period II: the most advanced phase in architectural development at the site 39

IIIG3. Period III: the layout after the destruction: reuse and rebuilding activities 39 CH. IV. FUNCTIONAL ANALYSIS OF THE ARCHITECTURE AT ZINCIRLI 42 IVA. PERIOD III: THE STRUCTURES IN USE DURING THE ASSYRIAN PRESENCE AND THEIR FUNCTIONS 42 IVA1. The Structure in Use 42 IVA2. The defensive System of the Settlement during the Assyrian occupation: Defence and Propaganda 42 IVA3. The new buildings in the north-eastern area: dwelling, reception and defence 44 IVA4. The re-use of the southern courtyard and the new Hilani in the North-western area 48 IVA5. The Citadel during the third building Period: Distribution of the Functions 51 IVB. PERIOD II: THE REASSESSMENT OF THE BUILDINGS DURING THE INDEPENDENT PERIOD 52 IVB1. The Structure in Use during the Second Building Period 52 IVB2. The External Defence of the Lower Town 52 IVB3. The Open Space limited by the Citadel Gates: Passage, Defence and Religion 54 IVB4. North-eastern area: the structures built after the Destruction of the Hilani 58 IVB5. The Complex in the North-Western Area: Structures around two Open Spaces 58 IVB6. The Citadel during the Second Building Period: Distribution of the Functions 74 IVC. PERIOD I: THE ORIGINAL LAYOUT OF THE CITADEL 75 IVC1. The Earliest Structure 75 IVC2. The entrance to the Citadel 75 IVC3. The North-western Area: Buildings facing the Open Space 76 IVC4. The Functions of the Buildings during the first Building Period: the earliest spatial Organisation 77 IVD. THE HISTORICAL DEVELOPMENT OF A TOWN 78 IVD1. Period I: the Syro-Hittite independent town78 IVD2. Period II: the town as an Assyrian tributary 79 IVD3. Period III: : the Assyrian presence and last reassessment 80 CH. V. BUILDING PERIODS AT TELL HALAF 81 VA. PREVIOUS STUDIES ON THE BUILDING SEQUENCE 81 VB. AREAS AND KEYS 81 VC. THE FOUR SECTIONS OF THE MOUND WALL, (BM) 82 VD. THE NORTH-EASTERN AREA: STRUCTURES HIGH ON TERRACES 83 VD1. The terraces of the north-eastern complex, NOP 83 VD2. The north-eastern Complex NOP: the superstructures 84 VD3. The northern Gateway and the north-eastern Complex: QT and NOP 87 VD4. The north eastern Complex and the citadel Wall: NOP and BM 87 VD5. The Building Sequence on the north-eastern area 88

Pucci – Contents

VE.

THE SOUTH-EASTERN AREA: THE SMALLER STRUCTURES

89 VE1. The “Assyrian House” (AH) and the eastern Structures (EH) 89 VE2. Other Structures including the “Long” Building (LSG) 90 VE3. The Building Sequence in the south-eastern Area 90 VE4. Connections to the north-eastern Area 91 VF. THE SOUTHERN AREA OF THE CITADEL: THE GATES AND NEIGHBOURING STRUCTURES 91 VF1. The Southern Main entrances to the Citadel: ST and AST 91 VF2. The Graves and Statues inside the Platform: G1 91 VF3. The mud brick platforms and graves: LZM and G2 92 VF4. Building Sequence of the Platforms, the Gates and the Mound Walls to the South 94 VF5. Archaeological Connections to the southeastern Area 94 VG. THE WESTERN AREA OF THE CITADEL: THE “TEMPEL-PALAST” (TP) AND NEIGHBOURING STRUCTURES 94 VG1. The so-called “Tempel-Palast” (TP) , its forerunner (ATP) and the Kapara Period 95 VG2. The Graves G3 and the Northern Structure (NB) facing “TP” 96 VG3. The gateway to the western Area: SKT and TP 97 VG4. Building Sequence in the Western Area 98 VH. THE LOWER TOWN 98 VH1. The main Structures on the Lower Town: Town Wall (SM), KR, and STL 98 VH2. Soundings 99 VH3. The Lower Town: Conclusions 99 VI. CONCLUSIONS: OVERVIEW ON THE BUILDING PERIODS 99 VI1. Period I: the earliest Layout of Syro-Hittite Tell Halaf/Guzana 100 VI2. Period II : the so-called “Kapara” Period 100 VI3. Period III: the last Architectural Changes 101 CH. VI. FUNCTIONAL ANALYSIS OF THE ARCHITECTURE AT TELL HALAF 103 VIA. PERIOD III: THE LAST LAYOUT OF THE TOWN 103 VIA1. Structures in use during the third phase 103 VIA2. The Defence System of the Citadel, its Terraces and Graves 103 VIA3. The Southern Entrance: the access to the socalled Tempel-Palast 104 VIA4. The Structures on the terrace of the so-called “Tempel Palast” and the surrounding Area 105 VIA5. The Final Layout of the north-eastern Structure: Distribution of the Functions 109 VIA6. The “Assyrian House” south of the Northern Complex 114 VIA7. The two Structures in the lower town 115 VIA8. Distribution of the functions during the third Building Period 117 VIB. PERIOD II: FUNCTIONS OF THE STRUCTURES 118 VIB1. The NOP Complex during this Period 118 VIB2. The entrance to the Citadel and the so-called

Tempel Palast 118 VIB3. The structures on the south-eastern Corner of the Citadel 120 VIB4. Distribution of the Functions during the Second Building Period 121 VIC. PERIOD I: THE EARLIEST LAYOUT OF THE CITADEL 121 VIC2. The Original Entrance to the Mound 122 VIC3. Distribution of Functions during the first Building Period 124 VID. HISTORICAL DEVELOPMENT OF HALAF 124 VID1. The Aramean town 124 VID2. The Assyrian Provincial Centre 125 VID3. Kapara 125 VID4. What happened after the Collapse of the Assyrian Empire? 126 VID5. Parallels to Zincirli 126 CH. VII. BUILDING PHASES AT TELL TAYINAT 127 VIIA. THE EXCAVATIONS AT THE SITE: METHODS 127 AND INTERESTS VIIA1. The Excavations at Tayinat as part of the Amuq Project 127 VIIA2. The Publication of the Architecture 127 VIIA3. The Unpublished Documentation 127 VIIA4. Building numbers and the Archaeological Research 128 VIIB. THE NORTH-WESTERN AREA: A PROGRESSIVE SEQUENCE OF STRUCTURES 129 VIIB1. The first excavated buildings: Building I, II and XIV 129 VIIC. THE STRUCTURES LIMITING THE EASTERN SIDE OF THE COURT: BUILDING VI, PLATFORM XV AND T 3 133 VIIC2. The open space surrounded by structures: Courtyard VIII (with T 9 and 10) 134 VIID. THE NORTHERN LIMIT OF THE COURTYARD: BUILDINGS IV, XIII 136 VIID2. The Access to the North-western area: Area V (with T8) and Gate XII 137 VIIE. BUILDING SEQUENCE OF THE NORTH WESTERN COMPLEX 138 VIIF. THE SOUTHERN AREA: ONE ISOLATED STRUCTURE 139 VIIF1. Building IX 139 VIIF2. Gate III 140 VIIG. THE EASTERN AREA OF THE TOWN: THE GATES 140 VIIG1. The internal gate VII and the neighbouring building X 140 VIIG2. The external eastern Gate XI 141 VIIG3. Conclusions: the Defence System 141 VIIH. BUILDING SEQUENCE 142 VIIH1. Period I: two large structures on the mound 142 VIIH2. Period II : the new reassessment 142 VIIH3. Period III: the second centre 142 CH. VIII. FUNCTIONAL ANALYSIS AT TELL TAYINAT 143 VIIIA. PERIOD III: THE LAST PHASE OF CONSTRUCTION 143 VIIIA1. Overview 143 VIIIA2. The gates 143

Pucci – Contents

VIIIA3. The southern complex 146 VIIIA4. The north-western area: structures surrounding the open courtyard VIII 147 VIIIA5. The temple II 151 VIIIA6. Distribution of the functions during the third Building Period 152 VIIIB. PERIOD II: THE REASSESSMENT OF THE MOUND 153 VIIIB1. Overview 153 VIIIB2. The north-western area: an open space surrounded by structures 153 VIIIB3. Distribution of the functions in the second Building Period 159 VIIIC. PERIOD I: THE EARLIEST LAYOUT OF THE “SYRO-HITTITE” TOWN OF TELL TAYINAT 160 VIIIC1. The buildings of the first period 160 VIIIC2. The north-western area during the first Building Period: few excavated structures 160 VIIIC3. Functions of the structures during the first Building Period 161 VIIID. HISTORICAL DEVELOPMENT OF THE TOWN OF TELL TAYINAT (KHUNALUA?) 161 VIIID1. The birth of the town and the independent period 161 VIIID2. The Second Period: the Assyrian impact 161 VIIID3. The Third Period under the Assyrians 162 CH. IX. GENERAL ANALYSIS 163 IXA. THE BASIC MODULES EMPLOYED IN THE 163 PLANIMETRY. IXB. SYNCHRONIC COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS: THE FUNCTIONS OF THE CITADEL 163 IXB1. The religious areas: the temple? 163 IXB2. The areas of the elites: representative and reception functions 166 IXB3. The production, storage, and administrative areas 168 IXC. SYNCHRONIC COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS: TOPOGRAPHIC NOTES 170 IXC1. Walls, passages, carved gates and statues shaping the external “public” areas along axes 170 IXC2. The enceintes, the defensive function 171 IXC3. Two Centres on the Citadel 172 IXC4. The Graves on the Acropolis 172 IXD. DIACHRONIC ANALYSIS: TRENDS OF SPATIAL ORGANISATION OVER TIME 173 IXD1. The second internal mound wall 173 IXD2. Overcoming the mound wall 173 IXD3. Elevating the buildings: the terraces 174 IXD4. Enclosing open spaces 174 IXD5. Orthostats and statues as architectural elements 174 IXD6. External Influences on Syro-Hittite Architecture 175 IXD7. The Bit Hilani: a building type? 176 IXE. THE SEMANTICS OF SPACE 176 BIBLOGRAPHY: 178 LIST OF TABLES 189 LIST OF DIAGRAMS: 190 LIST OF PLATES 190 CATALOGUE 192

Pucci – Ch. I Introduction

Recently, new excavations 4 and surveys 5 have provided additional and more accurate data about this period and geographical area. The development of archaeological methods and field techniques has now made it possible to establish the stratigraphy and pottery sequences at these sites. New interpretative approaches for statuary and reliefs of this period have been utilized by D. Bonatz. 6 His study on grave memorial of the Syro-Hittite period is based upon iconological and semiotic interpretation. From this analysis, he draws conclusions on their functions, avoiding issues of style or chronology. An iconographic analysis of these works has been pursued by S. Mazzoni. 7 She focuses attention on their connections to Late Bronze Age iconography by examining their archaeological context. Historical and epigraphic studies pursued by D. Hawkins 8 introduced much new information about the history of this period and stressed the need for a reassessment of the material culture of this area. Furthermore, the publication of the Corpus of Hieroglyphic Luwian Inscription was initiated in 1999 9 along with the Aramaic inscriptions; one year later, Hawkins published the translations of all the Luwian hieroglyph inscriptions so that we are now able to reanalyze them to their original architectural context. 10 In 1996, M. Joukowsky summarised the state of current knowledge about this period and this area as follows: “At the outset of our discussion about the Neo-Hittites it is important to know that we know little about these peoples. We have some of their art and an outline of their history, but our understanding of them is incomplete”. 11 This work coincides with this general approach: the scope is to analyse the architecture of this period in relationship to all archaeological finds (decoration, inscriptions, objects and installations) as part of an organised space, with the purpose of understanding the spatial organisation of the towns and identify general patterns that may support the existence of a cultural koiνη. Several elements point to different interpretations of this area in the early Iron Age. On the one hand some elements suggest an internal cultural division of the area: a. The centres were not part of a political entity. b. the area was not dominated in the late Bronze Age by a single power, which allowed a variety of local traditions to flourish.

Ch. I. Introduction: basis and aims of the research IA. History of Research and Aims of this work This work focuses on the analysis of the architecture in the Syro-Hittite 1 centres that developed in northern Syria and south-eastern Turkey from the early Iron Age until the Assyrian conquest of the area. A circumwalled lower town and an upper fortified acropolis constituted the usual layout of these centres. These sites were excavated and most of the reports were published between the end of the 19th century and the beginning of the 20th century. The studies which followed the excavation reports focused on the most attractive features of these centres: reliefs and statuary. These two groups of artefacts, which were abundant in some sites, have been analysed mainly by W. Orthmann [1971] and H. Genge [1979]. The methodological approach of these studies was most closely linked to an analysis of the style, ignoring the archaeological context of these reliefs. Rather the evolution of style and the chronology of these works were the central themes of the analyses. Syro-Hittite architecture was analysed by R. Naumann as a part of Anatolian architecture. 2 His analysis focused on the architectural techniques and the ground plans. Similar to the previous studies in iconography, his goal was to discover how certain patterns developed from the Late Bronze Age, and also which building techniques were used. The focus was on ancient architecture of Turkey and the parallels were therefore mainly related to Anatolian architecture. Other more general studies touched upon the architecture and the art of Syro-Hittite centred. 3

1 The word "Syro-Hittite" has been employed [G. Contenau 1922 used it with a different meaning, D. Hawkins 1982, C.W. McEwan 1937, S. Mazzoni 1984, ea. 1995, ea. 1997, ea. 2001b] to define the material culture located in an area between Syria and Anatolia. Other terms to distinguish the same period and finds focused on the geographical boundaries (North Syrian, South Anatolian) [H. Genge 1979], or on ethnic-linguistic features (Neo-Hittite and Aramean) [D. Hawkins 1995; id. 1982; S. Mazzoni 1994; ea. 1977; D. Ussishkin 1971; for the Aramean centres: H. Sader 1987; P. S. Dion 1997], or on their dependence on Hittite culture (late Hittite) [W. Orthmann 1971]. However, we should point out that the two words constituting the definition Syro-Hittite, which is employed in this work, come from two different fields. The first one (Syro-) derives from a modern political entity and is used in archaeology to indicate a geographical area. This local culture differed indeed from Mesopotamian and Anatolian material cultures, but it does not refer to a clearly defined ancient political situation. Instead, the word "Hittite" has a meaning linked to a specific geographical and historical era (e.g. the Hittite Empire), and it refers to a culture clearly defined in all its aspects. 2 R. Naumann 1971. 3 M. Vieyra 1955; O.R. Gurney 1961; K. Bittel 1977; E. Akurgal 1949.

4

Italian mission at Tell Afis since 1986, American Mission at Marash since 1997, German and Syrian excavations at the citadel in Aleppo since 1996. 5 Surveys and excavations at Tell Tayinat cf. T. Harrison 2001. 6 D. Bonatz 2000. 7 S. Mazzoni 1974, ead. 1977, ea. 1984, ead. 1994, ead. 1997, ea. 2001a, 2005b. 8 D. Hawkins 1972, Id. 1974, Id.1982, Id.1986, Id. 1988, Id. 1993, Id. 1995a, Id. 1995b, Id 2000. Thanks to his studies the Water Gate and the Herald’s Wall in Karkemish were antedated to the 11th cent. 9 H. Cambel 1999. 10 D. Hawkins 2000. 11 M. S. Joukowsky 1996: 297

1

Pucci – Ch. I Introduction

power. 15

c. There were at least three (Hittite hieroglyph, cuneiform and Aramaic) writing tradition, which only in theory corresponded to the number of spoken languages. On the other hand, some other features support the hypothesis of a unique culture. a. The centres had the same political status as independent towns. b. In the Assyrian Annals, this area was identified by a unique name (Hatti). c. The timeframe (from the fall of the Hittite Empire to the conquest of this area by the Assyrian Empire) and the geographical area are well-defined and common to all centres. d. The iconographical themes used in the centres were very similar with each other. In order to reach this scope, we need to define the geographical area (section IB), understand how archaeological investigations were carried out and how the reports were published (IC1), clearly define our data set (IC2) and formulate a theory why for the functional analysis of architecture as a method to investigate culture (Ch. II).

IC. History of excavations and available data IC1.

The archaeological campaigns in the SyroHittite town centres. Research goals and methodology

The archaeological remains of these centres represent the only available material to inform present research. When we talk about “archaeological remains” we should point out that these data are not directly accessible in the field but are rather presented only in the reports of the archaeologists who excavated these sites. In other words, these original data have already being “interpreted”. 16 For this reason, the first step of this work is to investigate who conducted the excavation at these sites, what were their goals, methodology and manner of publication. As mentioned above, the archaeological excavations (i.e. the reports) are the starting point of our investigation. Consequently, the historical context of these scholars, their motivation of investigating the Orient, and their research objectives are all relevant to present study. At this point, it is not intended to undertake an exhaustive investigation of the history and politics of this period, but to point out the relationship between archaeological research and political climate, and how these circumstances may have influenced the reports. Archaeology and the Ottoman Empire: The excavations in this area (currently south-eastern Turkey and north-western Syria) took place mostly during the 19th century and represented part of the first scientific investigations in the Orient. The interest taken in the ancients had already begun in the 18th century under the influence of Romanticism. Research of classical cultures inspired aristocrats to travel to the Mediterranean, so as to develop a refined appreciation of classical civilization. Agents were sent by rich families to purchase antiquities in order project an image of cultural sophistication. New archaeological explorations in Italy (Herculaneum 1738 and ten years later Pompeii 17 ) started and fueled this interest in ancient artifacts. Near Eastern archaeology was also driven by the biblical fundamentalists, who sought to prove the literal veracity of the Bible, and was also stimulated by the accounts of the scholars who followed Napoleon in Egypt. Moreover, growing knowledge of classical and Egyptian culture and attempts to decipher hieroglyphs also attracted scholars’ attention to these cultures. 18 During the 19th century, all classical ancient ruins (with the exception of those in Italy) were within the territories

IB. The geographical area The geographical area where these centres developed is limited by the Taurus Mountains (to the north), the River Khabour (to the east), the mountain ad-Duruz (to the south south) and the River Ceyan (to the west). In the Late Bronze Age this area represented the border between the Hittite Empire and the Mittannian kingdom. The demise of these great powers allowed independent political entities with local material culture to develop. This geographical zone was not under the control of any dominant capital, but was comprised of a number of independent states. At present, this area is located between south-eastern Turkey and northern Syria. This is the northern-most fringe of Mesopotamia, with the Tigris and Euphrates flowing through it. The mountains of the Taurus provide the region with a natural northern boundary. The soil varies depending on the area in question: the regions bordering the plateau to the south by the sea, i.e. the Amuq plain, 12 are coastal plains that enjoy a mild Mediterranean climate. To the east, the Cartal Dağr chain separates this coastal area from a zone of plateaus and valleys shaped by the Tigris, 13 the Euphrates and their tributaries above the 200 mm isohyet. This area has diverse landscapes of valleys and plateaus, and it is protected by the mountains to the north. Thus, by virtue of its environment and water resources, it offers the necessary means by which civilisation may exist and is it a fragmented landscape of confined valleys, which were easily defended and separated from one another. These characteristics provided an ideal environment for the development of town countries, 14 rather than a centralised

influence of the environment and landscape on settlement patterns. 15 I. Thuesen 2000: 64 “By contrast with the Mesopotamian alluvial plain, the geographic conditions of Syria never favoured centralisation. Most of the town was situated in regions often limited by natural barriers.” 16 Thus, describing involves always interpreting. 17 Winkelmann, in 1764, with the publication of "History of Ancient Art", became the “father” of classical archaeology. 18 J.F. Champollion 1824.

12

R. Braidwood 1937: 8-11. G. Algaze 1990. 14 Cf. P.J. Ucko, R. Tringham et G.W. Dimbleby 1972 for the 13

2

Pucci – Ch. I Introduction

of the Ottoman Empire and the European interest in them involved issues of diplomacy and maintaining good relations with the Sultan. During the 19th century, the Ottoman Empire maintained close ties with European nations. From the Tanzimat Age onwards (1839-1878), the English and French influence on the economies and on the politics of Ottoman Empire was substantial. 19 The European nations assisted the Ottoman economy with loans, helping it to establish a western standard; the Ottoman Empire was partially relieved of its high debt with the European nations by conceding monopolies or tithes on local goods (salt, silk etc...). The Germans succeeded in obtaining a permit to construct the Baghdad railway, giving birth to the Railway Company. 20 The Treaty of Paris in 1856, after the Ottoman loss to Russia in the Crimean War, exposed the sultanate to additional European influence. The Treaty of Berlin in 1878 after the Balkan War sanctioned the loss of further territories to the advantage of the European nations. The efforts of the European nations to support the Ottoman power seemed to have been motivated by two principle aims: on the one hand, their interests in their economy and on the other hand, its potential to guarantee a balance of power in the Middle East. Another area of influence was their army: since 1835, the Germans had been helping to rebuild the Ottoman army. 21 How did these events influence archaeological research in the Near East? It seems that the Ottoman Empire was not as interested in its archaeological remains, as the economic favour it received by guaranteeing digging 22 permits. 23. We should here distinguish between two kinds of archaeologists: officers whose hobby was archaeology, and archaeologists with a real scientific interest. Figures such as Layard, Botta, and Hogarth, men who were European consuls or officers and not archaeologists seem to belong to the first category. They promoted and directed excavations in Babylon, Nineveh, and

Karkamish: the last being one of the Syro-Hittite centres. In 1911, the British Museum started to dig in Karkamish with the expedition led by Hogarth, who was directly involved in British military intelligence. He was to work in the army in Damascus and was also helped by T.E. Lawrence, the future Lawrence of Arabia. This excavation began exactly when the Germans were working in this strategically positioned place on the Euphrates to build the Baghdad Railway. The English were at the same time trying to restrict, if not prevent German construction of this railway. Their presence in the exact same place seemed to be an excuse for observing German movements with only a secondary scientific interest in the archaeological remains. Methodical excavation techniques received very little attention. At the same time these kinds of excavations were being carried out by men who were living and working in the Orient and who by chance discovered and brought to light archaeological remains, there were other scholars who left their homelands to “discover” the Orient, and for most of them scientific research was their principal motivation. The first scientific expedition was by the Danish 24 in Arabia in 1761. After this, we record the travels of Burkhardt who, dressed as a carpet salesman, travelled through Syria in the early years of the 19th century. 25 . During the second half of the 19th century, many explorers began travelling across the Near East. Among these scientific travels we should mention those which directly involved the sites included in this research. E. Sachau, 26 travelling in Syria in 1879, visited the first excavations 27 at Karkamish, which were directed by Mr. Henderson, the consul in Aleppo. The results have never been published, and his report is the only witness of this excavation that we have. 28 K. Humann and O. Puchstein 29 travelled to Turkey and Syria in 1882 and 1883. In 1882, Humann went to Ancyra to make a chalk copy of the Monumentum Ancyranum, while Puchstein went with Sester to visit the Nemrud-Dağ statues, which were first discovered by Sester and Puchstein in 1882. 30 A year later, Humann, Puchstein and von Luschan formed an expedition and reached the Nemrud-Dağ heights and travelled further to the south. At this time, at Sagçagözü, a local miller once again informed that Hamdy Bey had found carved orthostats at the nearby site named Zincirli. 31 Puchstein

19

The first steps were the commercial treaties with the European nations (1838 with England and France, 1839-41 with Sweden, Spain, Norway, Holland, Prussia, Denmark and some states in Italy). Successively the influence of the European nations became stronger and, in 1881, a European Commission of the Ottoman public debt was active managing 30% of the state entries at the beginning of the 20th century, see R. Mantran 1989, Ch. 13 pg.578. 20 Relations between Germany and the Ottoman Empire became especially positive with Sultan Abdül Hamid, who favoured Germany and personally supported their application for construction of the railway over the application submitted by the English. R. Mantran 1989: 609. 21 J.L.Wallach 1976: the German officer Moltke had been in Turkey since 1835 and from 1836 onwards he applied for new German officers to be sent to Turkey. This help was requested directly by Sultan Mahmud II, who initially asked the French. Due to Russian opposition to French participation, the sultan decided to ask Germany. 22 For this reason, Humann obtained a permit to dig in Zincirli within a short time. Cf. N. Crüsemann 2001: 87-89 and S. Alaura 2007: 14-15 23 The people who were given the task of building the Baghdad Railway were able to dig at the nearby sites. R. Mantran 1989: 610.

24

The only survivor, Niebuhr, published a Description of Travels in Arabia. 25 J. Burkhardt 1822. 26 E. Sachau 1883. 27 Mentioned also in the introduction of the excavations at Zincirli, cf. F. von Luschan 1893: 1 28 D. G. Hogart 1911 29 K. Humann and O. Puchstein 1890: both the trips are reported here, with cartographic documentation by Kiepert. Also the first pictures of the excavation in Zincirli and the orthostats in Marash are published here. Concerning Puchstein and Zincirli cf. S. Alaura 2007 30 C.Schuchhardt et T.Wiegand 1931 31 They had been aware of surface finds at Zincirli a year before, but did not have the time to investigate the site.

3

Pucci – Ch. I Introduction

and von Luschan went there for a day-trip and, in the few hours they were there, they gathered enough information to warrant a return trip for further investigation. After returning from this expedition, Puchstein promoted the formation of the Orient Comité to provide financial support for the excavations. Humann was to become the director of the first campaign, while von Luschan took his place in the following seasons. In the same year, Puchstein also received information about carved orthostats and statues discovered near Marash. He visited the American mission in Gaziantep: once there, he was shown an article in the Missionary Herald of Boston (1882) written by the pastor of the American mission 32 in Marash, Rev. Henry Morden, concerning some orthostats found in Marash. Puchstein immediately went visit this site, met the American group with Rev. Morden, and then sketched and photographed the reliefs. The excavations by Rev. Morden are the only excavations that have taken place at this site. In 1899, Max Freiherr von Oppenheim 33 first identified the site of Tell Halaf during his travels from Turkey to southern Syria. He was then an officer of the German empire stationed in Egypt. While he was at the camp of the local Bedouin leader, Ibrahim Pasha, he knew that the local inhabitants of Tell Halaf had discovered “statues” in the soil, which they had uncovered in the course of burying their dead. He then decided to go to Ras el cAyn in order to dig a small trench to verify this. Once there, he discovered a wall with carved orthostats. In 1911, he then began archaeological excavations at the site. The Oriental Institute in Chicago was founded in 1919. After research in the Orient promoted by the University of Chicago, Breasted resumed the field work in the Near East, requesting financial support to found an institute that could organise the research in the Near East. His main aims were described in the first publication of the Institute Communication: 34 “The destruction of the Ottoman Empire and the conditions resulting from the Great War, which for the first time in many centuries placed the earliest homes of civilisations under enlightened government, made it urgently necessary for the new Oriental Institute to undertake a preliminary reconnaissance of the Near East and to secure by purchase from antiquity dealers there as well as in Europe, at least a share of the ancient documents of all sorts which had been accumulating in their hands during the war.” After its birth, the Oriental Institute supported many surveys and archaeological investigations in Syria, Turkey and Iraq. It founded several research groups, with one of which the “Syrian Expedition of the Oriental Institute of University of Chicago”, whose director was

McEwan with Braidwood as his assistant, research in the Amuq valley began. They discovered and partially dug Tell Tayinat in 1932, 35 which later was extensively dug by Braidwood (1935-38), as well as Chatal Höyuk and Tell al Judeidah. The Oriental Institute also supported the surveys and travels of von Osten, which covered a period of four years in Turkey and North Syria. 36

IC2.

Status of documentation

The results of the excavations were published according to the individual aims of the various campaigns. A scientific campaign publishes its reports as soon as possible in order to acquire more financial support, but also to further science in general and to advance scholarship. Moreover, a scientific campaign is usually organised in teams, with both scholars and specialists. In contrast, a campaign that complies with the wishes of individual persons or military services does not principally aim at publicising the archaeological information it has gained, but rather to import precious artifacts. Therefore, in the case of the Syro-Hittite centres, not all the excavations were completely published. Table 1 contains a summary of the excavations and their publications:

Publications Excavations

Tayinat

Hama

Karatepe

Malatya

Ahmar

Sagçagözü

Zincirli

189 1911 1888 8 -13 1890 1927 1890 -29 -91, 1902 --

Karkamish

Excavations and Publication of the SyroHittite sites:

Halaf

Marash

Table 1:

1878 19081927 1932 1947 1934 193 1929 1948 51881 1930 1940 193 1911 -31, 8 1988 1914

1950 1893 -1908 1929 1933 1946 1940 197 1955 1898 1914 1911 1936 1940 1947 1958 1 1962 1902 1921 1950 1990 1950 1990 1943 1952

At most of the sites, the architecture was analysed in detail, with precisely drawn plans and sections. The decorations were presented with descriptions, pictures, and drawings and their style or iconography were often described. Information on the “small finds” of Hama, Tell Halaf, and Zincirli was collected in a catalogue, whereas in the other centres they were assessed together with the architecture. The current status of documentation can be summarised as follows: As regards the excavations in Zincirli and Tell Halaf, details have been published. However, the exact location of small finds was not always listed. We know that a

32

American Missions had travelled to the Orient since 1830, when the American Board of Commissioners for Foreign Mission started to send missions to the Ottoman Empire. The reforms promoted by the Tanzimat for the constitution of half independent communities led many missions to gain a certain indepency. 33 M.F. von Oppenheim 1901:69, Idem 1911, Idem 1931:16, 17 and idem 1943:3. 34 J.H. Breasted 1922; A first article about the foundation of the Institute was published by Breasted himself in 1919: 196-204.

35 36

4

C.W. McEwan 1937. H. von Osten 1928.

Pucci – Ch. I Introduction

“Feldtagebuch” was consistently kept and a Fundjournal did exist, 37 and that part of this documentation survived the war. 38 There is a similar gap in the documentation of the work at Tell Halaf: details of the materials (reliefs and objects) were published after the Second World War. This information was based on lists from prior publications, on the originals contained in museums, on the surviving drawings by O. Streu, 39 and on maps and photos belonging to the M.F. Von Oppenheim Stiftung 40 currently in Cologne. The original remains of these sites are preserved in the Pergamon Museum in Berlin, the Archaeological Museum in Istanbul and Ankara and in the British Museum. These two archaeological sites are the largest and most well-documented. Details on the old excavations from Tell Tayinat have yet to be published, but the field documentation is still available at the Oriental Institute in Chicago: in his preface, Haines writes, 41 “The Reports on the sculpture and the pottery are in preparation and their presentation will not likely be too long delayed”. 42 At the Oriental Institute, a vast amount of documentation is available. A list of the sources used for this research includes: original field notebooks, drawings, object lists and notes on the pottery that Braidwood wrote during the excavation. Karkamish poses some problems. However the architecture and a few of the materials have been published; but the catalogue of the objects was lost during the First World War 43 and along with the original documentation was left behind in the excavation house. The excavations in Hama were published with plenty of details and information. The other sites have been only partially investigated and published, but they do not furnish the same amount of information as those mentioned above. Tell Ahmar does have a period related to the Syro-Hittite one. Unfortunately, the level before the neo-Assyrian one, named the Aramaic level, is partially published, but without many details. Thus, the sites whose archaeological remains provide us

with the largest amount of detailed information are Zincirli, Tell Halaf and Tell Tayinat. For our present study, a spatial analysis requires a large excavated area with buildings and documentation of not only results, but also of various details of the archaeological finds. For this reason these three sites constitute the main topic of this study. Moreover, these sites are geographically distributed in the region that is regarded as the cradle of the Syro-Hittite centres and are all currently the sites of ungoing archaeological exploration. 44

37

Prefaces in F. von Luschan 1893, id. 1898. In his introduction to Volume IV of the excavations in Zincirli, Andrae mentions the "Nachlass" as part of the material he used to publish the objects. F. von Luschan 1943: VI - VII. 39 A fifth volume with the "Grabungsberichte" was planned. Unfortunately, the documentation, which was the basis of this publication, seemed to belong to the architect O. Streu, who was arrested after the Second World War by the Soviet army and then deported to Russia. After his arrest, the documentation was considered lost. M. F. von Oppenheim (ed.) 1955: III-IV. 40 This trust was founded in 1929 to conduct excavations at Tell Halaf and also to manage the Tell Halaf Museum in Berlin. The seat of the trust was destroyed during the war, while the museum was severely damaged. Some of the objects, however, were saved in the Pergamon Museum. cf. G. Elsen Novàk et M. Novàk 1994, H. Scheel 1950: V-VI. N. Cholidis et L. Martin 2002, and W. Orthmann 2002. 41 R. Haines 1971: V. 42 Before this report, only part of the pottery was published in G. F. Swift 1958, and after this, no further publications appeared. 43 L. Woolley 1952: Preface. 38

44

University of Toronto under the direction of Timothy Harrison at Tell Tayinat (started 2000), Oriental Institute under the direction of David Schloen at Zincirli (started 2006), and the DFG Project under the coordination of Lutz Martin at Tell Halaf (started 2006).

5

Pucci – Ch. II Method of Analysis

to order the archaeological data.

Ch. II. IIA.

Research Methods

IIB. Architecture as a Communication System

Architecture as Cultural Feature

According to the architectural theory, architecture identifies a three-dimensional space in which building elements frame a volume, but also include installations, décor and objects within it. In the semiotic studies concerning architecture, this three dimensional volume includes not only all installations, objects, furniture but also the people inside it. 51 According to this perspective, architecture is a system of signs, and its parallels to the structure of language were already known in the 18th century. 52 The object of the architectural sign is its function, involving the motivations behind the formation of specific spaces. This function is also a structure of forces that evolve over time and that define the general attitude towards reality. The link between space and function, i.e. between the sign and its object depends on the varying concepts and ideas of the people, who are members of a community that employs this sign. 53 Consequently, by analysing this system of signs, it should be possible to identify a culture, its specific system of communication, whose characteristics differentiate it from neighbouring cultures. It is not meant here to analyse the theoretical bases of semiotics and its application to interpret the architectural remains. 54 It is however necessary to be clear about two main aspects. The term “sign” is used here with the meaning of Saussure’s “signifier”, in the meaning of the well known Aristotele’s “aliquid pro aliquo”, as one of the element in the triadic diagram of Pierce. 55 A sign might be a single element or a complex, a single object or built space. However, in applying semiotic methods to built structures, a building would be more similar to a text, rather than to a single sign. 56 Moreover, following Peirce’s triadic relation system (sign, object and

As mentioned above, the aim of this study is to analyse architectural features in order to highlight a cultural unity and the nature of this distinct culture. We should first address what is meant by “culture”. This term 45 was first employed in anthropology by Edward B. Tylor. 46 A century later, following in Taylor's footsteps, Marvin Harris elaborated that “a culture is the overall socially acquired ways of thinking, feeling and acting of the members of a particular society. (…) It consists of patterns of bodily activity as well as of thoughts that take place inside people’s heads”. 47 In Near Eastern archaeology, the term is frequently employed to indicate “material culture”, and archaeologists did not redefine the term in their use of it. 48 Both the above-mentioned authors understood cultureis to be “acquired” by a social group that accepts particular symbols and conventions; these symbols and conventions unify the members of a society and distinguish it from other societies. Obviously, the definition of a group of symbols and conventions as a culture depends on the scale of the analysis: we could discuss European and German culture, depending on the historical period or the aim of our research. In this study, “culture” is synonymous with Geertz' 49 understanding of the term, where the members of a culture group share the same system of communication and, consequently, a cultural area is defined by the existence of same codes. Moreover, scholars, who want to research a culture, should study its system of communication. Understanding culture is based on the analysis of ways of representing meanings, signs. Obviously, a culture is not isolated in space and time and it shares several signs with contemporary and older traditions. 50 The division in distinct cultures is a method

“culture/cultures” in archaeology, their relationships to the theory of sign, and the difference between human-universal and culture-related signs. 51 Groupe 107 applied this method of analysis to modern architecture. Cf. C. Dreyer 2003, D. Preziosi 1983, A. J. Greimas et al. 1970M. Hammad 2003 52 The first scholars in modern times were C. N. Ledoux (1804, reprinted 1994), Schopenauer and E. E. Viollet le Duc 1854-68. For an overview cf. K. Jormakka 2003. 53 G. C. Argan 1984, U. Eco 1967 (German version, 1994: 295356), M. Krampen 1979, G. K. Koenig 1970. 54 Concerning applications of semiotics to architecture see also M. Krampen 1979 and the so-called “space-semiotics” of Greimas and of Le Groupe 107. Cf. M. Hammad 2003, Groupe 107 1973. 55 An analysis of the first definitions of sign and of the union between theory of signs and theory of language in Augustinus, De Doctrina Christiana 2.1.1., is provided in J. Martin 1982. A very good overview of Pierce’s philosophy is provided in M. A. Bonfantini et al. 1980, and in R. Preucel 2006. 56 Several scholars researched the basic elements of architecture, wich could be similar to morpheme/words/sentences: D. Preziosi 1979, Koenig 1970, U. Eco 1972: 352-356, B. Zevi 1973: 119-123, Ch. Jenks 1980: 95102. M. Clemente and R. de Rubertis 2001.

45

For a general overview of the several uses of this term in anthropology, see R. Winthrop 1991: “culture” and “culture area”; Th. Bargatzky 1989; A.L. Kroeber and C. Kluckhohn 1952. 46 E. Taylor 1871 states: “Culture or civilisation, in its wider ethnographic meaning, is that whole which includes knowledge, beliefs, art, moral, rights, behaviour and any other abilities or habits which are acquired by humans as members of society.” 47 M. Harris 1991: 23-24. 48 We should nevertheless establish the limitations of this term in archaeology. The possibilities of reconstructing past cultures are determined by the quality and quantity of the materials and their ideological aspect is even more subtle. The distinction between material and ideological cultural features is naturally arbitrary, for every element of the material culture is submitted to a “practical” as well as to an “ideological” influence. This will be discussed below. Cf. I. Hodder 1989. 49 C. Geertz 1973: 89: “Historically transmitted pattern of meanings embodied in symbols, a system of inherited conceptions expressed in symbolic form by means of which men communicate, perpetuate and develop their knowledge about and attitudes towards life.” 50 S. Bühnen 2003 provides an overview about the concepts of

6

Pucci – Ch. II Method of Analysis

interpretant), this analysis focuses on the relations between sign and object, i.e. on the semantics of space. In this triad archaeologists are the interpretant and consequently the analysis of the archaeological materials as signs is our interpretation of these signs, according to the information at our disposal. Moreover, it becomes clear that a main difference exists between the modern analysis of architecture as a communication system and this application to ancient architecture; the analysis of modern architecture uses more developed data, for not only are the buildings complete in their three dimensions, but also their internal arrangement is completely available. Conversely archaeology interprets structures that were built, used, reused, abandoned, or destroyed, and then finally excavated. Therefore, the method of analysis should compensate for this difference and try to compare the methods usually employed in archaeology with those of modern times. The aim of next section is to present the several methods employed in the analysis of architecture in Near Eastern archaeology, describing the standard analysis of objects found in the structures, and the method of investigation of this research (IID).

IIC.

interpret ancient societies. This method is specifically used in the interpretation of spatial organisation in structures of the same type, like private houses. 61 The application of this analysis in the Syro-Hittite architecture is very difficult because the excavated remains do not even provide us with the types which form the basis of a general spatial comparison. Rather etnoarcheological analogy proves very helpful in understanding the purpose of smaller elements as installations or architectural elements, as Pfälzner [2001] has clearly demonstrated. A functional analysis is based upon the distribution of materials in connection with architectural features. A functional analysis is most commonly applied to houses and households, as well as to sectors inside larger complexes. 62 As pointed out by this perspective, the analysis of dwelling units depends upon accurate scientific and stratigraphic documentation. This documentation provides the base for a statistical inquiry, and a lack of accurate documentation in this field hinders this kind of analysis. However, when it is applied to representative structures, finds indicating a distinct function, combined with a good structural preservation may provide functional clues in the absence of itemised pottery. Two other examples of a similar type of analysis were performed by De Maigret and Jansen. A. De Maigret has reanalysed the finds of the acropolis in Hama, which was excavated from 1934-1940, and Jansen has re-evaluated the excavations in Mohenjo Daro, which were carried out in 1920. In both cases, these authors proposed a functional analysis of the materials and reports, which dated back to the beginning of the century. Most commonly “functional analysis” is linked to a utilitarian interpretation that emphasises techniques and practical functions of a building or an object. This type of architectural interpretation has been subject to much criticism because it assumes that each architectural development is an improvement of technique, and analyses only one aspect of the material. 63 As is explained later on, both the practical and the ideal “aspects/functions” of cultural products always exists, and thus the term function means both what is practical and ideal. In a semiotic approach to architecture, the functions of structures play a central role. This approach involves two levels of interpretation. The first one being how the building is used (i.e. its practical functions), and the second what it signifies within the cultural context. Eco 64 highlights this difference: a building implies a denotative function, which is indicated by the structure, and connotative functions, which are directly linked to the denotative function. For example, denotative function of a house is to shelter those living in it, and its connotative function is as a symbol of concepts of family, safety, and privacy.

Methods of Analysis

IIC1. The Built Structure In Near Eastern archaeology, interpretations of architecture 57 are most often made by the use of three common methods all of which deal with the built space. These methods include plan analysis, ethnoarchaeological analogy and functional analysis. According to the plan analysis, the function of buildings is based upon the respective plan and their accessibility using pre-defined patterns. 58 For example the building is interpreted as a palace mainly because of a unique layout. This analysis is often used to reconstruct chronologies of plan types. However, many examples of Syro-Hittite architecture have been analysedaccording to their ground plan, but with unsatisfactory results. 59 The layout of the buildings is almost all the same without a clear functional distinction, obscuring the difference between a palace and a temple. The most common plan (Bit Hilani), which often appears repeatedly at the same site and during the same period, does not assist in formulating any hypothesis. Ethnoarchaeological analogy is based on a comparison between ancient and modern patterns, attempts to provide explanations for ancient data by comparing them with contemporary realities. 60 Etnoanthropologists employ patterns of spatial organisation in present societies to

57

Cf. H. J. Schmid 1999; J. C. Margueron 1982; R. Naumann 1971; H. Heinrich 1982; J.C. Margueron 1998: 168. 58 J.C. Margueron 1986; Id. 1996; C. Dezzi Bardeschi 1998; E. Heinrich 1982. 59 V. Fritz 1983a; R. Naumann 1971; P. Matthiae 1992; D. Ussishkin 1966. 60 O. Aurenche 1981; E.C. Stone 1981; M. Krafeld Daugherty 1994; P. J. Watson 1980; L. Binford 1980; K. Flannery 1976.

61

The term type is intended in the meaning of N. Pevsner 1997 P. Pfälzner 1996; Id. 1997; E.F. Henrickson 1981; M. Novàk 1994; E. C. Stone 1987; A. Allara 1987; C. Castel 1992a; H. Jansen 1984; J.C. Margueron 1979; S. A. Jasim 1989; S. Kent 1990; M. Roaf 1989. 63 B. Zevi 1997a: 115. 64 U. Eco 1968a. 62

7

Pucci – Ch. II Method of Analysis

are usually interpreted as finds. 68 In archaeology, the process of interpreting finds represents the essence of research. This subject has been analysed both in theory and in practice. The theory of archaeology 69 investigates the degree to which an artefact may be the product of a society or of a single individual, whether it satisfies practical or artistic needs, what its context is etc. I. Hodder 70 discusses methods for interpreting archaeological materials. In contextual archaeology, each object is composed of two meanings: what it is used for, e.g. its function, and what it signifies- the ideas behind its manufacture, i.e. what it symbolises. According to Hodder, these two aspects of the object cannot be separated or analysed in isolation from each other. 71 The function and meaning of the object are interconnected: the choice of a particular material and its shape do not completely satisfy the function that an object assumes. Rather, the culture the object belongs to imposes rules and ideas (whether they can be conscious or subconscious), which come together to create the final product: the object is the mediator between the ideas and the function. For this reason, the relationship between an object and cultural ideas is the most difficult aspect to explain when dealing with archaeological elements. However, it seems 72 that there are no general rules/codes/structures that are universally valid for different cultures or time periods that could adeguately explain this relationship. 73 Each object is directly related first to the context in which it is found, and then, to the culture from which it emanates. Quoting Hodder: 74 “Using such methods -Collingwood's question-and-answer procedure, notions of coherence and correspondence, the idea that meaning is constructed through structured sets of differences - and recognising the importance of critical analysis, it is argued that contextual information from the past can lead to understanding of functional and ideational meanings”. Several works in archaeology have pointed to the necessity of a correct analysis of the context and the relationships of the small finds to this context, which is the sole element able to give significance to the objects. 75 Common archaeological practice is to record and describe

According to Eco, the culture’s own codes are necessary to interpret the connotative functions. Studying how an architect (as mediator/artist between his cultural period and the structure/work of art) interprets his society and culture presupposes knowledge of both the structure and the cultural period, allowing scholars to define a structure as a work of art. Thus, when considering architecture as a system of communication, the analysis of function represents the last step in interpreting a structure within its cultural environment, and it is the meaning (Significant/Object) of the sign “building”. Consequently, our main aim is to find out the denotative functions 65 of each building in order to understand the spatial organisation of the towns, as well as to discover common trends in their use of space. Furthermore we would like to identify a culture and outline its particular features according to spatial organisation. In other words, if architecture is a system of communication, the members of a culture will use the same distribution of functions in a limited space (i.e. the citadel). The relationship between form and function of a building, which has a central role in the analysis of architecture, is valid only when buildings with the same function are compared, according to the protocol of modern architectural theory. 66 Applying semiotics to archaeology produces several problems; however, sometimes, the denotative function is unclear, so that it becomes difficult to interpret the symbolic meaning of a building, or its position in its cultural setting. In particular, in Near Eastern archaeology and for the period in question, we lack any significant source of information about the structures, such as texts, which could be used in the analysis of a building: who paid for the construction, who was the architect, who was using the building, why was the building built etc... 67 The structures are analysed to increase one's knowledge of the culture or cultures using all archaeological clues at disposal. Given that the architecture is a volume and all of its internal arrangements (installations and small finds) play a role in the definition of its function. Therefore, the functions of these objects and installations should be analysed as well. The following paragraphs provide a general overview of approaches to analyse the functions of small finds (IIC2), images (IIC3) and inscriptions (IIC4) as part of the architecture.

68 For pottery there is a distinction between complete vases found in situ and potsherds. 69 I.e. works dealing with the theory of archaeology: I. Hodder 1986, Id. 1989, Id. 1999, R. Bernbeck 1997. 70 I. Hodder 1986. 71 Ibidem: 182. 72 I. Hodder [1986:52] on the subject of “Structuralism in Archaeology” states: "structures need not be universal, and their proposed universality should not be a major part of the validation procedure," and [Id. 1999: 103]: "Meaning [of the archaeological data] is both general and local. (...) We should not impose codes insensitive to context." 73 In contrast to Eco's definition of fixed codes, cf. U. Eco 1968a. 74 I. Hodder 1986: 193. 75 H. P. Hahn 2003: 37-39 points out the need for contextual research in the analysis of objects as signs. The relevance of context in the analysis of signs is also emphasised in Peirce’s works, cf. R. Preucel 2006: 55.

IIC2. Interpreting the materials In this work “materials” indicates all elements that do not structurally belong to the building: mainly pottery and small finds, but also installations that are either fixed or movable, and structural decorations, such as orthostats and statues. In fact, during field work, all these elements

65

The buildings become mono-functional, and different buildings fulfil different functions in a later development step of architecture. S. Giedion 2001: 67 66 E. g. N. Pevsner [1997] compares forms of buildings of the same type, with the same function, (stations, jails, libraries etc.), G. Binding [1980] compares forms of churches. 67 As in the case of analysis of architecture of classical periods.

8

Pucci – Ch. II Method of Analysis

small finds in catalogues. 76 This method is considered the objective way to present archaeological finds. However, even a description in a catalogue, which is strictly limited to its physical features, may not be objective, for each description implies an interpretation. Even when illustrating only the physical elements, one must use names, and these terms imply either its function or its ideals. 77 Studies dealing with both the interpretation and description of objects put them in the following categories: typological (according to shape), material, and functional (according to their presumed practical function). When the function represents the key category, the other categories (a distinctive shape/material indicates a particular function) may be used to flesh out the use of the object. 78 Alternatively, analogy to similar objects in other contexts may also support the argument in question (i.e. the function). 79 The reasons that allow us to assign a general function to an object are based on “common sense”, or equally on the “traces of the past surviving in our culture”, i.e. tradition. 80 When an iron object is shaped into a blade and has a handle, we describe it as a knife. This is the first level of identifying a function. Whether this object was really used to cut something or was used to symbolise an idea (e.g. the strength of the male in burial contexts) could be argued both by its other physical features (type of decoration, uncommon material) or by the context it was found in (in relationship with other objects or installations, e.g. a grave). Here again the context play a central role. Pottery has always been used to establish chronologies in order to date different levels of an archaeological excavation. Classifying pottery according to typology is the common way of establishing the backbone of a chronology. Rarely does a functional analysis of the pottery take place. 81 In such cases, the research is based upon the typology of the ceramics. The functions of a vessel are argued based upon the physical features of a vase (open or closed shape, waterproofing, traces of food, traces of fire, quality of the clay, decoration), which correspond in part to the particular use of the vessel. Fixed installations are normally described and analysed in connection with architecture. 82 Movable installations are

sometimes included in the field of architecture, but in other cases they are treated separately as objects. Their typology is also directly linked to the function they imply or to the area they belong to. In this study, all of these elements (objects, pottery and installations) are analysed only when they were found in situ above the floor. Once their connection to the space where they were found is clear, they are used as clues to argue a function of the space, but only depending upon their archaeological context.

IIC3. Interpreting the image When dealing with images, i.e. the representation 83 of something, the process of analysis and their description 84 is even more complicated. The scenes represent a message that was probably clear to its ancient audience, and was the product of the ideals of a specific society. The features directly related to practical functions are possibly more static in the ways they change or develop. An image does not fulfil any practical function, and therefore is likely to serve other purposes that are more related to the ideals of the culture and which may therefore change and develop independently. For the most part, art historians have investigated images. 85 The semiologist Trabant emphasises that a work of art is an accumulation of signs which are sent according to a particular code. Several art historians are mainly interested in linking the work of art with its cultural context by investigating one’s motivation to represent something in a particular way. E. Panofsky, in his “Introduction to Studies in Iconology” proposes three levels of analysis: a pre-iconographic, an iconographic, and an iconological analysis. The first category deals with the identification of lines and forms as figures and objects known both to us and to the original audience. An iconographic analysis establishes a connection between scenes and their conceptual themes. Iconology uses both analyses to define the intrinsic value, or “the essence” of the image. 86 It focuses on “the basic principles which illustrate the attitude of a nation, period, class, religion or philosophy, qualified by a person and concentrated in a work of art”. 87 There is a major difference between the archaeological information that we have and the amount of data from

76

These cathalogues are often included in archaeological reports. Small finds are listed in a different section from the architecture, ceramics, and installations where they were found. 77 I. Hodder 1999. 78 Z. Bahrani [1989] first uses categories based on the material of the object, and then categories based on the function. In this study, the intention of the division by material is to be more descriptive than interpretative. E. Stone [1987] studies the distribution of the artefacts divided into general typological categories. A. De Maigret [1979] divides objects and installations into eight functional categories. 79 For the concept of analogy cf. R. Bernbeck 1997, Chap. 5. The analogy is frequently employed in archaeological analysis to interpret both universal and culture related signs. Cf. B. Schweizer 2003: 319-320, E. Stone 1981 80 As it is clearly affirmed in E. Henrickson et M. McDonald 1983. 81 E. Henrickson et M. McDonald 1983, R. Biscione 1979, Z. Bahrani 1989, A. de Maigret 1979. 82 R. Naumann 1971; J. C. Margueron 1982, E. Heinrich 1984;

C. Dezzi Bardeschi 1998; O. Aurenche 1977. 83 On the problem of the concept of representation and the way of representing real things: E. Gombrich 1996, U. Eco 1968b, idem 1967, M. Bal et N. Bryson 1991, E. Fernie 1995, D. Parayre 1977. 84 "Jede Deskription wird gewissermaßen noch ehe sie überhaupt anfängt - die rein formalen Darstellungsfaktoren bereits zu Symbolen von etwas Dargestelltem umgedeutet haben müssen" E. Panofsky 1985: 86. For this reason, describing an image implies an even deeper interpretation than describing an object. 85 For the application of art historical methods to archaeological objects, see: M. Th. Barrelet 1977 and eadem 1984; I. Winter 1973 and eadem 1982, G. Herrmann 1989. 86 Cf. D. Bonatz 2000. 87 E. Panofsky 1962.

9

Pucci – Ch. II Method of Analysis

later periods, which are usually analysed by art historians: a. Information on the Iron Age Period in Syria does not exist in quantity or quality; neither is it as culturally or geographically specific as data available on the Italian renaissance, for example, which was the object of Panofky's research. Iron Age texts about images, artists/artisans, schools, or ornamentation do not exist. b. An exhaustive history of types/scenes in the ancient Near East does not exist, and literatures that may provide the key to interpret the carved scenes are not preserved from this period. Thus, to identify a scene as a “funerary banquet” or “ritual dance”, i.e. to assign a type to a scene is the maximum level of interpretation. Any subsequent interpretations would then be based on this primary assumption, and consequently a mere speculation. This study will rely on several works on iconography (the second step of interpretation) that can provide us with information about the images, which are carved on the analysed structures. The analysis of the architectural context may confirm iconographic interpretations or at the very least provide additional data. 88

location and may have influenced the choice of one particular language over another.

IIC4. The Writing on the Wall

The chronology is especially relevant to the analysis of a building. The structure is a sign, which is planned, built, and used over a period of time. The objects, installations, and related materials within it reflect a specific time in the history of the structure. Moreover understanding which building was in use contemporaneously as another, as well as how long it was in use, and determining a sequence of building periods for each site is at the heart of work. This is needed in order to subsequently analyse the distribution of the functions. This is not directly equivalent to the stratigraphy, which is the identification of different layers of earth. By using the available documentation, a complete stratigraphy is almost impossible; therefore, this study primarly references and investigates the architectural periods. The analysis of building sequences is based upon the following elements: 1. The architectural relationships between the structures 2. The style of the carved architectural elements 3. The presence of dating texts or inscriptions that are definitely part of the building 4. The presence of other datable objects: such as pottery, or small finds Quite obviously, all these elements refer to different phases of a structure. These stages include: I: CONSTRUCTION AND FIRST USE: the planning of the building with pre-defined intentions (the size, location, amount of light, and organisation of the different spaces) and the building of the structure are two steps to the “construction” of the building. The “decoration” of the building, in terms of architectural elements, is also a part of the construction of the structure. This stage implies also the primary use of the structure-its original purpose. II: SECONDARY USES: Fixed installations are located in the rooms; the building is renewed without any major changes to the division of space and to the internal circulation.

IID. Working Space

Procedure:

Analysis

of

As stated above, architecture is a communication system that allows one to analyse the characteristics of a culture and how it differs from another culture. Architecture is built space- the three-dymensional space shaped by human activities, and we will focus our attention primarly upon the function of architecture. The aim of this study is to analyse the spatial organisation of three sites that provide the largest amount of archaeological remains, and which also have detailed reports (Tell Halaf, Tell Tayinat, and Zincirli). By grouping their buildings according to the functions, we can then identify common patterns of use. These patterns, in turn, willl demonstrate that these sites belong to the same cultural sphere.

IID1. Initial Research: the Building Sequence

The above title quotes Russell’s publication, which provides a contextual analysis of the inscriptions within the Assyrian palaces. 89 The author researched the symbolic meaning of the inscriptions found in the Assyrian palaces, for these inscriptions are standard texts that are repeated throughout the palace. The author investigated whether it was possible to argue their meaning from their location, visibility, size and vicinity to carved images. This study demonstrates an interesting methodological approach to the analysis of inscriptions, and it emphasises the notion that an inscription has a meaning independent from the deciphering of the text. Inscriptions on Syro–Hittite buildings are very common and are the subject of some interesting observations. During the Hittite Empire, Luwian hieroglyphs were used as the language for inscriptions, while other written documents used cuneiform Hittite. 90 This tradition continued during the Syro–Hittite period. Hieroglyphs suggest two kinds of interpretation: linguistic and iconographic. I will first try to utilise Hawkins' linguistic translations of the inscriptions located on the palace, and limit the iconographic analysis to the macroscopic aspects, that clearly have both linguistic and iconographic meanings. Syro-Hittite sites did not just have Luwian inscriptions, but also Aramaic, Assyrian and Phoenician inscriptions. Though they are not in hieroglyphs, every inscription has a visual function in addition to their linguistic meaning (as Russell argues for the Assyrian inscriptions). This meaning is emphasised by their

88

W. Orthmann 1971; D. Bonatz 2000; S. Mazzoni 1997; eadem 2000; I. Winter 1973. 89 J. M. Russell 1999. See also idem 1981. 90 M. Marazzi 1990, pg.22-28. He argues for a similar situation, for hieroglyphs are more understandable because they are partially articulated in images. These could then be read in additional languages. For this reason, it was used in more public contexts.

10

Pucci – Ch. II Method of Analysis

III: REUSE. The space is architecturally re-organised because the needs of its users have changed. Therefore architectural innovations are carried out and the building serves a different purpose. Quite obviously, the functions of a building can change throughout the life of a structure. In addition, the original intended functions of a structure may never have been fulfilled. 91 Interpreting these phenomena is difficult and we wish to make clear that grouping structures into building periods may be a gross over-simplification of reality. In addition the passage from one building period to the other is rarely abrupt, with internal changes occurring over an extended period of time.

changes, the functions of this last phase will not correspond to the original ones. Therefore, a second section will be dedicated to the analysis of the original layout of the building, and if the plan of the structure was changed, the “original” function will still be discussed. 92 A major problem is presented by the definition of the functions. At this point it is necessary to outline several possible functions of the spaces. Moreover, we should limit the number of possible functions used to characterise a space in order to analyse and compare different spaces with each other. Scholars have pursued several avenues to argue the functions of a space. In Hellenistic architecture, 93 the functions of buildings are identified by comparing the textual evidence with the archaeological record in order to build a “typology” of palaces. Scholars who investigate Minoan architecture apply “models” to the organisation of space, and also research changes in the spatial organisation of the structures. In both studies, the type of functions is simplified and they are reduced to a limited number (usually nine or ten main functions) 94 . These scholars utilize two main criteria to define these functions. Firstly, there are functions related to daily human activity and needs: prepare food or wash, as well as sleeping, eating or grouping together. This criterion also includes work, production and storage activities. Secondly, they use those functions that are known from written texts. These include concepts such as “the house of the king” and “the house of the god” that may not correspond to a general representational or religious meaning (house of the king or house of the god). Once the material has been collected and the original locations of the objects and installations have been reconstructed, it will be clear a single space had more than one function. Therefore, as architects and archaeologists on Hellenistic, Minoan and Mycenaean architecture argued, we will discuss the “main function” and several connotative functions of each space. 95 Multifunctional spaces are also present in modern structures in the region. 96 The following table lists general of the main functions and their explanation. The reference column lists publications that refer to these functions. Several works give an overview on all or part of the functions listed below and they are not listed in the table: R. Naumann 1971, G.R.H. Wright 1985, R. Hägg 1987, O. Aurenche 1977, K.Pütt 2005. The criteria used to associate a space

IID2. The damaged sign, the “noises” If a structure is understood as a sign, archaeologists have never the complete “sign”, but only its remains. In addition to the structural changes that occur over time, it must be remembered that the last layout of a building is rarely preserved in full. Second storeys and roofs are often missing, plaster (i.e. the color of the walls) is rarely preserved and wooden features, such as the doors, are usually decayed. Some of these features may be reconstructed by using the archaeological records, while others, such as the existence of a second storey, are frequently used upon imaginative interpretations. There is no way around to solve this problem, and it is not scientifically sound to analyse a reconstructed building, for the analysis would be an interpretation of a previous interpretation. Therefore, the analysis is based upon what is preserved of these structures, as well as upon what can be reconstructed according to the archaeological evidence. Therefore no attempts to reconstruct second storeys or other unpreserved spaces without archaeological evidence will be made in this study.

IID3. Functional Analysis The functions of a structure depend upon the stages of a building. The intended functions of a structure at the time it was built may be termed “original function”, as long its internal arrangement did not change. Once the structure undergoes any architectural changes, the functions also change. In order to consider all information available on a building, this study first analyses the last layout of the structure. This layout allows us to interpret the functions that a building had during its last phase of use. This analysis is based on following information: 1. Architectural features, such as the dimensions of the room, its location inside the building, and its accessibility 2. Formal elements, including reliefs and statuary 3. Fixed installations on the floor 4. Objects found in situ on the floor. Only large caches of objects that suggest a similar function may provide substantial information concerning the activities assigned to the analysed space All these aid in the reconstruction of the “last days” of a building. If the structure underwent any architectural

92

Function represents one element that leads to the construction of a building cf. H. Schmid 1999. 93 I. Nielsen 1994. 94 K. Kilian 1984, idem 1987 and cf. R. Hägg 1987, D. Preziosi 1979. 95 Similarly, each building has a central practical function (denotata) and several ideal functions (connotata). Cf. U. Eco 1968a, (German version 1994: 312-313). Ideal functions are related to symbols, which are difficult to interpret from the archaeological evidence alone. By comparing the structures of the same type (i.e. with the same function), it will be possible to detect common trends in spatial organisation of the towns analysed in this study. 96 Cf. K. Pütt 2005

91

Similar examples can be observed in recent architecture. Cf. R. Harbison 1991.

11

Pucci – Ch. II Method of Analysis

with a particular function are always related to architectural features and archaeological context. These are specific to each structure. Table 2:

textual information about Late Bronze and Iron Age religion in Syria also support this spatial distinction. 98 The following list includes common architectural terms related to functions that are usually employed in architectural studies: open/closed, internal/external, private/public spaces. The absence of one of the limits defining the boundaries of a room (space), e.g. the roof, allows us to distinguish a space as “open”. 99 On one hand, the terms “open/closed” have often been employed to illustrate the accessibility of a space. Therefore an open space indicates the most accessible one, 100 and often takes on a “public” nature. In this study, I use the term “open space” when referring to the absence of the above-mentioned structural features (mainly the roof), without any reference to the accessibility of the space. The terms “external/internal” or “public/private” imply not only structural features, but also the prior interpretation of these structural features. 101 The same space may be considered external when it is situated outside the house. It may be considered to be “internal” when situated inside the town, and therefore will be used only in relation to other structures. The distinction between public and private is more subtle. This deals not only with the accessibility of a space and its location in the town, but also largely involves the structure of the society. It is not very clear who used these so-called “public spaces”, especially when dealing with ancient cultures. These may be the people governing the town, all the people living inside the town, all the people living in the territory which the town controls, or all the people in general. 102 It suffices to say that this is not an absolute category, 103 and it largely concerns the interpretation. Therefore, this matter it will only be dealt within the conclusions. 104 Once the building periods of a site have been examined, a form was then necessary to contain all the data and describe all the elements belonging to a certain space. The starting point is the individual architectural unit of a space. The word “architectural unit” is intended to signify

The Functions of a space

FUNCTION DESCRIPTION REFERENCES Administration Activities in managing an Z. Bahrani 1989 organisation or institution. This implies the control over goods that are brought in and out of a structure, as well as the organisation of internal activities. Spaces and structures used to L. Keeley 2007 Defence protect an area from outside M. Rowlands attack. Location and 1972 architectural features are the main carchteristics which suggest this function Daily living, eating, and P. Pfälzner 2001 Dwelling sleeping activities. S. Jasim 1989 P. Miglus 1999 M. Roaf 1989 Buildings and rooms that allow L. Keeley 2007 Passage circulation inside an area or building Spaces that are used to receive P. Miglus 1999 Reception guests and group together. G. Turner 1970 Religious (Cult) Spaces used to conduct rituals, C. Castel 1992b which may be related to a god, a J.D. Forest 1999 king or a deceased individual H. Heinrich 1982 Religious (house Spaces used to house the statue C. Castel 1992b of a god, which is intended as J.D. Forest 1999 of god) the private area of the divinity H. Heinrich 1982 Representation Spaces used to represent a J.Cl. Margueron (house of the secular power, and to convey 1982 the image of power ruler) I. Winter 1993 H.Heinrich 1984 Spaces where objects may be K. Kilian 1984 Storage kept over a period of time, and H.Heinrich 1984 to be used later Spaces used to produce J.Cl. Margueron Workshop artefacts, where one uses tools 1979 and installations P.R.S. Moorey 1994 Toilets and Spaces used for cooking or P. Pfälzner 2001 washing. kitchens

The features listed in the above table are reconstructed based upon practical needs of individuals and are not intended to be used as a guideline in the interpretation of every space. These features are argued mainly from our knowledge of the modern mud brick architecture and installations. Spaces such as toilets, bathrooms, and kitchens are interpreted as “facilities” that are part of a larger complex with its own specific function. In some cases, storerooms ma also be termed “facilities”, especially if they are closely connected to another space. 97 As far as “religious” functions are concerned, we use the working hypothesis that there were two religious needs. Consequently two independent structures developed to meet these religious needs: the House of god and the area where rituals were performed. The archaeological and the

97

98

The idea that rituals are celebrated in the same place where the devotees and the representation of gods are situated mainly stem from the Christian church. Cf. K. H. Golzio 1983 99 In this case, a courtyard inside a building would be considered to be an open space. 100 In this case, a square on an acropolis surrounded by three town walls is considered to be a closed space. 101 B. Zevi 1997a: 157, 159; C. Argan 1984; J.C. Margueron 1982:11. 102 Furthermore, similar studies on the “public” raise certain problems: reconstructing the receiver of an “artifact” (building or small find) involves the issue of legitimacy: the audience can be the public that is idealised by the sender, or the people who actually see the object/building. Since we do not know the sender and cannot reconstruct the real visitors of the monuments, the basis for building a thesis is missing. 103 With regard to this subject, Zevi maintains that this distinction does not achieve the importance of a category. B. Zevi 1997a: 3, 159 note 11 with bibliography. 104 For a definition of “public” in relation to Greek architecture, see T. Hölscher 1998.

C. Hemker 1993 for drainage systems.

12

Pucci – Ch. II Method of Analysis

an area delineated by architectural limits: these limits may be walls, stairs, or all the structural elements that compris a space. An example of a typical architectural unit is a room that is limited by four walls and a floor. For example, a square surrounded by other buildings is also considered to be a unit. The façade of a building functions as a limit to a square. Any statue or altars in it act as its furniture and ornamentation. In other words, buildings are limited spaces inside a town in the same way that rooms are limited spaces inside a building. 105 Therefore, a database was created to allow for the organisation of all the archaeological and architectural data related to each architectural unit. The database is the basis for the catalogue included at the end of this study, and contains all the data relating to one space. The elements considered important in determining the function are included in the text in tables, which are queries of the same database. Its structure is shown in Diagram 1, and each column shows a table and the information contained in it. The objects are related directly to the building for many of them had no location other than a building number. The following chapters concern the analysis of three sites. Two chapters concern each site; one chapter for the Building Sequence Anylsis (Chapters II, IV, VI), and one chapter includes the Functional Analsysis (Chapters III, V,VII). The buildings are described according to a geographical sequence.

105

The relationship between architecture and town planning is highlighted in Zevi 1997b: 5, 29-30.

13

Pucci – Ch. II Method of Analysis

Diagram 1. Structure of the Database

14

Pucci – Ch. III Building periods at Zincirli

Ch. III.

orthostats to build a timeframe. As the orthostats are architectural elements, he was able to provide a sequence of style groups at the site; I. Winter also investigated style with special reference to ivory carving. As these style analyses focused mainly on small finds, they are useful to determine precisely the beginning or the end of a building period, as well as to establish a building sequence and determine which structures were built at the same time. Finally, G. Lehmann, by using Koldewey's building phases, focused the attention on some small finds (shards, tablets) and modified Koldewey's sequence. These scholars employed different elements as chronological guides, e.g. the style of the carved reliefs, the pottery, the architectural techniques, the inscriptions, but always only one method. This approach raises some problems, mostly at the site of Zincirli for the following reasons: 1. The pottery and small finds are not always on the floor or their location is not precisely defined. Furthermore, several small finds were employed as chronological guides in defining the start or the end of a building period without reanalysing which buildings were part of this building period. 2. The orthostats belong to a period different from the period of the building they are on, i.e. they could actually represent a later improvement 107 of the building itself, or they might be reused in a new structure. Therefore they are not always helpful for the sequence of the building. 3. Different architectural techniques could emphasise a different building tradition, but their evolution, as R. Naumann also proved, rarely gives a good chronological sequence. Different techniques, indeed, could be employed to meet different structural requirements. For these reasons, the first step is to analyse the architectural relations between buildings in order to build up a basic idea of their sequence. In the second step, objects and ornamentation provide the architecture with added details and give us an idea as to the absolute periods involved. The architectural relations are argued from the drawings and reports which were continuously published during and immediately after the excavations. As mentioned above, objects and installations were published about forty years after closing the excavations. Small finds 108 had a progressive registration number (beginning with the first excavation season) proceeded by the letter S (Sendschirli). Then, objects (which were apparently immediately drawn and listed in a find journal) were given a second inventory number at their arrival in the Museum. Initially F. von Luschan worked on the small finds catalogue, which at the time of his death he had not completed. W. Andrae then continued it to completion. All these published objects have been inserted into a table, sorted by their respective plate number, museum inventory number, findspot, and a small contextual

Building periods at Zincirli

As mentioned in Chapter II, the first step to be taken before we begin a spatial analysis is the definition of building phases. The stratigraphy of Zincirli has been analysed many times and is still the object of scientific discussion. In the first item of this chapter, several theses dealing with the stratigraphy of Zincirli are presented and, at the end of the chapter, they will be compared with the results of this research. By comparing the architectural information with the location of finds, reports of the excavations at Zincirli allow us to define a plausible sequence of buildings. Only the period of construction or renovation of buildings is analysed here and not the sequence of earth layers or stratified units, which were barely documented and cannot be reconstructed. The main aim of this chapter is to point out how the building phases developed, and at the same time, to emphasise which buildings were in use in the same period. In order to achieve this goal several diagrams for each area of the site illustrate the sequence of buildings, highlighting their period of construction and their relationship to neighbouring structures: the buildings which were built in an older time are shown on the top of the diagram and those, which were built later, on the bottom. A table for each area groups the buildings together in periods, showing those which were used at the same time. The analysis of time relationships in terms of absolute chronology is attempted in the last part of each item and the term “DATING” outlines it. Finally, in item F, the development of the building phases at the site is compared and related to history.

IIIA. The building phases at Zincirli: problems raised by the research During the hundred years since the end of the excavations, many scholars, including the archaeologists of Zincirli themselves, proposed different theses about the sequence of architectural activity at the site 106 . R. Koldewey was the first to argue a sequence of building periods in his reports of the excavations: he identified five phases, and used the architectural techniques employed, such as a chronological guide. Immediately after the publication of the reports, F. Oelmann and F. Wachtsmuth re-analysed the stratigraphy of the site. The former used architectural techniques as a chronological guide, the latter employed Koldewey's building phases to analyse the development of the form of the Bit Hilani. After the Second World War, other scholars joined in the discussion on Zincirli: R. Naumann disproved of the use of architectural techniques as chronological guides for the site of Zincirli. He employed, instead, the form and their elevations as chronological indicators. Not only architects worked on the stratigraphy of Zincirli but also art historians: W. Orthmann used the style of the carved 106

In chronological order: R. Koldewey 1898: 172-178; F. Oelmann 1921; F. Wachtsmuth 1923-24, idem 1929; Th. A. Busink 1970: 540; R. Naumann 1971: 424-ff.;W. Orthmann 1971: 60-ff; I. Winter 1973; G. Lehmann 1994.

107

If the orthostats were added later, usually it is visible from structural features. 108 W. Andrae 1943a: introduction.

15

Pucci – Ch. III Building periods at Zincirli

to the documentation of a small find or an inscription discovered in it, the same building had a proper name. For better understanding, the different building designations are listed with their corresponding descriptions in Table 3: .In this research, the buildings are given the letters which were assigned during the excavation. This avoids using names, which already imply an interpretation in themselves. For those structures, which were not identified by a letter, a new one has been assigned (usually the initial letters of the name) and they are marked with an asterisk (cf. Plate 1). The first column of the table lists the abbreviations used in this research. The second column gives a brief description of the buildings while the fifth one groups the different buildings in the four areas mentioned above. Third and fourth columns identify a building or a group of buildings by the names used in the reports and in the small finds catalogue. Table 3: Abbrevi ations

Description

BM*

Mound wall

Other names used in the reports mostly by von Luschan Burgmauer

A

SM*

Southern gate of the city wall Western gate of the city wall Eastern gate of the city wall City wall

Stadtmauer

QM*

Slanting wall

Quermauer

IM*

Inner wall

Inneremauer

D

Gate of the mound wall Internal gate to the acropolis

Burgtor

Ab1*

Structure under the internal gate

LG F

Lions in front of E Casemate

Altbau unter der Quermauerto r Lowengrube

G

Assyrian palace

Obere Palast

HI GK*

Hilani I Thumb

Alte Hilani Grabkammer

WH*

Structures on the southwest of HI Structure south of G Older structures under R and HIII Bld. between J and L Bld. on the east

Kalamubau

B C

E

Ab 2*

K J HS

109

S. Mazzoni 2000; eadem 2001a W. Orthmann 1971: 60-66 111 Ibidem: 148 112 E.g. Jacoby's table: G. Jacoby 1911: 268 110

LH

16

Statue on the east of J Later “houses” in R

Hadadstatue

Innere burgto r

Esarha ddon Palast G1

Northp alast

North western Area

Ab 3*

Quermauerto r

North eastern Area

The site can be divided into four excavated areas, each “isolated” respectively from the other. It is impossible to establish links between these areas by means of archaeological evidence, because the spaces between these areas were either not excavated or (when a trench connected two of these areas) there were no architectural structures joining them, and neither floors nor surfaces have been identified. Therefore these areas will first be dealt with separately, and then interpreted as a complex. Three of these areas are defined by their location (SE, NW, NE), and the fourth area by the city wall (cf. Pl. 1). While architecture and excavations at Zincirli have been analysed by four main persons (two architects, Koldewey and Jacoby, and the two directors, Humann and von Luschan), the same building has more than one name/letter: such as “J” and “Kalamubau” for the same structure. Therefore, no clear and common conclusions were arrived at 112 . This problem arises not so much in the description of the architecture but mostly in their methods of cataloguing the small finds and in the description of the relief. The same building, indeed, bore initially a single identification letter, and one year later, according

Area

South eastern Area

IIIB. The excavated areas and building numbers

Buildings and Areas in Zincirli

External Area

description of the object itself. By means of this table, it was possible to single out all objects from the same location: all small finds belonging to the floor of a building or room were grouped together and analysed. Most of them were useful for the functional analysis, and only a few objects were employed as a chronological guide: 1. Inscriptions on the slabs, which provide names and historical links. 2. Inscribed objects whose location was identified. 3. Carved orthostats with scenes: the analysis of style forwarded by W. Orthmann and S. Mazzoni 109 points out a chronological sequence of different scenes or statues (style and themes) related to each site. At the site of Zincirli, Orthmann 110 identifies four groups of sculptures (Zincirli I-IV) which are divided into two main “phases”: Zincirli I-II and Zincirli III-IV. These four periods are related to other sequences from Iron Age sites 111 and all grouped into four stages called Späthethitische (SPH) I to IV. The absolute dating for these stages of SPH are wideranging and correspond to three historic phases of independence (1200-950 BC), Assyrian dependence (950-700) and Assyrian military conquest (700-600) of the Syro-Hittite centres. 4. Pottery: a pottery sequence for this period does not exist. Moreover, sherds and vases, which can be surely attributed to certain layers, barely exist. In order to verify these rare finds it is necessary to look for comparable material at other sites.

Pucci – Ch. III Building periods at Zincirli Abbrevi ations

Description

L

Rooms on the west Courtyard

M Q H II

Door between J and H II Hilani II

H III

Hilani III

NÖH

Column structure on the north east Column structure on the north west Courtyard on the south west Structure with pillars on the south

NWH R P

Other names used in the reports mostly by von Luschan

Barrakib palast Barrakib palast, Hilani IV113, NHB Barrakib bau, NHB

1. The outer town wall, SM, has deeper foundations and no timber frame 117 was found above it. Whereas the inner one has a timber frame inside its foundations (only two layers of stones) and the brick wall superstructure. 2. The gates are connected to the SM without any breaks. Thus, the gates were not added later to the SM. 3. The outer wall has 118 rectangular towers all along its line, on the same axis with the towers of the inner wall. The same floor inside the gates runs from the internal gate to the outer one. Therefore, we can maintain that the inner and outer gates in each opening and consequently the inner and outer walls were used at the same time. Only one floor existed in the gates, and the inner gates were not repaired more often than the outer ones or vice versa: thus, quite possibly both internal and external gates were constructed at the same time. The different shape of tower does not reflect a different building tradition or an evolution of the same tradition: in Zincirli, in the QuerMauer (QM) on the acropolis, round and rectangular towers are built on the same wall. Moreover, both semicircular and rectangular towers were alternated in the same system already in the Early Bronze Age 119 . Therefore, the different shape does not belong to a particular tradition and secondly, it is not an improvement of the rectangular shaped tower 120 . The use of the timber frame 121 as a pointer 122 to a particular building period is not valid for following reasons: a) the top of the foundations/stone base on the outer wall was never preserved, and the presence or absence in the outer wall of a similar technique cannot be proven. b) The timber frame is also related to a function of the wall (durability, flexibility). An external wall also has different functions which explain different techniques. The different depths of the foundations could also be due to difference in function. The outer wall acting as a protection to facilitate a more mobile defence, but also as a first line of defence, it has consequently deeper foundations to provide a stronger endurance in contrast to the inner one standing behind it. Therefore, differences in technique and form do not point to construction having taken place at different times or within different cultures. The main difference in what

Area

Untere Palast

In the following section, buildings are not described in detail, as in the reports, but their layout is outlined and analysed and those features are pointed out which provide clues towards “stratigraphy”.

IIIC. Town wall and Town gates: the external defence The town wall (Plate 1), SM 114 , consists of two concentric circle walls, which surround the lower town of Zincirli. Their diameter is, according to Koldewey, 720m 115 and the space between the two walls is 7.8 metres. These surrounding walls were not completely excavated, but their location has been verified in many places. The two walls are not joined at any point, either on the circumference or at the gates. The three gates which interrupt the line of the walls were partially excavated 116 . Letters A, B and C indicates the three openings in the walls. Each opening in the wall has an internal and an external gate. The inner gates have flanking towers, two thresholds and a passage, and all three gates are connected to the inner wall. On an axis with the inner gates respectively, the outer wall has less elaborate gates at B and C, each with one threshold and flanking towers, while at A, a similar structure to the inner gate is repeated. Between the outer and inner gate there is an uncovered passage-like courtyard. The questions here in terms of stratigraphy are: Were the two enclosures and the gates built at the same time? How long were they used? Finally, in which building period of the acropolis was the lower town planned? On the basis of the reports, the following observations can be made:

117

Technical architectural terms, specific for Near Eastern Architecture, are translated from German into English according to: O. Aurenche 1977, G.R.H. Wright 1985, G. Leick 1988. 118 The outer wall is 40 cm narrower and the towers are 20 cm narrower than the wall and the towers of the inner ring. 119 As R. Naumann 1971: 93 and references, also G.R.H. Wright 1985: 332-333, 188. 120 R. Koldewey 1898: 131 argues that the semicircular towers were a further development of the rectangular ones. 121 The timber frame consists of wooden beams used as masonry reinforcement. Their structural use was to provide tensile reinforcement in walls. At Zincirli, the timber frame is frequently observed between foundations and mud brick wall, pointing to the level of the top of the foundations. R. Naumann 1971:91-108 and G.R.H. Wright 1985:364-365. 122 R. Koldewey 1898 passim, F. Wachsmuth 1929; G. Lehmann 1994.

113

R. Naumann 1971, G. Lehmann 1994. R. Koldewey 1898: 107-116. 115 By measuring the diameter in the drawing, it is possible to reconstruct a maximum distance of 68 m. 116 Gate A was completely excavated, while B and C were brought to light only partially in order to show their ground plan. 114

17

Pucci – Ch. III Building periods at Zincirli

concerns the defensive system is the function: the curtain walls with towers satisfy military needs of defence and strength, while a town wall with jogged trace salient and recesses satisfy an aesthetic function. The use of a double wall as a “fortification” can be compared with the town wall at Karkamish. The archaeological evidence is not completely clear; L. Woolley [1921: 53] maintains “a considerable stretch (40 m) of the inner line was brought to light and only its foundations of small stones were preserved. In these forty metres the wall was a double one just like in Zincirli.” Other parallels with double city walls dating from the early Iron Age are not available. We could quote as an older parallel the town wall of Yerkapu at Boğaz-köy; this wall has a “Vormauer” (front wall) and a “Hintermauer” (rear wall) 123 . They were 8.5 metres distant the one from the other and the technical features of the rear wall were not the same as those of the front one 124 . Single gates interrupted both walls (although not two, external and internal, as in Zincirli), and it confirms that both were used at the same time. Moreover, Wright 125 maintains the provision of more than one line of walling. Thus, it is possible to conclude that a double line of wall was in use in several other sites and that no elements in the paving and in the construction of the gates suggest a different time of erection of the structures. It is also possible to stress that both walls and the three gates were probably built at the same time and planned as double surrounding walls. DATING: The only way of chronologically determining these structures in Zincirli is by finding out the period in which the reliefs and statues, which decorated the southern gate (A), were built. The orthostats which were found had collapsed but their original location does not give rise to any doubts 126 . They left traces on their bases, which were still in situ, and on the packing stone wall behind them. There are no clues to maintain that these orthostats were added to the gate later, due to their connection to the bases as a structural part of the foundation. The style of the carved figures was dated to the first group of carved ornamentation in Zincirli (Orthmann's period Zincirli I 127 , which in general correspond to the 11th century). No published small finds could be assigned to the SM or to the gates (A, B and C). Consequently, the gates and the town wall (both enclosures) should date back to the first occupation of the site in the Iron Age, i.e. to the first building activity at the site, when the town was founded.

Diagram 2. The External Area SM: Inner wall SM: outer wall

A

B

C

IIID. The Entrance to the Citadel: the Gates and the Routes This area, as shown in Table 3: , (Plate 6, 8 and 9), comprises the two mound gates D and E, the so-called casemate F, QM (slanting wall), IM (internal wall), the part of BM, which exists between gate E and IM and also Ab1 and LG, the so-called lions' pit, in front of E.

IIID1. The Access to the Citadel and the town wall: Gate D and the Mound wall The southern gate D is the only passage which opens onto the mound. It has a passage room, two thresholds and external flanking towers. The floor of structure D 128 is 4.11 metres above the zero point 129 at its lowest point to the south and at 5.00 to the north. The top of the foundations, which is evident by the timber frame, is at elevation 5.94 and orthostats standing on the stone bases protect the foundations; both stone bases and orthostats were found still in situ. The orthostats and their bases are architectural parts of the foundations. They actually limit and contain the pebbles of the foundations 130 . They have dowel holes in order to take pegs securing timber balks to the stones 131 . These elements indicate that both these carved and the not-carved slabs and bases belong to the same period of the construction of the building itself. In room D/B (Plate 6) a collapsed stele was found. This stele stood probably on a base (1.60 x 1.15 x 1.11) 132 , which was found still inserted in the floor of the gate and protruded 35 cm from the floor itself. Because the actual limits 133 of the pit were not identified, it is impossible to know if the base was already there when the stele was erected, or if a pit was dug into the floor to insert it,. As the mortise on the top fits exactly with the tenon of the stele, it is assumed here that this base was placed in D at the same time as the stele and that its original location 134 128

R. Koldewey 1898:122-127; C. Humann in von Luschan 1898: 92-93. 129 R. Koldewey 1898: 115. The zero point lies on the threshold of gate A. All the following height measurement are related to this point and not absolute. 130 R. Koldewey 1898: 124 fig. 31a. Two "stone walls" were running parallel to each other and filled in with pebble. These foundations were not dug in the earth but built above it. Cf. G.R.H. Wright 1985: 387. 131 R. Naumann 1971: 111-114. 132 Cf. F. von Luschan 1893: 12 footnote 3; R. Koldewey 1898: 127. 133 It is the vertical interface between the fill and the pit. Cf. E. Harris 1989: 60. 134 P. A. Miglus 2000 maintains that the original location of this stele is unknown. Actually, not only the find information, but the physical features of the stele support the theory of gate D as original location of the stele, but it is also confirmed by the fact that the similar monuments are often placed in limiting places.

123

O. Puchstein 1912: 38-45 and Taf. 9 - 10 The front wall was less thick than the rear one, with a stone base; the foundations of the front wall were made with pebbles and were not inserted into the ground. 125 G.R.H. Wright 1985: 186-187. 126 Cf. F. von Luschan 1902: 204; R. Koldewey 1898: 112 and Taf. 10. 127 S. Mazzoni 1997: 13. 124

18

Pucci – Ch. III Building periods at Zincirli

is the gate. The archaeologists assumed that the base was reused from the grave (GK) in the north-eastern area, due to the small hole at its front 135 . Whether this base belongs to the GK or not, the second hole on one side could indicate its reuse. The space between the base and the wall behind it seems to be filled with small stones like the western side of D/a; this pebbled floor is in Koldewey’s drawing 136 at the same level as the orthostats' stone bases and slightly higher than the level of the thresholds. Thus, two hypotheses are possible: A) These stones are the remains of repairs or of a supporting structure which was later added to the gate. B) They are the remains of the pebbled floor of the room. There are two available architectural drawings of this gate: Humann 137 drew the first one directly after the gate was dug out (1888), and two years later Koldewey 138 drew the second drawing. At that time, the carved slabs were already brought to Berlin and the structure had already been excavated for two years and possibly used as a quarry. The differences between the two plans concern directly the two pebbled walls/repairs on the western side. The first drawing shows a room paved with rectangular stones and two small stone structures/ floors directly parallel to the western wing. In the second drawing, the orthostats are obviously missing, and the pebbled structure behind the stele's base is smaller while the other one looks like an independent wall parallel to the one of the gate. Furthermore, both drawings 139 show that this pebbled floor reaches the level of the top of the slabs and consequently is not a floor but possibly a supporting wall. We can assume that, even if we ignore which function these structures had (supporting function/ repairs to the western 140 wing or reducing the internal space), they were not part of the original foundations of the gate walls. They were at a higher elevation than the floor and consequently represent a modification of the original one. The presence of a stone lying in part on the stele base and in part on the “supporting” wall in the gate room possibly confirms that the stele was erected at the same period as this later structure 141 . The mound wall, BM, consists of two parts: a packed earth embankment, and above it a mud brick superstructure with a stone socle. The superstructure is divided into curtain walls 142 and semicircular towers.

It is possible to argue the time relationships between the mud brick superstructure and the embankment by considering the following elements: 1. The embankment is not a completely artificial construction but it was built only where the natural slope was not at the same level 143 . 2. The difference in height between the upper and lower town is approx. 5 metres; the bank itself, where it exists and has been excavated, is 3 metres high and overcomes the differences in height of this slope 144 . 3. When the embankment was built, the mound was already slightly rising above the lower town 145 . 4. The superstructure of the mound wall shows many repairs and changes, as we will see later on. Thus, the superstructure was in use for a long period of time and the embankment was built when the top of the mound was already high, after the first levels of occupation of the mound. Therefore, it is possible to argue that both embankment and superstructure were built at the same time: the former is functional to the latter. It is not possible to be sure of a connection between the gate and BM because, similarly to BM, the eastern wall of D was heavily damaged at this location, despite Humann's drawing which shows a complete gate structure. At its closest point to the gate, BM is preserved on the eastern side three metres away from D. The top of the foundations of BM is at elevation 7.95 above the zero point, while the top of the foundations at the gate are at elevation 5.94. There is a difference of two metres, which the embankment overcame. There is no evidence of older gates in area of structure D, which could be the “original gate” belonging to the mound wall 146 . Although gate D has no architectural links either with the bank or with the wall, it was possibly connected in its mud brick superstructure with the mound wall. Given the actual archaeological situation, one can maintain that: 1. The mud brick structure of BM was built at the same time as the embankment. 2. D is the “original” gate of BM. 3. Both mound wall and gate underwent several repairs and changes. The stele belongs to one of these changes. The relationship between the stele and the repairs in D cannot be proven (dotted line); we can assume that the pebble structure just behind the stele was possibly related to it. Referring to BM, the word “repairs” here means any changes carried out on the brick structure of the wall: it is not possible to argue a link between these repairs and those of D because there were many repair phases on BM due to its length, its prolonged use and its physical

Cf. Next chapter and D. Morandi 1988. 135 For this problem see later on paragraph D point 6. 136 R. Koldewey 1898: Pl. 10. 137 C. Humann in von Luschan 1898: 96. 138 R. Koldewey 1898: Pl. 13. 139 Not architectural ones, von Luschan 1893: fig. 3 pg. 11 and fig. 10 pg.29. 140 Their presence at the western wing could point out that this side of the gate was falling apart. 141 Cf. F. von Luschan 1893: fig. 10 pg. 29 and Humann’ drawings. 142 "Screen or barrier not supporting a roof (...) in the military sense it has the additional connotation of a stretch of wall connecting more massive defensive features- i.e. gates or towers" G.R.H. Wright 1985: 176.

143

R. Koldewey 1898: 117. cf. F. von Luschan 1898: Taf. 9. 145 R. Koldewey 1898: 117. 146 The only other break in the wall, which might suggest the existence of an older gate, was found on the west of D; here, the mound wall was not preserved over a long section. However, no traces of gate structures were found. 144

19

Pucci – Ch. III Building periods at Zincirli

connections with other buildings.

for dating the period of destruction 153 .

Diagram 3. The Mound Gate

IIID2. The area limited by the gates and the

D

D/a 1 repairs

D/b repairs

second citadel gate: E, LG, Ab1 and QM

BM, embankment

D/b stela

Approx. 30 metres to the north of D there is another gate structure, E. The slope of the mound here is not very steep: the inner threshold of D is at elevation 5.30; the top of the foundation in E is at elevation 8.32. The distance from the threshold of D to the threshold of E is about 45 m (Plates 6, 8 and 9). Interpreting this area causes immense problems due to the presence of three structures in it: 1. E is a gate structure with two flanking towers, two thresholds and one passage room. 2. Ab1 is a structure under E with a badly preserved plan. Its axis (N-S) is completely different to the axis of E (E-W). 3. LG indicates the area between D and E where five 154 lion-jambs and a large quantity of ash and small finds were found. The archaeologists of Zincirli called it the “pit”, but the limits of this pit were neither identified nor recorded in a drawing. Therefore LG identifies generally the area between the two gates, where the lions were found. It is possible to argue the architectural relations between these structures by considering the following information: 1. The five lions were found in a thick layer of ashes, lying on their side. The ash also covered the statues 155 . 2. The lion situated at the lowest level is at elevation 4.20 156 . 3. No limits of the pit were found. 4. The objects which are published as related to building E are divided into three groups according to their location: Near the lions, In the ash layer, In the structure of gate E. 5. Analysing the 63 157 published objects which are related to this ash layer (Item 5, Group b) it is possible to establish that this layer of ashes appears: Nearby E. In front of E. On the north of E. This means that this ash layer was not limited to the pit, assuming a pit actually existed, but that it was also near E and on the other side of the place where the lions were situated, i.e. to the north of E. 158 This is 14-18 metres the

BM, wall

BM, repairs

DATING: The chronological elements which help in assigning this relative sequence to an absolute timeframe are related to D: (a.) the style of the reliefs, (b.) the shards used as filling layer between the foundations and the wall, and (c.) the stele, which provides some information about the period in which the door was in use 147 . a. The style of the orthostats gives an idea of the period in which the gate was built. It was attributed to Z II SPH II period, which possibly dates to the 10th century 148 BC. b. The presence of many shards of engraved pottery 149 as a filling layer between the stone base and one orthostat could provide more information on when the gate was constructed. In fact, these shards have all the same features/decorations and they are not inside a mud brick but broken and used as building material themselves. Unfortunately, the Iron Age pottery of this area has not been completely analysed. This engraving technique seems to have been very rare in the pottery of the late Iron Age; in fact it does not appear in the later phases (after the 7th century BC) of the Iron Age Period 150 . The patterns are geometric and do not provide enough elements for a comparison with painted pottery of the Iron Age in this area. c. The inscription on the stele refers to a military campaign in Egypt in 671 151 BC, which gives a terminus post quem for the erection of it in this gate and, consequently, for the use of the gate itself. Moreover, as Esarhaddon died 152 in 669 BC, we can argue that the stele was erected between 671 and 669 BC. Thus, the gate was in use for 200 years. The other objects that were found in the gate (28 published small finds) do not relate to the building period but to the destruction period of the gate. No object was found in situ on the floor and none of them could be used

153

The sherd T37, v which G. Lehmann 1995 uses to date the destruction of the gate was found together with an Hellenistic mud head T34,f-g and consequentially was not found in situ and cannot be used to date the destruction. Cf. W. Andrae 1954: catalogue. 154 The side of the statues which was supposed to be inserted in the wall was not engraved. 155 R. Koldewey 1898: 130 156 At this level the ash layer is not more attested 157 This number does not mean that the objects were really 63, but that 63 “types” of small finds have been found here. Usually Andrae published just one object for each type. 158 See objects' tables.

147

It would be not common to erect a stele in the ruins of a structure. 148 W. Orthmann 1971; S. Mazzoni 1997. 149 W. Andrae 1944: Taf. 15 d-ad. 150 G. Lehmann 1995. This technique is for example attested also at Sagçagözü dating to the first period of the site, prehistoric. Cf. J. du Plat Taylor et al. 1950: 85 151 P.A. Miglus 2000:195 and references; D. Morandi 1987. 152 No clues indicate the possibility that a stele was erected after the death of the king, which is represented on the stele itself and is the subject of the inscription.

20

Pucci – Ch. III Building periods at Zincirli

north of the lions 159 . 6. From photos 160 of the reports two elements are worth noting: A. a layer of “white” earth covers and lies beneath the lions. B. The same white earth does not stop at the archaeological trench of the “pit” but is still visible in the cross section of the trench. 7. Among the small finds, some of them have been found in the ash layer at an elevation between 3 and 4.5 metres. 8. This ash layer also reaches the north-western corner of D where it stops 161 . 9. It is not probable that archaeologists wrote about two different and separate ash layers in the same area, without mentioning it; they do not specify different layers, and the same term “Aschenschicht” is always used in describing the location of both objects and structures in this area for this thick (1.5m) deposit of ashes 162 . Considering all the elements mentioned above we can assume that: a. The ash layer extends from the north of E to the northwest of D, i.e. 30/35 metres in a north-south direction; b. It lays at elevation between 3 and 4.5 metres; c. The ash layer runs probably under E due to its elevation and to the fact that it was found both to the south and to the north of E. Therefore this layer started to exist before the construction of this structure; d. The five lions are within this ash deposit; e. It runs in front of Ab1; DATING: In order to obtain absolute dating for these structures it would be possible to use 1. The five lions and, 2. The numerous objects which have been found in the ash layer. 1. The five lions are divided into two groups of styles: three of them belong to the first phase of sculptures such as the orthostats in A, the other two to a later phase (ZIIIII) which is more recent than the carved figures in D. The interesting point is that the five lions were “buried” at the same time because they were arranged in a semicircle and mixed together. The more recent lions indicate a terminus post quem the lions were buried. This does not determine a period for the ash layer, because it also covers the lions' pit and it is much more extensive. In his catalogue, W. Orthmann 163 ascribes these later two lions to the Z II-III 164 period. Only one other lion orthostat, which was found in building P, also belongs to this group, (Orthmann J/2). According to his

chronological table 165 , the orthostat J/2 is grouped together with the orthostat E/2 (which was found in building J) and belongs to an intermediate period between the two “style and iconographic” groups (Z I-II and Z IIIIV), i.e. SPH IIIa 166 . Consequently, we can also ascribe these two lions to this “intermediate” period. The orthostat E/2 bears a Phoenician inscription 167 made by king Kilamuwa and dated to 825 BC. This inscription gives a good indication of the time to which this intermediate period belongs and consequently represents a terminus post quem the five lions were “engraved”. 2. The objects, which have been published, found in this ash layer are mostly female figurines and bone knives, and they do not provide a narrow time range within which to date this layer. If we assume that the lion pit was dug inside this ash layer, exploiting a natural slope in this area, it is possible to argue that the layer was already there and that it was increasing in thickness 168 at least in the time immediately after the Z II-III period (approx. 825 BC). There is no direct connection between the lions’ grave and the building E. The diagram 4 shows only that the lions where inside the ash-layer, which started to exist before the construction of E. However, the lions could be “buried” also after the construction of E. Gate E is directly linked to the “slanting wall”, QM, which on the eastern side connects gate E with BM (mound wall). The western side of this wall has never been found. The wall exploits another slope of the mound, and alternating semicircular and rectangular towers strengthen its southern side. The timber frame of these towers is connected with and inserted in the timber frame of QM. Therefore, the rectangular and semicircular towers date from the same building period as QM. QM is 3m thick and has deep 169 foundations (about 3.2 m). These stone foundations in 10 layers have a sloping plastered southern side and a vertical northern side. Thus, this structure has a retaining function for the slope, i.e. it is a terrace wall. The top of the foundations at elevation 7.8, where the timber frame is, gives an idea of the level of the north-eastern area, when QM was built. If we consider that the floor of D is at elevation 5.3 high, the difference in height between the two areas (the southern one between gate D and E and the north-eastern one) was 165

W. Orthmann 1971: 148. We should point out here that: in his catalogue the four orthostats are analysed as follows: J/2 Z II-III SPH IIIa Lions in LG Z II-III SPH III E/2 Z III SPH II-III In his timetable [148] by comparing them with the orthostats in Karkamish, the two lions from LG are not mentioned but J/2 and E/2 are shown as coming from the same period: J/2, E/2 Karkamish IV SPH. IIIa If we join the two tables together the four elements are easily assigned to the same period. 167 Inscription K I in J. Tropper 1993: 27-46 and references: 29 168 The layer is said to cover the lions. However, it can also be argued that the same earth, which was dug out to bury the lions, was reused to cover the lions. 169 It is meant “deep” in relation to the elevation of the external area to the north of QM. To the south, as the area was on a lower level, these foundations were in part visible. 166

159

There are apparently no relationships to the lower building Ab1. 160 F. von Luschan 1902: fig.35 and 137 161 This layer does not cover and does not run under D, it stops in front of the northern side of the gate: F. von Luschan in W. Andrae 1943a: 62 “bis fast in die gegend”. 162 Moreover, the ashes are also the ashes of reeds: R. Koldewey 1898: 130 163 W. Orthmann 1971. 164 He also maintains [ibidem: 65] that there is no link between Z I-II and Z III-IV periods, but possibly a long time gap passed between them. These orthostats/statues assigned to Z II-III period should be ascribed to this time gap.

21

Pucci – Ch. III Building periods at Zincirli

approx. 2.5 m, and QM held this slope in place. At the point where QM meets BM, the foundations of QM, which are 0.8 m higher than the top of the foundations of BM, were dug into the embankment of BM at a slanting angle in order to avoid a vertical gap and to give more stability to QM 170 . This feature suggests that QM was built after BM, but both were used at the same time. The different techniques (3 m deep foundation, two types of towers 171 ) employed in building QM may indicate the different purposes of the respective walls. The small finds found in QM are divided into two groups: those found inside the wall and those found in front of QM on the south. The first finds are a few sherds which were probably building materials. The objects belonging to the second group were found when archaeologists dug to the bottom of the foundations of QM. Probably, as was usual at the time and during these excavations, they dug a trench 172 , approx. 1 m wide, all along the wall in order to examine its architecture. As the objects were not attributed to any layers, floors or buildings they do not assist in determining a period for the construction of QM. Based on the above information, a chronological diagram is as follows: Diagram 4.

IIID3. The structures on the east: the so-called casemate (F and IM) The eastern side of QM, where it joined the mound wall, is also the southern limit of structures, which the archaeologists of the site called “the casemates” F 173 . This area 174 , which contains eighteen rooms and at least one courtyard, stretched from the above-mentioned QM to the IM (internal wall), which separates the highest part of the mound from the rest of the acropolis. This wall IM was constructed where there was a rise in the earth. It was 5.8 metres thick and the top of its foundation had a timber frame, which was connected to the timber frame of BM (see Plate 6). The architectural relationships between the walls of F and the two walls QM and IM are as follows: 1. The western and the eastern north-south oriented walls of F lean on QM. Consequently they are more recent than it. 2. The western N-S wall is not connected with any other structure. In relation to the largest room of the complex, it represents only the north-western corner of it, while the other walls limiting this room are preserved at a lightly deeper level (el. 8.20) than this wall (el. 8.60). 3. The eastern N-S wall of F is 1.8 m thick and represents the northern limit of 14 rooms. The foundations of the partitioning walls are directly linked with it, and it is likely that they were built in the same period. 4. All the tops of the foundations of the F walls are 175 preserved at the same level. 5. Moreover, according to the cross-section 176 by Koldewey, many remains of older walls under F have been covered with a layer of earth. Thus, Koldewey argued that the area between IM and QM was levelled off in order to build F. These structures were not completely investigated. It is interesting to mention that as archaeologists dug to the bottom of the foundations of rooms L and M, they found some large vessels inserted in older floors. Considering their location and level, these vessels belong to older structures (which possibly exploited BM for support in the same way that F did). 6. The foundations of two structures which may be interpreted as towers 177 or bastions have been found: one

The Area between the gates

Ab 1

D

LG; ash layer

E

lion statues were buried and where ashes and small finds were continuously thrown.

BM

LG; lions

QM

Diagram 4 shows that in a first time the mound wall was built with the gate D. Inside the acropolis, a long structure Ab1, not completely excavated, was constructed on the way to the north-western area. In a second period, a second mound wall (QM) with a second gate (E) limited with the older BM and D an area where damaged 170

R. Koldewey 1898: 133. Rectangular and ovoid towers are present at the same time in this structure. This aspect does not imply a time gap between structures with only semicircular towers and structures with rectangular and ovoid towers. Neither does it imply that rectangular towers were added later, as Koldewey assumes, if we consider that the presence of both types of towers in the same period is also attested. G.R.H. Wright 1985: 188 “Both ovoid (Jericho) and rectangular (Tell el Farach) seem to have been equally in vogue and at times alternated in the same system (Arad, Ai)”. 172 While digging in this trench, some walls belonging to different periods have been found: the deeper walls were leaning on QM while the higher were parallel to it and leaving a small "lane". R. Koldewey 1898: 132. Unfortunately, there are no drawings of these walls, because their plans are not complete. 171

173

The casemates are usually defined as “a room built into the thickness of a wall or between two parallel walls”. They are mainly related to fortification, as a casemate wall “consists of two parallel walls, which are linked by perpendicular walls on the inside, while the space between them is filled with rubble or left empty to serve as casemate” [N. Leick 1988: 44]. Prof. J.G. Schmid emphasises that a more correct terminus in defining these structures is “Kaserne”, i.e. Barracks. 174 R. Koldewey 1898: 133-135 175 Their bottom was investigated in only two soundings. 176 R. Koldewey 1898: fig. 29. 177 According to Aurenche a tower is a "bâtiment dont la hauteur excède nettement les autres dimensions en plan." Id. 1977: 170. In this case, the complete height is not preserved and their function as towers is only arguable because of their thick

22

Pucci – Ch. III Building periods at Zincirli

(T1) on the outer side of the corner between QM and the western N-S wall of F, and the other (T2) leaning on IM, on the northern side of F. Neither its foundations are connected with the foundation of the neighbouring walls, nor was there a timber frame, which could be secured to the timber frame of QM, in the same way as the towers of BM and of QM. Therefore T1 was built after the construction of QM and of the western N-S wall of F. Similarly, T2, whose mud brick structure was visible at the level of the topsoil, leans on IM and partially covers older walls. It was certainly built after IM. It has no connections to the other walls of F. Thus, the two towers were one of the last additions to the area of the barracks. 7. The foundations of IM 178 are linked to the foundation of BM: they overlap the foundations of BM over a distance of approx. 0.8 to 1 m. Where the mound wall BM meets the internal wall IM, its northern part is preserved 0.8 m higher than its southern part. However, as IM seems to partially overlap 179 BM, it is possible that the two structures were built at the same time or after a strong repair of the mound wall. In fact, only large-scale destruction of BM could have effected such an architectural change to its foundations. IM is preserved only up to the corner with the northern wall of F. 8. The 180 existence of the western corner of IM (see reconstruction in Pl. 6), which was reconstructed by Koldewey, was argued by the presence of four stones lying at a level deeper than the foundations of IM. Koldewey assumed that IM probably surrounded the upper part of the mound and that it was partially not preserved and partially destroyed by the excavation trenches in 1888. On this corner, the forepart of a lion statue was found. There is no relationship between it and the structures and it is said to be similar to the lions which were found in the LG (lion pit) 181 . 9. The walls of F are not connected with the internal wall IM and are therefore more recent. The architectural relationships described above can be represented as follows:

Diagram 5. The so-called casemate area

BM IM

F older walls (under 8 m)

F, N-S western wall

QM

F, N-S eastern wall

F partition walls

T2

T1

DATING: The number of elements able to assist in assigning this relative timetable to an absolute timeframe is very few. The small finds related to the area of the casemate are divided in two main groups: one refers to square O-12, where a deep trench was dug in order to investigate the foundations of F, the second one refers to F in general. There are no small finds which were found lying on the floor, considering that Koldewey did not identify clay floors 182 . If we consider that the level of the top soil in the area of O-12 was between 11.20 and 10.80 metres, and that the level of the top of the levelling layer and of the older foundations was around at elevation 8 metres, we might maintain that all the small finds which existed between 8 and 8.5 metres (3 objects) belonged to the F structures. However, these small finds are not helpful in chronologically identifying these structures. Thus, the information about F is only relative to the other structures and can only be interpreted in architectural terms. The main problem arising here is that the time gaps between the individual architectural changes cannot be clearly defined.

IIID4. Conclusion: the progressive delimitation of the entrance to the mound The complex situation of this area is summed up graphically in Diagram 6: here, the three diagrams (3-5) are joined together. It is necessary to make certain observations here: in this section BM was repaired, but less than in the western

foundations and their shape. 178 R. Koldewey 1898: 136. 179 J. G. Schmid drew my attention to this point. 180 This reconstruction [R. Koldewey 1898: Taf. 17, 18] is also based on the need of having a ring wall protecting the top of the mound. 181 It is probably the protome pictured in Orthmann 1971 as K/6 and dated to the first phase of Zincirli (ZI-II).

182

23

Or at least there is no documentation about them.

Pucci – Ch. III Building periods at Zincirli

section (see below), probably because the slope here is less inclined than on the western part, and BM did not suffer any damage. As is evident from the diagram, the gate D was in continuous use, on its own, and at the same time as the later gate E. The area between the two buildings (LG) is assumed to have been covered with ashes both before construction of E and afterwards. Gate E replaced the older structure Ab1, but possibly with different functions (see next chapter). There is no information to prove that the lions, which are in the LG, belonged to E, but we can surely assert that they were buried in this area. The line divides the diagram into two parts which seem to show a “change” in the town planning by means of building another mound wall (QM) and gate. The later building activity is also divided into two different periods: the construction of E and QM, and the later addition of F. The following Table 4: shows the different periods of use of these structures: Table 4:

Diagram 6. General relationships in the South eastern area

Building periods in the south eastern area

I

D, BM, IM, Ab1, later LG

The double entrance did not exist, but this area was probably divided into a lower part of the citadel and a higher one (north of IM). The north-south direction of the Ab1 allows us to assume that for more than 30 metres to the north of D the western area was empty. The lions in the LG were probably buried at the end of this period, dug into the ash layer.

II

D, BM, IM, E, QM

A wall and another gate which replace Ab1 separate the area north of D. The ash layer starts to exist before the construction of E, and grows during the existence of E. It is not related to the destruction of a building.

III

D, BM, IM, E, QM, F.

The area between IM and BM is occupied by F, the other buildings are probably still standing and in use. Repairs to BM and D, and the Esarhaddon Stele took place in this period.

24

Pucci – Ch. III Building periods at Zincirli

HI 187 . The timber frame on the top of the foundations of BM, to the south of IM, is preserved at about el. 11.50. This indicates that when this part of BM was built the topsoil was here at its highest point at 12 188 metres. The bottom of the foundations 189 of HI is 11.77 above the zero point and their top is circa at elevation 15. Their bottom is at the same elevation as the top of the foundations of BM. This feature gives rise to two hypotheses: 1. When the HI was built, the level of the soil was already three metres higher than at the time when BM was built. Considering that over 3000 years the level of the mound has risen naturally by one metre and that under HI no significant structures (see later point 5.) were found, it seems improbable that this growth would be caused by “natural elements”. 2. The HI was built on a stone base 190 (podest) higher than BM, and the excavated structures are not the foundations dug into the soil, but a socle standing above the ground level. The floors were at the level of the top of the foundation (14/15) and the foundations of HI were not very deep in the ground but massive and grand: the need to support the building would explain their thickness between 8.8 and 5 metres. Consequently, the spaces between them should have been filled with earth in order to build a massive base as a terrace. Archaeologists thought that they were digging foundations because they could not find either floors or openings belonging to the building, although the stone structure was 4 m high/deep 191 . If we consider that the level of the south-eastern area was at elevation between 5 (D) and 8.8 (E) /9.3 (F) m we can imagine that the ground rose to the east of between 9 and 12/13 metres, which is the level of the top of the foundations of BM. No complete structures have been excavated in the area between the HI and the southeastern area, so that it is difficult to reconstruct the natural slope of the mound between HI and E/QM. Architectural remains (WH) of mud brick structures have been found on the south-west of HI. They are at elevation between 14.71 and 16.60, and some of them lean on the front wall of HI. Therefore these structures are a later

IIIE. The North-eastern area: the isolated buildings G and HI This area borders the area described above to the northeast, and IM represents the limit between these two sectors (Plates 5 and 9). Topographically, this is the higher part of the mound. It was excavated during the second and third campaigns (1890-91), which lasted for 42 weeks. After the fourth campaign (1902), the storage rooms and the excavation house were built in this area, exploiting the foundations of the Hilani I 183 . The buildings G, HI (Hilani I) and the smaller structures GK (grave), Ab2, (older structure 2) and WH (houses on the southwest of HI) were also built in this area. According to the historical process, the deeper structures are described and analysed here first, and later on those which were directly under the topsoil. (IIIB.Table 3:

IIIE1. The lower structures: HI, GK and WH The HI (Plate 9) is a structure of which approx. 5 m of massive stone walls were found. It is a building divided into three large 184 parts: the southern one is occupied by one large room 185 (A), the middle one by a large (B) and a small room (C). The northern section was not excavated and the archaeologists reconstructed four small rooms, according to the Hilani model. The entrance was possibly on the southern side, while part of the threshold was discovered. The northern wall of HI runs parallel to the BM wall. But the section of the BM which runs along the northern wall of HI is related to a later phase: the archaeologists did not remove these repairs in order to investigate its relationships with HI 186 . Consequently, we cannot exactly know how the mound wall ran between the semicircular tower to the east of HI and the northwest corner of the same building (this sector is in plan 10 dotted) at the time when HI was in use. However, it is possible to make the following observations: 1. BM over an extent of 25 metres overcomes a drop of 5 m (from 7.8 to 11.92 above the zero point) by terracing the foundations in different steps. Its repairs consist of stones placed above the timber frame and the mud brick wall on top of them. 2. The height of the BM timber frame, which should represent the top of the original foundations of BM before its repairs, is about at elevation 11/12 m., the preserved height of the foundations of H I, whose top is nowhere preserved, is at about el. 14/15 m. This gap requires some more observations: BM repairs lay partially on top of the foundations of the HI. This implies that the wall was repaired when the HI was not anymore in use and it is not possible to establish the course of the original BM in the section adjoining the

187

The corner in the course of the mound wall to the west of the last preserved the semicircular tower might be due to the later repairs which concerned this area, so that the original BM could follow a different course, or possibly stop at the northern wall of HI which was thick enough to represent a valid defence but we need further archaeological information. 188 The presence of a timber frame inside the foundations is also possible (cf. Megiddo G.R.H. Wright 1985:392, Beycesultan, R. Naumann 1971:58-59), even if not very rational for the humidity of the terrain as Y. Shiloh 1980: 72. However, this technique is attested nowhere in Zincirli. 189 It is here assumed that this height, which is attested for the foundations of the first entering room (A), is valid for the whole structure, due to the fact that all walls were built during the same time. 190 There is a parallel with the gate D, whose orthostat "decoration" was not fixed on a mud brick wall, but on the stone foundation. Also, HII and HIII have stone bases emerging from the soil. 191 Archaeologists investigated the whole depth/height of the foundations only in two small soundings.

183

F. von Luschan 1911: 239. Assuming that the entrance was to the south, cf. later. 185 In this research, we follow the German way of definition of the rooms: a large room (Breitraum) is a rectangular room with access on the long side, and a long room (Langraum) is a rectangular room with access on the short side. 186 R. Koldewey 1898: 136-140. 184

25

Pucci – Ch. III Building periods at Zincirli

25 cm 197 long and the hole in the base is 5-6 198 cm deep. Therefore, the base found in D is unlikely 199 to be attributed to this stele and it remains unclear why the archaeologists linked the two pieces together. Independent from the original base from the stele, the stele seems likely to belong to this grave primarily due to its location. DATING: The style of the carved scene on the stele dates to a late period of occupation at Zincirli: first Orthmann 200 investigated the style and ascribed it to the last phase of sculpture at the site (ZIV, SPH IIIb), later Pedde 201 dated the fibula represented on the orthostat to 700-600 BC, and Bonatz 202 dated the image to 730-700 BC. Therefore, if the stele really belonged to the grave GK, the style of the scene would support the theory of a later construction of GK. Very few objects were found related to these structures. GK was found empty, therefore no skeletons or grave goods were found in it 203 . Thus, the three objects, which are related to the GK, are not stratified and do not belong to the original contents of the grave. Only two objects are related to the HI: since they did not identify the floors, these objects, one of which is a cylindrical seal, are not usable for chronological dating purposes. HI does not bear traces of fire; probably it was abandoned for a period, plundered and levelled. Therefore, no small finds were found in it.

addition to the area. They were built when HI was already in existence and probably abandoned immediately after the abandonment/destruction of HI. 3. Archaeologists discovered other structures under the HI (in the first room, where they investigated all the foundations). All the structures under the building are no higher than 11.92, which may confirm that the builders’ soil level was at 12/13 192 . The remains of these older buildings are not enough to reconstruct either their layout or their dating. 4. Only a small wall on the northern corner of the Hilani I testifies to the existence of later structures directly above its ruins and before the construction of G. This structure confirms that after the utilisation and destruction of HI, another occupational period occurred. This may have been related to the structure on the south (WH). 5. The grave GK 193 was excavated at the same time as HI. It was a pit limited by square stone slabs whose gaps were filled with bitumen. Seven cylindrical stones covered the pit (Plate 9). The pit of GK was not identified; however we can assume from fig. 44 in Koldewey 1898 that: A pit did exist and before lining the sides and the floor with slabs, the pit was lined with small stones 194 ; Only its top was probably visible from the soil. However, the elevation of the top of the grave is not certain. The drawing-section of the grave shows the same level between the stones of HI and the top of Gk. The elevation of these stones is also uncertain; the line of stones can be in this area between 13.5 and 14.5 m above zero point. Assuming this elevation for the top of the grave, and that the reconstructed elevation of the surrounding ground was at 13 m, the top of the grave would have been 0.5 m higher than this level. It seems likely that the grave pit was dug after the construction of HI and before the erection of G, as it is located under it. It remains uncertain if it was constructed while the building HI was still in use. Archaeologists attributed to this grave a stele, which was found near the grave but not in situ. They immediately ascribed it to the grave because of the scene 195 represented on it, due to its location and to the tenon beneath it, indicating the presence of a base and its function as an isolated scene. The base has not been found, however they identified the base of the Esarhaddon stele in gate D as the original base for the grave and the stele. According to Koldewey 196 and von Luschan, the Assyrians reused this base in the gate and the mortise, which was located in front of the base, should have housed the tenon of this stele. This tenon is

Diagram 7. The older structures

BM original

Structures under HI

HI

BM repairs

WH GK

IIIE2. The higher structures: G and Ab2 Directly above the structures on HI there is a large building (G), which was also named “Oberer Palast” (Plate 5). This structure was partially excavated during 197

The tenon was measured from the published photo according to the dimension of the stele provided by Orthmann. F. Von Luschan 1911: Pl 54, Fig. 236. Now the stele, currently in the Pergamon Museum in Berlin, has lost its tenon. 198 F. von Luschan 1893: 12 footnote 3 and fig. 10, R. Koldewey 1898: 126, 140. 199 The hole housing the gudgeon of the Esarhaddon stele is too large. 200 W. Orthmann 1971: nr. K/2. He does not put in relation the grave with the stele. 201 F. Pedde 2000: 88 202 D. Bonatz 2000 203 The grave might have been plundered or the skeleton might have been removed from its original location. Cf.IVB4

192

With a higher level some remains of older walls could also be preserved on a higher level. 193 R. Koldewey 1898: 140. 194 This cist grave seems to belong to a local tradition, which exists already in second half of the 3rd millennium BC Cf E. Carter et A. Parker 1995: 106; G. Leick 1988:224. 195 The meal has a funerary meaning: S. Mazzoni 1997, J. Voos 1985, Idem 1988, D. Bonatz 2000: stele C56 with references passim. 196 R. Koldewey 1898: 140, F. von Luschan 1911: 325.

26

Pucci – Ch. III Building periods at Zincirli

the first campaign (1888) 204 . The purpose of the campaign in that year was to find a way of obtaining increased sponsorship for further research. Therefore, two step trenches which crossed the whole tell in the northsouth and east-west directions were dug, and in the eastwest one they found two rooms of G. Complete excavation of the structure took place in the following campaign (1890) 205 . The building is divided into two parts: the eastern one surrounds courtyard h1 and the western one courtyard h2 (Plate 5). The building is constructed with stone foundations and a mud brick wall. On average, it was preserved to a height of 4-5 metres. At the time when G was planned, the remains of a huge building (HI) laid abandoned in this area; plundered and reused as foundations for other smaller structures. The level in this area was considerably raised due to the imposing base of HI, which was still standing and was therefore clearly the highest area on the mound. It is probable that the builders of G decided to level this area, reinforce the mound wall BM, and build G on the highest point. This levelling is substantiated by several elements: 1. Considering that G covers an area of approx. 3,400 m², the differences in height between the internal floors are quite small (1 – 1.5 m): the heights of the floors actually differ between the northern part, which is on a lower level (16.24 m) and the southern part (the one directly on the HI) which is higher (17.98 m). 2. As mentioned above, the repair work of BM was carried out directly on the level of its timber frame, i.e. the mud brick part of the wall was already destroyed or was too weak to support the raised level of the mound and therefore was replaced with stones. The preserved part of these repairs is approximately at the floor level of building G, in actual fact, the difference in height between BM top and the adjoining paved floor level is around 0.50 metres. There is no architectural interruption in these repairs, so that they were possibly carried out at the same time. We can argue that these repairs were possibly undertaken when the ground level was higher and levelled in order to build G. A mud brick wall would be unable and unsuited to retaining earth. Consequently, this mud brick wall was replaced with a stone one at least up to ground soil level, i.e. to the level of the floors in G. 3. There is a gap of one metre between the preserved top of the HI and the bottom of the foundations of G, which are also all at the same level. This gap “layer” possibly represents the building period after the “destruction” of HI and before the construction of G. It may also represent the levelling of the structures which were built above the remains of the Hilani I 206 . Thus we can assume that:

1. This area was levelled in order to enable construction of G. 2. At the same time as construction of G took place, BM was repaired with stones to retain higher level earth. 3. At the time when G was built, the other structures, (WH) which are later than HI, were also “buried” and were no longer visible. G itself shows many internal changes (like new wings, new entrances and rooms with multiple floors); the most important ones indicate a long period of utilisation and re-utilisation. Ab2 is a structure at the southern end of G with a main east-west axis. Its plan is not complete and partially resembles the plan of Ab1 at the south of the mound. Ab2 lies under the southern wall of G; therefore it is older than this wall. However, this southern wall does not belong to the “main building”, i.e. was probably added later. Consequently, the direct relationship between both buildings cannot be established. The foundations of Ab2 are not documented, however from table 30 and from a section in fig. 27 [R. Koldewey 1898] we can assume that if their top attained 17.52, their base should have reached 14.52 207 and may be attributed to the period after HI. It is unclear if this building was still in use at the same time as G, but we can state that: a) there is no architectural connection with the “later” wall of G. b) The levels of the western thresholds of G became higher as the soil levels on the west increased. c) Probably the high level of preservation of Ab2 was due to the good stability of the “tower-like” structure, which was more stable. However, from the architectural point of view, Ab2 is likely to be older than G and was not used at the same time. A rectangular shaped room partially in the courtyard of the northern part of G and partially in room S is possibly older, because it was sectioned by G and may belong to the intermediate period between HI and G. Diagram 8. The later structures: Older houses above HI

BM repairs

Ab2

G

G, changes

DATING: Unlike HI, many small finds were found in G. None of them provides a specific date for the destruction of the building. G has always been interpreted as Assyrian, due to the architectural organisation of the

204

C. Humann in von Luschan 1898: 100; F. von Luschan 1893: 8. 205 R. Koldewey 1898: 141-151. 206 The level of the area to the south of HI, which laid at a lower level at the time when HI was in use, became higher: houses were built, whose foundations are quite high (16.90).

207

27

As in fig. 27 in Koldewey 1898.

Pucci – Ch. III Building periods at Zincirli

building with central courtyard and surrounding wings, however, none of the objects can be positively identified as “Assyrian” in order to support this interpretation. The usual identification with the “Assyrian” assigned it in the history with the period of Assyrian occupation of the town. Here again only its relationships to the neighbouring buildings provide us with a clearer dating for its construction. There are no objects, which are directly related with Ab2. We should mention that in this area a “Scherbenhaufen” was found, a pit of sherds 4.5 metres deep, possibly a trash pit.

and increased in height. Possibly all the structures, which were built after the destruction of HI, were no longer visible. G had many repairs and changes to its plan, indicating a long period of use before final destruction by fire. Using diagram 9 we can establish a chronological table describing use of this area as follows:

IIIE3. The building sequence in the north-eastern area By joining the two diagrams shown above (7 and 8), it is possible to reconstruct the architectural activity in this area. On the upper part of diagram 9 we see the structures which were found under HI. It is possible that the “houses” found under HI date back to a period older than the Iron Age 208 , while BM may date to the beginning of the Iron Age 209 . The HI was probably built on a stone base at a higher level immediately after, or at the same time as the construction of BM. During a later period, HI was most likely abandoned or destroyed 210 and its walls collapsed. The existence of a wall (IM) separating this area from the south cannot be certainly proven for this period, therefore it is marked in dotted line. Later on, this area was occupied with other smaller buildings, which partially used the preserved structures of the HI. In the diagram, the houses on the southwest of HI (WH), the structures built above HI and Ab2, which compared to the first two elements have a better preserved plan, are proposed as belonging to the same building phase, which is in between the HI and G construction phases. GK probably 211 dates to the period between HI and G, in fact: a. If we consider that the top of the grave was approx. 14.5 and that it was probably visible, then the level of the soil from where the pit for this grave was dug was approx. at this elevation. Ground level of G in this area is 16.4 metres, i.e. approx 2 m higher. b. The stele, which was attributed to GK, dates to a period of occupation at Zincirli later than the HI (Cf. IIIE1). In a later re-organisation phase of this area, the soil level rose as HI fell into ruin, the soil was levelled and a new larger building (G) was constructed. BM was repaired

208

No objects were found in it. As above. Cf Item C,1. 210 As reconstructed above, the preserved five metres of stone wall of HI might represent the stone socle of the structure and could bear traces of destruction (fire). 211 Because these hypotheses are based on other hypotheses, the relationships between the GK and the later structures are indicated in the diagram using a dotted line to show uncertainity. 209

28

Pucci – Ch. III Building periods at Zincirli

Table 5:

The north-eastern area, use of buildings

I

(south east BM), HI, IM

Excluding the period before HI (the structures under it), the first building period indicates the sole presence of the imposing HI emerging from its stone base. IM might have been in existence during this period, due to its connection with the lower part of BM, and possibly surrounded the area of HI.

II

WH, Ab2, IM, BM, GK, structures on HI

In this period, the stone socle of the HI remained standing and its walls were reused. New smaller structures were built, BM partially collapsed. The plan of these later structures is not clear because it was not extensively investigated and either it was not significant enough or it was later destroyed by the construction of G. The relationship between these structures and GK is also unclear.

III

BM repairs, G, IM

The area was levelled, G was built and BM repaired. IM was during this period standing as it was used even more due to the raised soil level.

Diagram 9. The north-eastern area

IIIF. The north-western building complex: structures surrounding the courtyards (JM, Q-R and the Hilanis) This area was excavated during the last two campaigns (in 1894 with Koldewey and 1902 with Jacoby as architects). Koldewey excavated first the southern area and he brought to light two independent structures the Hilani II (HII) and the Hilani III (HIII) (Plates 10-12). He investigated also the mound wall (BM) at this point. Eight years later, Jacoby completed the excavations on this southern sector, bringing to light the structures which limited the courtyard R (Plate 11): NWH, northwest Hallenbau, and NÖH, northeast Hallenbau. He then enlarged the excavations to the north, discovering the buildings J and K facing the northern courtyard M, the access to this area Q, and the north-eastern rooms L. This area is the largest excavated surface on the mound, it entails the largest number of structures (eleven), and it

29

Pucci – Ch. III Building periods at Zincirli

does not have architectural links with the other areas except for the mound wall BM. These structures overlap each other only partially. Thus, they are analysed here in a geographical order from south to north grouping the building according to their connections to the courtyards M to the north and R to the south.

height of between 11.27-11.35, whereby its bottom not even reached 216 . Thus it is possible to assume that P is older than HII and its northern part probably still lies under the foundations of HII. However, when HII was built, some architectural changes were made to the older structure: the connections between the two buildings were analysed and builders paid attention to the “western front” of the two buildings, looking to courtyard R, and filled the gap between Pillar 1 and HII with mortar. The floors and the main part of the top of the foundations of P are higher on the northern side than on the southern one, with a rise of 0.95 m between the corner at HII and the southern pillar. These elements suggest that the mound is a natural slope: natural in the sense that when P was built the mound was already inclined 217 . The builders constructed P terracing the slop and building a pillar on every step. They distributed the incline over the length of 24.5 m. P underwent repairs: e.g. in the corner at HII, inside room P2, walls were levelled and new floors were built. The face of the wall has many layers of mortar. All these elements testify to a long period of use of this building. 2. Where P meets the mound wall: This area was here excavated twice: first by Koldewey and then by Jacoby. Their two interpretations and drawings 218 differ in parts and only by comparing them is it possible to gain the following information: Koldewey 219 investigated this area in order to trace BM. He had no knowledge of the plan of structure P and concentrated on the mound wall. He identified a drain, which runs through the thickness of the mound wall, draining water from the HIII. He dug at least down to its level (at elevation 9 m). At the height of the drain, BM was 4.03 metres thick. The south western corner of the “lower Palace” (later P) does not cover BM, instead leans on it. At the southern part of BM (74 metres south of P), the wall has two kinds of stone repairs which are directly above the timber frame of BM and are 0.64 m and 1.37 m higher than the timber frame itself. Thus, Koldewey was convinced that P, whose walls were leaning on BM, was built at a later date than the mound wall. Eight years later, Jacoby 220 investigated the same area. He observed that the surface of the older excavation had suffered considerable damage. By reinvestigating this part, he furnished the following observations:

IIIF1. Structures surrounding the southern courtyard R: the “Hallenbauten” and the Hilani II and III The three buildings HII, HIII and P occupy the southern part of the north-western area and were excavated in two different campaigns with a time lapse of eight years (Plates 10-12). P 212 is a long structure with two parallel rows of rooms, which delimit courtyard R on three sides. It was partially excavated in 1902: its southern walls no longer existed, but the space on its south was excavated in a step trench; the eastern side of its wall was only examined in order to trace its direction. In other words, it is possible that this building had other rooms or a courtyard on the south 213 , which was not investigated. HII is a rectangular independent structure with two large rooms parallel on the long axis, a row of smaller rooms to the north and a tower or bastion on the south-eastern corner. Its main entrance was not preserved, but the most probable solution was a southern entrance outside the western courtyard R. HIII shows a similar layout: two long parallel large rooms and several smaller rooms on the back and a bastion/tower to the right of the entrance. Several locations provide us with important information concerning the building sequence in this area. 1. Where P “meets” HII 214 : the highest level of the foundations of H II at this corner is 12.04 and the lowest at elevation 11.38. The highest preserved maximum height of the northsouth front wall of P is at the threshold, with el 9.73 at the north and el. 10.08 at the south. This walls run under the foundations of HII. On top of this wall in P, exactly at this corner, a pillar was built with a stone base and orthostats. The east-west wall to which the orthostats belong is badly preserved. From fig. 216 215 it is possible to argue that both walls (north-south, and east-west) were probably joined. The foundations of the east-west running wall are still preserved at 9.85 metres above the zero point. The orthostats surrounding the pillar of P, which are slightly inclined, build a corner with the western wall of HII. The gap between the Hilani western wall and the orthostats is filled with mortar. The eastern north-south wall of P possibly runs to the north under HII. Its foundations were preserved to a

216

Jacoby dug five rows of stones until 9.08 and then he stopped. The higher stones (12,25) on the east above this wall are possibly, as Jacoby assumes [idem 1911: 311] later repairs or structures. These structures were also drawn in Koldewey’s architectural drawing. 217 Thus, we should consider that this northern part may also be higher due to the presence of older structures beneath it. 218 Cf. R. Koldewey 1898: Taf. 28 and G. Jacoby 1911: Taf. 51. 219 R. Koldewey 1898: 121. 220 G. Jacoby 1911: 316

212

F. von Luschan 1911: 262-266, 369-372; G. Jacoby 1911: 308-317. 213 As G. Jacoby assumes. G. Jacoby 1911:308 and 315. 214 When R. Koldewey dug out the HII, he did not reach a level deep enough to found the structures of P. cf. R. Koldewey 1898: Taf. 23. 215 F. von Luschan 1911.

30

Pucci – Ch. III Building periods at Zincirli

The tower-like structure of P is not original. Maybe at first there was a corner pillar, and later on, by narrowing room P8, the builders strengthened the corner. Room P9 was also narrowed. The faces of BM adjoin the western and southern sides of the corner of P, i.e. BM stops at building P, indicating that it was built later than P. BM is on a higher level than P (BM 10.13- P 9.52). The timber frame of BM was possibly built on the foundation of P. The two interpretations are clearly disaccording. But, if we consider that in the eight years between the two campaigns this area remained in the open and that no other excavations took place 221 , we can presume that the inhabitants used the stones on the surface for their houses and that the level of the surface became lower than at the time when Koldewey left it. Therefore, we can maintain that both architects were correctly documenting what they found, but they investigated two different levels in the same area: Koldewey found a mound wall (BM) which was still standing and covering the corner of P. It was possibly a later repair to the original one and built after it. For this reason he wrote that at this point BM was 4.3 m thick (this thickness included both the walls of P and BM). Jacoby found the underlying level. He indicated that there were two different structures: the corner of P, and BM, where P was lower and separated from BM. Thus, what Jacoby found was an older period than the one found by Koldewey. The original BM, which does not have deep foundations but stands on an embankment, was either A. already standing when P was built or B. not yet in existence. A. If BM already existed: Then, it was partially destroyed at this point so that the construction of P reshaped this part and the deep foundations of this new structure were dug into the foundations of BM. Later, BM was frequently repaired (as is visible in its southern part) and this corner was also rebuilt. Probably, BM was rebuilt incorporating the corner of P, narrowing room P8, and building a “tower” here. P shows signs of architectural repairs on the eastern part as well (see above). B. If BM did not exist: Then, this means that it was decided to build BM in a direction where it was sure to meet the corner of P. This seems absurd, because it would easier and safer to allow BM to run 0.5 m more to the west 222 , rather than to have the corner of P exposed on the outside of the town wall 223 .

Furthermore, according to this interpretation, the architectural changes made to P in order to strengthen the corner should date back to the first construction of BM. Thus, before the construction of BM, the western side of P was not defended by any structure and its architecture was not fortified (thin walls, no towers etc.). This element does not seem very plausible. Thus, it is more likely that BM was built first when P was not yet in existence. This is also supported by the fact that BM is dated to an earlier period by the sculptures in D, has multiple repairs, and the fact that no other traces of different courses of the mound walls were found 224 . P was built later, and, at the same time, this part of BM was reshaped by building the corner of the structure on it. The stones which were interpreted as belonging to one pillar were probably the remains of the foundations of BM. In a third phase, BM was repaired, P8 and P9 were narrowed, and this part of BM was strengthened. 3. Where P meets H III The western and eastern foundations of room P10 lean on the southern foundation of HIII. The bottom of the foundations of P is higher (8.6) than the bottom of the foundation of HIII 225 (8.1). The southern wall of HIII was also the northern wall of room P10. Consequently, when P was built HIII, was already standing. 4. There are some traces of older buildings, whose layout is unknown, under the western wall of P10 and in room P1. 226

.

5. The structure R is an unroofed space surrounded by four buildings: HIII, P, NWH, NÖH, and HII. Inside this space both older structures and later ones were found (Plates 10-12). The older structures (Ab3), as they were found under the floor of the courtyard, comprise a fortification or delimiting wall with traces of towers and no adjacent vertical walls. Under HIII, some older structures were also found, which are very likely, according to their orientation and architectural features, related to Ab3 in R, and therefore bear the same name. However, their connection is not archaeologically documented. 227 . The later buildings (LH) have several different small rooms with thin walls and an apparently accidental order: some walls lean on others or partially cover them. The thresholds are mostly made by means of taking away orthostats or their bases from other buildings. The still standing foundations of the older structures were reused as delimiting and supporting walls. For these reasons all these buildings are named with a unique abbreviation (LH), even if they were possibly not built at the same

224

We should mention two parts of walls parallel to BM: one on the north (which is not drawn) and the other in M. Both lie internally to BM and isolated, possibly built as retaining structures of the original BM. These structures are not the remains of an ancient BM because on of them is related to NWH and the other is parallel to BM, which also runs behind HI, which is certainly original. 225 Cf. G. Jacoby 1911: fig. 221. 226 Cf. G. Jacoby 1911:fig. 222 and Taf. 51. 227 As Jacoby also assumes: G. Jacoby 1911: 323.

221

Moreover, in these years on the mound, Syrians were fighting against Turks, the trenches were used as war trenches, the excavation stores were destroyed and all tools were stolen. 222 The slope of the mound would allow it. 223 The existence of other mound walls parallel to this one is not attested in the long step trench which was dug between the SM and BM.

31

Pucci – Ch. III Building periods at Zincirli

time and used over a long period. Jacoby 228 actually points out “three to four building periods”. 6. The floor of courtyard R, which belonged to the surrounding structures, was probably not uniform: archaeologists found some traces of 11 cm thick pebbled foundations of a floor on the north-eastern part (10.28 metres high) and a thick layer of burned materials at elevation 10.77, 10.40 and 10.10. Moreover, if we consider that the first step leading to HIII is at elevation 9.94, and that the stone base of the first pillar of P on the east is at elevation 10.21, we can determine a probable level for the northern part of the courtyard at 10-10.20 (higher on the west). In the southern part, the elevation of the courtyard’s floor was on lower level (also confirmed by the slope of the P walls): at the eastern pillar it is at elevation 8.81 and at elevation 9.6 at the western one, so that the floor level was probably between 8.9 and 9.5 m. All older structures described above (Ab3) were found in the northern part of courtyard R, where the level of the floor was also higher. Thus, the rise in the floor level is probably due to the presence of these older structures here, which are non existent on the south. 7. Where HIII meets BM The relationship between HIII and BM is similarly unclear as that between P and BM. R. Koldewey 229 maintained that the side walls of HIII leaned on BM, which was used as the back wall. Eight years later, Jacoby 230 maintained that BM lie on the foundations of HIII, which is therefore older, and only after its destruction was BM then built. We can make the following additional observations: There is a drain 231 coming from room j in HIII which passes through BM (Koldewey 1898: 158). Thus, when the drain was built, BM/the back wall of HIII was also built. Jacoby frequently writes about two BMs: an older one which has only one row of stones and a new one with many rows of stones. As Jacoby later discovered, at the south-western corner the walls of HIII were linked to BM, and on the south HIII is connected to the top of the foundations of BM by a timber frame 232 . There is a difference in height of 70 cm between the preserved BM on the south of HIII and the BM at the level of HIII. We can put forward the following hypotheses: A. BM did exist before the construction of HIII and is preserved on a lower level at the south of HIII. B. The original BM consisted only of one or two rows of stones above the embankment, so on the steep part of the slope it was very weak. As discovered on the western and southern parts, repairs

to BM were frequent and substantial. Probably, when the inhabitants decided to build HIII, they decided to keep the foundations of the older BM (as they did for the north-eastern area), and for this reason the walls of the HIII partially lean on these foundations. When HIII was built, its western wall was the new BM for this part. This satisfied three requirements: 1. a stronger defence; 2. a back wall for HIII; 3. a stone foundation/ base wall built at least on the same level as the other foundation walls of HIII. HIII was actually built starting at the level of the courtyard and therefore it had a stone base. NÖH and NWH limit courtyard R to the north and divide the north-western area into two zones. NWH is a long building; its main axis has east-western direction. A main room, an entrance with pillars and some small rooms to the west forms the layout of the structure. NÖH is a building with a north-south axis, and it entails three rooms. Its façade is on the same line as the facade of NWH (Plate 11). 8. Where HII meets NÖH The level of the stone base for the orthostats of HII 233 , which is probably at the same level as the top of the foundations, is at elevation 13. As stated above, the level of the western courtyard R is at elevation 10 m. The foundations of the western wall of HII have differing depths: on the south-western corner, the bottom is at elevation 11.10, just above the orthostats of the first pillar of P. On the north western corner, the foundations reach approx. 9 m, thus deeper. We can propose that: The corner orthostat of the near NÖH lies on the foundations of a “neighbouring” building. If the “neighbouring building” is interpreted as being HII, consequently either only the “decoration” or the whole of NÖH was built at the same time as HII 234 . The bottom of the foundations of NÖH is at elevation 8.80 m. The deepest point of the foundations of HII should be at elevation 9 m (4 metres below the orthostats stone base 235 ). Therefore, the foundations do not provide any clues as to the chronological order of the two buildings. The foundations of the western wall of HII are irregular and the lines of stones have different widths. The western wall of HII is inclined to the outer side; R. Naumann [1971: 420] interprets this as the wall being supported by the southern wall of NÖH. This would explain the drawing which shows the two surfaces in contact. There is a gap between the south-eastern corner of room 2 in NÖH and the northern wall of HII. The orthostats at the eastern pillar of NÖH were found in situ and fit in the base they are on. Thus, they are probably contemporary with the construction of the building and were not added later. The orthostats at the western pillar are also not later than the building because

228

G. Jacoby 1911: 320. R. Koldewey 1898: 154. 230 G. Jacoby 1911: 318-320. 231 It is the same drain mentioned above concerning the connections between P and BM. Cf. R. Koldewey 1898: fig. 68 232 Cf. G. Jacoby 1911: fig. 234. 229

233

R. Koldewey 1898: 151-154. R. Koldewey 1898: 162. 235 R. Koldewey 1898: 163 234

32

Pucci – Ch. III Building periods at Zincirli

the timber frame of the wall secures them to the wall. There are no remains of the south-eastern corner of NÖH in room h of HII. The foundations on which the stone bases under the orthostats in NÖH lie are said to belong to the neighbouring building, but not to HII. The orthostats of NÖH are leaning on HII, and therefore not vertical. When Jacoby writes about the foundations on the east of the back wall of room 1 in NÖH, he maintains that the wall was widened in order to fill the gap with the older neighbouring building. The foundations here are 1.65 metres below the level of the stone base and some squarecut stones taken from another building were reused here. We can therefore maintain that this “neighbouring” building or older building is a different building than HII: it is a structure whose foundations are still preserved and on which HII was built. It is probably the continuation of P, described in the diagram as P1. Moreover, as mentioned above, the four metres of stone foundations are irregular and possibly they do not all belong to HII, but instead were reused. Thus, we can assume that: When NÖH was built, a structure under HII (P1) existed: this would explain the irregular plan of NÖH and the fact that its orthostats lie on the “foundations of HII”, i.e. P1. The northern part of the foundations of P1 was reused to build HIII. This would explain the different depths of the foundations of the western wall of HIII, and the alignment of this wall as an extension of P.

IIIF2. The middle area Several structures built the middle frame of the whole complex. The main ones were the NWH and NÖH which were described above. Here several crucial points concerning the relationships among the structures will be highlighted: 1. Connections between NWH and NÖH. The following information 236 provides us with some clues concerning the relationship between these two buildings: 1. The wall dividing the NWH from the NÖH is connected by a timber frame to the back wall of the first rooms of the NWH and NÖH respectively. In other words, when architects built this side wall the other two walls were possibly at the level of the foundations, i.e. whether these walls were completely destroyed or they were about to be built. 2. The stone steps run with the same depth, width, level in front of both buildings. 3. The front and the back walls seem to follow the same line and seem to be two unique walls. 4. There is absolutely no archaeological or architectural information which could point out different times of construction. Thus, it is here assumed that they were built at the same time. 237 2. Where the NWH meets the HIII. The front wall of NWH bends to the north a little and runs for eight more metres to the west. By analysing the first drawing, 238 it is possible to observe that NWH stops where HIII started and the two western rooms were added later, and therefore lack the southern wall. Jacoby, who investigated further this area, did not publish any archaeological drawing but only a reconstruction of the buildings. 239 In this reconstruction, the rooms on the west adjoin the mound wall, BM, and it is impossible to establish the connections among these walls and those of the HIII. However, we can make following considerations: A. The rooms 8-13 in NWH were either added later or contemporary to the rest of the NWH. However, when they were built, HIII probably already existed, due to the fact that they use the northern wall of HIII as the southern limit and their side walls lean on it. B. The southern wall of both NWH and NÖH bends a little where the northern wall of HIII starts. This would allow us to argue that the HIII was already standing when this wall was built. C. The foundations of HIII reach their lowest layer 8.20 metres above the zero point while NWH foundations are at their lowest point at 8.8 m high. D. The western wall of NWH “parallel” to BM is preserved at elevation 8.25 metres and, if we consider that the level of the courtyard M was approx. at elevation 10 metres at the south, we may assume that it possibly belonged to an older structure and not visible while M

Diagram 10. The structures surrounding R to the west, east and south

236

R. Koldewey 1898: 159-171. Actually, R. Naumann [1971: 420] argues that the NHB was built first and only later were the NÖH and the HIII added. 238 R. Koldewey 1898: Taf. 24-25. 239 G. Jacoby 1911: Taf. L. 237

33

Pucci – Ch. III Building periods at Zincirli

was in use. 3. Where NÖH meets Q. To the north another structure Q, although very badly preserved, fulfilled surely a gate function. The northern wall of room 3 in NÖH seems to lie on the remains of the probable wall of Q. If we observe the drawing in Pl. IL 240 , we can maintain as follows: A. The wall starting from the lion-door jamb of Q is almost completely destroyed except for the plaster and some stones. The plaster is running on this wall, and on the north-western corner of the NÖH without any break. We might argue that at least these two structures were used at the same time not only because of the plaster but also because the mud brick floor of the courtyard M “follows” the limits of these two structures (Q and NÖH). B. The back wall of NÖH was almost completely destroyed. The few remains at this point are at elevation 8.71 m and do not have any architectural link with the other walls, i.e. these remains could also belong to some older structures. The architectural elements do not provide us with any clue for the sequence. Actually, the chronological relation with Q is mostly linked to the different style of the slabs and statues “decorating” the two buildings. In Q the two lions jambs date to SPH II and ZII, while those decorating the NÖH dates to ZIII and SPH IIIb period. Neither the slabs on NÖH nor those in Q are secondly added as they are structural part of the buildings.

building itself, due to following reasons: A. Some of the slabs were found in situ, still standing on the bases, where they left traces 241 . As for structure D, the stone bases of the orthostats are the limiting part of the filling of the foundations, and consequently belong to the same period as the construction of HIII. B. The orthostats have mortises. They were fixed to a timber which was inserted inside the wall. Two sphinxes, whose location at the entrance of the building was reconstructed by Koldewey, were not found in situ but on the collapse of the entrance. 242 However, even if there is no evidence to maintain their original location at the entrance, they might also be a later addition to the building and do not provide information on the dating of the construction. Orthmann dates them to the ZIV period. P: The objects, which are related to this building, are only two war tools. They were found in the “burnt layer”, dating to the destruction of the building. The stele with the king and the lions forehead were not found in situ and possibly do not belong to the building P. R: A floor was not found. It is therefore difficult to point out objects which could date the structure. We should mention here two pits with votive spoons, probably buried in the courtyard. NÖH: An inscription was found in situ on one jamb orthostats in the NÖH. The inscription refers to king BarRakib and was dated to 730 243 BC. Another orthostat bearing a long inscription of the same king was found on the south in front of NHB; i.e. in courtyard R. The discussion about its original location, started between von Luschan and Koldewey, seems to have been solved by the agreement that it probably stood on the entrance of the NÖH. 244 The orthostat is also dated between 730 and 727 BC. The small finds, which were found in NHB, are not very helpful for the chronology.

Diagram 11. The southern part of the north-western Area Q

HIII NWH

NÖH

M, mudbrick floor

IIIF3. The buildings in front of courtyard M: J-L and the entrance Q

HII

As mentioned above, the archaeological situation of gate Q 245 is very critical (Plates 10-12). From the reports we do have following information: 1. From this structure one eastern lion doorjamb, two western stone doorjambs and the stone floor are preserved. The second lion was found on the south 1 m deeper than its original level: possibly buried, but not enough information was given about the find location.

DATING: Objects and decoration, found in the structures mentioned above, are listed here, according to each building: HIII: The building was destroyed by a big fire, which melted some objects together. Among the numerous objects found in this structure, we can point out the following small finds: 1. A “ritual” axe (2314) with a lion decoration. 2. Two deposits of 130 small vases (27932830 and S.782a, b, c, etc.) found in two small back rooms. 3. The carved orthostats decorating the façade of the palace: 23 figures walking from the left and from the right end side to the entrance. W. Orthmann dated the style of these reliefs to the SPH III-IV. These orthostats were inserted in the structure, thus are contemporary to the period of construction of the

240

241

The part where the orthostats were standing was polished: R. Koldewey 1898: 156. 242 Despite Orthmann’s catalogue [1971: 547, 548], R. Koldewey [1898: 156] affirms that the foundations were not preserved in the above three layers, while F. von Luschan [1911: 338] says that the sphinxes were “unwesentlich verschoben, noch nahezu in situ aufgefunden”. 243 J Tropper 1993: 145. 244 In chronological order: R. Koldewey 1898: 163; F. von Luschan 1911: 255 and 377; M. Lidzbarski 1915: 218-219; J. Tropper 1993: 132. Orthmann does not provide any reconstruction: id. 1971: relief K/1. 245 G. Jacoby 1911: 270-271, F. von Luschan 1911: 243.

G. Jacoby 1911.

34

Pucci – Ch. III Building periods at Zincirli

2. The walls of this gate are very badly preserved: the eastern part of this area was used as a quarry so that all the re-utilisable materials were taken away. The reconstruction which Jacoby 246 proposes is based on following elements: The mud brick floor of courtyard M points out the western limit of the gate and mostly the connection between the western wall of Q and that of NÖH (see IIIF1). The presence of building J and NÖH prevent the reconstruction of a gate plan typical for this site. The floor is preserved or it existed only on the way through and it does not point out the previous existence of a wider gate room. Some traces of walls were found. As from table 49 in the reports, three walls are visible on the north, Jacoby choose the southern one as northern limit of the gate due to the existence of a symmetric wall on the other side of the passage room, whose plaster is preserved, and due to the fact that it fits with the presence of J and NÖH. Obviously, its reconstruction is valid for the period in which NÖH and J already existed. It is also evident that the gate was at that time still in use due to the paved “street” leading from Q to NWH. But if we look on this gate we will immediately observe that Q could not be planned and built at the same time as both J and NÖH since some walls of Q are overlapped or included by the walls of the two neighbouring structures J and NÖH. Also, excluding the time gap that exists between the statues and orthostats decorating the buildings and the gate, the architectural connection between the walls of J and NÖH with Q are very weak. In order to understand the time relationships between these building we consider that: 1. Q and J were not built at the same time. The line of the north-south walls of J and Q are different and their foundations are not linked. Consequently J was built either before Q or after it. 2. The jambs lions of Q date back to the first phase of sculpture at Zincirli. 3. Q is the only direct entrance from outside to the courtyard M. In this courtyard three floors are preserved, whose levels are as follows resumed:

The mud-brick floor on the west lies more than 1 m higher than the pebbled one, and it is directly linked with the NWH threshold. Under the small mud brick street leading from NWH to Q a pebbled floor is also preserved. 247 Therefore we can conclude: 1) the pebbled area is older than the mud brick one 248 . 2) The mud brick floor is a later change and it was possibly built only on the eastern part 249 . 3) The stone floor is related to gate Q, thus possibly older than the mud brick one. 4) They were both (mud brick and stone floor) used at the same time. First, we can argue that M had stone “streets” 250 and the rest was unpaved or partially paved with pebble. Secondly a mud brick floor was added in order to build the “street” to new structures (NHB). The western part possibly remained unpaved. M has consequently a long life period which is possibly as long as that of building Q: no other gate from the outside has been found, and the door of NWH is probably contemporary with the mud brick floor she refers to. If we completely reconstruct Q according to the typical plan of a town gate and considering the preserved parts, the original Q would be wider than its actual width and would exclude the existence both of J and NÖH. Thus it is here argued that: A. Q had a different plan before the construction of J and NÖH and was the entrance to M. B. When J and the NÖH were built, Q was frequently 251 reconstructed by means of narrowing the gate room and possibly eliminating the towers.

Table 6:

DATING: As above stated the style of the lions which were found in Q dates to Z I-II period, thus approx. to the end of the 10th century. Except for these lions, no other objects were found in situ in these structures. J and K are two structures, which limit to the north courtyard M. The layout of J is divided into three sectors: to the south, two large rooms parallel on their long axis at the entrance, to the north, several smaller rooms grouped together, and to the northwest, two larger rooms facing a

Mud floor

brick

WEST

EAST

9.7- 9.6

9.9

8.82-8.73 (north) 8.30 (south)

Stone floor

9.43 - 9.08

Threshold between NWH-M

9.9

Threshold Q

M, stone pav

Q

J

Floors levels in courtyard M:

Pebbled floor

246

Diagram 12. Northern part of the North-western area

10.1

247

Q, repairs

NÖH

M, mud bricks

Cf. G. Jacoby 1911: Pl. 49. The pebble floor as foundation of the mud brick one with a height gap of one metre in 10 m seems not probable. 249 No bricks at all were found on the wide western area. 250 The stone streets are three and lead to the different building. 251 J and NÖH were not built at the same time. 248

10.01 - 10.36

G. Jacoby 1911: Pl.50.

35

Pucci – Ch. III Building periods at Zincirli

northern open courtyard. K has an imposing entrance marked by a stone staircase leading to two large rooms. Only one smaller room and possibly an external one adjoin these two large rooms. The two large rooms of J have similar features with the two in K. Both buildings are connected with each other. Von Luschan and Jacoby gave two different interpretations on which building was built first. The two buildings were not built at the same time due to the following elements: 1. Between the western wall of J and the eastern wall of K there is a gap; neither the walls nor the foundations are linked. 2. The door/window from J3 to J15 is partially closed by the eastern wall of K. 3. The wall Mk, which represents the facade of J, is linked with the eastern wall of K and not with the western of J. Therefore, we can maintain that J was built before K, and then when K was built, 252 J was partially changed in order to build a “uniform” façade, for the following reasons: 1. J has many architectural changes: a new entrance, the first entering room was divided in two different rooms, J2 and J3 have many floors, and the northern wall in J 11 was rebuilt twice. 2. K lies on a higher level than J, although the slope of the mound descends on the west: possibly there were under K other structures K was built on. 3. The construction of K would explain the architectural change of the facade of J: the wall Mk, which narrowed the entrance of J, belongs to building K. 4. The eastern wall of K does not have the same width: it is 2.20 metres wide on the north and 1.20 on the south, as it should adapt its structure to the western wall of J. 5. The two openings on the western wall of J2 are “closed” by the western wall of K. These openings could date to a later period of J or they could be windows/doors of J. There are no architectural clues to affirm that they were built later, if we exclude the absence of the orthostats which are limiting the base of this room 253 . The base of the southern opening lies at 30 cm above the last floor and 60 254 above the second one. The base of the northern one was not found. On the eastern side of J and nearby Q there was a statue staying on a lion base. The statue 255 was found to the south from its original location, lying on the back, in dark terrain and surrounded by stones. If we consider that the statue bears some damages on its front as if it frontally

fell down, the found situation suggest that the statue was later buried. Its base with lions was found on the original location: the base lies on some slabs used as “floor” which prevented it from sinking. Its relationship with building J is linked only to this floor: the eastern wall of J is very badly preserved, and the floor of the statue base does not greatly overstep the line of J eastern wall. Therefore, archaeologically, there are no clues which maintain a priority of the statue in comparison with J. The style of the lions on the base and of the statue is attributed to SPH II period, thus both structures were probably built at the same time. The western section of the northern limit of courtyard M is occupied by a row of nine rooms (L) lined up on the western side along the mound wall. These rooms open to the east and are not architecturally linked with the other buildings. The rooms are divided in three self-belonging groups: room L3-6, L1-2, and L7-8. For this complex of rooms, we find in the reports a similar situation as for HIII and P: Koldewey as he was digging BM in this area reports that the walls of L (which was not already identified with this structure) lean on BM (the same words as for the walls of HIII and of P). Jacoby eight years later affirms that the western wall of L was under BM and the later construction of BM partially destroyed it. Following considerations are needed here: A wall parallel to BM and limiting on the west rooms L5-8 exists: this wall is structurally connected to rooms L7-8 and seems to be a later addition to the northern rooms. It lies on a level which is deeper than the bottom of the foundation of BM (clearly visible in fig.214), and under this foundation no other wall was found. Therefore, we can argue that the level of the soil was lower than the level of the embankment of BM. For rooms L1-4 there is no wall limiting the western side and Jacoby clearly affirms that the foundations of the walls in these rooms run under BM 256 . These structures were used at the same time (there are doors connecting the different rooms) and together with the small court Fl. The presence of BM (one/two rows of stones are preserved) above the structure could refer as for HIII and P to a later repair of it 257 .

256 252

J. G. Schmid (personal communication) argues that northwestern branch of the wall which in J modified the entrance and limited the stairs Gk lies above the south-eastern wall of K. Thus the changes on the entrance of J were carried on in a third period after the construction of K. 253 This feature is probably due to the narrowness of the opening and to their higher base. 254 The bases of the windows were raised between 13 and 100 cm on the floor: R. Naumann 1971:175. 255 G. Jacoby 1911: 289. F. von Luschan 1911:362-69

257

G. Jacoby 1911: 302.

The archaeological context in this area requires some observations of the mound wall. Considering its course in the area of structures L, we can argue that the wall was running further to the west and that, on a later date, it was repaired and rebuilt above the structures. However, if we consider its course in the area of the Hilani III, it seems that the repairs/ reconstructions were usually located exactly above the older course.

36

Pucci – Ch. III Building periods at Zincirli

would concern a continuous building area. Therefore, in the table of contemporary use, which follows, there are five periods, which are subsequently divided in three groups: the step from one group to the other is grounded on the reorganisation of the area. The older situation is shown in the first group: door Q was the entrance gate of a possibly closed area, which was limited by the Ab3 building. It is not possible to determine how this area was planned at that time because the possible building still lies under the later structures. Moreover, the Ab3 structure possibly fell down, it was destroyed, or there was a need to enlarge the area, so that J and successively K and some rooms of L were firstly built and later HIII, P, and other rooms of L were added. In this second phase there were many buildings grouping around a wide space (M+R) which was gradually closed. The step to the third phase is the division in two parts of the courtyard and probably only in a later period H II was built. Possibly the northern part (buildings around M) was already destroyed, while the southern part (buildings around R) was still use.

Diagram 13. The northern part

DATING: The location of the objects found in these three buildings is more accurately published. Actually, the small finds of J, K, L, and M are divided in three groups: 1. The objects, whose locations are indicated generally as “North palace”, are related to J and K. 2. The objects, which are related to a single building, and 3. The objects with an exact location inside a single room. The buildings were burnt completely and all small finds were found in this burnt layer dating to the destruction of the complex. Three inscribed objects are related to J, which are useful for the chronology: 1. Two Neo-Assyrian cuneiform tablets, burnt by the fire, which destroyed the building, and therefore found in the ash and charcoal layer of room J/2. These tablets date to the eponym “BANB” 258 in the year 676 BC. As Lehmann [1994: 109] assumes, and as also Ehelolf argued in the publication of the small finds 259 , the destruction dates possibly after this year. 2. A gold case with seven lines in the local Aramaic dialect 260 was found in the burnt fall in room Gk. The inscription dates to the king Kilamuwa (833-800 BC). This object 261 then dates to an earlier period; the inscription is dedicated to the god Rakib-El. 3. The inscribed orthostat found in situ on the side of the entrance to J, which dates also to king Kilamuwa and dates the construction, or reconstruction, of the building to the reign of this king. Moreover, in the same room as the tablets there is an inscribed necklace with a “Babylonian” inscription. Unfortunately, this inscription has never been reanalysed after its publication. In W. Andrae 1943: 97, Ehelolf dates it to the Esarhaddon or Assurbanipal's kingdom. In order to date the destruction of the palace it could be interesting to investigate this object deeper.

IIIF4. The north-western complex: progressive addition of buildings surrounding open areas This area was subjected to so many architectural changes, that they are difficult to group in phases. By means of joining the singular schemes together, the first thought 258

K. Radner 1999: 293, "second vizier and eponym of the year 676 (reign of Esarhaddon)" and references. 259 W. Andrae 1943a: 137. 260 For the definition of the language: H. Sader 1987:160, P. E. Dion 1974, J. Tropper 1993:49. 261 J. Tropper 1993:50.

37

Pucci – Ch. III Building periods at Zincirli

Table 7:

Diagram 14. Overview

I II

III

IV

V

Periods of the North Western area

BM, Q, M (stone Earlier phase with a single pav.), L1-6, Ab3, courtyard Q, M (stone The courtyard is enlarged and floor) + R, L1-6, J, two main buildings are HS, Ab3, later K constructed. Possibly the area was opened on the south. BM (repairs), Q L is enlarged; the southern (changed), M part is also renewed with a (mud bricks new building and a “portico”. floor), L1-8, HIII, The courtyard is enlarged to R, J, K, P, the south. BM (repairs), Q The courtyard is divided in (changed), M two sectors by the NHB and (mud bricks the “new” courtyard M is floor), L1-8, HIII, newly paved. R, J, K, P, NÖH, NWH, (Q, J, K, L, M)?, The construction of HIII, HIII, R, P, NÖH, whose facade does not look NWH, HII into the courtyard, is possibly related to a complete destruction of the northern area. In the southern part, some buildings were still in use.

IIIG. Conclusions: Building sequence of Zincirli Diagram 15 depicts a general sequence of the building periods at the site 262 (cf. Plates 2-4), at the same time, table 8 shows the periods in which the buildings were used. The distribution of the periods in each table is based on two types of events: 1. The structures were abandoned or destroyed and other buildings are built on top. 2. The spatial organisation changes. Open areas now have limits; the walls of a building are rebuilt and their entrances change. An analysis of table 8 resulted in two main observations: 1. Two of the four areas analysed have three building phases. 2. The north-western area has five periods. As the architectural changes in the first two phases and those in the second two periods represent an improvement and not a re-organisation, they were considered different steps of a single phase. The letters in bold print in IIIG3.Table 8: indicate the buildings which bear reliefs or inscriptions: the reliefs help to determine the relative chronological sequence, and the inscriptions help to establish an absolute timeframe 263 . 262

This diagram is based on the four final diagrams drawn above. 263 For an historical overview see IIID.

38

Pucci – Ch. III Building periods at Zincirli

area on the north-east was possibly rebuilt as a few remains of later structures testify, but the later massive construction of G destroyed, levelled and dismantled all possible structures. Nevertheless, the remains indicate small and not massive structures in this area, and all building activities were concentrated in the north-western area. Moreover, while imposing new building activities were pursued on the mound, the defensive system was not very improved. New buildings protruded outside the enclosure: building HIII was built directly above the mound wall (BM), and building P partially on it. Moreover, no significant repairs of the mound wall can be assigned to this period. Furthermore, the structures built in this period II are different to period I: the limiting of the area between the two gates (D and E), the grouping of buildings around one, and later two courtyards etc. Nevertheless, these changes seem to be an evolution of the previous building activity rather than an intrusion of foreign features.

IIIG1. Period I: the earliest layout of the town During the first period (Plate 2), both the mound wall and town wall were built and the southern gates of both enclosures were decorated. Thus, the town had already attained its greatest expanse. The building activity on the mound was concentrated in two areas: north-east and north-west. A massive building (HI) on a stone socle protruded from the landscape on the north-eastern area. This building was surrounded by a containment wall, and isolated from the rest of the acropolis. Building activity began in the north-western area. First, a long structure (Ab3) and a line of rooms (L) limited an area (courtyard M+R), to which gate Q led. Possibly other structures, under buildings J and K, limited this area to the north. Immediately after, two imposing buildings (J and K) were built in this area. They both faced a courtyard (M+R), which was limited by building Ab3 to the south, and at that time already surrounded by walls 264 . Thus, on the north-east of the acropolis there stood only one building, while on the north-west there was a building complex in front of a large courtyard. We can highlight two occurrences, which took place in this period. First, during this time the site's defensive system was at its most advanced; two concentric circular walls surrounded the lower town and an embankment with a superstructure with towers surrounded the mound. Moreover, a building (HI) reinforced the defence system with an eight-metre thick wall to the east, parallel to the mound wall. The construction of such a defensive structure suggests the existence of an insecure political situation. Second, the only architectural elements bearing a “decoration” were gates: A and D were the main entrances, first to the lower town, and then to the mound, while Q was the entrance to the isolated J-K area (for observations on the functions of the area, see Chapter IV). The inscriptions and reliefs of Kilamuwa at the entrance of J are part of the architectural changes, which took place at the same time as the construction of K 265 .

IIIG3. Period III: the layout after the destruction: reuse and rebuilding activities A new palace (Plate 4) was built on the highest part of the mound. Its layout was very similar to the one of the Assyrian palaces 266 . During this period, particular attention was given to the defence system: the casemates were built to improve the defences; the mound wall, BM, was reinforced with stones on the east and was newly built on the west, probably above the ruins of HIII. The northern part of the north western area, i.e. buildings J, K, L and HIII were burnt, plundered and abandoned, while the southern buildings, or at least P, were possibly reused. Reinforcement of the south-western corner of P, the later construction of floors and of HII above P1 all indicate that both the north-eastern and north-western areas were still in use.

IIIG2. Period II: the most advanced phase in architectural development at the site During period II (Plate 3), an intense building activity was pursued in the north-western area. First, a new building (H III) was added to the area in front of buildings J and K, the courtyard (M+R) became larger and a new southern limit (P, and P1) closed the area to the south. Subsequently, the courtyard was divided into two areas by construction of the long building NHB. At the same time, a new wall was built to the south, enclosing the space between gates D and E, in order to possibly limit the area where the statues of the lions were buried and rituals were still celebrated (see Ch.6). The 264

Ab3 on the south was possibly connected with the northsouth wall linked to gate Q. 265 Anyway these changes should not cover a long period, i.e. the inscription dates not the construction of J but possibly its renovation. The reuse of older orthostat/inscriptions, W. Orthmann 1971: 74, is not provable and does not have any parallel at the site.

266

Probably Assyrian architects were planning it: however, this problem remains open, it is difficult to establish a direct or an indirect intervention of Assyrian labour. No elements provide clues to maintain a direct intervention.

39

Pucci – Ch. III Building periods at Zincirli

Table 8:

North-East

Periods of use of the Buildings at Zincirli: I

BM, HI, IM

Excluding the period before HI (the structures under it), the first building period shows the sole presence of the imposing HI, dominating from its base. It is maintained that IM was built for HI, due to its connection with the lower part of BM.

II

WH, Ab2, structur es on HI, IM, BM

In this period the structures of the HI remained standing and its walls were reused. New smaller structures were built, BM partially fell into ruin and IM still stood. GK probably dates to this period.

North-west I

Earlier phase BM, Q, M (stone pav.), L1- unique square. 6, Ab3,

with

a

Q, M (stone floor) + R, L1-6, J, HS, Ab3, later K

The courtyard is enlarged and two main buildings are constructed. Possibly the area was opened on the south.

II BM (repairs), Q (changed), M (mud bricks floor), L1-8, HIII, R, J, K, P,

L is enlarged; the southern part is also renewed with a new building and a “portico”. The courtyard is enlarged to the south.

BM (repairs), Q (changed), M (mud bricks floor),L1-8, HIII, R, J, K, P, NÖH, NWH,

The courtyard is divided in two sectors by the NHB and the “new” courtyard M is newly paved.

II (Q, J, K, L, I M)?, HIII, R, P, NÖH, NWH, HII

Construction of HIII, whose front does not face the courtyard, is possibly related to a complete destruction of the northern area. In the southern part, some buildings were still in use.

III BM Then the area was levelled, G was repairs, built and BM repaired. IM was G, already standing and even more Stele, necessary, due to the higher level of IM the soil. Stele: Sph. IIIb, Z IV

South-east I

D, BM, IM, Ab1, later LG

II

D, BM, The area north of D is separated by a IM, E, wall and by another gate which replace QM Ab1. The ash layer starts to exist before the construction of E, and keeps growing during the existence of E. It is not related to the destruction of a building.

Q: Sph. II, Z II J: Kilamuwa inscription 833-800 BC HS: Sph. II, Z II HIII: Sph. IIIb, Z III-IV NÖH: Sph. IIIb, Z III-IV/ Bar-Rakib inscription 730-710 BC J: tablet 676 BC (destruction)

III D stele, BM, IM, E, QM, F.

The double entrance did not exist, but this area was divided into a lower part of the citadel and a higher one (north of IM). The north-south direction of building Ab1 suggests that the western area was empty for more than 30 metres to the north of D. The lions in the LG were probably buried at the end of this period, at the same time as the ash layer.

The space between IM and BM is occupied by casemates, the other buildings are probably still standing and in use. Repairs to BM and to D, as well as the Esarhaddon stele, can probably be assigned to this period.

D: Sph. II, Z II LG: lions after 825 BC D: stele: 671 BC

40

Pucci – Ch. III Building periods at Zincirli

Diagram 15. General view of the building activity at the site

41

Pucci – Ch. IV Functional Analysis of Architecture at Zincirli

elevations of the main floor of each building: this element gives a general idea of the three dimensional layout of the mound and consequently the difference in elevation.

Ch. IV. Functional Analysis of the Architecture at Zincirli

Table 9:

According to the chronological sequence of the buildings at the site 267 , it is now possible to outline the functions of the structures. The main goal of this chapter is to emphasise the spatial organisation on the acropolis during the three periods identified in the previous chapter. The analysis starts with the last building period and proceeds backwards in time. This order allows a complete analysis of the last layout of the structures, of their connections to the neighbouring buildings, and of the objects and installations found inside them. The architectural features of each room are listed in the catalogue; in this discussion, several recurring elements will show the features that provide us with clues as to the functions of the spaces. First, practical architectural features are taken into consideration; second, “formal” architectural elements and the fixed installations, which are clearly part of the layout of each building, are analysed according to the table of function provided in the method analysis. 268 Third, the objects in situ provide more information about the use of several spaces. Some elements concern all analysed structures: The buildings are all located in a walled area separated from the town and on a level slightly higher (11 m) than the lower town. Thus, the structures are deliberately separated from the external ones. The construction of the buildings on the acropolis required the use of stronger force, in order to get special building materials, to carry them to the town, to build structures by using special architectural techniques, which require a professional knowledge. The town is a new foundation, 269 and consequently the new founders freely choose the location of the buildings on the site 270 : it is a result of a choice. Therefore, the structures are planned, and they are not the result of a progressive addition of rooms. 271

Building period III

Build Building ing Phase II BM ●

Building Phase Locatio Elevation of the III n main floor ● All Various

F

●

NE

8.86, jar 5.3

G

●

NE

17

G1

●

NE

16.2-16.7

GK

●

NE

Grave pit

HII

●

NW

13

LH

●

NW

10.6

P

●

●

NW

9.2-10.1

R

●

●

NW

9.8-10

D

●

●

SE

4.8

IVA2. The defensive System of the Settlement during the Assyrian occupation: Defence and Propaganda During this period, the site was conquered and it became a provincial Assyrian centre. The acropolis was still in use and new structures were built on its top. We do not have clues as to whether the town wall (SM) was still in use, but there are no traces of repairs or architectural changes (structural or formal) 272 either in the town wall (SM) or in the three town gates (A, B and C, Plates 1 and 7). Thus, it seems probable that this outer defence was no longer in use. By contrast, the original mound wall (BM) and the gate D were repaired in the areas where they were damaged, so that the defensive system of the acropolis was exploited (Plate 6). Table 10:

IVA. Period III: the structures in use during the Assyrian Presence and their Functions

The Defensive System of the Mound

Build.

Size

Visibility

Quality

Room

BM

800

High

Medium

BM1

D

558

High

High

D/a

R. Size 25

D

558

High

High

D/b

32

D

558

High

High

D/c

10

The mound wall consists of a 5 m high rampart and a mud brick structure with two rows of stone foundation. The external façade was fortified with semicircular towers whose timber frame was inserted and connected to the timber frame of the wall itself. The ramparts, the towers and the width of the mud brick structure fulfil a defensive function. Possibly the top of the wall was completely accessible in order to better defend it. In this period, this structure was re-fortified in two spots: on the back of building G and on the back of the Hilani III (Plates 4, 5 and 10). On the backside of G, the mound wall was completely rebuilt and its level was raised using a building technique different from the earlier one; the

IVA1. The Structure in Use Table 9: shows the structures in use (Plate 4) during the last building period at the site. The table also points out the structures that were built in this last period, and those that were kept in use, but whose construction dates to the previous building period. The table also lists the 267

Cf. Chapter III Cf. Chapter II 269 S. Mazzoni 1994 270 This is not influenced, as it happens in the other two sites, by the presence of a river. 271 In German architectural theory this method is frequently called “agglutinierende”. Cf. R. Eichmann 1991 268

272

42

As it happened in the carved decoration of gate D.

Pucci – Ch. IV Functional Analysis of Architecture at Zincirli

wall was made completely of large undressed stones; by contrast, larger square stones limited the sides of the earlier wall, pebbles filled its width and a timber frame covered the top of the foundations 273 . We can therefore assume that the new builders used the same building materials 274 as their forerunners, but not the same procedure. This element may point to a different building tradition, or, more likely, to the fact that it is a repair and it was carried out in the easiest and more solid way. The only entrance to the mound was gate D (plate 4), whose general layout consisted of an internal passage room, two flanking towers and two sills. The building technique consisted of deep stone foundations, a stone socle and a mud brick superstructure (not preserved). The external passage had a closing door. The connections to the mound wall are almost lost: probably the rampart adjoined the towers, and the superstructure of the mound wall (lower elevation at 7.95 m) joined to the superstructure of the gate (lower elevation at 5.87). Imposing towers, narrow passages (4.8 m) and a gap in height between the lower town (2.5 m) and the acropolis satisfied the expected defensive function. After the gate was destroyed, supporting walls were leaned against the sidewalls of room D/a, covering in part the original orthostats limiting the socle, which were left in place as they had a structural containment function. The carvings on these orthostats were probably not visible anymore. The conquerors built a huge stele representing the Assyrian king Esarhaddon dominating defeated enemies with a long inscription describing its victories against Egypt 275 . They did not locate this stele in the same room where the orthostats were (D/a), but in the covered room D/b near the eastern wall. This room was not well lit and a stone wall filling the gap between the stele and the eastern wall of the room prevented circulation around this monument. Therefore, the inscription on the rear side of the stele was not meant to be read 276 , while more relevance was given to the front side which showed an oversized (the stele is 3.5 m high) Assyrian king flanked by his two sons, represented as the heirs to the throne of Assyria and Babylonia, taking prisoner two “not Assyrian” princes. The message was

probably clear for the locals and the inscription bore a symbolic meaning of power and might, as is usual in Assyrian inscriptions 277 . As the town wall was probably no longer in use, the mound wall became the border of the town. Thus, the Assyrians located this stele at the only entrance 278 to the city: whoever entered the town understood immediately that the Assyrians ruled it 279 . In addition, the Assyrians probably located the stele in a place that also had relevance for the inhabitants, not only because it was the only gate but also because it had a symbolic function 280 . Thus, in this period, gate D and the enceinte fulfilled two functions: Defence: the towers were massive and the rooms D/a and D/b were small passing areas, which sustaining walls and the stele narrowed from the original layout. Both mound wall and gate, the last one by keeping its primary passage purpose, performed a main defensive function 281 . Representation: the stele of the conquering Assyrian king shows the power of the Assyrians, who with the support of their gods dominated foreign countries. Table 11: Rm

D/a

D/b,c

D/b,c

273

However the top of the foundation of the repaired section of the wall is probably not preserved, so we cannot also exclude that this portion of the wall had a timber frame. 274 Stones were abundant in this area, probably from the quarries of Yesemek, Sikizlar and Gerçin. 275 A similar relief was found near Nahr el-Khelb with the same inscription. Esarhaddon placed two other similar steles at Til Barsip. For the similarities and differences with the Til Barsib steles cf. A. Green et A. Hausleiter 2001:162 and B.N. Porter 2001. The Assyrian king Esarhaddon with two conquered enemies and two sons is represented in all the three steles (Zincirli and Til Barsip). The inscriptions on the Zincirli stele and on the Nahr el-Khelb relief are about the campaign against Egypt (671 BC), while the inscription on the Til Barsip stele A tells about the battles against the Median and Arabic princes, stele B does not bear any inscription. For the Esarhaddon steles and reliefs in general cf. J. Börker-Klähn 1982, D. Morandi 1988: 114-115 and table B1 and P.A. Miglus 2000. 276 Contra B.N. Porter 2001: 388, who affirms that the inscription was probably read in public.

277

Objects related to gate D

Fig

Inv.

Abb. 167 T15, d-ad

53

T16,c

151

T16,d

269

T24,e

33

T25,a T25,m

1707 27

T25,n

14

T25,v

2

T28,g T28,k

v. tav

Descr.

Loc. I D

Sherds with incised geometric decoration Sherd with incised decoration Sherd with incised decoration clay jar

D, m17

25 7

stone tripod fragment of clay bowl Sherd of bowl Sherd of a bowl Handle Handle

T28,l

8

Handle

D

T32,b

17

D

T32,m T36,e

6 106

Spindle whirl Clay bead Clay figurine

D

Loc. II Beginning of excavations Under the orthostat with the warrior relief (SE) Under the foundations

D

Under the foundations

D D D

north 0.75, under the topsoil Ash layer North

D

Nearby

D

North

D D

North north, 1-2m deep north, 1-2 m deep

D D

Topsoil NE corner, 1m

J.M Russell. 1999 Cf. Plate 6 279 In addition, one stele at Til Barsip was located at a gate. 280 As a matter of fact, the Assyrian positioning the stele at this place that in the previous had periods an importance for the locals confirmed their role as conquerors. The location of steles in symbolic places such as temples seems to have been a common practice for Assyrian conquerors; e.g. Adad Nirari 3rd located a victory stele inside the temple at Tell al-Rimah. 281 Cf. R. Naumann 1971: 266 278

43

Pucci – Ch. IV Functional Analysis of Architecture at Zincirli

Considering that the area of the gate was visible from the top soil and that in later periods it was reused, few objects could be reliably identified as belonging to the structure: the incised sherds were used as building materials 282 and probably a stone bowl. These objects do not provide further elements in defining the function of the gate 283 .

possible to know when this reuse took place, but we can observe as follows. Only a small western portion of the building was kept in use, and new walls were built in the courtyard /h1. The entrance was located to the northwest, re-using the older rooms. Older materials were reused in the new building, which consisted of an entrance through room /Aa paved with pebbles, a small courtyard (new walls narrowed the original courtyard h2 and the paving dated probably to the previous period), and a rectangular structure which was probably composed of three rooms. No new floor is preserved, and only three steps leading down from the courtyard to one of the new rooms indicate their level and that the floor of the courtyard was reused. The new structures were built while several older walls 285 were still standing 286 , and the older floors were still visible. Quality and architectural techniques were very similar to the ones used in the original building: consequently, not only a short period passed but probably the same peoples, who did not need a large complex any more, continued to inhabit the structure. Probably, the entire complex was abandoned and those who remained at the site inhabited and modified pre-existing structures. Second phase: The complex (Plate 5b) contains several groups of rooms and archaeologists did not excavate the whole extent of the complex. Table 12: shows all the rooms belonging to the second phase of use and their functions.

IVA3. The new buildings in the north-eastern

Table 12:

Rm

Fig

Inv.

Descr.

D/a

T37,v

19

T39,b

1344

Roll seal

D

T4,u

16

T4,z

3

Spindle whirl Spindle whirl

D, k-17 D, k-17

T56,h T56,i

55 54

bronze shale bronze shale

D D

T6,c

49

D

T6,m T9,i

36a 388

stone bowl fragment stone bowl Baked clay, matrix for metal objects

(fragm.) Stamp seal with seated figure and table

Loc. I D

D D, l17

Loc. II deep Gate courtyard, at the orthostats height, near T34f collapse behind the building West from D/b At the foundations level ? Beginning of excavations

NW corner 1.5deep inside the collapsed material to the north

area: dwelling, reception and defence Once visitors entered the acropolis, they saw one large complex (Plate 5) dominating the landscape to the east: the palace G and its neighbouring structure G1. When this structure was built, the socle of the older HI was still standing and five metres of debris made this area the highest location on the hill. Probably the construction of G in this place was due in part to the higher level of the soil, to its position next to the mound wall 284 of the mound, and to its visibility from the surrounding area. Moreover, the stone foundation of the older Hilani I provided the builder with a solid substructure. The two letters G and G1 indicate two structures, which were over time joined in one complex. The builders made architectural changes in order both to do maintenance work on the building and adapt it to new functions. We can divide the period of use into two phases. In both phases the structure keep its original planning: the phases represent steps of a continuous use, which took place in this 3rd period. By contrast, a different use and spatial organisation distinguishes what is here called a “re-use phase”. During this re-use phase, (plate 5c) the northern side of the palace was architecturally reorganised. It is not

: Rooms in building G and G1

Bld

Ext

Rm

En t 3

Function 1

Function 2

G/a

Rm Ext 58

G

1671

Passage

1671

G/b

16

0

Storage

Representati on Services

G G

1671

G/c

105

3

Reception

G

1671

G/d

21

1

Services

G

1671

G/e

12

3

Passage

Representati on

G

1671

G/f

23

2

Passage

G

1671

G/g

19

0

Services

Storage

G

1671

G/h

50

2

Passage

Representati on

G

1671

G/h1

333

5

Passage

G

1671

G/i

49

1

Dwelling

G

1671

G/k

13.5

1

Services

G

1671

G/l

12

1

Services

G

1671

G/m

43

1

Dwelling

G

1671

G/n

17

1

Services

G

1671

G/n1

27

1

Dwelling

G

1671

G/n2

6.8

0

Services

G

1671

G/o

37.8

1

G

1671

G/p

60

2

G

1671

G/q

20

0

Passage

Representati on Passage Storage Services

Defence

282

Cf. pg. 20 The burial located in the area of the gate dated to an earlier period, as it was dug into the collapse of the structure. 284 It seems have been a common Assyrian feature to build official quarters against the enclosing walls. Cf. G. Bunnens 1996: 117-118. 283

285

The southern part of the eastern wall of G2 was no longer standing. 286 This is evident from the southern walls and from the paving of room /Aa.

44

Pucci – Ch. IV Functional Analysis of Architecture at Zincirli Bld

Ext

Rm G/st

Rm Ext 37

En t 2

G

1671

G1

924

Function 1 Storage

G/aa

43

2

Passage

G1

924

G/h2

372

4

G1

924

G/r

17

0

Services

G1

924

G/s

68

1

Reception

G1

924

G/t

17

0

Services

G1

924

G/u

7

0

Services

G1

924

G/v

25

0

Storage

G1

924

G/x

8

0

G1

924

G/y

45

0

G1

924

G/z

11

0

had a more representative function with two symmetric accesses built in stone. By contrast, the flow of two drains and a small door leading to a storage/service separated area of G suggest that the south-eastern side of the court had a service function. At the same time, G1/h2 underlines the separation between the group G1 and the group G: this space leads to the main entrance of G1 and at the same time to the service area of G, it is not a courtyard inside a palace rather more a circulating area outside two structures 288 . Room G1/aa was 43 m2 and paved with pebbles. This kind of floor was usually employed for roofless spaces so that the water could flow through the stones, but in this case several elements also suggest the existence of a roof: the size, the large access, the location near a courtyard indicates a vestibule or passage room connecting two areas. The preserved pebbled floor was on a higher level than both the thresholds of the room and it covers part of the northern one 289 , so that we can argue that an original floor lay under the pebble one and that the pebble covering dates to the phase of reuse. 290 The two opposite accesses in room G1/Aa are not on the same axis. They had door leaves so that the entrance to the north-western room was strictly controlled. These two rooms were added as a part of the western building, and particular attention was given to the western façade, which belonged both to the complex G1/r-z and to the sector, whose vestibule was G/aa. As this room bears a passing/vestibule function, the space to the north-west would be the main room: but this area was only partly excavated and the limits of this room are not known. G1/r-z: this complex was a brand new structure planned and built over a brief period of time. Three large rooms (G1/s, /v and /y) form the centre of the structure. The internal accesses are not preserved so that it is impossible to assess the internal circulation. The largest room (5.31 x 12.74) G1/s is the entering room. It seems possible that this room was also the reception room, because it was directly accessible from outside and its size could fulfil control and reception needs. Room G1/v has the same length as the other large room, but it was very narrow (2.4 m) in comparison to the other rooms, so that it can be interpreted as a distribution/deployment room. Its central location in the complex could fulfil the need of connecting an eastern reception area to a more private area represented by the room G1/y and by the surrounding smaller rooms G1/u, /w, /x and /z.

Function 2

Representati on

Room G1/aa connected the structure G1/r-z to the southeastern area G/a-g, and G1/h2 became a courtyard closed on three sides: as far as G1/h2 is preserved, the archaeological situation shows the absence of southern structures limiting the courtyard, so that it was completely open to the southern external area. Moreover, two drains coming from the south-eastern part of the complex flew into this court. The court was paved with mud bricks: this element probably dates to the original phase of the building as the northern drain was led above the mud bricks. It seems that the courtyard G1/h2 first fulfilled the need of circulation: it is easily accessible from the south and it was possible to reach the structure G1/r-z, the room G1/aa with its northern spaces, and the northern area of G from here. Analysing these three accesses, we can point out that: The access to G1/aa was large (4.50 m) and built with stone slabs. The floor of the courtyard in front of it was well preserved. A new wall adjoins the northern wall of G1/s-r, and the entrances to both G1/aa and G1/s are located in the middle of each façade. A 1.73 m wide entrance to G/Ab was located far to the north, near the mound wall; as Koldewey argued, it was located here because the drain running from the eastern area occupied the opening built during the earlier phase. Probably, the shift of the entrance was due to the construction of the large opening to G1/aa. Both openings would have been on an axis: a large “representative” entrance and an access to, as we will see later on, a service area. The 1.5 m wide entrance to G1/s was very narrow if we consider that it was the only access from the outside to the group of 9/8 287 rooms (G1/s-z). The archaeological state of preservation does not allow further hypotheses: the jambs are not preserved, the wall was missing near the preserved threshold, and in the reuse phase, some slabs, which could belong to a larger threshold, were employed in the near steps. Thus, the present documentation would suggest that G1/s-z was an area of low accessibility. It is possible to argue that the north-western part of G1/h2

288

Prof. J.G. Schmid brought to my attention the difference in the terminology concerning courtyards in German: “innenliegend” – internal – refers to internal courtyards that are a structural part of the building, are surrounded by similar rooms and their existence is needed for internal circulation. “Vorgelegt” – built in front – refers to the courtyard facing independent structures and consequently not necessary for the use of the building. In this case, the courtyard belongs to this second group. On this subject cf. P. Miglus 1999 289 Cf. R. Koldewey 1898: Fig. 60 290 R. Koldewey interpreted the pebble floor as a foundation for a clay floor but still the discrepancy between the material of the paving, its elevation and the structure of the room would suggest a later addition.

287

As the area was not completely excavated, Koldewey hypothesised a wall dividing the two rooms G1/w and G1/z for reasons of symmetry.

45

Pucci – Ch. IV Functional Analysis of Architecture at Zincirli

What kind of activities could be carried on in this complex? The preserved architectural features provide us with following elements: courtyard h2 connects this building only to the service area of the larger complex G, but it is still isolated from it and directly accessible from the outside. The general size of the building G1 (924 m2) and its location on the acropolis exclude private use. The only preserved entrance indicates that the access to the structure was controlled; at the same time the size of the entering room suggests that it has a receptive function. No objects or installations (except for the entering threshold) were preserved in this structure and considering the period of reuse of the structure, we can also argue that it was plundered. According to the few elements at our disposal, we can propose as follows: The structure G1 consists of two parts: an eastern reception area and a western private area connected by a corridor. The absence of services, of a drainage system or of fixed installations, such as it happens in contemporary structures, would exclude a dwelling function. The high quality of the architecture also tends to discount a storage function. Thus, it is possible to propose an administrative function: in rooms G1/u, /w-z the administration was carried on, and in room G1/s information was collected and instruction was given. Moreover, its location on the way to the service storage area of G would support this hypothesis: G1 administered and organised what entered or exited the main building G. G/Ab, /St, /h3: this area occupies the rear zone of G; it was accessible from the courtyard h2 and probably through a narrow passage from courtyard h1. The function of the room G/st such as storage area was confirmed by the presence of 29 pythoi found in situ. The location and the absence of formal architectural elements also confirm this function. All drains coming from the northern rooms of G flow open through courtyard h3, which entails a passage and service functions. Moreover, as h3 was located between G and the mound wall, it was probably used to better reach the top of the wall when a defence was needed. G/Ab was in this second phase used as an access to this service area and as from here the heart of G was reachable, possibly fulfilling a defensive function controlling the entrance of goods from h2, which had a large accessibility. Thus, the whole group fulfils the economical administration of the G. G/a-g and G/h-l: both groups of rooms present several similarities. Two connected large rooms, a “waterproof” room (toilet) and several smaller rooms. The group G/a-d has larger dimensions, many formal architectural elements and more rooms. Both groups are accessible from the courtyard h1 through a wide entrance with a central support and without a door. If we analyse the group G/a-d we can point out a large entering room G/a, completely open to the courtyard, with stone paved thresholds. In this room, several weapons were found (cf. Table 13: ). Due to their number, we can suppose that some weapons were kept in this room for a guardian who regulated and guarded the access to this group of rooms. Two accesses led to the largest room, a narrower one on the southern side and a larger one to the north directly visible from h1. Moreover, the smaller access in room G/c was recessed. Two installations were found in room

G/c: two parallel rails commonly interpreted as rails hosting wheeled fireplaces, and a flat stone between the two openings to G/a with a hole in the centre a surrounding raised rims open to the northern side as it was used to let a liquid flow to the soil 291 . These elements, the size of the room, the care given to the architectural features and fragments of bronze pieces of furniture indicate the functions of reception and representation for this room. From room G/c it was possible to enter in room G/f, which bears a passing function: from here both the services G/d and /e and the other small room G/g were accessible. Thus, G/a-c entailed public functions such as reception and representation while the rear rooms fulfilled private needs. In a smaller scale, the group G/h-l shows the same organisation. Probably, whoever received and was received in room G/i had a less importance than someone received in room G/c. There is no double entrance and the spaces are considerably smaller, but great effort was given to the paving of the thresholds in G/h and G/i, and a stone paving traced a route from h1, through room G/h into room G/i. The existence of a second storey cannot be proven due to the lack of a staircase. Therefore, Naumann 292 maintains that the layout of G/a-g and G/h-l reproduces a modified Hilani, as it lacks a second storey. G/m-p: these rooms open directly onto the courtyard and do not have formal elements similar to the previous two groups. Room G/p deserves particular focus: here the thresholds are paved with stones and this room has access both to the courtyard h1 and to the southern area. Therefore, in an attempt to reconstruct the “representative” access to the whole complex, we can argue that this room was the entering passage room to the main courtyard. Table 13: RM

Objects in building G

FIGURE

INV.

DESCRIPTION

T6,o

1052

T28,o

1366

Pivot stone stone cup Handle

1381

G/c

T5,d, T6,f T51,f ?

G/a

pg. 85

1643 –72

G/st

T28,e

1730

Stone bowl with three feet Furniture decoration in bronze 3 Knives, 2 large and 3 small spearheads, 5 sheet, 20 arrowheads, all in Iron Handle

G/h1

Abb. 127 T42,c

1762

Hammer

1771

Spearhead

291

1545

LOCATION II or Under the floor To the west. 1.5 deep Main room, with 1547 Anteroom

From a pithos in the storeroom On the baked bricks paving To the west

Parallels to this kind of installation are very common in neoAssyrian structures. Cf. E. Heinrich 1984: 17-18 292 R. Naumann 1971: 429

46

Pucci – Ch. IV Functional Analysis of Architecture at Zincirli RM

FIGURE

INV.

DESCRIPTION

T42,b

1772

Spearhead

T33,i

1797

Female statuette

T35,cd

1828

Abb. 162 Abb. 169

2203

Half-moon clay object Egyptian imported jar Bronze decoration

T15,c

2354

Cup fragment

T27,c

2373

Jar

T20,c

278

Sherds

233841

T23,c

360

Bowl

G/st

T29,d

3711

Pithos

G/st

T30,a

3712

Pithos

G/st

T30,c

3717

Pithos

T24,b

423

Sherd

T6,n

70

Pot base

were built separately. This feature does not occur in neoAssyrian large complexes 295 , where the groups of rooms surrounding a courtyard were built together and the courtyard itself was not the result of adding groups of rooms around an unroofed space but a main built element. As far as the functions are concerned, the structures facing h2 have a more administrative purpose, while those facing h1 bear representative and reception aims. It is important to emphasise the use of the architectural module of two parallel large rooms accessible from an external area: we find this module in the architecture of the whole site. The area of structures G and G1 was on a higher elevation in comparison to the southern expanse where the complex of F was found (cf. IVA1.Table 9: ). The difference in height (8 m) was contained by the older internal wall, which prevented the soil from sliding down. Therefore, complex F was related more to the entering area of D than to the upper “palace” G. F: Three pre-existing walls (Plate 6), the mound wall, the internal wall (IM) and the slanting wall (QM) surrounded the area where this structure was built. The complex of fourteen rooms adjoined the mound wall and was separated from the rest of the mound by another wall to the west, parallel to the mound wall. The built elements reproduce the layout of what is generally called casemates 296 . The term indicates structures used as military storerooms, well defended. The archaeological conditions of the area showed that this complex lacks two main architectural elements: the floors and the accesses. As mostly only the stone foundations are preserved and stone jambs or other formal elements were not employed in the construction of this structure, we do not have traces of the entrances. We may argue for the existence of an entrance to each room from the courtyard (F/r), or, as it seems more probable, that the rooms were accessible from the upper floor, and used as their layout suggests as storerooms and repairs during battles. The complex does not have any formal elements; new unities were added to the complex without taking into consideration an aesthetic function. Moreover the surrounding walls and the two towers which were used to control the area from the internal zone (the mound wall fulfilled the function of defending the area from the outside) defined a quarter that looked like a small fortress. The stone foundations are 4.20 m deep (in room F/m) and their bottom is, as usual, larger than their top. This depth can indicate that these units were very high and probably formed with the mound wall a fortified complex visible from the lower town. As shown in Table 14: , the rooms have all a similar size and features. Only room F/q differs from the other: the area of 327 m2 was probably unroofed as the width of the walls (1.75), the dimensions (15x22m) of the room and the absence of internal supports indicate. Koldewey has

LOCATION II To the west, 1m deep To the west To the west, 1m deep East of G Inside a pipe, near the old wall (s. s.59) In the drainage of the Esarhaddon palace To the east 4.5m deep with several fragments From the storeroom (G/st) From the storeroom From the storeroom

The remaining objects found in this building were not found in situ. The building underwent destruction with fire and a partial reuse of the structure. The arrowheads found in the western area probably date to the reuse phase, while, because the eastern part (G) was not reused, the weapons found in G/a belong to the second phase. First Phase: the original layout (Plate 5a) of the building differed only for two main elements from the layout of the second phase analysed above. First, G/st did not exist and the northern courtyard h/3 was larger and completely paved with baked bricks. This courtyard was used to let the drains flow and probably G/ab was used as a storeroom or service area. The changes that occurred in the second phase satisfied only the needs of a larger service area. Second, two rooms 293 G1/Aa and the northern one were added to G1 occupying the space between G1 and the mound wall. This change seems to follow the needs of more space to organise and administrate the complex. The building G1 probably had the same connections to the main complex and worked as a separate structure. Thus, G and G1 in both phases kept their original functions. The layout of the complex could be easily compared to what is generally understood as an Assyrian complex 294 : several groups of rooms surrounding a courtyard inside a uniform complex. By contrast, there is an evident difference: the absence of structural connections between the group of rooms shows that they

295

In neo-Assyrian dwelling units, the building procedure seems to have been different. 296 “Casa Matta”: a structure that looks like a house, but is not. In military architecture they are weapon deposits on frontlines. Cf. N. Lapp 1976, G. Leick 1988: casemates.

293

The area to the north was not investigated further. So we know only of the existence of two rooms, there could be more. 294 The word complex is here used for large structures usually defined as palaces. E. Heinrich 1984, P. Miglus 1999.

47

Pucci – Ch. IV Functional Analysis of Architecture at Zincirli

already interpreted this space as an enclosure for horses or a stable. Table 14:

Rooms in F: size and accesses

Figure Inventor y T17,ab 2062a 2062b T27,g, 274 287 h,i,l,m 273 272 512 T26,k 275

Description

Loc. I Location II

fragment of l-10 painted jar Jugs with k-11 handles

Houses south if G "Scherbenhaufe n", 4.5m deep

small bottle

k-11

"Scherbenhaufe n" To the south 4.5m deep To the south, 4.5m deep In the deep trench south of G From the deep trench to the south of G To the south

Room

Size

Accessibility

Quality

F/a

75

4B

Medium

F/b

41

4B

Medium

F/c

41

4B

Medium

T36,h

279

Clay bowl

G

F/d

42

4B

Medium

T25,u

286

43

4B

Medium

F/f

46

4B

Medium

T28,h

295

Dish (fragment) Sherd

G

F/e

G

F/g

40

4B

Medium

F/h

50

4B

Medium

T28,m 296

Can handle

G

F/i

50

4B

Medium

F/l

48

4B

Medium

T25,o

302

rim sherd

G

F/m

50

4B

Medium

T25,p

3150a

rim sherd

G

To the south

F/n

50

4F

Medium

T25,q

3150b

rim sherd

G

F/o

76

4F

Medium

T25,s

3150c

rim sherd

G

Spread to the south To the south

F/p

36

4

Medium

T19,a

3523

small bottle

F/q

327

4B

Medium

k-10 (?)

F/r

465

4B

Medium

T8,d

3540

F/s

42

4B

Medium

T32,n

376

Stone die k-10 (fragment) Clay seal (?) k-11

F/u

23

4B

Medium

T28,d

379

rim sherd

T25,r

380

Clay bowl

T33,f

384

T24,g

404

fragment of G a feminine statuette rim sherd HI

T24,f

405

rim sherd

HI

T32,a

487

Weights

k-10

Clay bowl

G

Thus, considering the elements at our disposal it is possible to argue for a military or storage function for this complex. The absence of floors 297 implies that none of the small finds attributed to this complex can be considered as in situ and provide information about its functions. In the external area in front of F, archaeologists dug a trench and found what they called a “Scherbenhaufen”: a deposit of numerous sherds. The locus of the published objects belonging to this “accumulation” is “k-10-12”, therefore in the area south of G, on the same level as F. Probably, this area was used as a trash pit for both areas G and F. (cf. above). However it should be pointed out here that this pit and the accumulation of objects and sherds might also not belong to the Iron Age but to an older occupation of the mound. 298 Table 15:

T25, k 504

G (?) To the south, 4.5m deep G To the south To the south To the south 4.5m deep To the south, 4.5m deep Sounding with many similar objects Spread to the south

IVA4. The re-use of the southern courtyard and the new Hilani in the North-western area This area (Plate 10) includes the zone where the building activity of the previous periods was concentrated. During this last period the northern part (buildings J, K, L, Q, and M) was left in ruins and used as a quarry for building materials, mainly square stones, which were reused in the structure G and G1. The southern area, the courtyard R in particular, was kept in use, as the new structures (LH) built inside it indicate. The backside of the HIII, which corresponded to the mound wall, was repaired and the defences at this point were strengthened. As the reconstruction of the mound wall took place when the HIII western wall was destroyed, and as part of the carved orthostats were smoothed and reused in the construction of building G, we can also argue that the HIII was ruined and was not used in this period. According to the general restore carried on the defensive system during this period, we can also claim that the place where P overcame the mound wall was fortified by constructing a tower, which reduced the size of room P/8.

Objects found in the area to the South of G

Figure Inventor Description Loc. I y T36,d 111 Clay animal G statuette T6,l 1342 basalt k-10 rectangular bowl with bull heads

collapse on the top of the mound 1m deep under the top

Location II To the south, 3m deep Top 1.5 deep

297

This was probably due to the fact that archaeologists at that time had some difficulties in identifying earthen floors. 298 G. Lehmann, who is analysing the pottery from Zincirli currently at the Vorderasiatische Museum in Berlin, affirms that most of the pottery date to the Early Bronze Age.

48

Pucci – Ch. IV Functional Analysis of Architecture at Zincirli

LH identifies the structures built in the courtyard R and probably accessible through P. These structures were located here probably because the remains of courtyard R offered a protection and isolation from the surrounding structures. The layout of these structures, which suffered frequent changes 299 , shows the absence of a general project. Units of two rooms were built alongside the others reusing stones from the surrounding destroyed structures. The building technique was not very developed: the structures did not have foundations and the walls were thin, not connected with each other and did not bear traces of plaster 300 . LH probably fulfilled a dwelling function, according to the internal division in units of two rooms and to the presence of toilets and services. The absence of a project and of formal architectural elements excludes a representative or reception function. No further installation points to a production area. Building P limited the courtyard to the south. The structure had a main function as boundary of the courtyard and as entrance to the LH area. There are no traces of repairs, which concerned the whole structure P; by contrast, only several spots were reinforced 301 . P was also heavily damaged during the previous period; several rooms were abandoned while others were separately reused (as P/4, which opens to the south, or P3 whose stone pillar was left in place). Moreover, the water drain running in north-south direction was built with reused stones, and it was built on top of the ruined walls of P: this drain let the water flow from courtyard R to the south. As it was covered only in room P/3 while it was left uncovered to the south, it seems probable that P/3 was the only room still in use 302 . Therefore, we stress that P was mainly used as a defence boundary for the structure built inside the courtyard R, and some rooms were reused probably also as dwelling or working areas. One large building was constructed during this phase: the HII. This structure was built above older structures and was not connected with the area described above. Its entrance faced the southern area, outside the courtyard R. Its elevation was at 13 m, as the preserved bases of the orthostats found in place prove. The elevation of the neighbouring structures in R, LH, was at 10.5 m; therefore, HII was accessible through a ramp or stairs from the external area. The floors in the building are not preserved and none of the objects can be certainly ascribed to the use of the structure. From the architectural point of view, the location on a higher place, the quality of the construction and the presence of orthostats 303 ,

which the mortises in the preserved bases confirm, point to a representative function. The internal arrangement of the rooms follows the module of a building with two “long” rooms and several smaller surrounding rooms. The main entrance room was from HII/a, as the preserved jamb bases testify. Table 16:

HII, rooms and size

Room

Size

Accessibility

Quality

HII/a

120

3A

High

HII/c

22

3F

High

HII/d

248

3E

High

HII/e

26

3F

High

HII/f

8

3F

High

HII/g

50

3F

High

HII/h

21

3F

High

Table 16: shows the size and the accessibility of each room in the building. The elevation of the floors in this structure is based on the level of the two jamb bases found between room HII/a and /c and between room HII/a and the external area. According to the architectural features, both rooms HII/a and /d fulfilled representation and reception functions. In addition, room HII/a had also a passage function. Room HII/c, which was directly accessible from the entering room, can be interpreted due to its location, size and the position of the door, as a staircase to the roof or to an upper floor. The external eastern area shows an interesting architectural element: a small wall was added 304 to the structure. The technique used to build this wall is similar to the one used for the building. It therefore does not seem possible that this addition belongs to a later reuse of the structure 305 , but rather to a change in the use of the structure. The added wall stops in line with the western side of the tower B. The limited space can be interpreted in three different ways: 1. this area remains external and not connected to the building and fulfilled the need of a limited external area: the structure had in this way two façades (the southern and eastern sides), which bastions marked. 2. The structure is not a wall but an installation, as a base. 3. This area communicated with room HII/e and represented the modification of the main entrance, which changed completely the layout of the structure. The structure became accessible from the shortest side, room HII/e became a vestibule, while HII/d was still the main room but accessible from the short wall. 306 Koldewey maintained this third interpretation, but no

299

New walls divided the rooms or new rooms were frequently added to a pre-existing structure. Archaeologists have analysed these changes and pointed out three building phases. Cf. R. Jacoby 1911: 320 300 The faces of the eastern wall of P and of HII were plastered: probably they were the eastern limit of one unit in LH. 301 The tower to the west, or the wall between HII and P, for instance, were both repaired and strengthened. 302 The wall rebuilt above the drain, not in line with the “original” wall and plastered only on the face to room P/3 represents a small repair carried out to keep the room in use. 303 An orthostat with sphinx was found near the building and

archaeologists noticed that its dimensions could fit with the dimension of the jamb. Cf. R. Koldewey 1898: fig. 62, pg. 153; F. von Luschan 1911: fig. 240, pg. 331 304 The stone walls are not connected and a gap exists between the building and this wall. 305 As it is probable since the walls adjoined the western external wall of HII in courtyard R 306 As Koldewey maintains, cf. further on

49

Pucci – Ch. IV Functional Analysis of Architecture at Zincirli

other element 307 except this installation can support this idea. Von Luschan supported the second hypothesis. As von Luschan and Puchstein were the first archaeologists at the site (1883) they found a basalt base with two carved backsides 308 of horses and several fragments of a “god statue” 309 in an area corresponding to the rooms HII/e and HII/east. Two heads of horses found spread above the mound in 1888 were put in relation to this base and to the HII. All elements point to a reconstruction of a god statue standing on a base flanked by horses. Luschan and Koldewey did not agree about the location of the hypothesised statue: Koldewey stressed that it was probably kept in room HII/e and he investigated the foundations looking for a floor or a platform base, which could support this huge statue. Luschan proposed that it was probably located outside the building above the stone installation. This hypothesis could establish a parallel with the building J and the statue on the base with lions which also stand besides the building. By contrast, the archaeological evidence does not provide us with elements that could establish a clear connection with HII. Moreover the heads of the horses were dated to the 8th century, thus to a period older than the time of construction of the HII. In conclusion, we may stress a connection between a standing statue above a base with horses and the HII area in the second building period, but at the same time exclude a relationship to building HII. Thus, we may affirm that this stone installation was probably a formal element 310 , which gave a symmetrical façade to the sidewall of the building and testified to a particular focus on the appearance of the structure. To these considerations, we can add the information provided by the objects found in the HII area.

RM

Table 17: RM

HII, Objects and Installations. Figure T27,b T18,h

Inv. 1329 2497

T60,k T42,a

2584 3005

T24,m

3016

Desc. Globular jar upper part of a Cypriot ware bone spatula bronze tutulus with eyelet Cup

T23,m+o

3019 3018 3020

stone cube with

T2,k

Loc. II on the top Near the foundations Collapse Collapse

Figure

Inv.

Desc. one holes Greek vase black burnished

T22,a, T27a

3031

T2,h

3033

T7,h

3040

T23,b

3055

T17,c

3115

T2,l T20,a

3120 3656

HII/ash

T34,de

2986

HII/ash

T44,f

2987

HII/ash

T38,g

3011

HII/ash

T3,i

3024

HII/ash

T60, ak

3047

Sherd painted in white, black and red Stone tool Sherd with goat relief head of a statuette representing a god circular silver pendent with crowned figure, half moon, seven stars god stamp seal with winged and horned lion, rosettes basalt stone with rounded head, tool bone spatula

HII/ash

T3,k

3067

basalt rub stone

HII/ash

T3,l

3068

basalt rub stone

HII/ash

T36,n

3152

clay boat model

HII/ash

T44, m

2989

Silver half moon

basalt cube with two opposite drill holes rounded stone with hole cup with stand

Loc. II East, collapse. 1.5m deep to the east, collapse To the east 1.8m deep To the east, 1m deep Collapse Collapse to the west, collapse Ash layer in front of the building Ash layer in front of the building Ash layer in front of the building Ash layer in front of the building Ash layer in front of the building Ash layer in front of the building Ash layer in front of the building Ash layer in front of the building Ash layer in front of the building

Table 17: shows all small finds collected in the HII area. Obviously, as the floors were not preserved, none of the objects were found in situ and consequently they are not part of its internal arrangement. The objects are mainly located at three find spots (the collapse of the HII walls, the southern area, which is characterised by a thick ash layer and the eastern area in general). Among these three findspots, archaeologists named the southern one as an ash area (in plan indicated as HII/ash) “Opfershutt” (sacrifice rubble), where six objects were found. Probably the thick ash layer and many objects found in this area gave the archaeologists the impression that sacrifices might have been celebrated in this area 311 . The objects, found here, have either a practical function (stone tools) or a formal function (“votive” finds as the head of the small statue, a boat model etc.). According to these elements and to the fact that lots of ash was found

collapse. (Lehmann 8) Collapse Collapse

307

Considering that the floor was 2.5 meters higher than the surrounding soil, we had expected traces of stairs, or sill or jambs in room /e. Moreover a similar change in the layout would have caused structural problems to the stability of the building. 308 Cf. F. von Luschan 1911: Fig. 243-44, Pl. 9 309 F. von Luschan affirms that the fragments they found (which were never published) belonged to a god statue, probably because it was assumed that it stood above animals. Actually, the fragments were part of the lower part of a skirt. Idem 1911: 335 310 Also on the entrance of TP at Halaf, a square bastion was added to the structure to give symmetry to the entrance. Cf. VG1.

311

This external area was not further investigated because the level of the top soil was too high.

50

Pucci – Ch. IV Functional Analysis of Architecture at Zincirli

there, we can only hypothesise that this area may have had non-practical functions. The connections of this “findspot” to building HII are very weak, because we have neither the external floor to which the findspot belongs, nor the elevation of the layer. However, even considering that there is no archaeological evidence to support a functional analysis of this corner of the building, several elements (the fragments of the carved base and the horse’s heads, the platform/bastion on the eastern side of HII and the large amount of ash) allow two very tempting interpretations: 1. they are the remains of a ritual area either outside the building 312 or under the HII 313 . 2. They are the filling of a trash pit or just discarded materials outside the north-western complex. In conclusion, the western area of P, LH and the ruins of the other buildings to the south were reused with two aims: defence and dwelling. The newly built HII had representative functions and was independent (both structurally and visually) from the adjoining structures. The function of the area in front of the Hilani II remains uncertain.

completely different from what had been seen on this mound before: a complex and not different buildings grouped around an unroofed space. This dichotomy was also evident at the entrance to the mound: a gate (D) with representations of the Assyrian ruling class in a place where usually no figures were kept, i.e. inside the gate chamber. The general impression of the spatial organisation on the mound probably reflected political reality: it was an Assyrian, foreign, large administrative seat, not integrated in the organisation of the mound but clearly visible also from the lower town and a traditional building showing what remained of the old ruling class. Table 18:

Location Administra tive Dwelling Reception Religious God’s house Religious (rite) Production Representa tion Facilities Services Storage Passage Defence

IVA5. The Citadel during the third building Period: Distribution of the Functions Two areas of the mound were used and occupied during this period (Plate 4): to the north-west, the HII with reception and representative functions was immediately visible once visitors entered the acropolis and was accessible directly from the south. Several structures occupied the eastern section of the acropolis: F had primarily a defensive function and its layout shows evident protective architectural features so that the complex looked like a small fortress inside the acropolis. The buildings G and G1 occupied the highest point of the mound. Once they had entered the acropolis, people first faced the massive structure of HII to the west, built on a raised stone foundation, hiding the smaller dwelling units behind it. Far to the east, but on the highest point of the mound, the large complex of G and G1 was visible: much larger than higher and considerably less accessible. To the west the building HII opened its entrance (possibly with a portico) to an external area. To the east G and G1 were closed structures arranged around internal courtyards not visible from outside. These two poles fulfilled in part different purposes: the HII to the west seem to have had representative and reception functions. It was eventually a fortified seat of a community representative just next to small units. To the east, the large complex of G had representative and reception 314 rooms, but it was mainly an articulated organism and independent from its surroundings with storerooms, facilities, services, administrative wing and barracks (F) on a lower level. Moreover, this last building was

Functions of the buildings during the third building period BM All

D SE

F NE

G NE

G1 NE ●

●? ●

● ●

● ● ● ●

●

Location Administrative Dwelling Reception Religious God’s house Religious (rite) Production Representation Facilities Services Storage Passage Defence

● ●

● HII NW

LH NW

●

● ●

P NW

R NW

●

● ● ●

●

●

Several dwelling structures were built inside the courtyard R, because it was an enclosed and betterprotected space; moreover, the barracks might have hosted soldiers. According to this spatial organisation, it seems that there was not a stark separation between a dwelling area and a representative directive area, i.e. a strong functional and symbolic separation between the acropolis and the lower town. The space on the acropolis was starkly divided into independent well-defended areas. This interpretation fits with the thesis, stressed above 315 ,

312

As von Luschan maintains. Cf. above. This last interpretation seems more probable due to the dating of the heads. 314 The reception rooms in G are internal rooms of a large complex and they were not easily accessible. Moreover, their dimensions (approximately 95 m2) are considerably smaller than the reception rooms in HII (245 m2). 313

315

This statement does not exclude that the lower town was partially inhabited.

51

Pucci – Ch. IV Functional Analysis of Architecture at Zincirli

According to archaeological reports, nothing was found in the filling (though it would be interesting to know if mud brick collapse was found here). A floor was found between the walls and both faces of the walls are similar. If they wanted to build two curtains along an earth rampart they should have built the earth rampart first, then the curtains, which would not have had square blocks in the internal faces and would have been slightly leaning on the rampart itself. That is not the case of Zincirli: both walls seem to have been built in order to stand alone 316 . This element would provide the defenders of the town with a covered passage all along the walls and several spaces to store weapons and soldiers. It was thus covered with a wooden roof, accessible from the areas of the gates and from the top, from where the towers were also accessible. In conclusion, this space performed mainly a defensive function. Two (B and C) of the three gates (Plate 7) have very similar architectural features (see Table 20: ). Their general size (ca. 800 m2) and the internal space divisions are comparable with each other: a small access courtyard (C/1 and B/1) flanked by towers, a large internal courtyard (C/2 and B/2) and a passing room. The courtyards also probably had a defensive function because they could contain and facilitate the organisation of the defensive troops. Moreover, doors closed the two external openings (3.5 m wide), which were not completely on an axis and could accommodate four/five soldiers at once, so that the inhabitants could better control the entrance of foreigners. The passing room, which follows the usual layout of the town gates, would allow many soldiers to hide themselves in the darkness and attack those who were entering from the second opening. Obviously, during peaceful moments this room was large enough to allow the guards to check the chariots 317 carrying goods and the visitors, entering the lower town. Plain orthostats, standing on bases and fixed to the stone base of the walls with a timber frame, protected and contained the walls at both gates, the thresholds were made of large slabs: these formal features may fulfil a representative function of power. These gates were on opposite sides of the lower town from the only entrance to the acropolis, thus, they were possibly functional for specific quarters of the lower town but they were not the main access. Thus, the western and eastern gates fulfilled primarily a defensive function and at the same time a representative function.

that the lower town was not defended by walls during this last period. Thus, at the end of its occupation in the first half of the Iron Age Zincirli was more a fortified Assyrian outpost than a country-town.

IVB. Period II: the reassessment of the buildings during the independent period IVB1. The Structure in Use during the Second Building Period This period includes the building activity carried out after a partial destruction of the site, when locals rearranged their town with local rulers in a time during which the external political situation stabilise due to an agreement with the Assyrian Empire (Plate 3). The building activity concentrated in the southern, the north-western and the north-eastern areas. The destruction of the earlier buildings involved only few structures and several others were kept in use (as Table 19: and Plate 3 show, for A, B, C and SM cf. Plates 1 and 7). Table 19:

Buildings during period II:

Build. Building Phase I Building Phase II Location Elev.floor BM

●

●

all

Various

A

●

●

ext

0

B

●

●

ext.

1.9

C

●

●

ext.

1.7

SM

●

●

ext.

Ab2

●

NE

16.5 (f)

WH

●

NE

15.2

HIII

●

NW

10.5

J

●

●

NW

9.8

K

●

●

NW

10

L

●

●

NW

9

M

●

NW

9.5

NÖH

●

NW

10.5

NWH

●

NW

10.1

P

●

NW

9.2-10.1

R

●

NW

9.8-10

●

SE

4.8

●

SE

8

●

SE

4-5.5

●

SE

8.8

D

●

E LG QM

●

Table 20:

IVB2. The External Defence of the Lower Town On the lowest level of the mound, we find the external defensive system: three gates A, B and C led the access to the town (Plates 1 and 7). This defensive system was kept in use from the earlier period without significant changes in the organization and in the layout of the gates. The town enceinte SM (Plate 1) consisted of two parallel walls leaving an internal space. In terms of a functional analysis, the question of whether this space was filled or left empty is very important.

Size and elevations of the external area

Bld

Size

Visibility

Quality

Room

A A A

1512 1512 1512

Very high Very high Very high

High High High

A/1 A/2 A/3

316

Room Size 26 110 368

Prof. David Schloen is currently excavating at Zincirli and in 2006 investigated parts of the town wall. I thank him for providing me with some photos of the sections of the walls. 317 Traces of chariots wheels were found on the internal threshold of gate C.

52

Pucci – Ch. IV Functional Analysis of Architecture at Zincirli Bld

Size

Visibility

Quality

Room

A B B B C C C SM

1512 787 787 787 800 800 800 720 (d)

Very high High High High High High High Very high

High High High High High High High High

A/4 B/1 B/2 B/3 C/1 C/2 C/3 SM/gap

the town) and wildness 319 (equal to the wild nature outside the town). The presence of fantastical animals and lions on the passages usually has an apotropaic meaning: wild and fantastical figures were domesticated and they defended the town. 320 Moreover, they could symbolise legitimacy when the hunter/soldier is identified with the king, who guarantees the defence of the town 321 . In this case, it is not possible to identify the soldier or the hunter with the king or a particular person; it seems that the scene has a general symbolic meaning of overcoming of the wildness. Moreover, two facing men apparently drinking suggest a ceremonial scene, recalling the funerary rituals 322 of eating and drinking. A key feature should be noted: none of the human figures carved on these orthostats can be identified with a single person such as a specific king. The represented scenes are secular in the sense that they represent themes such as the “war”, the “hunt”, the “funerary meal” in general, and not a particular war, hunt or specific funerary practice. Royal propaganda and celebration of the king himself does not occur in the decoration of gates as it does in Assyrian palaces.

Room Size 127 41 163 104 40 180 105 3548

In gate A, a passing internal room (A/4) characterises the internal passage. This room is, as in both gates, a little larger than 100 m2. On the other hand, two main architectural elements characterise this entrance: another roofed external room (C/2) and a courtyard, which is twice large than the other courtyards. The defensive function cannot explain this change. We can suppose that, as this gate was the main entrance leading to the town on an axis with the access to the acropolis, a gate with six towers was not only better defended but also more impressive and visible. The long entering slightly sloping axis (57 m) could at the same time fulfil several functions: 1. Passage: the size of the gate and its location on the same direction as the only entrance to the acropolis (D), suggest that it was the main access to the town. 2. Defence, as the enemies could be trapped in the courtyard under the fire of the defenders above the town walls and the towers. 3. Representational, as the six towers, and a distance of 60 metres only to enter the town emphasise the power, the “inaccessibility” of the town itself, and the division between the inhabitants of the town and the others, the foreigners and the external world. 4. The size (360 m2) of the internal courtyard (A/3) suggests a fourth function: this room is bounded to the north and to the south by four towers. Moreover the northern frame was “decorated” by carved orthostats and the jambs of its door represented lions. The represented scenes were visible only from this courtyard, and the orthostats, situated at the external corners of this frame and not visible due to the vicinity at this point of the external wall, do not bear any reliefs. Moreover, as mentioned above, these orthostats were a structural part of the gate and thus not added at a later time. The limited space in front of these orthostats (A/3) was part of the original plan, thus these carved orthostats should have fulfilled a function related to this external space. This feature is not related to the link between gate and carved orthostats 318 but to the location of these carved orthostats inside a gate where they were visible not from the outside but only from the internal courtyard. If we consider the iconography of the carvings (cf. Table 21: ), it is possible to outline three kinds of scenes: war/hunt, ceremony and the underworld. The scenes of hunt and war were both interpreted as examples of the power of the town and of its rulers against the untamed external world (both enemies and wild animals), and they fit within a location which physically marks the border between civilisation (equal to

319

S. Mazzoni 1997. This tradition is well attested in the Hittite Empire (Hattusha and Alaça Höyük) and in Syria during the Bronze Age. W. Orthmann 1971: 344-345, 308-309, 421-22, 426-427; J. Voos 1983. 321 A. Schnapp 1997. 322 D. Bonatz 2000. 320

318

Several scholars have investigated and interpreted the connection of orthostats and statues with city gates and its meaning: S. Mazzoni 1987; eadem 2000; eadem 2001; J. Voos 1983; idem 1988; D. Ussishkin 1989; D. Bonatz 2000.

53

Pucci – Ch. IV Functional Analysis of Architecture at Zincirli

Table 21:

a. They wanted to emphasise the space between the external and internal gates as the border between the wild external area and the civilized town. b. The slabs have a religious meaning and are functional to the space, which consequently entails ceremonial functions. Thus, it is possible to conclude as follows: The gate A has a different layout because is the main gate of the town, therefore it should be more imposing and should be able to contain a large number of soldiers inside its structure and show the power of the town and of the ruling house. The architectural features therefore fulfil this defensive and representative function. However, this structure, and its courtyard in particular, also bore two other kinds of functions. 1. It had a symbolic function: the gate is intended as border and, consequently, it is decorated with scenes signifying the concept of limit between two worlds (civilisation/wildness, death/life, us/the enemies). 2. It had a religious function: rituals were celebrated inside this structure. The courtyard could contain a large number of people. Its formal architectural elements, like the pebbled floor or the carved orthostats, imply that the space was not planned to be used only for military reasons, since the scenes represented on the orthostats did not glorify secular institutions (like the king) or private persons but religious concepts and gods. These observations brings us to following conclusion: during this period the lower town was inhabited and while the western and eastern gates (C and B) had passage, defensive and representational functions, while the southern gate also fulfilled religious functions.

Represented scenes in room A/3

IVB3. The Open Space limited by the Citadel Gates: Passage, Defence and Religion The mound wall and the only entrance to the acropolis D were kept in use from the earlier period (Plate 8). While the mound wall BM had the same features as the abovedescribed period and remained more or less the same, the gate bore elements that were changed in the next period. It is therefore necessary to outline the functions that it fulfilled during this time. The structure of the gate was very different from the external gates: the eastern and western walls of D were massive and protruding on the internal side 323 . These elements suggest on the one side a defensive function, as is usual for the two protruding towers. However, the two massive walls inside the mound also refer to a representational function of power and might: this structure, located on a higher position than the lower town, accessible through a sloping street, looked more like a small fortress than an access. Particular attention was given to this structure: the floor was pebbled and the thresholds consisted of square slabs, the gate had an unearthed drainage system 324 , and the sides of the walls

Therefore: 1. The architects intentionally built the courtyard A/3 inside the gate at a size two times larger than the other gates, because: a. They needed a larger area for military reasons. b. They wanted to emphasise the main entrance to the town with imposing dimensions. d. They needed a large space to contain a large amount of people. 2. The builders decorated the northern façade of this room with carved orthostats, because:

323

We cannot exclude the existence of staircases leading to the top of the walls along the width of the walls. 324 The drainage in Gate A in the town wall ran through the wall and had not been planned at the beginning of the construction.

54

Pucci – Ch. IV Functional Analysis of Architecture at Zincirli

were covered with square orthostats standing on stone bases. Two rooms were inside this building: an external room (D/a) flanked by the towers, and a passing covered room (D/b). The internal space limited by the northern façade of the building was not properly a room 325 but it was considered part of the square in front of the gate. The two rooms (D/a and D/b) have similar dimensions and similar formal architectural features (floor, orthostats, drainage system). However, they differed in two features: the orthostats in D/a are carved while those in D/b are plain, and D/b is not easy accessible while D/a lacked a southern boundary and was completely open to the lower town. D/b was covered and therefore dark, while D/a was unroofed and clear. The darkness and the absence of carvings on the orthostats in D/b are causally connected: images would have not been visible both because the room was not lit and because it was not easily accessible. Nevertheless, at the same time this statement implies that all structures that bear images should be visible. In this case, the images were meant to have both a general (all those who could enter the town) and a specific (those who wanted to enter the mound) public. Thus the represented scenes should have had a meaning in relation to the place in which they were located. By analysing the scenes (cf. Table 22: ) represented on the sidewalls of room D/a, we can make the following observations. Three main subjects were represented: the contrasts 326 between nature and town (hunt) and enemy and town (war), religious rituals and fantastical animals. In this sense, the choice of religious subjects in connection with hunt and war could emphasise the concept that the hunt or the war are successful because the religious rituals are satisfied and therefore the “gods are with us”. At the same time, it is very interesting that none of the victorious figures, as it happens in the decoration of A, can be identified with the figure of the king in general or with a specific king, while the gods bear specific identifying attributes. Thus it is possible to maintain that in this location attention was focused on the religious elements and that the king or his family, as a ruling class, did not have a specific place 327 . Table 22:

Objects Scene Description god with axe, Weather sward and god

Scene

Two E carve d ortho stats

Music, drinking

Two E ortho stats Four E ortho stats

two Two figures orthost playing ats and dancin g

one seated man with instrument and a standing one with something in the hands, above a bird dears Two dears climbi orthost climbing a ng a ats tree tree gods in Carved Seated process orthost goddess ion at

E

gods in Two process carved ion orthost at

E

gods in Carved process orthost ion at

Door N gate

Three N Carve d Ortho stat Six N ortho stats

passag e from to room D/b

Functi on Religio us

325

In the database the small area limited by the jambs is marked D/c. 326 See above pg. 54 327 The king is probably represented on the gates as a god and not as a specific person. Therefore, the statues on the gates are interpreted as representations of the ancestors, rather than as a representation of the person ruling the town at that time. The representation of a specific king as a king and not as an ancestor appears in a later period at Karkamish for instance, where there are orthostats representing the king on the Royal buttress (D. G. Hogarth et L. Woolley 1914: pl. B7 and B8; R. D. Barnett et L. Woolley 1952: pl. 43a) that were added to the gate structure, but were not part of the original program. Cf. D. Bonatz 2000, J. Voos 1983, idem 1985, idem 1988, S. Mazzoni 1997.

55

Functi on (repres entatio n of God) Religio us (Rite)

Dears Religio climbing us? a life tree Goddess

Religio us (repres entatio n of god goddess with Processio Religio mirror, n us soldier god (repres entatio n of god Winged Atlantis Religio genius in genius us Atlantis position two walking Lions lions

Four orthost ats flankin g the passag e man Three Man hunting Hunt huntin Carved two dears g two Orthost dears at

Proces sion of men, animal s and gods N Proces sion of men, animal s and gods N Proces sion of men, animal s and gods Two Ext. archer Ortho and stats rider on a chariot with a defeate d enemy carve W Criofor d os ortho

Carved scenes in room D/a

Instal Side Descri Object lation ption Four E gods in Carved ortho process orthost

Instal Side Descri Object Objects lation ption Description stats ion at fire

Civilis ation/ nature

Living demons brought by humans (god?) Two walking men Warrior orthost with sward ats and axes

Civilis ation/ nature

Carved Winged orthost ramping at gryphon

Fantast ic Animal s

Three a sphinx and orthost a gryphon are ats brought by two men

Two carved orthost ats

Demon

Rider rides War horses on a naked and blessed man. The archer is ready to shoot

Carved Person orthost carrying at lamb

Offer a

War

War

Religio us (rite)

Pucci – Ch. IV Functional Analysis of Architecture at Zincirli Instal Side Descri Object Objects lation ption Description stat

Scene

Functi on

carve W d ortho stat

Banquet

Religio us (rite)

Two W carve d ortho stats Two W carve d ortho stats

banque Carved a man and a t scene orthost woman sit at and eat in front of a table Proces Carved one man with sion orthost sward and with at rod holds the prisone prisoner's r hairs Proces Carved walking man sion orthost with sward with at and rod prisone r

Table 23:

Objects in LG

Room

Figure Inven Description tory

Loc Location II atio nI LG/ash pg. 117 Egyptian jar E Ash layer in front of E LG/squ l-15 ------Near the QM are tower LG/ash T33,g 1003 Clay E Ash layer, 4m Statuette deep "am E" LG/ash T33,a 1005a Clay E Ash layer, 4m Feminine deep "am E" Statuette LG/ash T33,m 1122 Clay Head of E Ash layer, "beim Statuette E" LG/ash T33,d 1124 Clay E Ash layer "am E" Statuette LG/ash T36,b 1127 Clay Horse E Near the third lion Statuette LG 1 T36,g 1129 Clay animal E Near the third lion Statuette LG 1 T60,u 1133 Bone E Under the fifth Spatula lion LG 1 =T2,d 1191 Stone with E Near the third lion = hole 1192 LG/ash T25,t 1229 Bowl with E 4m deep, Ash button layer, "am E" LG/ash T25,w 1287 Bowl E 4.5m deep in the ash layer, "am E" LG/squ T60,b 1360 Bone QM Near the are Spatula semicircular tower, 1.5m deep LG/squ T60,i 1404 Bone QM Near the are Spatula semicircular tower, 2m deep LG/squ T60, 1452 Bone QM In front of the are aq Spatula eastern side LG/squ T60,h 1455 Bone QM In front of the are Spatula building, eastern side, 2m deep as also T60,m LG/squ T60, al 1456c Bone QM Eastern side, 2m are Spatula deep. As also T60,h, m, w, x LG/ash Abb. 1567 Painted jar E 3m deep, Ash 34 layer, "beim E" LG/ash T2,c 1605 Stone with E Ash layer "beim hole E" LG/ash T3,a 1673 Carved stone E Ash layer, "neben with hole E" LG/ash T33,h 1717 Statuette E Ash layer "beim E" LG/ash T60,r 1756 Bone E High Ash layer Spatula LG/ash T24,h 2061 Bowl E Ash layer north of the gate LG/squ T44,x 2602 Rounded E with 11 fragments are leaves of (428gr) and some silver silver (7.165kg) outside QM near E LG/squ T44,o- 3941 Silver E "Hacksilberfund": are ai 3975 QM 7.165 kg of Silver. 3943 fragments exte All 3944 found rnal were 3945 side together inside a 3946 pot (description of 3947 T58.a-s) outside 3948 QM near E. 3950 3951 3963 3952 ...

Prisoner's War offer

Processio War n

The themes represented here are somewhat similar to those carved in gate A: war, hunt, religious rituals and god representations. Again, here in D, these scenes are connected to an area that is easily accessible and without roof. If we compare the covered passing room D/b with the passing rooms (A/4, B/3 and C/3) of the external gates, we will find many similarities; like a narrow rectangular room, and a stone socle. The main difference is the size: D/b is half the size of the other passing rooms on the town wall, probably due to the lower amount of traffic (chariots?) across this gate. Consequently, it is possible to outline the functions of the gate during this period as follows: There are the obvious passage function, a representational function as this is the only access to the mound, and also a religious function. In order to define better this religious function, it is assumed that it was not the seat, the house of a god; it probably fulfilled a cultic purpose at specific times. During this period, a second internal mound wall (QM) was built so that one who entered the acropolis had to pass through a second gate (E). The space between both mound gates has peculiarities, which require special attention. The archaeological situation of this southern area 328 shows a large space, LG, (2400 m2) surrounded by mound walls (BM and QM) and accessible from two gates (E and D) was left without internal construction 329 . The main feature of this space is the presence of an ash layer 1.5 m thick which starts at D and fills the difference in height between the elevation of the paving in D and the elevation of the paving in E (25 m). Five statues of lions were found inside the ash layer and from the archaeological situation, we could argue that they were buried in this area and at the same time no longer in sight. Next to each statue a stone bowl was found, so that we argue that the statues were not thrown away as discarded materials but buried as sacred figures, which were no longer in use, unfinished or damaged and at the same time holy.

328

Cf. Plate 9 The structures found here date to a later phase of reoccupation of the acropolis. Cf. 329

56

Pucci – Ch. IV Functional Analysis of Architecture at Zincirli Room

Figure Inven Description tory

(there was no other way to enter the acropolis) and ritual. QM represented the northern boundary of this area. It was built like a defensive barrier, with large stone foundations and towers. This feature brings us to a conclusion: the area was considered as a space between the external lower town and the internal acropolis, as a border zone. The concept of limit is shaped not as a line but as an area, which the architectural symbols of border limit: gates and mound walls. At this point, the gated D preserves the symbols built during the older period but LG became the main religious area, where rituals took place.

Loc Location II atio nI

3962 LG/squ T45,p are LG 1 T19,b

3961b Silver

E

Hacksilberfund

520

Jar

E

Near the lions

LG 1

67

Dish

E

Near the lions throat Near the lions

T25,g

LG 1

T20,e

694

Bowl

E

LG 1

T43,5

881

Fibula

E

LG 1

T59,c, 884 T60,c T4,m 93

Bone Spatula Spindle whirl

E

LG 1

in the lions' pit with S659. 883 Near the third lion

Table 24:

E, north of the lion k-15

Installati Installation on Description five statues of lions

Formal Object Objects function Descriptio n Religiou three Jamb lions s jamb in older statues style of lions Religiou two Jamb lions s jamb in more statues recent of style lions Religiou dish Flat dish s

E bore the features of a gate following the layout typical for the site: two towers flanking a passage through two thresholds and a guardroom. The structure does not have any of the above-analysed symbols (carved orthostats and jambs) probably because it did not need them 332 : the concept of border, the space for rituals was already created and this structure only fulfilled the need of a defended entrance to the acropolis 333 .

332

Also because of the state of its preservation It remains still uncertain whether the statues found in LG belonged to structure E or to the older Ab1, as Koldewey assumes, (see Ch.III). However, no traces were found on the structure and surely not all statues could have been installed at 333

331

Practical Function

five statues of lions lying on one side, in an ash layer with stone pottery five five statues of statues lions lying on of lions one side, in an ash layer with stone pottery five five statues of statues lions lying on of lions one side, in an ash layer with stone pottery two two unfinished limiting Ceremon two The front sphinxes sphinxes in the y sphinx part is relief foundatio es carved in ns? relief, the details are not completed ash layer this layer 1.5 m none Religiou femini Large deep runs s ne amount of continuously figurin figurines from the es with gateway E to D incised decoration ash layer this layer 1.5 m none Religiou spatula Large deep runs s s amount (7 continuously registered) from the gateway E to D Jar with Buried jar with keep Offer Jar silver silver fragments treasure Jar with Buried jar with keep Offer Silver curved silver silver fragments treasure fragme leaves and nts fragments

Table 23: shows all objects found in this ash layer. The size of the excavated area (955 m2), the number of objects and their homogeneity bring us to the conclusion that these objects were not all thrown in this area by chance. The statuettes, the silver inside the jar, the intact bowls and dishes found near the lions and the thickness of this ash layer suggest not only that once the ritual of burying unusable statues was carried out here, but also that this area was considered a holy area where rituals were continuously carried over a period of time 330 . The following Table 24: shows the groups of objects interpreted as part of the installations: the five lions (in two groups according to their style), the two jars with silver fragments, the group of statuettes and the group of bone spatulas. The two orthostats with unfinished carved sphinxes are also added to this table: however, these orthostats 331 were found “near E” and their elevation and real archaeological context remains unclear. However, according to the catalogue, it seems that they were not part of the collapsed materials of the structure but “left in this area”. In the reports, there is no mention of ash in connection to these sphinxes. The blocks are not finished as the similarities between them and the rough-shaped blocks at the quarry at Yesemek and Sikizlar show. It is therefore possible to assume that the structure to which these orthostats were assigned was destroyed, abandoned or never finished and the blocks were thrown away/buried in an area, which was intended to host similar representations. The jars with silver fragments were also found intact near QM and E. Each object alone does not provide us with relevant information about its function. But taken together with the ash earth and with the space, they lead to two possible interpretations. First, the area is a huge trash pit, and the archaeologists only sorted out and recorded certain kinds of objects. The only element that does not fit this interpretation is the position of this space on the way to the mound on a route, which everyone who wanted to reach it had to cross. Therefore, we stress here a second interpretation: statues, objects, ashes, point to a religious purpose of this space. In conclusion, “LG” fulfilled two main functions: passage

330

Installations in LG

This element could support the view that ash was deposited A third one was found in the lower town.

57

Pucci – Ch. IV Functional Analysis of Architecture at Zincirli

IVB4. North-eastern area: the structures built

Figure Inventor Description Loc. I Location II y T6,g 1999 basalt tripod Ab2 To the south inside the old house

after the Destruction of the Hilani An internal wall may 334 have contained and separated this area (Plate 9) from the rest of the acropolis. Actually, it is unclear whether a gate led to this area or whether the IM was built only in the sector that was more unsteady. The structures built during this period are fragmentary and consequently their function remains unclear: the main building HI constructed during period I was probably in ruins. The small wall built above its socle as a reuse of the huge stone construction demonstrates that at least before the construction of building G there had been a period of abandonment. Other structures built during this period also provide us with similar evidence. WH identifies several badly constructed walls leaning on the stone base of HI. It is impossible to identify clearly rooms or units in these buildings, which show unplanned construction but instead a progressive addition of elements. By contrast, Ab2 shows architectural features that are similar to the other buildings on the acropolis: well-built stone foundations with timber frame and large corner blocks. The layout 335 of Ab2 is developed on a long axis and two rooms could be identified. The structure was not completely excavated and part of it probably continued under the southern walls of G, which were not dismantled. Two towers, small rooms and large walls indicate a structure similar to the so-called “Kastenmauer”, a wall with rooms inside. Nevertheless, the towers faced the HI and not the external area. One of them stands free on three sides (as the towers of BM or QM), while the other is surrounded by walls limiting a space as though it were a sustaining block for stairs. Neither the accesses nor the floors are preserved so that small finds are not assignable to this structure. According to the layout and the architectural features of this structure, it is possible to argue that this construction worked as a place for storage and a limit/defensive structure. Table 25:

GK: this structure was a grave and consequently its function seems clear from the beginning. The technique and the layout used for this grave had been in use since the second Millennium BC 337 . The grave was constructed during this second building period. Its covering was probably visible from the topsoil. According to the reconstructed building sequence, the relationship between the stele found near the eastern wall of HI and the grave is not certain. The location of the grave on the acropolis near the building HI could imply a relationship with the building or with its ruins 338 . GK was emptied during this period, 339 and the cylindrical stone found inside the HI (and consequently under G), suggests that its opening dates to before the construction of G. We could argue that the structure was plundered at the end of this period at the same time as the Assyrian conquest of the town. Or we can also argue that the grave was intentionally emptied in order to bring the remains and eventually the grave goods somewhere else, as part of a burial ritual 340 . In conclusion, the north-eastern area was occupied by several not representational structures, which surrounded a representational building (HI), which was probably already in ruins. A stone grave was laid next to this building, probably visible from the ground.

IVB5. The Complex in the North-Western Area: Structures around two Open Spaces During this second period, building activity was concentrated in the north-western area (Plate 11). Three buildings were kept in use from the previous period and six new structures were built. The structures were concentrated around two courtyards (M and R) connected with each other by the NWH. The older buildings J, K and L occupied the northern front of courtyard M, which the mound wall (BM) limited to the west, the NWH and Q to the east and the NWH to the south. This courtyard was accessible from the outside through gate Q. The southern courtyard R was surrounded to the west by HIII, to the south and probably to the east by P. The Hilani model was employed here in J, K, NÖH 341 and HIII,

Architectural features of Ab2

Size Visibility Quality Room R. Funct.1 Funct.2 Size 77 Low High Ab2/a 19 Storage Defence 77

Low

High

Ab2/b -

Defence

As far as this area is concerned, only one object (Table 26: ) belongs to the area of Ab2. The other small finds (see IVA3.Table 15: ) belong to the deposit of sherds (from third period) mentioned above, which probably was a trash deposit 336 . Table 26:

337

Cf. E. Carter et A. Parker 1995: table 14.3 For the stratigraphic problems concerning both structures cf. IIIE1 339 For the concept of the grave as a transit station see V. Haas 1995 340 However, considering that only one stone was removed, the archaeological evidence suggests that a plundering pit was probably dug into the area of the removed cylinder. 341 R. Naumann 1971 renamed NÖH as Hilani 4, due to the similarities of its layout with the common Hilani layout. The archaeologists at the site did not recognise these similarities and kept naming it Nordösthallenbau. In this research I try to keep as far as possible the original names of the structures and in this case, NordÖst Hallenbau is kept in use without any reference to 338

Objects in Ab2

Figure Inventor Description y

Loc. I Location II

the same time on the structure, as they are dated to different stylistic periods. 334 The remains of the internal wall IM were not enough to establish its course. Cf. IIIE1 335 The layout has strong similarities to the layout of Ab1 built in the earlier period. 336 See pg. 44 and following.

58

Pucci – Ch. IV Functional Analysis of Architecture at Zincirli

while the other structures (P and NWH) followed a different model of large rooms open to the courtyard. Table 27:

the door). The foundations of the walls are at different elevations. The western wall, parallel to the mound wall, was probably added later, and the mound wall was at the beginning the western limit of room L/5. The wall surfaces were plastered, the room had an earth floor and there were no installations. If we consider the location of the door, we can exclude that a working or living activity could be pursued in this room, which is the entrance hall of the structure. Rooms L/4 and L/3 directly were connected by a door with wooden frame with L/5. Room L/4 had features similar to L/5: here the floor was almost lost and the room was probably very dark. In room L/3, along the north wall there was an installation 343 made of two bricks and covered by plaster: there were two rounded hollows 0.25 m higher than the floor. Each hollow was 0.25 m diameter and 0.06 m deep. The function of this installation remains uncertain: the two hollows could not contain liquids, as they are very flat. The architectural features (baked bricks and stone floor with bitumen, drain, and baked bricks revetment of the walls) in L/6 show that water was used in the room. The eastern jamb of the door from L/5 was larger than the width of the wall, as though it were screening the eastern part of the room. Moreover, another small wall and a closing separated the drain hollow from the rest of the room. A bronze bathtub was found along the northern wall. All these elements point to a single function as a bathroom. As archaeologists found a roof roller on the floor, 344 it is possible to argue that there was no second storey above this room. 345 Moreover, considering that almost all rooms lack a western wall and use the mound wall as a limit it, it would seem difficult to build a solid second floor. The wax found on the floor of this room is probably connected to an architectural use of this material to make surfaces waterproof (roof, floor or walls) 346 . L/1-2 are smaller in size: L/2 has a narrow (1.3 m) door to the outside and to enter L/1 it was necessary to cross L/2. The superstructures are not very well-preserved and any traces of plaster are lost. 347 In L/2, despite the complete absence of architectural features indicating the use of water, a clay bathtub was found, which is said to be very similar to the one in room J/11. Moreover, archaeologists sketched a round structure, which could be identified with an oven, but which was not mentioned in the reports. These two rooms are not attached to L/3-6 348 : they have

Architectural features of the structures in the north-western area

Building

Size

Visibility

Quality

Location

HIII

842

Medium

Very high

NW

J

1557

Low

Very high

NW

K

603

Low

High

NW

L

414

Low

Low

NW

M

1818

Low

High

NW

NÖH

400

Low

High

NW

NWH

360

Low

High

NW

P

965

High

Medium

NW

R

2295

Low

Medium

NW

Q

70

Low

High

NW

Table 27: shows the sizes, the visibility and the quality of the buildings. This area was not as high as the northeastern one, and as the mound wall surrounded it, probably only HIII was visible from the lower town. Formal architectural features like carved orthostats, installations and a developed drainage system are part of the buildings J, K, HIII and NWH, which shows the existence of a pre-existing plan and the employment of large resources. To the north on the west side, a row of rectangular rooms formed building L. Four rooms out of eight were built during this period: rooms L/3-6 are part of one building activity. The walls were connected with each other and there was only one entrance from the outside to the whole complex. The addition of L/1-2 probably took place in a later phase of this period. The walls limiting the rooms L/3-6 were very irregular, the connection were not carefully built. Floors were found in three of the four rooms. In general, the walls were thin and irregular in their layout; the main access was designed only to let people enter and did not bear any formal features. The doors were small and made of wood without pivot stones, and the floors, except for L/6, were built with tamped earth. L/5 was the entrance room; the door was narrow and accessible through some pebbles and stones, which formed the steps. The tower of building K partly hid this entrance and, in a later building period, a small wall screened it completely from sight. If we consider that this is the only entrance to the structure and that whoever wanted to enter had to pass through the gate D, gate E, gate Q and to cross the courtyard M, we can argue that this structure was not built to be easily accessible 342 . Formal architectural elements are completely absent here. The employed materials are common and the applied techniques are very simple. The openings have wooden frames for the doors and the entrance/exit to the outside bears remains of a wooden pillar (probably the pivot of

343

G. Jacoby 1911: Abb. 213 Similar objects are cylindrical and were used to make the roof plain, flat and waterproof. As they were made of stone and very heavy they were probably left on the roof so that they could be used once a year. 345 This is one of the rare instances in which it is possible to maintain this reconstruction. For the other structures, the existence of a second storey is not even discussed because of the absence of elements to sustain such a thesis. 346 It seems more probable than Koldewey’s hypothesis that it was for epilating. 347 Archaeologists also mentioned the existence of an earth floor while describing the bathtub that was found here. 348 In the archaeological plan (G. Jacoby 1911: Taf. 49), there is no gap in the wall between L/3 and L/2, the foundations run 344

the layout of the structure that is really a Hilani type. 342 We should, however, consider the path behind the northern wall of J, which arrived directly from gate Q. But the area was not investigated and there are no traces of paving.

59

Pucci – Ch. IV Functional Analysis of Architecture at Zincirli

similar architectural features (in a smaller scale) and even less accessibility. To the south, two rooms L/7 and L/8 protruded into the courtyard M. Their architectural features are very badly preserved, and only the foundations and few remains of the superstructures. They have a bigger size than the other rooms in L. So far as they are preserved, they were accessible only through room L/5 and L/6 and consequently they could be used for activities directly linked to room L/6. From an architectural point of view, we can affirm as follows: during the first building period, two groups of rooms were built. According to their architectural features, it is possible to maintain that few people were meant to enter this building and there was not a representational (secular or religious) function as the architectural quality was very poor. There was also not a receptive function as the size of the rooms and the internal circulation would not allow it in a similar way as it happens in other buildings. Thus, the possible functions of this building are limited to dwelling, storage or working area. Table 28:

Rm Side Foundations Wall surface L/7 W

Table 29:

Abb. 168

3010

Clay lamb with L holes

T22,h

3654

T57,b-d

3809

clay bowl with L animal headed handle, glazed with black and white stripes on the rim bronze bathtub L6

23

T66, a-c

3879

T65,l-n

3880

T66, d-f

3881

T63 a-g

T12,e

3904 2385 5921 3905 5919 5920 5922 3994

T17,h

4237

T21

5938

L/1 S

Stones

●

15

L/1 E

Stones

●

15

L/2 N

Stones

16

L/2 S

Stones

16

L/2 E

Stones

16

L/3 N

Stones

lime plaster

23

L/3 S

Stones

lime plaster

23

L/3 E

Stones

lime plaster

23

L/3 W

Stones

L/4 N

Stones

lime plaster

44

L/4 S

Stones

lime plaster

44

L/4 E

Stones

lime plaster

L/4 Fl.

Clay?

44 44

L/5 N

Stones

lime plaster

31

L/5 S

Stones

lime plaster

31

L/5 E

Stones

lime plaster

31

L/5 W

Stones

31

L/5 Fl.

clay

31

L/6 N

Stones

lime plaster

36

L/6 S

Stones

lime plaster

36

L/6 E

Stones

lime plaster

36

L/6 W

Stones

L/7 S

Stones

L/7 E

Stones

36 36

plaster

Loc Location II I animal L IS on the floor

Clay statuette Clay cup with L six handles

carved ivory small pillars carved ivory small pillars carved ivory small pillars ivory fragments of a throne

Basalt statuette Painted jug

On the mound wall NW (Lehmann 6) In a room between the mound wall and K In a room between the mound wall and K IS northwest wall

L L

With T66.af.T67a-i

L L5

Together in the room near the bathroom under the collapse Pg.128

lion L5

IS (floor) with ivory cymatium IS. Room near the mound wall Nearby

L, c-6 Clay painted L6 statuette of horse with jugs

69

Two structures, which were both kept in use from the earlier period, separated building L from the main courtyard M (Plate11). Their façades dominated the landscape of this complex. Building J, built before

69 lime e ternal

Objects in building L

2378

15

●

82

T23,d

●

lime plaster

L/8 W

2343

Stones

baked bricks

82

T36,k

L/1 N

Stones

82

L/8 E

Inventory Description

Timber Size Frame

L/7 N

69

Figure

Rm Side Foundations Wall surface

L/6 Fl

Stones

L/8 N

There is a striking difference between the architectural features of these rooms and the objects found inside them. The small finds were precious and similar in part to those found in building J and K, so that we could suggest that L was used as a storage area for the furniture of the representative buildings. Nevertheless, the existence of a facility (L/6) seems to disprove this hypothesis. The other possibility is to identify the area as a production area, a place where the materials were assembled, refined and completed, but the absolute absence of other clues minimizes the validity of this hypothesis.

The rooms in L

●

Timber Size Frame

69

continuously. In the general plan (Ibidem Taf 50), Jacoby hypothesises the existence of a door.

60

Pucci – Ch. IV Functional Analysis of Architecture at Zincirli

building K 349 , was a structure that contained at least 12 rooms divided into two groups: J/1+2 and J/3 in one and the remaining J/4-15 in the other. This division does not reflect two construction periods, as the walls are architecturally connected. During this phase several architectural changes 350 were carried out. These are related to the entrance area: here the front column and the protruding shafts (limiting room Gk) were added later 351 . Table 30:

southern walls was closed but the traces in the sidewalls suggest the existence of a timber grid. Openings occupied almost completely the southern and western limits of this room. The eastern limit was not preserved: however, it seems very improbable that a door led directly to the outside, as the building is mainly related to the facing courtyard M. The running plaster demonstrates a third opening from room J/1 to room J3. The width of this opening is not preserved. This third element confirms the use of J/1 as a representative circulation room. In J/2 the youngest floor was on a higher level than J/1, it was plastered with lime, and the bottom of the wall was covered with plain orthostats and lime plaster. In this room three floors were found and Jacoby reconstructed three phases. The lowest one was made of stones and bitumen while the two upper ones were made of plaster. We can consider that the orthostats and the lime plaster 353 were built at the same time as the original stone floor. These elements could be used for a room where water ran, but the absence of a drain and the absence of an eastern wall 354 suggest that they were formal elements and did not fulfil a practical need. The western frame had two niches; their back wall belonged to K and did not join the walls of J. It is not important in my opinion to establish whether these two niches were, before the construction of K, windows 355 or doors. Their function during this period is rather interesting: the plaster running on all sides, and the bottom of one niche, which is 0.3 m higher than the floor, confirm their use as shelves. The function of these niches in relation to the representational features of the room indicates that this was a place where precious objects such as statues or treasures were collected. If we consider that the objects stored here were probably visible from J/1, we can interpret this place as a “window” where the might of the owner was shown. Indeed, this room has a low accessibility because the entrance was not in axis and the opening was narrow and had a closing. The large number of precious objects found in this room confirms this interpretation: 38 small finds made of bronze, ivory or silver were collected in this room (Cf. Table 31: ). Some of them are part of the internal furniture of the room (as the ivory carvings or the enamelled architectural elements), while others may have been kept in this room. None of them have a religious meaning: pendants, weights and jewellery, even if made with precious materials, are part of a secular power.

Rooms in building J

B_ Ext Room

Room Ext

Access Accessibility

1557

J/1

76

2

4A

J/2

64

2

4D

J/3

216

2

4F

J/4

83

1

4F

J/5

48

1

4F

J/6

81

1

4F

J/7

50

1

4F

J/8

18

2

4F

J/9

50

1

4F

J/11

23

1

4F

J/12

23

1

4F

J/13

85

2

4F

J/14

90

1

4F

J/15

90

3

4B

J/gk

13

1

4B

J/1 is the main access to the building: its wide door opens onto a small portico, which is part of M in front of J. J/1 had the function of access, passage or check room. Its size would not allow other activities. If we consider that the door was as wide as the room was, only a small part of the space inside the room would be free from traffic. The door leading to J/1 bears peculiar architectural features: a basalt stone threshold with timbers on the north and south sides, and a stone orthostat on the jamb with carving and inscription. The orthostat showing the figure of the ruler and a Phoenician inscription 352 explaining the changes pursued by the king, celebrated the figure of the king and gave the structure a representational feature, focused on the figure of the king. In addition, the door leading to J/2 has a stone step, a stone threshold and two pivot sockets. It remains unclear how the space between the pivots and the north and

Table 31:

Objects in rooms J/1-3

Rm Figure Invent ory J/2 T73, 3566a cd J/2 T44,w 3627

349

See pg.36 350 Originally, J/1 and J/2 were one room (J1+2) and together with room J/3 were the largest rooms in the complex. J/1+2 was the first reception or “waiting” room, while J/3 could receive a large number of persons. However, as the accesses, the floors and other structural elements of this first phase are not preserved, we analyse the layout and the architectural features at the time when K was already in existence. 351 These changes were pursued after or in direct connection with the construction of building K, probably in the second building period. Cf. IIIF3 352 Cf. IVD1 and IVD2, F. von Luschan 1911: Fig. 273, W. Orthmann 1971: E/2

353

Description

Loc I

Location II

Assyrian Tablet gold ring

J2

Burnt layer

J2

From G. Jacoby 1911: Abb. 182 it is possible to see that the lime plaster reached an elevation lower than the last floor, therefore the floors were renewed at a later period while the lime plaster dates back to the second (the first layout refers to J/1+2) layout of room J/2. 354 The water could flow outside the curtain. 355 R. Naumann 1971: 174 maintains that there were two windows. Cf. also footnote 428

61

Pucci – Ch. IV Functional Analysis of Architecture at Zincirli Rm Figure Invent Description Loc I ory J/2 T46,g 3625 Silver pendent J with figure eating J/2

T16,m 3605

J/2 J/2

T69,t 3581 T70, a- 3580 b

J/2

T69g

3578

J/2

T65,d

3577

J/2

T49,t

5964

clay bowl with incised decoration ivory knob ivory carved fragment with feminine head ivory lotus flower carved on both sides ivory lion's paw bronze nail

J/2 J/2

T69,s T45,h

3575 3628

ivory knob gold bracelet

J/2

T73,ab 3566

J2

J/2

T38,a

J2

J/2

T54,b

J/2

T54,d

J/2 J/2

T48,g T49,u

J/2

T12,f

J/2

T11,b

J/2 J/2

Abb 187 T65,c

J/2

T49,s

J/2

T17,,l m

J/2

T44,k

3939

J/2

T44,i

3938

J/2

T44,h

3937

J/2

T44,g

3936

J/2

T46, i

3626

J/2

T65,e

3890

J/2

T46, h 3629

J/2

T64, a- 3883-

Assyrian Tablet 3565 scarab stamp seal 3561 copper leaf with eyes 3560 copper bridle decoration, representing a winged sphinx 3557 bronze spatula 3553 iron nail with bronze head 3549/2 Basalt bull head, weight? 3549 Basalt bull head, weight? 3576

J2 J2 J2

Location II

Rm Figure Invent Description Loc I ory g 86 fragments representing lion, J/2 T64, a, 3882 ivory lion, J2 b fragment of furniture J/2 T56,a 3813 copper bowl J2

In front of the SW wall of room J2 with T46,i and other objects Burnt layer Burnt layer Burnt layer

T12,cd 3690

J/2

T31,a

3673

J/2

T44, ak

3672

J/2

T65,i k 3891 3892 T12,g 3542

J2 J2

Burnt layer

J2(?)

Burnt layer Bar Rakib palace. Burnt layer Ash layer in front of the southern wall, with 3627 Burnt layer

J2 J2

J/3 J/ gk

T47,f g 3708

J/gk T45,n

3704

J2

Burnt layer, room with niche Burnt layer

J2

Burnt layer

J/gk T22,k

3974

J/gk T19,d

3545

J2 J2

Burnt layer Burnt layer

lion decoration

Similar to an object found here Pazuzu head, J2, f-8 Collapse above serpentine J2 architectural J2, f-8 Burnt layer in element, the Kalamu emailed building bronze J2 necklace with Babylonian inscription ivory paw J2 stone small J3 column

gold case with inscription of Kalamu gold pendent with seal representing a bull glazed bottle with duck handles painted jar, complete

J J

J, Kalam u bau J

Burnt layer, near the western wall In the burnt collapse behind the door in Gk. Corridor Gk

Above the Corridor (Lehmann) IS Gk in the collapse on the floor (Lehmann 19)

J2, e-5 Burnt layer

The opening from J/2 to J/3 was very narrow, probably closed by a door and accessible from the “private” section of room J/3. J/3 did not have installations dividing the internal space, but as it was 216m2, we can point out at least two parts inside it. The eastern one had a circulating function: it connected the entrance to the smaller rooms to the north of the building. The circulation from J/1 and to the outside probably involved only this eastern part and was directed to rooms J/4-6. A square fireplace and an articulated drainage system occupied the western part of this room. The fireplace was a fixed and large installation (the surface was eight m2), and bore traces of fire there. It probably did not house a fire 356 rather a burning charcoal. The burning surface was higher than the floor level. The fireplace and especially a large built fireplace inside a large room play a central role and act as a meeting place 357 . It is therefore possible to distinguish an eastern part of the room used as a passage area from the outside to the group of room J/4-6, and a western part, which was employed for reception and meetings.

J2, e-5 Burnt layer J2

ivory lions J2 head 5963 iron nail with J2(?) bronze head 4239+ painted J 4240 globular jar (circle muster)

Burnt layer

3888

silver pendent with geometric muster silver pendent with geometric muster silver pendent with geometric muster silver pendent with geometric muster silver pendent with naked goddess

J/2

Location II

Burnt layer

J2

Inside a niche of the room in north palace. (Lehmann11) Burnt layer

J2

Burnt layer

J2

Burnt layer

J2

Burnt layer

J2

IS in front of the SW wall with ivory, gold and silver objects. Ash layer

ivory fragment J2 of a lion Silver/gold J pendent ivory J2

356

Otherwise, we should imagine the existence of openings on the western wall to the outside drawing out the smoke of the fire. 357 As the central room in the “Mittelsaalhauses” in the third Millennium.

Found with T 46,g Furniture with

62

Pucci – Ch. IV Functional Analysis of Architecture at Zincirli

J/4 - J/6. Both rooms had similar architectural elements: their size is ca. 80m2 and there are mud brick benches along the walls. These two rooms formed a group with J/5, as they were connected with each other and they were not connected to the western rooms. The circulation started from J/3 to room J/6 and then through J/4 to J/5 358 . The benches were 0.5 m higher than the floor level and their width varied between 0.7 and 1.1 metres. Archaeologists interpreted these benches as beds and consequently the rooms as sleeping rooms. Nevertheless, we do not have any clue to affirm that people slept on benches; rather we know that wooden beds existed 359 . By comparing current practices in the area, it is possible to advance the hypothesis that the inhabitants used movable structures, which were carried to upper floors or probably to the roof. Therefore, it seems more probable that the benches in rooms J4 and J/6 were used whether to sit or as working surfaces. In the northern side of J/6, a baked brick floor and skirting board, a drain tube and a drain pit show that water was used in this northern part of the room. A column supported the roof of this structure as also in J/5, J/9 and probably in J/4. The column bases found in the rooms are not decorated and seem to fulfil only the practical need of sustaining a wooden support and consequently the roof. The dimensions of these rooms are not so big that the builders could not cover the area without internal supports if we compare with J/3 360 , which is almost twice big than the others and did not have any traces of vertical posts 361 . Considering this element, we face two hypotheses: 1. the columns or vertical architectural elements also fulfil a formal function, or 2. the roof in these rooms was built with a different technique, which needed middle support. Probably, the central post sustained a long timber (or two timbers adjoining each other at this central column) running along the length of the room. This technique allowed the use of shorter timbers, which had to cover only half of the width of the room. Considering that tall trees with 12 meter-long trunks grow over a long period and are consequently more precious, we can argue that they were used to cover large representational rooms while smaller and less important rooms were covered with cheaper and consequently shorter wood. A post or column located in the middle of the rooms also changes the perception of this space: the view is interrupted and the room cannot be perceived as a whole. Considering that these rooms lack formal elements, the perception of the room as whole was probably also not important. J/6: the northern part bore features indicating a bathroom, which a small wall, added 362 later, separated from the

southern part of the room, and which bore a skirting board 363 : probably the use of water in the northern part damaged the southern one, which needed to be separated. Von Luschan 364 writes that burnt remains of an ivory furniture element were found in this room above and near a bench. In the catalogue, there is no mention of these fragments and none of the objects, whose location is generally indicated as in northern palace, fits with his description. Consequently, we do not know what kind of furniture part it was, but its presence implies that this room was not just a bathroom. A hole in the southwestern corner of the room above the bench indicates the existence of a small wooden pillar. Thus, the southern part of this room allowed people to group together and sit on the benches, while the northern part allowed people to use of water. The floors in rooms J/4 and J/5 indicate that water was not in use here, but again benches were set along the walls and their sides were plastered. No objects were found here. J/4-6 is a group of rooms where people probably carried on business activities: the rooms are large, with benches and lacking formal architectural elements. Considering that they were accessible through the two representative rooms J/1 and J/3, they might have been used for internal administration. Rooms J/7-9 are part of the same group, because they are connected and are, as the other group, isolated from the other spaces. Access to the group was from J/3 just in front of the fireplace. In J/7 a baked bricks floor, a drain and an installation, which probably contained liquids, indicate the use of water. This installation presents some problems: a cylindrical container inserted into the wall 365 and in part protruding into the room had a drain, which was 7 cm lower than the level of the floor. Jacoby argued that it was connected to the western drain, which runs from J/7 to J/3 to J/15. What function did this installation have? If the tank contained water (as the thick internal revetment suggests), how could they bring it into room J/7? If the water was supposed to be taken from the top, why was this structure built inside a bathroom? We can argue as follows: the presence of this installation indicates at least that above these rooms there was not a second storey but a roof, consequently the container was left open and could collect rain. We can hypothesise that the installation belongs to this structure and that probably it was used for water storage in order to get water directly into J/7. The preserved conditions of this installation show a badly damaged western side. We can imagine that a tube or a closing hole was laid on this side, which could be closed or opened and let water flow inside the room. A stone bowl (T5, a) with a large side (58.7 cm long), which was probably inserted into the wall, was also found in this room: it could have been used as a receptacle where liquids flowed.

358

The door J/6-J/4 is reconstructed in the place where the bench and the mud brick revetment in J/6 are not preserved leaving a space wide enough to host an opening. 359 Cf. N. Cholidis 1992; A. Salonen 1963. The beds are constructed as furniture pieces and are not installations like the benches: D. Symington 1996: 126-127. 360 It does not seem probable that room J/3 was without a roof, considering the floor and the fixed mud brick fireplace. 361 The average length that a timber might cover is usually approximately 12 m. 362 This wall adjoins the column

363

Cf. F. von Luschan 1911: Fig. 158 F. von Luschan 1911: 251 365 It does not seem probable that this installation was dug into the ruins of this palace, but seems to belong to the structure because it was limited by the bricks of the wall and it was connected to a drain. 364

63

Pucci – Ch. IV Functional Analysis of Architecture at Zincirli

Table 32: Fig. T5,a T44, e T44, b T20, g+h

Inv.

deposit for precious things. W. Andrae 370 also named this group of objects “the treasure”.

Objects in J/7 Description

Loc Location II I stone bowl, J7 IS, on the floor architectural element 3692 silver pendent with J7 with T44.b religious scene 3693 silver pendent with J7 20cm above the religious scene Burnt layer 4050+ clay jug with J7 Rear room, with i.k? 4068 buchranion handles S. Abb.43/V. (fragments) (Lehmann 7)

Table 33:

Room J/9 objects and Installations

Loc.I Figure Invent Description ory J9 ?? 3695? Helmet

The door from J/7 to J/8 bore a stone threshold and wooden jambs. The walls in J/8 were plastered; the northern one in particular bore traces of a yellow plaster. The room is small and in the reports there is no mention of a floor. No objects and installations were found in this room. According to its architectural context this room fulfilled a passage function. The doors to J/7 and to J/9 are on the same axis and moved to the eastern side so that the western side of the room J/8 (9 m2) remained utilisable. The size of J/9 is similar to the size of rooms J/6 and J/4. The walls were plastered and the superstructure of the northern wall was built with stones as in J/5 366 . Two floors were found in this room, one above the other (15 cm gap). As the lower one was connected to the column base in the middle, it is possible to argue that the room was repaired after it was damaged. Foundation remains of a later wall, which Jacoby interprets as not belonging to the structure, were found in the western part of the room. As many precious objects 367 were found in this room belonging to this period, it seems improbable that in a period of reuse new builders constructed these foundations without taking the objects. Moreover, a hole into the floor in the corner between these later foundations and the southern wall of the room suggests the presence of a standing wooden pillar, as a wooden shelf or fence was built across the room or as an internal door was there and consequently there was a division of the room. A stone column in the middle supported the roof from the time of the room’s construction. Later the room was probably divided (as J/1-J/2) into two parts 368 . A basalt stone (45x45x25 cm) with an iron chain was found in the south-eastern part of this room. It weighed approx. 150 KG 369 and Luschan argued that prisoners or wild animals were chained to this stone so that the room was a prison. Considering the objects found in this room, its size, its location inside a palace and the formal architectural elements (plastered walls, wooden threshold, etc.) von Luschan’s thesis seems improbable. The small finds from this room point to a unique interpretation as a

Location II

Note 1. Pg.76. helmet hold earring with with the other three circles objects from the treasure (s.95) gold fibula

J9

T45,i

3696

J9

T43,v

3697

J9

T43,w 3698

silver fibula

J9

T45,m 3699

J9

T45,b

3700

J9

T22,b

3701

J9

T45,l

3705

necklace with Treasure gold line and stones bracelet with with the other gold and stones objects from the treasure clay small bottle with the other with two handles objects from the treasure, (Lehmann 14) gold ring with onyx seal with four Hittite signs

Rm Instal.

Description Practic.Funct Form. Object Dimens. Funct J/9 column column column 53x28 support the base not roof base base (h) decorated above a plain stone inserted in the floor

The location and the accessibility of this room would also support this interpretation, so that J/8 was probably a guardroom, in order to control the entrance to J/9. The stone with the chain could be fixed neither in the walls nor in the roof because a mud brick structure could not support such a weight. We can suppose that it was probably part of a closing system, which kept the room or part of it closed from outside, but the technique remains unclear: there was probably a wooden fence that separated the room into two parts- the western part, where the objects were kept, and the eastern one, where there was no closing. Therefore, rooms J/8-9 were used as a depository of precious items. These rooms were accessible from J/7 and from the western part of J/3, forming a single group. This connection gives another meaning to J/7: either a facility for this room group or a specific room for activities related to the use of water. The installations and the objects in J/7, the accessibility of the rooms, and the depository in the rear room connect together a guarded depository (J/8-9), with facility (J/7) and a reception area (J/3 west). J/10: the stone foundations covering the entire room, the mud bricks found still in situ one meter above the level of the foundations show that the space was built with mud bricks inside a timber frame as also occurs in HIII, built during this period 371 . Due to its shape, this space might

366

Considering that this wall is the external boundary wall of building J, its different building technique probably fulfilled a defensive need. 367 Cf. Table 33: 368 In addition, room J/2 also had a large amount of precious objects. Probably the division of the room and the storage of valuable objects are causally connected. 369 Considering that the density of basalt is in general 3000 Kg/m3

370 371

64

W. Andrae 1943a In other structures the timber frame seems to be used mainly

Pucci – Ch. IV Functional Analysis of Architecture at Zincirli

be interpreted as a staircase; however the archaeological remains do not provide us with clues to maintain this hypothesis. This implies a problem in the accessibility of the northern J/11 and /12: the archaeological evidence shows that if these rooms were accessible from the ground floor level, they were accessible from J/7 or J/13 through openings located where the superstructures of the walls were not preserved. Otherwise a staircase in J/10 could connect these two rooms only with other rooms of an upper storey. The walls in J/11 were plastered, and a large access led to J/12. The bathtub 372 found in room J/11 seems to have similarities to the one in room J/7. However, at the same time it seems that water was not used in this room as no architectural feature suggests this function. J/12 has the same size as J/11 (23 m2). The northern wall was made of stones (as in all northern rooms), the faces of the walls were not plastered and it seems that here, as in room J/11, the builders did not take include the formal architectural elements. These elements suggest that these two rooms were probably for private use, such as dwelling activities or working areas. Table 34:

or outside J/14. In the middle of J/14 a basalt stone with a central hollow, whose diameter was 0.45 m, was found. Considering that the room was 6 m wide and 9.6 m long, this stone was the base of a wooden column, which supported the roof as in rooms J/9 and J/5. Table 35:

Roo Installa Installa m tion tion Descri ption J/14 several 10 clay clay mugs mugs inserte d in the floor, two are comple te J/14 stone square stone with hollow

Description Oval bath tub

Practic Formal Object al functio Functi n on mug storage

support

J/13 orthost jamb ats orthost ats, not carved

Installation in J/11

R Install Installation Practical m Description Function J/1 bathtu bathtub Service 1 b parallel to the western wall

Installations in J/13-14

Dimensio n clay 190x63

Object s Descri ption jug inserte d in the floor

Dimen sion 60 (d)x15 0 (h)

square square 60x60x stone stone 50 blacke ned by fire Repres orthost plain 142x10 entatio ats orthost 5 (h); n ats 151x97 with (h) mortise

Building K was built adjoining his eastern wall to the western wall of J (Plates 11 and 12). Its layout reproduces the layout of rooms J/1-3 and both rooms J/3 and K/2 connected through a door. Building K is accessible through a stone staircase (eight steps) 19 m wide, which bridges a difference in height of 1.30 meter. To the west, the façade of K featured a bastion/staircase probably faced with wood, in the middle a stone staircase and three columns with decorated stone bases, and to the east a wall (Mk) plastered with lime. The construction of Mk provides symmetry, in which the entrance of K occupies the central and more important place. The length of this wall (13 m) and the length of the tower (10 m) balance each other probably in order to give the impression of one building with one main entrance. By means of this construction, the façade of building J was adapted to the entrance of K, building one surface and giving K a more representational role. The difference in height at the entrance between the courtyard M and K/1 is 1.30 m, while J/1 and M are at the same elevation; the difference in the elevations of the floors of the two communicating rooms J/3-K/2 is 0.40 m. Consequently, building K was not built on a level much higher than J. Thus, the construction of the staircase seems to satisfy a formal need more than a practical one, as when K was built the builders intentionally wanted to underline the importance of the new building by giving it a central position, a symmetrical entrance and a higher elevation compared to the previous building J.

Rooms J/13-15 were a room group that was isolated from the other rooms in J. This group was accessible directly from the external area in the space between the mound wall and the back wall of J. By passing behind J it was possible to enter J/15, where the drains coming from J flowed into, and which separated the building K from J: it was a private service area. A large access flanked by two protruding pillars and two plain orthostats led to room J/13. These formal elements, which emphasise the entrance to J/13, were added only in this period. The faces of the northern and eastern walls were plastered with clay and remains of a clay floor were found in the southern area. A drain pipeline ran in front of this entrance in J/15 while another drain running from J/10 probably flowed into J/13 and joined the one in J/15. Jacoby argued that the room was roofless and consequently was an internal court. However, the width (5 m) of the room would support a wooden roof, the floor (as far as it was excavated and preserved) was not adapted to an open space, and the “black filling” 373 which covered the floor of the room suggests the existence of burnt timbers collapsed from the ceiling. The function of this room seems to be closely related to the function of the neighbouring J/14: in this room, ten clay jug/mugs inserted in the floor were found, which indicates a storage room 374 . Consequently, J/13 was probably used to control, organise and administer what was carried inside

Table 36: between the stone foundation and the mud brick wall. 372 We cannot exclude that the bathtub fell from an upper storey. 373 As it is shown in the caption Fig. 281 in G. Jacoby 1911. 374 These jugs are all from the southern area of the room, because the northern area was not excavated.

65

Rooms in building K

Rm

Ext. Acc Quality Elev. of the main floor

K/1

97

4A

High

10

K/2

190 4C

High

10

K/3

38

High

10

4E

Pucci – Ch. IV Functional Analysis of Architecture at Zincirli Rm

Ext. Acc Quality Elev. of the main floor

K/5

15

4

High

Table 37:

Small finds in building K

10 Rm

The superstructures of the internal walls of the building were considerably thinner than their stone foundations and there was no trace of a clay or lime plaster on their faces. These elements and the large amount of burnt wood found in the rooms, near the walls and inside the walls, led archaeologists to assume that the faces of the internal wall in K/1 and K/2 were covered with wooden beams 375 . Room K/1 was the entrance to the building. It was completely open on the southern side, with 3 columns and a clay floor. The entrance to K/2 was moved to the eastern side so that a large area of the room was not subordinated to the passage. The objects found in this room (see Table 37: ) show narrow similarities with J/12: helmets, silver plaques, and other bronze objects found in this room seem to be a “deposit” of bronze objects probably kept in the western side of the room. Considering that all objects here were made of bronze and not as in J/2 of several valuable materials, it is possible to argue a practical function for some of them such as the helmets 376 , as this room were a guardroom where guards stand and kept their weapons. The carved plaques were applied to the architecture, probably to the column behind which they were found, so that the columns were covered with bronze appliqués. Therefore, we can assume a defensive and a formal function for this room. K/2 showed also a similar dual function. The round fireplace with bronze frame and mud bricks, the stone bowls inserted in the floor between the fireplace and the western wall, the numerous ivory figurines found in this area suggest that around this fire place not only people were grouped but also rituals were carried. Moreover, behind this fireplace, adjoined to the western wall, there was an installation similar to a bench made with pebbles, which was preserved at the same elevation as the floor of the room: it looks like a small altar or base for a throne or for a statue. In addition, ashes were found in this area. A large number of clubs was also found here. The room as a whole shows evident formal elements connected to installations which suggest grouping of people, the presence of several activities related to liquids and fire (cooking and drinking? Ritual and celebration?). The archaeological context of the objects, which alone could infer a military depository, seems to suggest a place for rituals.

Figure Inventory Description

Location I Location II

T51, l- 5932-36 p

K/1

K/1

T46,k

3691

silver carved K1 plaques with gold leaves representing two figures facing each other

K/2

T12,i

3687

K2

K/2 K/2 K/2 K/2 K/2 K/2 K/2 K/2 K/2

K/2 K/2 375

R. Naumann 1971: 120 emphasises the peculiarity of this revetment. 376 These helmets were not decorated. Helmets fulfilled practical (defence) and formal (votive good) functions. Cf. P. Calmeyer 1975, E. A. Braun-Holzinger 1991; 20 similar helmets were found at the excavation at Karmir Blur. Cf. B. Piotrovskij 1966: 241-244. According to the helmet typology in T. Dezsö 2001: 56 the helmets found at Zincirli show strong similarities to the Assyrian ones.

K/2

66

five bronze K (?) coverings, cylindrical T51,a- 5918 ten K (?) k 5930-31 fragments of 5937 bronze 5939 – 45 furniture covering T40,b 3977 bronze K1 pointed helmet

Serpentine statuette of human (fragment) T42,g, 5932, bronze h 3550 bullet, star form T42,i 3552 bronze head of a club, mace T42,k 5927 bronze head of a club, mace T42,l 3551 bronze head of a Club, mace T42,m 5925 bronze head of a Club, mace T42,n 5924 bronze head of a Club, mace T42,o 5926 bronze head of a Club, mace T42,p 5923 bronze head of a Club, mace T5,b/c 3821+382 basalt cups 0 on pedestal (one with three handles the other without handles) T5,e 3819 basalt cup on pedestal with four handles T68, a- 3824 ivory c, 3865 statuettes 69c,p, 3912 fragments 70s. T68-72

T69, b, 3823-28 ivory d-f, h, 3893? statuettes i, m-o 3903 a-c fragments

Burnt layer Burnt layer as a pillar decoration In the Burnt layer with a similar helmet (3976: Abb. 83) IS Burnt layer, behind the middle base, near the stairs, with a large amount of burnt bronze objects Ash layer

K2 (?)

burnt collapse

K2

burnt collapse

K2

burnt collapse

K2

burnt collapse

K2 (?)

burnt collapse

K2 (?)

burnt collapse

K2 (?)

burnt collapse

K2 (?)

burnt collapse

K2

IS. Behind the round fireplace (Lehmann), inserted in the floor

K2 K2

K2

round the stone installation in the middle of the SW wall, behind the fireplace (s. pg 70)

Pucci – Ch. IV Functional Analysis of Architecture at Zincirli Rm

Figure Inventory Description q, r, u

K/2

K/3

3910 3959 T71 y, 3917-23 z, aa- 4018 ad, af, 72af,h,l T40,a 3695

religious features (decorated helmets and axes), ivory statuettes, metal coverings for furniture, and vases (clay or metal).

Location I Location II

ivory animal K2 heads

Se.133

fragment of K3 a bronze incised helmet

burnt collapse

Table 38: Figure

The architectural features of room K/3 were very different from those of the rooms described above: the superstructures of the walls are as thick as the foundations so that there was not a wooden revetment on the faces of the walls, which were not plastered. Two steps led from K/2 to K/3 and the door was moved to the west in front of the fireplace. Inside this room was found a decorated bronze helmet. The function of this room is closely linked to the western area of K/2: the opening to K/3 was very large and marked by the stone steps. In an attempt to imagine a ritual carried in room K/2 and also due to the similarities to J/3 and J/7-9, we may stress that the ruler entered in the reception room from K/3, which was a deposit for valuable objects 377 . The function of room K/4 as a staircase seems clear: a wooden threshold leading to the stairs is preserved and remains of plaster and mud bricks indicate that the “tower” was accessible. The southern part of K/4 built with pebbles was possibly the supporting part of the second ramp of the stairs. Room K/5 was added after building K was constructed 378 : it was not accessible from the other rooms of K so that probably it was connected to the western structures L/3-/1 and referred to this service area accessible from outside. Numerous objects are identified as being found in the “Northern Palace”, which means in general J or K or L. In an attempt to compare the kind of objects found in the three structures, we could point out as follows: 1. Building K is architecturally central and its location is emphasised. 2. K has wooden coverings of the wall while J has not 3. K/2 and J/3 have similar features: the size, the location of the fireplace, the connection with smaller deposit rooms. 4. In J, the large number of objects included precious materials, votive finds, and administrative documents (tablets and weights). By contrast, K involved two kinds of materials: weapons and ivory statuettes concentrated behind the fireplace. The objects without a precise location (cf. Table 38: ) bear similar features: administrative objects in precious materials (seals, weights, and ingots), weapons with

T19,c

Inven tory 4235

T38,b

3706

T38,e

3942

T40,c

3779

T41 T48, l-t

As J/9 in relationship to J/3. The superstructure of the western wall of K/2 is on the external side as large as the foundations, hence it was the external wall of the building, or K/5 did not have a wooden covering for the walls.

painted jar with two handles

Loc I JKL

Loc II

Baked clay impression of Bar Rakib seal with winged sun, moon? Symbol and Aramaic inscription Black stone stamp seal with lion and seven stars, silver setting bronze axe with decoration and copper inlays

JKL

JKL

(NP)

JKL

3964

Iron helmet

JKL

bronze cylindrical coverings, or bells

JKL

T49,i

5951 – 5958 3931

In the Burnt layer with several metal objects Northern room, Burnt layer (46 fragments.) Burnt layer

JKL

Burnt layer

T49,k

3932

JKL

Collapse

T53,b T54,f

5937 3773

JKL JKL

Burnt layer Burnt layer

T55,a

3787

JKL

Burnt layer

T55,b c de

37803785

JKL

Burnt layer

T56,g

3817

JKL

Burnt layer

T58 u-v

3707 a, b

Copper covering for furniture?, forming a goat head Copper covering for furniture?, forming a goat head copper decoration square copper sheet with button in the middle silver sheet with rosettes silver sheet with sphinxes and rosettes five small bronze/copper cups, the ones inside the others silver ingots with inscription of bar Rakib, weights?

JKL

T58,t

------

Pg119: spread in the collapse just above the floor casually found

T70, f, g T70, hr, t-w, z-ab

3853 3854 3855 –57 3875/ 58 385969 387274 382951

T71 a-x

67

Description

In the north palace, possibly in the Burnt layer (Lehmann 17) (NP)

377 378

Small finds from the so-called Northern Palace: JKL

silver ingots with Bar Rakib inscription ivory fragment of statuette ivory fragments of statuettes and decorations

JKL

JKL

Burnt layer

fragments of ivory small pillars with palms

JKL

Burnt layer, possibly in room J/6?

JKL

Pucci – Ch. IV Functional Analysis of Architecture at Zincirli Figure T72g,i,k ,m-r

Inven tory 3924 4016, 17,19 -21 387677

Description ivory animal heads

Loc I JKL

side of R. The façade of NWH towards R joined the façade of building NÖH. Both structures were built at the same time, as the connected walls testify, but while NWH was a “built boundary”, NÖH was an independent building, which reused the typical module of two large rooms with tower and portico (Bit Hilani) 380 .

Loc II Burnt layer

Table 39:

In conclusion, the northern part of this large complex had two open areas: an official area, which was accessible from gate Q and was limited by the facades of J and K, and a smaller northern irregular space, accessible from a side entry which had only service functions. Inside the two buildings two main functions were emphasised: the reception and the representation. Some elements might refer to a religious activity which seems more linked to the celebration of the ruler than of a god. The large number of luxury goods stored in some specific rooms in J and K represented the power of the rulers while their presence in L might indicate a storage production area. Stones and baked bricks marking routes across the courtyard plastered M. Open façades limited M to the north, while a closed wall with bastions was its southern boundary. The routes through the court led from gate Q to the two northern buildings and a crossing street led to the only entrance to the southern court R. During this period, this large space was a courtyard facing two main buildings. The gate with lions and the façades of J and K (which all date to an older period) support a representational aim of the area. In particular, the attention to symmetry in the accesses to the buildings, the plaster covering the external walls, the orthostat on the jamb to J and the stone stairs to K show that the structures had the intentional aim of building a backdrop for this open court. NÖH and NWH limited courtyard M to the south and to the east (Plate 11). NWH contained two rooms NWH/1 and NWH/2, to which two more rooms (NWH/3 and /4) and several external new walls were added later. The façade of M had rectangular towers and a small (2.20 m) rear access to the structure. The main entrance to the structure faced courtyard R: the main room (NWH/1) was completely open to south and three pillars or columns supported the lintel of an entrance 24 meters wide. The structure had stone foundations and timber frame. The access was plastered with slabs and the pillars/columns had stone square slabs at their bases 379 . These bases had holes on their upper sides in order to fix tenons of vertical orthostats, which probably limited the lower part of these pillars. The floor of NWH/1 was not reliably identified: however, its elevation can be inferred from the elevation of the northern and southern sill. No installations or objects were found in both rooms. We can interpret NWH/1 as a screen dividing the two courtyards (M and R): at the same time it connects and divides the two areas. It is a frame with two façades: one towards M completely closed and supported by towers, the other completely open towards R, with pillars dividing the space. I would not define NWH as a building but rather as a wing, a curtain with two façades and an internal space, which corresponded to the facing structure P, on the opposite 379

Rooms in NWH and NÖH

Room

Size Access Quality Visibili Elevation ibility ty of the main floor NÖH/1 54 3A High Low 10.5 NÖH/2 120 3C NÖH/3 47

High

Low

10.5

3E

High

Low

10.5

NWH/1 130 3A

High

Low

10.1

NWH/2 16

3D

High

Low

10.1

NWH/3 5

3D

High

Low

10.1

NWH/4 4

3D

High

Low

10.1

NÖH had stone foundations, timber frame, clay floors. The internal faces of the walls were plastered with clay, lime and probably frescoes 381 . Two pillars with orthostats framed the entrance, and a central column standing on a sphinx base 382 supported the door lintel. The arrangement of the carved orthostats in the pillars was not clear: the eastern orthostats were in situ, but only fragments of the western one (F/3) were found in place. Von Luschan, Orthmann and Koldewey proposed three different reconstruction of the orthostats` arrangement. The main difference concerns the central scene: von Luschan proposes a series of juxtaposed scenes, with musicians, warriors, and diners walking in different directions, while Orthmann argues that the central scene is a banquet 383 on which all other represented figures converge (as Table 40: shows). Moreover, a third element, the building inscription 384 could fit in this western pillar. Koldewey’s interpretation was based on physical features of the orthostat: he identified some elements (as the rim above the representations), which are also visible in the carved orthostats assigned to this western pillar. His main problem was locating its exact position on the pillar: the thickness of the orthostat seemed not to fit with the base of the pillar, with the traces left on the base stone and with the other orthostats 385 and consequently could not 380

For this reason Naumann 1971 named it “Hilani 4”. A large fragment was found in situ in room NÖH/1. 382 Fragments of a base column shaped as a sphinx were found near the entrance. A square stone in situ proved that a support did exist, thus Koldewey replaced the reconstructed base above the central slab. Cf. Fig. 74-77 in R. Koldewey 1898. 383 J. Voos 1985: 71-86 and Fig. 15, which reproduces the reconstruction of the complete decoration of the pillar, published this orthostat. 384 W. Orthmann 1971: K/1 this inscription was found spread in the southern courtyard and its original location was the reason for discussion between von Luschan and Koldewey. 385 However, considering the drawing of this pillar, its location as western jamb of the entrance to NÖH/1 seems not to face 381

Cf. Fig. 78 in R. Koldewey 1898.

68

Pucci – Ch. IV Functional Analysis of Architecture at Zincirli

have been located as a jamb on this structure. Thus, the jambs of the entrance to NÖH/1 were decorated with carved orthostats showing the king and the scribe on the eastern jamb (with lines of inscription) and a banquet scene with musicians and diners on the western one. We can observe that the orthostat is 0.80m large and 0.62m thick, and Koldewey maintains that it could only fit in the front of the western pillar and consequently served as a central scene. In addition, the identity of the king (Bar Rakib both in the “inscription orthostat” and in NÖH), the emphasis on the king as a builder, the references in the inscription to two separated areas in a building, which really separated two areas, suggest a relationship between this orthostat and the building NÖH. Table 40: Installation

Banquet

(weights, spindle whorls), knucklebones and jewellery. In NÖH, no precious materials, or weapons or objects somehow similar to the ones found in J or K were collected. The large number of spindle whorls made with common materials suggests that textiles were probably produced in front of this structure. 388 As the objects are not reliably located inside one particular room in the building, it is not possible to specify where the activities were carried out. The large number of so-called knucklebones, instead, found on the floor inside the structure might suggest a specific purpose for the building. These objects have not been very closely studied: they have been interpreted as gaming pieces 389 or possibly they could have been employed for administration 390 . The orthostatic “decoration” of NÖH/1 confers an official function onto the structure, but it is limited to the entrance. Considering the other rooms these structures was probably used to regulate the administration of the activities pursued in the area of the courtyard. There was not so much jewellery that we can argue for the existence of a treasure room and are probably there by chance. The 25 whorls 391 found in NWH are located and indicate an interesting feature: the space was probably used both as connection between the courtyards M and R and as a shaded and well-lit place, where work was carried out.

sphinx

Table 41:

Carved orthostats in NÖH Object Description

row of four the four carved orthos slabs orthostats tats represent musicians playing several instruments row of two Diners carved orthos orthostats tats Orthostat One Seated ruler slab banqueting column base Colu Base with mn sphinx statue base Orthostat carved corner orthos orthostats tat with throne scene and inscription

Dim.

Biblio.

Scene

153x11 Orth. F/5- Musicians 4, 70 8a

80

Orth. F/3, servant F/8b with jugs

114x11 Orth. F/4 5 144x75 Orth. F/2 x100 (h) 157x11 Orth. F/1 2

Objects found in NÖH and NWH

Blg

Figure Invent Description ory NÖH T11,a 2951 bronze weight NÖH pg.94 2867/8 nails 2596

King

NÖH T7,i 2884 NÖH T36,m 2886

Room NÖH/1 is completely open to the south and this room had passage and representational functions. The internal faces of the walls were decorated with frescoes and together with the neighbouring NWH/1 formed an open frame for the courtyard R. NÖH/1 was also the entrance room 386 to NÖH/2: this room had a clay floor, a large size (123 m2) and a smaller room located to the northwest accessible only from here 387 . It is possible, analysing the layout and the orthostats, to argue that NÖH/1 had a representational function with a special focus to the figure of the king, who for the first time at the site appears on a structure as a specific person. NÖH had many formal architectural elements in comparison to NWH, such as the decorated orthostats and the frescoes inside the rooms. If we consider the small finds coming from these structures, we can notice that: 1. NWH was found empty except for 25 spindle whirls near the door leading to M. 2. NÖH contained three groups of objects: work objects

388

Locati Location II on I f-8 Collapse NHB collapse 392 ashes

stone pendent NHB clay model of NHB chariot (?) Bollweg 1999:

with

Old collapse Collapse

The location of several of these objects indicated an ash layer in front/near NÖH. 389 This interpretation is due to the ancient Greek, later Roman (aleae ossum), play (αστραγαλίζω: play dice). In Greek the term, which is related to the term ostrakon and to its origin as a bone, identify also some elements of a whip Cf. L. Rocci 1960: αστράγαλος. 390 This hypothesis has no archaeological evidence. However, it is very interesting to point out that at Tell Tayinat also in building I, many “gaming pieces” (probably knucklebones or tokens) where found. In addition, this building had representative and productive functions like NÖH. 391 As far as the research is concerned, the exact use of these objects in the textile production is not completely clear. If they were spindle whorls, each one should be used to weigh a spindle down and prolong spinning, so it is not related to a loom. A large number of spindle whorls implies a large number of spindles and indicates a spinning rather than a weaving area. (Cf. C. Bier 1995: 1,573). As only one among these finds was published, it is not clear (as their weight is not given) whether they could have been also used as loom weights. 392 This abbreviation indicates the term frequently used in the small find catalogue by the archaeologists at Zincirli: NordHallenbau indicated both NÖH and NWH. The information reported under “location II” provides us with the necessary information to assign the finds to one of them as in column “building”.

problems. Cf. R. Koldewey 1898: 167-168; F. von Luschan 1911: 255 proposes as location for this inscription the entrance to K/1. 386 The internal doors are not preserved. 387 The layout is similar to K/2 and K/3.

69

Pucci – Ch. IV Functional Analysis of Architecture at Zincirli

long period. The rooms, which opened to the courtyard, were a boundary for the courtyard. The pillars, which probably marked the space, formed a counterpart for the façade of NWH. The architectural elements were not similar to the other structures in this area: some walls were not on an axis and the internal arrangement of the rooms did not show any attention to details. The rooms of the second row, to the south, (P/4-/8) were smaller than those facing the courtyard, and some of them opened to the external area to the south. The preserved archaeological remains allow only a partial reconstruction of the layout and of the accesses. P/1 differed from the other rooms due to the presence of niches in the eastern wall. Rooms P/4 and /5 were accessible from the south and from the north, and in room P/4 a central baked brick installation connected with the clay floor suggests the existence of a fire place. Remains of a bathtub were found inside the northern wall of this room, but it was probably not in situ 393 . P/5 also opened to the south and the western wall showed heavy traces of repairs. P/6 was completely destroyed. P/7 still bore traces of plaster and opened to P/8 and to P/3. Room P/8, during this period, extended as far as the mound wall: here, as in the back wall of HIII, the mound wall was not preserved any more and the corner of P was built on its top.

Blg

Figure Invent Description Locati Location II ory on I typ XIII,36 (not arguable) NÖH T60,n 2889 Bone spatula NHB On the plaster as T60,a NÖH T59,d, 2890 bone spatula NÖH From the plaster T60,a NÖH T39,m 2892 cylindrical seal NHB collapse NÖH T4,x 2903 spindle whirl NHB Pal. Bar-Rakib NÖH T4,s 2907+ spindle whirl NHB Bar-Rakib palace 3nn NÖH T4,i 2908 spindle whirl NHB Bar-Rakib palace NÖH T4,k 2909 spindle whirl NHB Bar-Rakib palace NÖH T4,aa 2912 spindle whirl NHB IS (plaster) NÖH Abb. 2919 iron nail NHB Burnt layer Bar135 Rakib palace NÖH T59,g 2934 bone tool NÖH In the foundations NÖH T24,k 3051 Clay bowl NHB, collapse. f-9 (Lehmann 3) NÖH T9,c 3604 serpentine NÖH, collapse above the pendent with f-8 building incised decoration of praying figures and fantastic animals NÖH pg.94 3148 – bronze bracelets NÖH Ash collapse 49 (s.94) NÖH Abb. 3147 spear head NÖH Ash layer 99 NÖH pg. 101 3130 bronze button NHB Bar-Rakib palace on the plaster NÖH T59,q 3098 Knucklebones NÖH, In one of the three collap rooms not heavily se burnt a large amount of Knucklebones was found. (S.122) NÖH T10,e 2939 pendent NÖH, Foundations f-8 NÖH T43, 3077 Bronze Fibula NHB collapse 12 NÖH pg. 136 3039 glass bead NHB Plaster Bar-Rakib palace NÖH T7,k 3015 stone working NHB Old collapse tool NÖH T49,r 3013/4 Nail NHB Collapse BarRakib palace NÖH T38,m 3009 Scarab seal NHB, From the f-9 foundations (older?) NÖH T43,l 3080 bronze fibula NHB collapse near the foundations NW T11,d 2949 Stone weight NHB, collapse of BarH e-8 Rakib palace NW T4,b 2983+ spindle whirl NHB Near the gate to H 24nn (together with e-8 the courtyard 24 other spindle whirls) NW Abb. Many metal leaves NWH Burnt layer H 89 NW T60,f 2548 bone spatula NWH Under the floor H level

Table 42:

Rooms in building P

Roo Size Acc Quality m essi bilit y P/1 120 4F Medium

Visibili Elevation ty of the main floor High 9.2-10.1

P/10 96

4F

Medium

High

9.2-10.1

P/2

14

4F

Medium

High

9.2-10.1

P/3

168 4F

Medium

High

9.2-10.1

P/4

29

3B

Medium

High

9.2-10.1

P/5

26

3B

Medium

High

9.2-10.1

P/6

34

4F

Medium

High

9.2-10.1

P/7

20

4F

Medium

High

9.2-10.1

P/8

31

4F

Medium

High

9.2-10.1

P/9

16

4F

Medium

High

9.2-10.1

Loc I P

Location II

Figure Inv. Abb. ---104 Abb. 98 -----

Description double axe

iron arrow head P

Burnt layer with 2 iron mails

The rooms facing the courtyard had a large size and were completely open to the courtyard. They served as the wings of the backdrop of courtyard R. Probably, as in NWH, these spaces were used as work areas. The southern rooms, which were also accessible from the south, were probably both dwelling and work rooms as the few installations might suggest. The two objects found in the structure refer to the last

P: this structure limited the courtyard R on the southern, western and eastern sides. It seems to have a function similar to the NWH: large rooms with pillars completely open to R. The structure was situated on a slope and had to overcome the natural drop of the mound. The walls had stone foundations and mud bricks plastered walls with timber frame. The floors were made with clay. The structure underwent several repairs and was used over a

393

From the elevation it seems probable that the bathtub collapsed from an upper storey.

70

Pucci – Ch. IV Functional Analysis of Architecture at Zincirli

building phase and are not useful in defining function. Building HIII occupied the western boundary of courtyard R (plate 11). The general layout of the structure reproduced the layout of the Bit Hilani with two large parallel rooms and a flanking tower. The structure was accessible through stairs and the base of its façade had an orthostatic revetment with reliefs. Table 43:

centre of the façade. This element gave a sense of movement towards the entrance of the building to the western side of courtyard R. Table 44:

Room Installatio n HIII/a two column base HIII/g drain stone HIII/g Fire place

Rooms in HIII

Room Size Acc Quality Visibility Elev. essi of the bilit main y floor HIII/a 83 4A Very high Medium 10.5 HIII/c 21

4D

Very high Medium

10.5

HIII/d 168

4C

Very high Medium

10.5

HIII/e 48

4F

Very high Medium

10.5

HIII/f

15

4F

Very high Medium

10.5

HIII/g 25

4F

Very high Medium

10.5

HIII/h 6

4F

Very high Medium

10.5

HIII/i

4F

Very high Medium

10.5

4F

Very high Medium

10.5

6

HIII/k 11

Installations of HIII

HIII/h drain stone HIII/i deposit of small vases HIII/k deposit of small vases R/1 row of carved orthostats R/1 row of carved orthostats R/1 Stairs

This structure was built during the same period as NWH and NÖH. The western rear wall of HIII was built above the mound wall so that the building was visible from the lower town. A stone staircase (probably three steps), two symmetric niches in the façade containing the orthostats carved with figures of men in procession built the scenario of the entrance. Considering that the stone base of HIII reached the bottom of the orthostats and that they were fixed to the mud brick superstructure through a timber frame, they did not have a structural function. The orthostats were on a level higher than the level of the floor in R so they did not protect the wall from rainfall. Consequently, they did not have a practical structural function, but rather a pure symbolic one as media for images. Many slabs were reused in the later building period and others were left in place after the images were erased 394 . However, it is possible to reconstruct the scene as humans walking in procession. The differences among the figures, in so far as the orthostats have been published, concerns the presence/absence of beards, or of stags, or the kind of hats or the direction the figures are walking in. All figures have outstretched right hands (which seem to emphasise the sense of walking and movement), feet and heads are in profile, and they have the same size and are apparently all men. Considering that the figures on the orthostats in situ turned to the direction of the entrance to HIII, it seem arguable (as also archaeologists reconstructed) that two rows of figures were walking to the direction of the door situated in the

Object column bases

Installation Objects Description bases flanked by two sphinxes each, 155x124x96

Square stone two walls the walls are very thin perpendicular to the BM Square stone Vase

small jug

Vase

small jug

2 carved orthostat north of the entrance 6 carved orthostat south of the entrance step made of square slabs

row of peoples walking to the south dressed with long dresses row of peoples walking to the north wearing long dresses slabs

The preserved step is 8.20 m long and we can suppose that the opening of the entrance was at least as wide as this step. Koldewey, in order to fulfil symmetric needs reconstructed an entrance 11.83 m long. In the burnt area where the threshold used to be, two column bases with carved sphinxes were found. Koldewey has maintained that they were not in situ, but were buried in this area with a large amount of wood, while von Luschan has suggested that, the location is the original position of both the bases. The archaeological situation showed that the preserved elevation of the eastern wall of HIII, where the two bases were found, is too low (10.1) in comparison to the elevation of the floor inside HIII (10.7), hence it cannot be the original elevation. However, if we consider the existence of a stone threshold and that probably several stones were taken from the socle as building materials, we can argue that both bases belong to HIII and they later collapsed on to a lower level. The amount of ash, which led Koldewey to think of a funerary ritual, indicates that probably not only the threshold was made with wood, but also the two columns, the jamb and the lintel, all of which burnt together. HIII/a like NÖH/1 is an entrance room completely open to R. A fragment of carved basalt stone representing a throne 395 was found in this building. This slab might have been located at the main entrance. In this case the throned king would have been the arrival point of the procession of men, represented on the orthostats at the entrance. The movement of figures towards the throned king would give to the building the meaning of a “place where the king sits”. As per construal, it is possible to interpret the

394

F. Von Luschan 1911: 345 argues that in order to occupy the front of the HIII. 23 figures on each side were needed and that they had found 23 figures. Among these orthostats, only 10 were taken to the Museum (Berlin and Istanbul), while the others were left in place or in the deposit and later lost. One of these slabs is currently at the Gaziantep Museum. Also, W. Orthmann 1971: 547 reconstructs 45 represented figures; he has published nine figures represented in six slabs (one slab more than those that von Luschan has published).

395

71

W. Andrae 1943a: T62, a

Pucci – Ch. IV Functional Analysis of Architecture at Zincirli

room HIII/d as the reception room, where the king sat. Table 45:

Objects in HIII

Figure Invent Description ory T62,a 2092 Carved basalt stone with representation of a throne T24,i 2494 clay bowl

Locati Location II on I H III

T29,b 2515

H III

T53, c-f T60, ab T26,g T1,f T28,p T28,n Pg. 53-54 T49, v Abb. 145

fists” and glazed rings. The archaeological context suggests that these elements were removed from their original location and put all together in a pit. There is one important difference between the clay fists found here and the Assyrian ones. Those found in Zincirli have a hollow on their top and are not flat like the Assyrian ones. 398 They seem more similar to a different category of objects, which is typical for this region and period and is often called “censors or votive spoons”. 399 The function of the Assyrian clay fists and of the Syrian votive spoons has been long debated. 400 The Assyrian clay fists were found twice in situ (at Assur and Nimrud): they were set vertically into the wall with mortar and probably had either an apotropaic function 401 or more likely supported the roof beams. The censers or votive spoons appear to have been related to activity of pouring liquids due to the existence of a perforation through the shaft. Those found at Zincirli, with cupped hands pressed together, distinguished thumbs on either side, nails at the opposite end of the shank and the perforation suggest a different function. Liquids could be poured inside them and the liquids could flow out to the ground on either side of the fists. This may imply their use in worship rituals. 402 Archaeologists reported that many of the glazed rings were found inside the building, while in the object catalogue they are reported only as being found together with the clay fists in this pit to the south. 403 These glazed rings are identical to those known in the Assyrian palaces as the frames of openings trough the walls. 404 Moreover, similar architectural elements 405 were found also in NÖH, even though there is no mention in the catalogue. Among these installations we can point out that the clay

clay jug

H III?

2579 Bronze disks H III 3798/9 with central knob 2581 bone spatula H III (?) 2880 clay jug H III 2895 Stone tool West (Steinbeil) Palace 3092 fragment of clay H III bowl 3093 fragment of clay H III bowl 782 75 small bowls H III (abc)etc. 2315- Bronze ring HIII 2318 fixable in the wall 3044 Bronze Ring H III/a

pg.54

27932830

Abb. 186

--

T54,a

2530

T52

2532

55 small bowls

H III/fk

H III/g

Copper sheet H III/g with rosettes and lotus decoration Bronze H III/g sheet/fitting

2.5 deep. Western palace In the collapse nearby (Lehmann 20) In Western palace Western palace (Lehmann 15) 2m in the collapse collapse (Lehmann 22) Collapse. (Lehmann 21) From a small burnt room. (Lehmann 9) Four similar objects found together Ash layer behind the double sphinx base In one small room to the west, next to the room where the similar 75 pieces were found Bar Rakib palace, Burnt collapse near two drains, western side IS On the floor in a small room, 2mdeep IS In the burnt collapsed material on the floor of a small room

398

W. Andrae 1943a: 155, 230-2 argues that this hollow made the object lighter. 399 It appears that they did not have a hollow passing through the pegs, as the ones found in Chatal Höyük for example, instead only a cavity on their top. 400 E. J. Peltenburg 1968 made a typology of the glazed fists found in Assyria and argues for a supporting function on the ledges of windows for the Assyrian ones, whereas those from Zincirli supported a roof beam and the hollow hosted a peg of the beam. O. W. Muscarella 1965 compares the glazed fists with the votive spoons that have a hand represented on their bottom. These “spoons” had a tube at one end, which would allow liquid to flow and belong more to an Anatolian tradition cf. R. M. Boehmer 1972: fig. 2191, A. Müller-Karpe 1988, C. Preusser 1955: pl. 14b. S. Mazzoni 2005. P.R.S. Moorey 1985: 180, stresses that none of them were meant to carry a great weight and that the only constant may have been apotropaic. A. Hausleiter 1999: 277 argues for role in ceiling or roof construction. 401 Small models of hands were common amulets in the ED period and are known from later periods. Cf. J. Black et A. Green 1992. 402 The inscriptions found on some Assyrian clay fists refer to temples, palaces and city wall as their location, but the archaeological evidence testify that they were also found in normal housing and as part of funerary equipment. 403 R. Koldewey 1898: 157, W. Andrae 1943a: T31,f-g 404 P.R.S. Moorey 1985: 177 405 As R. Koldewey [1898: 157] affirms.

The smaller rooms to the rear side of the building, from the objects found in them, functioned as service rooms. In two of these rooms, a large number of bowls stacked within each other 396 were found. In room HIII/g, a mud brick installation that could be used to support a container above a fire, 397 occupied the western area of the room. The bronze sheets found in this room suggest the existence of a piece of furniture on which they were fixed. In a pit to the south of the building, several architectural elements were found. They were several so-called “Clay 396

These two rooms were probably room HIII/h and /I according to the information that Hrouda provides. (cf. IVB5.Table 44: ) 397 R. Koldewey 1898: 158 argues that a bathtub could be placed above the small mud brick structure to warm the water that could flow in the drain.

72

Pucci – Ch. IV Functional Analysis of Architecture at Zincirli

fists found in Zincirli, because to their different shape, do not have a similar function to the function of the Assyrian “handkonsolen”. Nonetheless, the material, the colour and the style are more similar to the Assyrian tradition of clay fists. The other installations show also links to the Assyrian architectural tradition. However, it remains unclear why these objects were moved and buried outside the buildings and to which building they really belonged. In conclusion, it is possible to argue that building HIII had two main functions: representation of the king, reception and probably dwelling function. The rear rooms were to provide services for entire building. R: the courtyard was not paved, as we do not have any remains of the floor. It is interesting to consider the faces of the walls lining this space and outline the differences with M. The open porticoes of NWH and P (with columns or pillars) framed the courtyard R and characterised its boundaries. HIII and NÖH, both with carved orthostats and entrance halls are the two “real” buildings facing this court. The rooms facing R were well lighted and could have been used as working spaces. Four serpentine stone moulds were found in the middle of the court. Considering that we do not have a floor in the court, that R was also in the later period used and structures were built in it, we cannot with certainty ascribe the moulds to the period of construction of the courtyard. However, we can point out that these working installations fit well with the presence of a large number of working tools in this southern area. In Plate 12, the eastern wing of P adjoins the NÖH and closes the courtyard. This reconstruction assumes that the eastern and western walls of P/1 run continuously under HII as far as NÖH. As archaeologists did not investigate under the later HII, we lack the archaeological evidence to maintain this reconstruction. According to this reconstruction, courtyard R is not directly accessible from outside. From the north, there is an access through building NWH. But, as mentioned above, this access is narrow and dislocated on the one side and if we consider the representative and reception role of HIII, it does not seem probable that this entrance was the only entrance to courtyard R and to the buildings facing it. The southern wing of P might provide another possibility of entrance 406 from the south. But the southern area was not excavated and it appears that other closed spaces adjoined P/4-/8. Thus, in the attempt to reconstruct the general layout of the area, we lack a “representative” entrance to R. We can offer two hypotheses: 1. The entrance to the area was under building HII, symmetric with the northern entrance Q. This entrance was in the later period covered by the construction of HII and R, which no longer fulfilled a representative or reception function, was accessible from the south. 407 2. The entrance was from the south in the area that is heavily damaged (P/6), where the layout was completely

different. The two reconstructions show two very different landscapes. According to the first, the courtyard R and courtyard M would have had similar accessibility. Around both courtyards there were several buildings grouped together; in both unroofed spaces representative structures were shown. In the southern courtyard the attention was focused on the figure of a single king. Moreover, if we reconstruct a gate leading to R, we could also place here the “statue above horse base” which was described above. This reconstruction would let us interpret the summer and winter residences in “building inscription” as two areas (one around court M and the other around court R) with similar functions. According to the second reconstruction, the courtyard R and consequently all the buildings opening to it, would have had a more private character, because they were not easily accessible and the door through NWH was not a monumental representative one, but a small service passage, narrow and at double axis. It is not possible to choose between them: the first reconstruction seems to better fit with inscription and the iconographic setting of the structures. However, it implies the reconstruction of a building (the gate to court R), whose traces were never found (but also, archaeologists never looked for them either). Therefore, we in this work stay with the second reconstruction, as it is the closer to the architectural remains actually found on the mound. Table 46:

Objects found in courtyard R

Figure T40,d

Inv. 2314

T31,d, e

2302

T8,a

2551

T8,b

2552

T31,f,g 2257 T8,f 2923 T8,e

2925

T3,q

2926

T45,c

2989

pg. 105 3042 T59,m 3066 T49,p

3653

T20,d

3657

T20,b

3658

406

Probably in the third building period, when the northern section (J, K, L, M, NWH and NÖH) was burnt and in ruins, R was accessible from the south. 407 A statue standing on horses’ base might have been located near this gate. Cf. pg 50 ff.

73

Description Loc I Bronze carved H III axe for chariot

Loc. II IS Near the orthostats, 3m deep glazed hand H III, c- In a pit south of shelf with hole 10 the building with others Serpentine H III, d-9 matrix for metals Serpentine H III, d-9 1.5m deep inside matrix for the collapse metals glazed rings H III,c-10 Near T31.d,e Stone mould NHB, e-9 In front of BarRakib palace Serpentine NHB, e-9 In front of Barmatrix for Rakib palace metals Stone tool NÖH In front of the entrance of the Bar Rakib palace Silver half NÖH From the ash layer moon in front of the building Bronze plaque NÖH Eastern façade Bone tool NÖH In front of the entrance Bronze Lamp NÖH From the ash layer in front of the building NÖH cup with goat R collapse above the decoration socle, east of the building with columns, later Fragment of a R collapse above the cup with goat orthostats, later decoration

●

●

●

C

●

●

Defence

Passage

Storage

Services

Representation

Production

Religious god's house Religious (rite)

●

●

● ●

●

●

●

NÖH ●

●

●

M

● ●

●

NWH

●

●

P

●

●

Q R D

●

LG QM

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

E

●

The space on the acropolis was divided into two areas. To the north-west several buildings surrounded the two courtyards. To the extent that the area was excavated, the access to the area was only through the one on the north. In general, the structures built around courtyard R had working, administrative and representative functions. The building HIII to the west, on a higher level than the surrounding ones, was used to represent royal power; its internal rooms were used for dwelling and reception functions. The surrounding halls, (NWH and P) bore traces of working activities. The NÖH had multiple features, which referred to several functions. The decoration of the jambs as the external decoration of HIII celebrated the kingship and the figure of the king. Whereas, the objects found inside NÖH refer to administrative activities. By contrast, the northern section around courtyard M seemed to have kept only a private and dwelling function. According to the second reconstruction, the official area would be the less accessible one. All public power and representation was then located in this area of the mound, which represented the arrival point, the statue outside gate Q, and of the route described above. The analysis of the north-eastern area showed more problems: according to the stratigraphy, we argued 410 that the large building HI was not anymore in use and that several smaller units were built on this area. Thus, this area would have been a dwelling area surrounding a collapsed structure.

Defence

Passage

Storage

Services

Representation

Production

Religious god's house Religious (rite)

Dwelling Reception

Admin

Bldg

●

●

L

● ●

●

K

Distribution of the functions in the second building period

B

Ab2

J

The second building phase (Plates 3, 9 and 11) at the site represents the period of construction, which entailed a larger number of structures, and hence in this phase the organisation and the distribution of functions is the highest among the three periods. During this period, the town had a developed defensive system with the town wall with three accesses: two of them (B and C) had representative and defensive functions, while the southern one also bore religious features. We can point to a series of structures, which may represent the halts in religious ceremonies or places where several rituals were performed: from the outside these structure were the gate A, the gate D, both giving access from the south, and the large area LG limited by E 409 .

A

●

HIII

Period: Distribution of the Functions

BM

SM WH

IVB6. The Citadel during the Second Building

Table 47:

Dwelling Reception

Bldg

Summing up, buildings J and K outlined the most representative frame of courtyard M. Here K played the main role with its staircase and the columned portico. The other limits of the courtyard gave the impression of defensive structures: the mound wall, the towered back wall of NWH and the back walls of NÖH showed only closed surfaces. At the same time, the paving in M and the three paved streets across it marked the routes leading to the principal buildings in the town: J and K, which gained a representative and “official” function. Anyone who entered M through the lion gate Q, had to turn to the right to enter either of the structures J and K or to cross the whole “empty” space of M in order to reach the southern area of R. By contrast, R looked more like a central courtyard surrounded by open working rooms and dominated by two towered buildings, standing on a higher elevation. We may spot a private dwelling and representation area in M and a public administrative one in R. This division only reminds the usual division 408 of space in Assyrian palaces, where private dwelling area was separated from public administrative ones. Differences are here substantial: the Assyrian complexes are structures made of rooms, while the Syro-Hittite complexes are made of buildings structurally separated and functionally independent from each other.

Admin

Pucci – Ch. IV Functional Analysis of Architecture at Zincirli

408

Cf. E. Heinrich 1984: 189-193, J. C. Margueron 1982: 320 The statue outside Q was probably already destroyed. Cf. IIIF3 409

410

74

Cf. IIIE

Pucci – Ch. IV Functional Analysis of Architecture at Zincirli

is difficult to argue with certainty about the function of this structure. Koldewey 413 , influenced by the function of the later gate E, also reconstructed the layout of this older building as a gate. However, we can only stress that the layout of the structure did not reproduce the usual layout of a gate. This structure had to the north a staircase and to the south, a large room (95m2) divided into two parts. The room, which was interpreted as a passage, had a large opening to the east (2.85 m), but a small (1.45 m) one to the west, thus not functional as a gateway. To the east, an isolated building towered over the landscape: the HI (Plate 9). This building was very badly preserved and no installation or small find belonged to this structure, assuming that, as stated above 414 , the floor level was not preserved. Therefore, only the architectural information provides us with some clues to argue about its function.

IVC. Period I: the Original Layout of the Citadel IVC1. The Earliest Structure Table 48: shows the structures, which were built during the first building period (Plate 2), those that were kept in use in the second period and those that were destroyed at the end of the first period. Only the structures destroyed at the end of this period entail objects, which can provide information about their function. Five among the sixteen structures are gates. The buildings on the acropolis are distributed in two areas: east and west. Table 48:

Structures of the first building phase at Zincirli Bldg BM

Bldg Bldg Phase I Phase II ● ●

Locati El. of the on main floor all Various

A

●

●

Ext.

0

B

●

●

Ext.

1.9

Buil Bldg ding Ext HI 1742

C

●

●

Ext.

1.7

HI

Visibil Quality Room ity Very High HI/A high High HI/A

SM

●

●

Ext.

HI

High

HI/A

HI

●

NE

16

HI

High

HI/A

114 W Stone

Stone

IM

●

NE

9.4 (TF)

HI

High

HI/B

176 N

Stone

Stone

Ab3

●

NW

9.6

HI

High

HI/B

176 S

Stone

Stone

J

●

●

NW

9.8

HI

High

HI/B

176 E

Stone

Stone

K

●

●

NW

10

HI

High

HI/B

176 W Stone

Stone

L

●

●

NW

9

HI

High

HI/C

40

S

Stone

Stone

M+R ●

●

NW

9.5

HI

High

HI/C

40

E

Stone

Stone

IM

High

IM

36

Stone

Stone

Q

●

NW

10.1

Ab1

●

SE

7.8

D

●

●

SE

4.8

LG

●

●

SE

4-5.5

Table 49:

36 (l)

Eastern area: HI and IM architectural features

Low

Rm sid Founda Socle Ext e tions 114 N Stone Stone 114 S

Stone

Stone

114 E

Stone

Stone

The building is isolated from the other structures. It was built on a massive stone base and probably an internal wall (IM) separated it from the rest of the acropolis 415 . These elements suggest that the building was not meant to be easily accessible and consequently not many persons were supposed to enter it. It was, however, visible from the lower town, and therefore it entailed a representative function. The following architectural features can be pointed out: the entering room HI/A was flanked by two walls which were 12 meters wide 416 and were therefore interpreted as towers, the back wall was also very thick (7 m) and parallel to the mound wall. The massive structure suggests a defensive function as a fortified building. But taking the location of this building into consideration, a defensive function seems very

The defensive system of the acropolis and of the lower town was built during this first period. Therefore, the town did not enlarge over time, starting from a small settlement on the higher area and gradually widening to the lower area, but was occupied to its largest size since the beginning of its Iron Age occupation. 411

IVC2. The entrance to the Citadel After entering the acropolis, the built areas during the first building period were located on the east and on the west, apparently separated by an unbuilt area (Plates 2 8). 412 One structure Ab1 was built in the area where later in a second phase the internal gate E was constructed. It

413

R. Koldewey 1989: 131 and Fig. 38 Cf. pg. 25 415 The archaeological evidence shows that this wall limited the southern side of HI, but its complete course was reconstructed. cf. pg.23 416 The excavations unearthed the northern “tower” or bastion, while the southern one is only reconstructed because it was not completely excavated, hence we cannot exclude the existence of a room or a staircase in the width of the wall. 414

411

We do not have any archaeological proof to maintain that the site was not occupied in the Late Bronze Age. However, the historical sources do not provide any elements of the existence of a town in this location and the lower elevation of the mound also suggest that this site did not have a long period of occupation. Cf. S. Mazzoni 1994 412 This structure was not extensively excavated

75

Pucci – Ch. IV Functional Analysis of Architecture at Zincirli

unlikely. This structure is in the most inaccessible location of the mound - a hypothetical enemy would have had to cross the town wall, the mound wall, the eastern part of the acropolis and eventually the internal wall (IM) to reach it. An attack from the lower town on other parts of the mound wall would be more successful, since the difference in height between the mound wall and the lower town was 5 meters at its least. Further, there was no reason to make this structure particularly resistant against enemies; since by the time the enemy approached this building, the acropolis would already have been lost. Thus, the particular care and effort given to its construction must bear another meaning. We can hypothesise three possibilities: 1. A precious and important “object” was preserved inside this building, thus an architecture symbolising safety and stability was needed. 2. The structure had a military function and it was meant as a fortress. 3. The layout was influenced by a very strong predefined pattern. But, models did not limit the architects: but, the builder, as always in architecture, employed and changed the models to suit their needs. 417 Archaeologists excavated three rooms in this building. It is possible to reconstruct another room to the south of HI/B, but there is no archaeological evidence to prove it. According to the reconstruction of the stratigraphy, the main floor of the structure was not preserved because in later period the area was plundered for building materials, and the area was levelled in order to construct building G. Then, how were the excavated rooms, which were located under the floor level, used? They could have been filled with building materials in order to build a massive structure/socle. Archaeologists 418 have not mentioned a difference in consistency in the filling material; they found only a difference between the lower part of the foundations (five stone layers, 1.85 m high), made of small stones, and the upper part (four stone layers), made of larger and higher stones (2.30 m). This suggests that the underground part, i.e. the foundations, were ca. 1.85 meters and the remaining part (2.30 meters at least) formed the base of the walls. As we do not have any evidence to maintain that these rooms were filled, but at the same time, since there is no mention of floors, it appears simpler not to try to interpret these rooms as ones that were in use, because they would have been accessible only from the upper storey and we do not find any comparisons 419 for similar structures in the Iron Age. On the other hand, elevating buildings above a stone base seems to have been a very common feature in this area in this period. Rooms HI/a and HI/b were of a very large size: if HI/A

was intended only as the entering room then its area of 114 m2 had a representative function. Moreover, the main room was 176 m2 and it was therefore possibly intended as reception room. Thus, as regards this structure, we can only maintain that: 1. It had a symbolic function of expressing power and might. 2. It was meant to hold “precious” objects or persons, like the king, god statues etc. 3. It was not easily accessible, but it was at the same time built to receive a large number of persons at once. 4. It was the highest structure on the mound during this building period, visible from the lower town. To Conclude, this building fulfilled a receptive and representative function, but it is not possible to establish whether it had a secular or a religious meaning 420 .

IVC3. The North-western Area: Buildings facing the Open Space On the western side of the acropolis, a complex of several buildings was constructed. Following table shows the structures built during the first building period in the north-west area, the elevation of the floors and their size. Table 50: Bld

North West area: buildings Ext

Visibility Quality

Ab3

65x15

Medium

Medium

Elev of the main floor 9.6

J

1557

Low

Very high

9.8

K

603

Low

High

10

L

414

Low

Low

9

M+R 2655

Low

High

8.3-8.9

Q

low

High

10.1

70

The structures (Plate 12) were built over a period and probably the area was not planned at once. Actually, building K was probably the last construction in this area. All structures were part of a wide building complex, whose only access was through gate Q. Present preservation of this structure allows several observations. Only the stone lion jambs and the paved street leading through gate Q to courtyard M are preserved. In this research, the layout of the gate is reconstructed 421 according to the archaeological remains: two flanking towers and one passing room. It is necessary to point out that this gate, unlike the others, is a structural part of a building complex and it is not isolated. Probably the remains of stone foundations found to the north are the limit of the passing room of the gate, thus, there was a rectangular passage room of a size of 70 m2. According to this reconstruction, it is possible to assume that when J was built, or later when its entrance was structurally changed, 422 the walls of the building adjoined the corner

417

The use of the layout called “Hilani” seems to become very frequent during the Syro-Hittite period. This type was not a part of the architectural tradition rooted in north-Syria and southwest Anatolia during the Late Bronze Age and it could not strongly limit the project of a building. Cf. for the Hilani: V. Fritz 1983, R. Naumann 1971: 417-426, J. C. Margueron 1977. 418 R. Koldewey 1898: 137 419 The TP at Tell Halaf have a similar construction method, but it is made with mud bricks, and there are two structures the one above the other. Cf. VG1

420

The neighbouring grave dates to the second building period I am grateful to Prof. J. G. Schmid for suggesting a better solution for this reconstruction. 422 At the same time K was built and became the central part of 421

76

Pucci – Ch. IV Functional Analysis of Architecture at Zincirli

This area (M+R) was 2655 m2 and, during this building period, was the “courtyard” of four buildings (J, K, L and Ab3). It had in part the function of connecting the rooms in Ab3 to buildings J and K, and to the gate Q. Its size makes it possible to gather many people at the same time. Its lack of accessibility suggests that it was not supposed to be an often-frequented place. Only an analysis of the surrounding building shed light on whether it was meant for work activities, grouping of people or only display of power. Archaeologists at the site neglected building Ab3. It was situated under the later structures HIII, P and probably HII: therefore, it was only partially excavated. It is not clear whether the rooms visible in the plan were completely dug and the floor was not preserved, or whether they were left unearthed due to their location under massive buildings. The level of the stairs leading to the above HIII was 9.94; the tops of the preserved structures of Ab3 were at elevation 9.67m in courtyard R and at elevation 10.59m under HIII. According to our reconstruction, the main floor in M+R was at elevation 8.3-8.9m. It is therefore possible to assume that if Ab3 was part of this complex, then the corresponding floors should be still preserved at least under HIII, but were not excavated. The function of the southern part of Ab3,a thick wall with external bastions, was to limit and separate the complex from the outside. Three rectangular parallel rooms belonging to this structure do not provide any elements to determine their function. Their layout was similar to the layout of the later building L, the walls were better constructed and they could have been part of a larger structure. Buildings J, K and L have been described above and their internal arrangement did not change over time 428 . The main variation in the second building period was their location inside the complex. During this first period, J and K were the representative and reception structures. First J fulfilled these functions together with a dwelling role, in a second moment a more scenic structure (K) was added to the complex. K was then the reception and representation structure together with J/1-3, while the northern section was occupied by bathrooms and smaller dwelling/working areas. The western rooms of L were probably storage spaces related to the northern space, which was a duty area.

of Q. A stone socle and probably stone orthostats limited the sides of the walls. Therefore, the gate was built with stones, its floor was carefully constructed and formal elements decorated its sides. To the extent that the building is preserved, it is not possible to outline its defensive elements. Further the pivot stones were not preserved and it appears that at least the external passage, where the paving was completely preserved, did not have a closing. Thus, it is possible to assume that the structure had the obvious function of marking the entrance to an area, survey those entering the area, and furthermore to emphasise to those entering that the space had a representative function. The area to the northeast of this structure reveals some interesting features. A standing statue was erected just to the north of the gate facing the side outside the complex. At a later time, probably at the end of this first building period, the same statue was buried next to its base, because it was collapsed and was consequently damaged 423 . The religious/funerary 424 character of this statue had already been investigated and its relationship to the gate structure was emphasized. 425 The statue 426 stood behind the wall of J and had no relationship to it. It also stood behind the northern wall of Q, but was not inside the gate, thus it was related to the area that was limited to the west and to the south by these two structures. Three hollow cup marks 427 were dug into the base of the statue and reveal that libation rituals were carried in front of it. Consequently, it is possible to emphasise that this “external” area, strictly connected to the gate, had a religious function. Once people had entered the built complex, the first space they confronted was the courtyard M+R (Plate 12). Four buildings limited this courtyard: the stone stairs leading to the columned portico of K and the original entrance of J to the north, the mound wall to the west, the long wall of Ab3 to the west and to the south, and Q to the east. Probably a wall connected Ab3 to gate Q. The courtyard was probably paved with pebbles, which were found in front of both the buildings J and K, and under the later, baked brick, street in M leading to NÖH (el. 9.8). Table 51: Side Found.

Courtyard M+R:

N

Stone

Superstructure Wall surface Mud bricks Plaster

E

Stone

Mud bricks

Plaster

●

Acc Frame Remarks 4B Façades of J and K 4B Sidewall of Q

W

Stones

Mud bricks

Plaster

●

4B Mound Wall

Fl1 Stone pebble S Stone

Timber Frame ●

IVC4. The Functions of the Buildings during the first Building Period: the earliest spatial Organisation

4B Still in use during floor 2 4B Façade of Ab3

The first building period shows the layout (Plate 2) of the new foundation of the town. It exemplifies the concepts and ideas that led the new founders to the spatial organisation of the acropolis. First, the builders

the façade. Cf. IIIF3 423 Cf. IVD3 and IVD2 424 D. Bonatz 2000: 26, statue A 6 425 S. Mazzoni 2000 426 The statue in front of Q was interpreted as the statue of the weather god, and it was later interpreted as the statue of a ruler. F. von Luschan 1898, F. von Luschan 1903, D. Bonatz 2000 427 D. Ussishkin 1975, D. Bonatz 2000: 154

428

The only change could be argued in the first period, in which only J was in use and K was not yet built, is that the two niches in room J/2 could be interpreted as openings to the outside. R. Naumann 1971: 175 states that they were two windows later transformed into niches. If we compare these structures with the two openings in Temple 3 at Boğaz-Köy, we can also argue that the windows in J2 were possibly a door (the northern one) and a window (the southern one).

77

Pucci – Ch. IV Functional Analysis of Architecture at Zincirli

king Kilamuwa 429 and it dates to approximately 825 BC 430 . The inscription provides us with information about the political situation. After listing the inactive kings who came before him, Kilamuwa asserts that he will bring about change. The many kingdoms near Zincirli that were the cause of instability have been defeated, thanks to the wise king who employed the Assyrians to destroy his enemies. Further, he has through diplomacy also resolved the internal instability caused by two groups of people living together. He predicts a long period of peace and stability. The construction of buildings K and the changes to J would seem to coincide with what this information tells us. In addition, Assyrian sources 431 dating to Salmanassar III (858-824 BC), mention the father of Kilamuwa as, firstly, fighting against Assyrians as an ally with the other northern kingdoms (Karkamish, Unqi, etc), and later paying a tribute to Salmanassar III himself. There is no mention of a destruction of the town, and the Assyrian annals do not mention Sam'al again until the period of Tiglat Pileser III (745-727 BC). Thus, it is arguable that after the incursions of Salmanassar III on the west of the Euphrates the situation was possibly quiet. The Assyrians, who did not in anyway establish direct control over Zincirli, defeated some local enemies 432 : Kilamuwa does not mention the existence of any actual relationship with the Assyrians as Bar Rakib does one hundred years later. Period I includes all the building activities from the beginning of the kingdom of Sam'al until the end of the 9th century. Kilamuwa in his inscription lists four kings before him. Therefore, if Kilamuwa was the one who constructed building K and modified the north-western area, the other structures, also attributed to this period, were possibly built by his ancestors 433 . The style of the reliefs belonging to the structures of this period, according to Orthmann, is Z I-II. Mazzoni 434 also dates the first reliefs at this site to the 10th century. Thus, in our effort to establish a timeframe, we could consider the second half of the 10th century as the starting point of this building period. The “lions pit” (LG), represents its end. The fact that statues that were part of architectural structures were buried implies that the buildings they were a part of were either dismantled, heavily damaged or never finished. The two younger lions date to the end of the 9th century. Thus, the end of period I dates to the last decades of the 9th century 435 . This tradition of burying was also employed with the Hadad statue: the statue dates to the 10th century and was buried in a later period. It is

concentrated their efforts on the defensive system, which was kept in use during the whole period. The acropolis was divided into two separated sectors: a massive isolated building with reception functions and a symbolic meaning. The grave, which was later built, near this structure may suggest a religious meaning to the area. On the other edge of the mound, a larger complex with a large facing courtyard was accessible through an internal gate. The area outside the gate fulfilled religious functions focusing attention on the figure of the king. The complex had a main representative function. During this period the structures J and K fulfilled reception, representation and dwelling functions, while the neighbouring structures L and Ab3 were storerooms and working areas. This mixture of functions around a larger courtyard was to be avoided in the second period, when instead of one large courtyard, the architects chose two smaller courts. Rituals were celebrated near the passages and gates, which are the structures bearing religious symbols and statues. In fact, on the gates and also on the internal ones like Q, gods, secular scenes, warriors or rulers acting as gods were represented.

Q

●

LG

●

L ●

●

● ● ●

D

●

C

●

B M B

●

IM

●

● ● ●

●

●

● ● ●

●

● ● ●

●

●

●

● ●

Passage

Storage

Limit

Representation

● ●

A

M+ R

● ●

●

SM

Ab 1 Ab 3 HI

● ●

K J

Production

Religious house)

Defence

Reception

Dwelling

Admin

Building

Religious (rite)

Functions of the buildings during the first building period (god's

Table 52:

● ●

● 429

The only other inscription of this king was on a golden case also found in J. 430 J. Tropper 1993: 28-29 and references. 431 Cf. H. Sader 1987: 153-154 432 The presence of Assyrians on the west directly after Salmanassar III is barely recovered: cf. D. Hawkins 1982: 399. 433 D. Hawkins 1982: 396 dates the first king Gabbar to approximately the 920. BC. 434 S. Mazzoni 1997: 14 435 See IIID2

IVD. The historical development of a town IVD1. Period I: the Syro-Hittite independent town In order to assign period I (Plate 2) a time in history, it is possible to use the local inscriptions and the Assyrian Annals. The Phoenician inscription on building J refers to

78

Pucci – Ch. IV Functional Analysis of Architecture at Zincirli

impossible to argue about the time of its burial, but this statue may also have suffered the same fate as the lions at the same time. In the Assyrian sources, we find interesting information concerning the end of the 9th century. According to Hawkins “in 805-804 (and perhaps also 803-802) the Assyrians directed their efforts against a group of rebellious north Syrian kings (described as 'eight kings of Khatti') under the leadership of Atarshumki, son of Adramu, of Arpad” 436 . Hawkins, further on, theorises on the composition of this alliance, and includes Sam'al in it. The alliance was defeated and Adad-nirari III established the Assyrian boundaries, possibly at Pazarcik 437 that lies to the north of Zincirli. Thus, if the Assyrian boundary was at Pazarcik, Zincirli was consequently a part of the conquered area. The fact that the end of the first building period at the site and the Assyrian campaign in this area coincided allows us to establish a direct link between this historical event and the possible destruction or change of some structures at the site. During this change from period I to period II several buildings (HI, Ab1 on the south and Ab3 on the north-west) were abandoned and dismantled. The broken statues were buried and a new building period began. The religious attention conferred on the broken statues, the fact that traditions continued, and the absence of any elements indicating any radical change, allow us to contend that the local population continued to rule the site and that this area was not in actual fact occupied militarily by the Assyrians, but only subdued in order to pay a tribute. Kilamuwa was one of the last kings of this period 438 .

inscription of Bar-Rakib for his father, king Panamuwa II. The two inscriptions give three kinds of information: 1. Funeral rituals and traditions are maintained, in particular the cult of dead. 2. The local kings are loyal to the Assyrians 3. The Assyrians intervene only in case of emergencies 442 . Thus, Zincirli paid tribute to the Assyrians, it is probable that the political situation was calm, and its new status as an Assyrian province 443 at least granted “peace”. It appears that no Assyrian governors were here. The kings bear Aramaic names, the style on the orthostats is still local, and no buildings with an Assyrian architectural tradition were built. In building J, in the destruction layer, a cuneiform clay tablet 444 dating to 676 BC was found, which confirms the use of the building at least till that time, the continuing good relationships with Assur and a later destruction date. 445 After this date something happened: the northern part of the south-western area was completely and intentionally destroyed 446 . Less than ten years later an Assyrian stele was erected inside gate D showing the Assyrian king Esarhaddon triumphing over rebels. Then something occurred in this period that interrupted the evolution of the town, caused destruction and brought about the direct presence of Assyrians. In actual fact, Sargon II died in 705 BC on the north-west frontier, and “the unprecedented death on the battle field of the Assyrian king must have struck the newly conquered peoples with seismic force” 447 . In other words, control over the peoples on the north of Zincirli was not yet final, and some rulers revolted against the Assyrian power. Even though Sennacherib (705-681 BC) conducted two military campaigns against rebels, the duration of his control is uncertain. As Esarhaddon's kingdom (680-669 BC) experienced continued disturbances at the north-western fringes of the empire, the loyalty of the rulers of Zincirli to Assyria may also have been shaken by the political situation. Thus, the massive and deliberate destruction that brought to an end this magnificent building period, the erection of the Assyrian stele, and the subsequent “Assyrian” period III (because of the architectural plan of G) may have been the consequence of these historical events. The “presence” of the Assyrian power was becoming weaker and weaker at the end of the 8th century. The states on the

IVD2. Period II: the town as an Assyrian tributary The following period started with the reassessment of the north-western area. Orthmann assigns the sculptures on buildings HIII and NÖH to the period ZIII-IV, (SPH IIIb). Even if building HIII was constructed before building NÖH, the style seems not to have changed. NÖH 439 bears two inscribed lines 440 dating to king BarRakib. He is known also from other inscriptions as the governor during the reign of Tiglat Pileser III (745-727 BC). The starting point of period II coincides with the end of period I, thus at the end of the 9th century. The kings before Bar Rakib are known from the funeral inscriptions 441 that were found at Gerçin (7 km to the north east of Zincirli). One is an inscription of king Panamuwa I for the god Hadad and the second is an

442

Panamuwa II asks for help from the Assyrian king when a usurper arrived. 443 Zincirli became officially Assyrian province in a peaceful way during the reign of Salmanassar V (727-721 BC) [B. Landsberger 1948: 77], but as the inscription of Bar Rakib indicates the relations with Assyrians were good also during the kingdom of Tiglat Pileser III (745-727 BC). 444 Cf. Item 3, objects in this chapter. 445 The date of the destruction of the site has been long debated: F. von Luschan [1911: 240] defines it as an Assyrian conquest and dates it to the Bar-Rakib period. B. Landsberger [1948:80] and J. Tropper [1993:17] define it as a conquest made by neighbouring kingdoms and date it to the period 705- 685 BC. However, as G. Lehmann 1994: 109 points out, the presence of the clay tablet dating to 676 BC does not allow such a thesis. 446 As R. Koldewey [1898: 161 and 176] states these buildings were intentionally burnt. 447 D. Hawkins 1982: 422.

436

D. Hawkins 1982: 400 C. Zaccagnini 1993: 53-72 438 The events which Kilamuwa in his inscription refers to are obviously not to be identified with the events concerning the rebellion of 803-802 BC, but they happened at least twenty years before. 439 Another longer build-inscription, dating to this king, was found thrown in courtyard R: Koldewey has argued that the original place of this inscription was also on the NÖH. Cf. Ch.4. 440 J. Tropper 1993: 145 441 One was found on the way to Gerçin while the other in Gerçin itself. J. Tropper 1993: item 22.3 and 22.4 437

79

Pucci – Ch. IV Functional Analysis of Architecture at Zincirli

north of Zincirli gained their independence against the Assyrians, possibly Zincirli took part in these events and later suffered the wrath of the Assyrians.

IVD3. Period III: : the Assyrian presence and last reassessment The Assyrian backlash against rebellion was this time very different from their reaction a hundred years earlier. This time around, the conquerors destroyed buildings, erected monuments, reused orthostats in new buildings, and transformed the architecture of the town, on whose main entrance the symbol of their power, the stele, triumphed. Neither written sources nor orthostats provide information about the length of this period, or give any idea of the chronological sequence. The beginning of rebuilding can probably be assigned to the period of the erection of Esarhaddon's stele (671-669 BC 448 ). A later date is not likely, as the Assyrian Empire collapsed in 612 BC and the many architectural changes to the buildings in this period testify to their prolonged use. As the time between the last document in the destroyed building J of period II, dating to 676 BC, and the probable start of period III, 671-669 BC, is very short, rebuilding began immediately after the period of destruction. Perhaps local inhabitants remained at the site, but it is uncertain if the lower town kept its original size. As the town wall was not completely investigated, the presence of repairs on the town wall was not proven. The Assyrian Empire collapsed in 612 BC. However, it seems possible that the local inhabitants of the mound survived the fall of the empire, keeping in use the structures and changing them over time. During the neoBabylonian period, the area was named “Khume”. The question as to whether a “big Cilicia” state, independent of the neo-Babylonian and Median powers, existed, or whether “Khume” was only a neo-Babylonian province, is yet to be resolved but is not at issue here 449 . It is interesting to note here that building G, after three phases of use, was also destroyed by fire, and consequently the town again suffered destruction. It is impossible to argue about the period of the destruction, or its perpetrators. We can only date it to a time after the fall of the Assyrian Empire and point out that even though this area was conquered by the Babylonians, Zincirli never again attained a glory on par to that it had in the Iron Ages I and II.

448

See IIID1 P. Desideri et A.M. Jasink 1990: cap. 3 and references.

449

80

Pucci – Ch. IV Building Periods at Tell Halaf

Ch. V.

two steps and each lasted for twenty-forty years. The transition to the following and final Assyrian period was also characterised by the abandonment of older buildings and the construction of new ones: these new “Assyrian” buildings were not built above the older structures, but in undeveloped areas. In assigning the buildings to the phases, Naumann used the following criteria: the vertical sequence of the structures, the architectural relationships between walls, and the plan analysis. It is possible to make the following observations: 1. The buildings of the Kapara period were not physically connected to the buildings of the Assyrian period, and the transition from the Kapara to the Assyrian period cannot be argued as a result of architectural evolution or changes in the stratigraphy. 2. The architectural analysis would really benefit from the incorporation of data from the studies analysing the style, and from the translation of the Halaf inscriptions and archives. However, a discussion on the correct dating of the Kapara and Altbau periods in light of this data is currently in progress. 457 Further analysis of the original materials, preserved in the Pergamon Museum in Berlin, provided additional information 458 on the archaeological remains at the site. Thus, in this chapter, the architectural relationships are analysed with special reference to the many inscriptions and carved reliefs. The small finds are not very helpful in dating the buildings because the catalogue seldom provides the exact findspot and never indicates the layer where the object was found. Nevertheless, the reports provide us with useful information on the written texts found: archaeologists discovered two archives of cuneiform tablets on the acropolis, 459 as well as isolated tablets both in the lower town and on the mound. Philologists translated and published these tablets before the publication of the archaeological reports. But situating these archives within the site and its stratigraphy can enable these buildings to be dated more precisely.

Building Periods at Tell Halaf

VA. Previous studies on the building sequence The architecture of this site, except for short preliminary reports, was first published 450 after the Second World War, and after the death of almost all archaeologists who worked at the site. The architectural manuscripts and drawings, which survived the war 451 were in part corrected, reorganised and published by R. Naumann, who also wrote the general analysis of the architecture. The architecture was thoroughly investigated and one architect, Langenegger, 452 continuously worked at the excavation site and his documentation is the only interpretation of events. 453 The archaeological reports (i.e. the previewed fifth volume of the publications list) were never published and the original are not available, therefore, in this research, we will refer only to the information that the architects provided and published. 454 After the publication of the excavations’ reports, scholars mainly researched two features: on the one hand the iconography and style of the carved orthostats and statuary, and on the other the inscriptions. These researches provided different results mainly as far as the dating of the Kapara period is concerned. This is still the object of contention. 455 Some of these scholars presented their results independent of the architectural remains, and others ascribed these results to the timeframe which Naumann provided in the publication of the reports. He identified three main phases: Older Building Period (Altbau 1-5), Kapara and Assyrian periods. 456 In the first Altbau phase, he identified five steps of development, which lasted sixty years without any disruption. The transition to the next period, named after the ruler Kapara, was marked by the abandonment of all the buildings on the acropolis, as well as new construction. This phase was divided into

VB.

Areas and Keys

The extent of the site of Tell Halaf is divided into five areas (Plate 13): four on the acropolis and one in the lower town. Beacause the four areas on the acropolis indicate buildings which are immediately adjacent to one another, it is therefore possible to argue the architectural

450

This publication followed that of the inscriptions, B. Meissner 1933, and of the tablets, J. Friedrich et alii 1940. M.F. von Oppenheim [1908, 1931, 1934, 1939] had already presented a general overview of the results of the excavations in two main books and in their up-dated English and French translations. 451 For a list of these documents, see H. Scheel 1950: III. 452 He was also supposed to replace Oppenheim as director for the last campaign which was previewed on 1939 but never took place. M. F. von Oppenheim 1943:9-10. 453 The two architects working at Zincirli maintained different interpretations for the same buildings. 454 Currently new excavations at the site are carried out by the Pergamon Museum in Berlin beginning in 2006. 455 Scholars dated this king to the 10th, 9th or 8th cent BC by analysing the style of orthostats, the style of writing, the sequence of local dynasties. Cf. W.F. Albright 1956b: 75 and references. In the last two decades, they reached a general consensus on the 9th cent: A. Abou-Assaf, P. Bordreuil et A.R. Millard 1982: 101 and references, H.S. Sader 1987: 42, P.E. Dion 1997: 41 456 R. Naumann 1950: 376-380.

457

M. Novàk 1999: 192, B. Hrouda 1972: 54, H. Akurgal 1966, C. Kessler 1995, W. Orthmann 1971: 127; W. F. Albright 1956a: 152-154, idem 1956b: 80, B. Meissner 1967: 71-72 458 G. Elsen-Novàk et M. Novàk 1994, N. Cholidis et R. Wartke 2002 459 The location of the archives was usually indicated in the publication with the square number and the term “in Stadtplan” Friedrich et alii 1940. By comparing the archaeological reports and the catalogue of the tablets it becomes evident that the square numbers refer to the mound plan (Burgplan) and not to the lower town plan. Moreover, by comparing the dates of the tablets discovery with the schedule of the excavations, this hypothesis is also strengthened: archaeologists started to truly excavate in the lower town in 1913, while the tablets were found in 1912. F. Langenegger 1950: 7-10. R. Naumann 1950: 403 already affirms that the majority of the tablets were found near the building AH, which is on the mound. Cf. H. Sader 1987: 41.

81

Pucci – Ch. IV Building Periods at Tell Halaf

relationships between them. Unlike at Zincirli, the excavated areas on the acropolis are closely situated, so that the sequence of structures in one area may inform the sequences of the other area. Because the lower town was not fully excavated but only probed, the structures belonging to this area do not have any architectural relationships with each other. The first column of the following table lists the abbreviations that represent the structures. The second column has the German names used in the reports, and the third column the period to which Naumann assigned the structure. A brief description of the building is in the fourth column and in the fifth one the area, to which it belongs. Table 53:

Name used in report

Nauman n Periods

Descriptio n

BM

Burg umwallung

Mound Wall

KR

Kultraum

Altbau Period 1-4, Kapara 2 Assyrian

STL

Stadttempel

Assyrian

SM

Stadtmauer

BT

Brunnentor

Altbau Kapara

NOP

Nordostpalast

Altbau 1, Kapara 1

QT

Quelltor

AH

Assyrisches Haus

Altbau1, Kapara 1 Assyrian

EH 13

--

LSG

Langgestreckt e Gebäude

Kapara period

AST

Altes Burgtor

Altbau 2

ATTP

Alte Terrasse bei Tempelpalast Gruft Süd in Lehmziegel Massiv Gruftanlage im Südwestwinke l Lehmziegel Massiv

Altbau 1

G2, 13 LZM MU ad

Name used in report

Nauman n Periods

Descriptio n

Area

ST

Neues Südtor

Kapara 1

ATP

Altbau 1

S Area W Area W Area

NB

Tempelpalast (Altbau) Gruftanlagen bei Tempelpalast Nordbau

SKT

Skorpionentor

Altbau 1

TP

Tempelpalast (Neubau)

Kapara 1

TTP

Terrasse TP

Kapara 1-2

Southern mound gate Building under TP Graves on the north west of TP Building on the north of TP Gate with scorpion orthostats Building on the south west of the mound Terrace in front of TP

G3: S and N

(S) Altbau 1 (N) Kapara Kapara

Buildings at Tell Halaf

Abbr .

G1/1, 2

Abbr .

1,

House in the lower town with statues Building with temple layout in the lower town with statues Lower town wall Entrance to NOP on the north Building on the north eastern corner of the mound Gate to the river Building on the eastern part of the mound above the houses near BM Houses on the east of the acropolis Building with east west main axis on the southern part of the acropolis Gate under ST Terrace under TTP

Area

(1-2) Altbau 4 (3) Kapara 2 (mu a) Altbau 3 (b-d) Kapara 1

Graves on the south covered by the LZM Built structures, to the west of the LZM Massif bricks

W Area W Area W area

VC. The Four Sections of the Mound Wall, (BM)

Lowe r town Lowe r town

The mound wall 460 was excavated on both the southern and eastern sides (Plate 16). The excavations on the northern area were limited only to the zone in front of the north-eastern building (NOP), while the western course of the northern defence system remained unexplored. 461 The western side of the mound wall was excavated only at one location, immediately to the west of building TP 462 . The structure of the mound wall is divided into four independent parts: BM1: a foundation, partially of stone, partially of mud bricks, which was situated directly on top of rock, and a mud brick superstructure formed the main body of the wall. This wall was excavated on the southern side, to the east of the south gate, and on the eastern side, and it extended as far north as building NOP. In this area, the eastern wall of building NOP fulfilled the function of the mound wall and a stone revetment covered the external rampart. BM2: this outside wall adjoined BM1 and reinforced its external face. It was made of mud bricks and was excavated on the southern side, to the east of the southern gate. As it reinforced BM1, it was built either simultaneously or shortly after the construction of BM1. BM3: this inside wall supported the internal face of BM1 at the south-eastern corner. Its foundations were 3.5 m higher than the foundations of BM1 and of BM2. As this wall was found only in this area, 463 we might argue that it

Lowe r town NE Area NE Area NE Area SE Area

SE area SE area

S Area S Area

460

Altbau 3

bei

W Area

F. von Langenegger 1950: 179-201 Earth from the excavation was discarded in this area, which was therefore not investigated. To the north-west, the wall was not preserved, because the river would have washed it away. 462 Cf. F. von Langenegger 1950: Pl. 12 section 13-14 F. Langenegger 1950. 463 Another internal wall, parallel to the BM1 is visible in F. von Langenegger 1950, Pl. 15 section 11-12. However, as the foundations of this wall were 1.8 m higher than the elevation of the foundations of BM1, it is not possible to affirm that it is the same wall as BM3 to the south-east. Cf. Pl. 16 section “nord-süd

S Area

461

S Area S Area

82

Pucci – Ch. IV Building Periods at Tell Halaf

19). The terrace extended as far as the north room E 467 and the internal northern mound wall. It was bordered by room BM to the west, by the southern end of room AU to the south, and by the eastern limits of rooms AG-AL to the east. T1 was constructed directly above layers of the Halaf period and was contained by walls. 468 Three parts of the building NOP were not founded on this platform: the north-western (rooms A, L-S and U), the southeastern corner (rooms AM-AV), and the southern area (courtyards CP and CO.). The foundations of the walls of the north-western area 469 (rooms A, L-S and U) stood on new foundations and on the remains of older walls. Both the foundations and the older walls were dug into the layers dating to the Halaf period. A pebble filling covered the space between the Halaf layer and the level of the floor of these structures. The walls of these structures (southern wall of rooms P-R and U) were parallel 470 to the walls of the structures standing on platform T1 (northern walls of rooms BDBH). Consequently, the “older walls” were older than the terrace, but both fulfilled the function of supporting the walls of rooms A, L-S and U. The south-eastern part (rooms AM-AV) was situated directly above the remains of older walls and rooms. These older structures were likewise not built above the platform. Section 13-14 471 shows that the terrace T1 stopped in front of these walls under AM-AO, and that both the terrace and these older walls were situated above the Halaf layer. Therefore, it is possible to argue that these older walls under AM-AO were already there when terrace T1 was built. The terrace was built following the course of these older walls and it explains its irregular shape at this point. Thus, it is possible to conclude the following: 1. Older walls were the foundations of the south-eastern area (AM-AO). 2. These older walls were not built above platform T1, nor were they dug into T1, but were older than T1. 3. The superstructures, rooms AM-AO, were built later than these walls and were not physically connected to terrace T1. The floors and the foundations of rooms AMAO were at the same elevation as the foundations and floors of the neighbouring rooms AD-AL, which were built above the terrace. Thus, on the south-eastern corner, terrace T1 was built near an older structure, which later had the same function as the platform: providing a foundation for the new walls of rooms AM-AO. 4. Considering that the walls of the rooms AM-AO did not join the walls of rooms AD-AL, we can confirm that they were not built at the same time. On the other hand, as the

was probably built in order to better protect this specific corner of the mound. BM4: This designation identifies the western part of the southern mound wall, to the west of the southern gate. This wall was not on the same axis as the corresponding wall on the other side of the gate, and its width and the shape of its towers differed from the rest of the mound wall. 464 However, as there was no direct architectural connection between BM4 and BM1-3, it is archaeologically impossible to establish a relationship between them. The following diagram shows the time relationships between the several parts of the mound wall. Diagram 16. The sections of the mound wall

BM1

BM4

B

BM2

BM3

No small finds or inscriptions were found in the structure of the wall that could provide absolute dates. The mound wall was architecturally linkled to buildings inside and outside the acropolis. It is only possible to establish absolute dates for the construction of each part of the mound by correlating them with these structures on the mound.

VD. The north-eastern Area: structures high on terraces A large and complex building 465 (NOP) composed of many different interrelated parts occupied the northeastern corner of the acropolis (Plate 19). The final layout of the building included the northern and western mound walls, and was arranged around four courtyards. The structure had a direct entrance (QT) on the north connecting it to the acropolis. The possible entrance on the southern side was not explored.

VD1. The terraces of the north-eastern complex, NOP A large mud brick terrace, 466 T1, was the foundation of the building. The size of the terrace indicates the area occupied by the first layout of the building (Plates 23 and

467

In the reports, each wing of the palace has a new series of numbers. In this research, the rooms of the palace are provided with only one sequence of letters. 468 These walls belong to the mound wall and the relationships with the terrace will be analysed in the next section. 469 In F. Langenegger 1950: section 23-24, it is not possible to see the gap between these later walls and the older ones. 470 A gap is drawn in Plan 17, while in section 3-4 the walls are adjoining each other. 471 F. von Langenegger 1950: Pl. 15.

Schnitt”. 464 Therefore, it was argued that this part of the mound wall was rebuilt in a later period. However, no older mound walls were found in this area, and the topography of the mound offers no natural protection, so it is improbable that this corner of the acropolis was left undefended. Therefore, this wall was probably built at the same time as the eastern side of BM. 465 F. von Langenegger 1950: 222. 466 F. von Langenegger 1950: 222-231.

83

Pucci – Ch. IV Building Periods at Tell Halaf

elevation of the floors in both groups is similar, both groups (AM-AO and AD-AL) were possibly used at the same time. To the south, several rooms surrounding the southern courtyard CP were built above a second mud brick terrace (T2). T2 adjoined T1 to the south and extended to the southern part of the building. By analysing the relationships between the floors above T1 and those above T2, it is possible to argue that T2 was added in a later period after the construction of T1 472 . The foundations of the structures above T2 were architecturally connected 473 to the foundations of rooms AM-AV. Thus, T2 was built at the same time as the architectural reorganisation of the south-eastern corner. Unfortunately, it is not possible to analyse the relationships between the floors of rooms AM-Av and the floors of rooms CD-CO, which are situated above T2, because the latter were not preserved. A third foundation platform T3, was added to the north, partially covering T1. Thus, both T3 and the structures above it were built later than T1. The northern wing of NOP 474 (rooms B-H) was built on this platform. The floors of these structures were connected to the floors of rooms AA-AB and C-V. These rooms stand on older walls, which were levelled down to the elevation of the new terrace, T3. Therefore, the building of T3 and the levelling of these older walls were probably contemporary events. Furthermore, on the north-eastern area, as the mound slope was eroded, the superstructures and T3 were not preserved: but lower and older rooms (CT-CV) were found directly under the topsoil. These structures were levelled in order to allow the terrace T3 and the superstructure to be built. The floors of rooms CT-CV were barely preserved. 475 The relationships between these foundation platforms and older structures are represented in following diagram:

As shown in Diagram 17, the three mudbrick terraces were built at different times and they illustrate the progressive growth of the building. First, the central terrace T1 was built in order to support the core of the building. Older, preexisting structures were initially kept in use, incorporated in the complex and connected by this terrace. Later, building activity began with the construction of a new terrace, T2, with the reorganisation of the rooms to the south-east and the levelling of the older structures. Finally, the north-western corner was enlarged by building T3 and the northern wing was completely reorganised. These results, supported by the architectural connections between the structures, will now be evaluated and compared with the results of the floor analysis.

VD2. The north-eastern Complex NOP: the superstructures Having grouped the wings of building NOP, it is now possible to analyse each area in order to understand how many phases, repairs, and changes the building underwent (Plates 19 and 23). Later, these areas will be compared according to the small finds located inside them. The floors are the main architectural feature that connects the areas and so the following analysis is based mainly on the connections between the floors of the rooms. The central courtyard AU occupied the widest extent of platform T1. In this courtyard, 476 three floors were found: a pebble, a mudbrick and a stone floor. It is possible also to follow these floors throughout the rooms surrounding the courtyard, and to subsequently establish a sequence. Table 54: shows the elevations of the rooms’ floors, divided into groups by the various wings of the building. The floors are grouped according to the sequence of floors found in the central courtyard AU. The Lower Floor In courtyard AU, the lower pebble floor ran directly above the terrace surface, T1, and immediately underneath the brick middle floor. However, in the north-western rooms AD-AL and CT-CV, there is an earth filling 477 between the pebble floor and terrace T1. This filling was artificial and was probably used to level the surface of the terrace where the mound was a natural slope. The same earth filling stopped at the eastern wall of room CT. The floor ran continuously under the walls of rooms AD-AL. Thus, it existed before any other structures were built on the terrace. The Middle Floor In the courtyard, there is a small gap between the lower (pebble) and the middle (mudbrick) floors. For this reason, the pebble floor was also interpreted as the foundation layer of the mud brick floor. However, as Langenegger also maintains, 478 these two surfaces were not so close to each other on the northern side and the pebble floor frequently found without a mudbrick floor

B

Diagram 17. The foundations of NOP Halaf layer

T1

North-western (A, L-S and U)

area

CT-CV

South-eastern area (AM-AV)

AD-AL

T2

T3

472

See next paragraph and table 9. Cf. F. Langenegger 1950: pg. 315, and Pl. 7. 474 The corridor I-S pre-existed this northern area and dated to T1. Cf. pg. 86. 475 Cf. section 23-24. Here, it is possible to see a line of mud bricks that could be the remains of a floor, lying directly on T1. However, most likely does not belong to these rooms because it ran under the older wall. 473

476

F. von Langenegger 1950: 292. In the publication, sections 13-14 and 23-24 show the same layer with two different numbers. 478 F. Langenegger 1950: 293. 477

84

Pucci – Ch. IV Building Periods at Tell Halaf

above it. Thus, they were two separate installations, from two different building periods. Terrace T2, found under room AT, was built at the same elevation as the mudbrick floor in courtyard AU. To the south, in court CP, the surface of the terrace was raised to a higher level and two steps compensated for this gap. 479 Later, the surface of the terrace T2 (including the gateway) was paved with a stone floor, which was connected to the higher stone floor in AU. Thus, the terrace was built at the same time as the mud brick floor and was later repaved at the same time as the installation of this new floor in courtyard AU. The rooms AM-AP and AQ-AV are also included in this building phase. The mud brick floor was not preserved in the rooms to the north-east (CT-CV). As this area was very eroded, it is impossible to establish whether the mud brick floor was not preserved or whether it was never installed inside these rooms. However, this area was levelled and rearrranged at the same time as the last floor of the courtyard AU and therefore the rooms CT-CV were probably still in use during the middle floor period. The Higher Floor In the central courtyard AU, there was a deposit between the middle and the higher stone floors. The same deposit was also visible in rooms AH, AM and AO. This third stone paving ran continuously from the courtyard AU through the southern doorway of the building AT, and in the southern courtyard CP. Therefore, these structures were also in use during this period. As mentioned above, the terrace T2 was built in the period during which the middle mud brick floor was in use. However, the archaeological reports maintain that only this stone floor covers this southern area and the platform T2 in courtyard CP. 480 Nevertheless, the archaeologists did not excavate trenches in CP under this floor in order to confirm this hypothesis. It is therefore possible that the surface of the terrace had a paving (probably the surface of the platform itself) for a certain period and that this floor was connected to the middle paving in the courtyard AU. The rooms Z-V, T and AA-AB to the north of the courtyard stayed on older structures, 481 which were built above the pebble floor. 482 In these rooms, only one floor was found. In room AB, a drain outside the eastern side of the palace ran through rooms AD and AG, between the middle and the higher floor. Therefore, the floors of the later rooms (AA-AB, T, V-Z) were connected to the higher stone floors of rooms AD-AL. These floors of rooms AAAB, T, and V-Z were at the same elevation and joined the floors of the neighbouring structures to the north (rooms B-H), which were situated on platform T3. 483 Thus, it is possible to postulate that the levelling of the older structures to the north of the courtyard took place at the same time as the construction of the new platform T3, and was part of the same building activity. This building

activity also took place at the same time as the last paving of the courtyard AU. In the western area, 484 no series of floors similar to the one in the courtyard AU was found. There is a significant difference between room BC, which opened to court AU, and rooms BD-BH, which opened to the western courtyard BN and had no connection to the central courtyard. In rooms BD-BG, there was an earth floor and several mud brick benches directly above terrace T1, and parallel to the walls. In room BC, there were also two mud brick floors. In addition a threshold may have connected the lower mud brick floor to the middle brick floor of AU, 485 while the higher paving adjoined the higher stone floor of AU. 486 The earth floor of rooms BD-BG was neither repaired nor elevated and the same floor remained in use while the central and eastern areas of the palace were changed, and while the floor of the western courtyard BN was rebuilt. The eastern-most row of rooms (BH-BL) was considered a later renovation to the structure. The foundations of these rooms were not on terrace T1, but were built on top of abandoned structures. This architectural arrangement is similar to the one on the east where the terrace stopped at these “older” walls. These walls were situated at a deeper level than the one attained by terrace T. Thus, they were older than the terrace. The row of rooms built above these older structures had only one paving, which joined the second paving of courtyard BN. We can therefore assume that the western courtyard BN and the rooms to the north of it (BD-BG) were built before this eastern-most row of rooms. It seems that there were already existing structures to the west. 487 Later, a new row of rooms was built to the west and the courtyard was repaved, while the other rooms were kept in use with their original paving. In the north-western area, in rooms N-P, two floors were preserved: a pebble and a mud brick floor. 488 There was an artificial earth layer between them, filling approx. 2 metres. The walls of these rooms leaned against the walls of corridor I-S, and against those of the western area. Therefore, these rooms were built in a later period than the corridor I-S. Consequently, this pebble floor did not belong to rooms N-P, though their foundations were dug into it. The level of this pebble floor coincides with the level of the similar floor in the entire building, and therefore, it corresponds to the paving of the first terrace. Hence, we can argue that the pebble floor in this area was the surface of a levelling activity that occurred in the area before the construction of the building. In the first period, several older structures were maintained and incorporated in the building. Because the terrain most likely had a B

B

B

B

B

B

B

B

484

Idem: 310. The connection is based on the elevations. The middle mud brick pavement of the courtyard is not preserved in this western part. 486 It is interesting that the pebble floor of courtyard AU runs under the threshold to room BC and stops immediately on the west of it. Similarly, the pebble floor ran in other parts of the building under walls or fixed structures as it were the first paving of the terrace. 487 This is possibly an older structure under QT. 488 F. von Langenegger 1950: 278-290. 485

479

F. von Langenegger 1950: Pl. 18 section 5-6. F. Langenegger 1950: 313. 481 F. Langenegger 1950: 311-312. 482 Cf. Section 13-14. 483 As mentioned above, T3 was built later than T1 on the pebble floor. 480

85

Pucci – Ch. IV Building Periods at Tell Halaf

wide depression, it was filled with the mud brick terrace T1. In addition, the higher parts near the river were levelled. This even surface was completely paved over with pebbles, and this technique guaranteed greater stability of the terrace and waterproofed the surface. In a second period, the older walls were levelled to the height of the floor. This activity probably first took place in the south-eastern corner (two floors were preserved in the rooms later built), and later in the northern part (one floor). The level of this section was also raised approx. 1 m higher than the top-most floor of the courtyard AU. The corridor I-S led to the northern side of the palace. Massive walls were built directly on top of the rock of the mound on the western side of the passage. These walls supported those of the north-western section of the palace (rooms F and B). To the south, they adjoined older structures under the western wing of the rooms, facing courtyard BN, forming a sort of protective around this western flank, sloping to the west. The drain in the western courtyard BN ran continuously under the floor of the gateway until it reached the external area. In the corridor, there was only one floor which turned to the east in room S, sloping to the level of terrace T1. By analysing the foundations of these walls, it is possible to argue that: 1. The western wall flanking the doorway was connected to the walls limiting and bordering terrace T1. 2. The drain ran through the walls closing the entrance to the south, indicating that it was built at the same time as the walls. The drain served the western courtyard BN, which was therefore also built at the same time. Thus, gateway I-S was built and planned at the same time as terrace T1. Later, after the changes in the northern area of the structure, this corridor was partially modified. During this reorganisation of the northern area, the threshold from room S to room H was also repaired and elevated to the new floor level of the rooms. The floor of the corridor (room S) was not raised but was kept in use for the entire period. Table 54: Room

Mud Brick Floor 14.40/ 13.70

Stone Floor 14.60/ 14.10

BG

-

-

BH

-

13.90

-

BN

13.40

14.00

-

O

(13.60)

15.80

490

AB

(13.80)

-

15.20

G E

? ?

-

15.00 15.00

Mud Brick Floor -

Stone Floor 14.80

Description

C

Pebbled Floor (13.40)

CT CU

13.60 ?

?

?

AD AF AH AM

13.70 13.80 13.90 -

14.00 14.00 14.10 13.90

14.70 14.60 14.60 -

Older rooms on the northwest, levelled. Rooms on the east

AT

-

-

14.60

BC

14.00

14.20

491

14.60

492

Rooms on the south-east, later added Gate to courtyard CP Room west of AU

From the table 493 it is possible to observe that: 1. The pebble floor extends as far as T1. In the northwestern area, this floor was also found and rooms A, with L-U were built later, with their foundations cut into it. No traces of older structures were found here, suggesting that this floor covered the external area. The pebble floor rose to the west and to the east of the central courtyard. It was not found in the areas where older structures already existed. 2. The mud brick floor was found in the south-eastern and south-western areas and in the older rooms to the north of AU. Before the construction of this mud brick floor, the structures on the south-east were levelled and new ones were constructed. At the same time, the southern area was enlarged by the construction of terrace T2. A new gateway and a new area then surrounded courtyard CP, above terrace T2. The northern area was not concerned by this renovation. 3. The northern area was rebuilt with the addition of a new terrace, T3, and a new north-western wing. The level of these floors was raised and, consequently, the rooms to the south were repaved. By rebuilding the northern area, the courtyard was narrowed and a new courtyard (E) was built to the north.

Floor relationships Pebbled Floor 13.90/ 489 13.60 13.60

AU

Room

Description Courtyard Room north of BN Room east of BN Western courtyard North western area Room above older structures Rooms above platform T3

491

This floor runs between platform T1 and T3 and does not belong to the room. Cf. F. Langenegger 1950: Pl. 18 section 56. 492 The difference in height is between the threshold, which is higher, and the floor of the room. 493 When the elevations of the floors are in brackets, they indicate that the floor did not belong to the room, but that it already existed when the room was built.

489

This first height is from the south of the courtyard, near AT, whereas the second height is from the centre of it. 490 This pebble floor was found under the room, and it does not belong to it.

86

Pucci – Ch. IV Building Periods at Tell Halaf

that its layout was altered. The eastern wall of the gateway, with a north-south axis, was also situated opon older walls. It is not clear whether or not these walls were connected to the walls of NOP. However, it is possible to view the remains of walls running to the west in section 27-28. 495 These walls were not connected to the western wall of NOP, but were at the same elevation as the older walls inside NOP, which were reused as foundations for rooms BH-BL. We can maintain that these two walls belonged to the same older structure, which existed prior to the gateway and prior to the western wing of NOP. Thus, we can propose the following theses 1. In this area, there were older structures that were replaced by gateway QT. 2. When QT was built, the western enlargement of NOP had not been built yet. 3. When NOP was enlarged to the west, QT remained in use, but its eastern walls were damaged. This structure connected the acropolis to the external area, and it did not have a direct connection to NOP. We cannot argue if it connected the acropolis just to the river or to the lower town as well.

Diagram 18. Construction phases of the north-eastern building

Diagram 19. QT Stone Terracing Older walls under QT

Older walls to the west under BH-BL

QT

QT reuse

western

In order to include structure QT within the lifespan of the north-western building, the following remarks should be made. An older structure, whose layout still remains uncertain, already occupied the western area of NOP and the eastern part of QT during the first building activity at NOP. However, this structure was destroyed during the rebuilding of the western wing of NOP and the construction of QT.

VD3. The northern Gateway and the northeastern Complex: QT and NOP The western wall of the building NOP was structurally connected to a gate structure 494 QT (Plate 19). The eastern wing of the gateway was excavated but its layout appeared to be either incomplete, or cut by the western wall of NOP. Although Langenegger states that the eastern ends of the walls of the gate stopped at the walls of NOP, and that they have not been damaged by the construction of NOP, we should point out following problems: The corner of the eastern room of QT was approx. 50 cm2, hence, it lacked any architectural function. It would have been easier for the architects to build a plain wall, without any gaps, leaning on the neighbouring building, making the structure itself more stable. Moreover, if the western wall of NOP was already standing, why would the alignment of the entrance have been different from the course of this wall? It seems likely that QT was built before this western enlargement of NOP, and therefore,

VD4. The north eastern Complex and the citadel Wall: NOP and BM Mound wall BM limits and adjoins building NOP to the north and to the east (Plate 19). 496 To the north, the mound wall consists of two parallel walls, joined together with no access to rooms CQ and CR. These rooms were probably filled with earth. The double line of walls was irregular: the different sections were separated at the foundation level, while the superstructures were connected together. It is not possible to link these two walls to the southern section of the

495 494

NOP wall

496

F. von Langenegger 1950: 320-325.

87

F. von Langenegger 1950: Pl.20. F. von Langenegger 1950: 231-251.

Pucci – Ch. IV Building Periods at Tell Halaf

mound wall (BM1, 2 or 3). BM1 limited and contained terraces, T3 and T1, above which NOP was built. BM2 was not connected to NOP because it stood on a different level. Its foundations were built directly upon bedrock, which were previously terraced. A stone foundation supported the external mud brick wall. The slope of the mound was covered with a stone revetment. Room E was limited by the southern walls of rooms CR and CQ: here, the two terraces stopped at the internal walls, where the elevation of the mound sloped steeply. Here, the internal wall limited and protected the terraces from erosion, whereas the external northern walls protected the terraces from flooding at a deeper level. There were no traces of repairs or changes to BM, even if the northern area, as mentioned above, was completely rebuilt. The superstructures of the mound wall, which were not preserved, were probably the only structures connected to the new northern wing of the building. At the entrance to NOP through corridor I, the stone embankment and the mound wall seem 497 to run in different directions. The embankment ran parallel to the riverbank, while the mound wall coincided with the western wall of NOP and turned to the south. The area contained between the embankment and the mound wall was outside the acropolis, but still inside the embankment, higher than the river. On the northeast, the bastion was probably linked to the town wall. However, archaeologists did not find the connection because the town wall was not preserved in this area. 498 The eastern side of the mound wall coincided with the eastern wall of NOP. The embankment (a stone wall containing a chipped filling layer) marked the division from the lower town. Terrace T1 was dug into this embankment, and it was more recent. Langenegger dated this retaining wall to the Halaf period. 499 In section 2728, 500 the chipped filling layer covered and was covered by the Halaf layer, i.e. a stratigraphic nonsense. Nevertheless, in Fig. 123 and 124, 501 the filling layer completely covered the Halaf layer, which was built up over time against this stone wall. These drawings are contradictory. It is not possible to establish if this embankment really dates to the Halaf period. It is only possible to assert that the embankment was older than the terrace, and that this terrace was built alongside it. It is improbable that these stone walls had been visible for more than 4000 years without being used as stone quarries. It is more probable that the embankment and the southern mound wall were built at the same time, considering also that the alignment of this revetment coincides with the alignment of BM1-2.

VD5. The Building Sequence on the north-eastern area The north-western structures had a long building activity that can be divided into three main phases. These phases are characterised by three different floors that were found in the main courtyard of the complex NOP. The neighbouring structures, two gateways to the north as well as the mound wall, were partly included in the structure itself. They retained features that define them as structurally independent. The mound wall to the north (or at least its revetment) is most likely older than NOP, for it had an important role in protecting the slope of the mound from the riverbank. The western wall dated to the same period as the construction of the eastern wing of NOP (rooms A, and L-U), and the eastern embankment was older than terrace T1. The following diagram shows the relationships between these structures close to the NOP and the different building phases of NOP. Diagram 20. The area on the north-east

497

The reconstruction of the northern part of the mound wall is based on presence of the gateway, QT, this relationship cannot be archaeologically proven. 498 The reconstruction of the course of the mound wall was based upon the traces left by the levelling of the rocks. 499 F. von Langenegger 1950: 247-251. 500 F. von Langenegger 1950: Pl. 20. 501 Idem: 248-249.

88

Pucci – Ch. IV Building Periods at Tell Halaf

also dug into houses EH1-2. The top of the well drain coincided with a later paving (EH1-2: floor 1) and was older than the second levelling activity in this area, when AH was built. Thus, it is possible to maintain that T2 was built at the time when the structures EH1-2 were already abandoned and, this area acted as the outer area of building EH3. Later, when AH was built, the area was covered with a regular paving. 508 These buildings provide us with useful information on the building sequence on the mound. They allow us to establish the connections between the different building phases of the southern part of the mound wall, as well as the construction of the north-eastern palace. The following diagram illustrates these connections:

VE. The south-eastern Area: the smaller structures This area is comprised of several structures that were not connected to each other (Plates 20, 22). There are two large, complete structures in this area: the northern building is known as the Assyrian house (AH), due to its similarities with the layout of an Assyrian house. The other structure is characterised by a long axis plan, and therefore was designated as the “long building” (LSG). Other smaller and less identifiable structures were excavated to the east of AH and were divided into three main units (EH1-3). 502

VE1.

The “Assyrian House” (AH) and the eastern Structures (EH)

Diagram 21. The relationships between the mound wall, the houses to the east, and the north-eastern palace.

Section 3-4 503 provides us with information on the sequence of building activity in this area. Two main floors were preserved: one belonging to structure EH1 and is at elevation 13.20. The building identified as EH2 is the product of a repair and enlargement phase of the structure EH1, as it was repaved. Later, buildings EH1-2 were completely levelled and covered by a sandstone layer. 504 E3 was built above this layer. A threshold and pebbled floor belonging to EH3 were found at elevation 14.00m. This area was later levelled for a second time and a new floor covered EH3. The preserved pebble paving on the east of AH was found at elevation 14.50/15.00m; this area became external during this new building phase, as the floor is pebbled and the drain from AH runs through it. This upper floor (in diagram indicated as External Floor 2) leaned against the eastern wall of building AH to the west and was therefore in use and built at the same time as building AH. The structure AH, which is located to the south-west of the EH1-2 area, was built on the remains of older walls, which may be the continuation of the walls of EH3 to the west. One internal paving belonged to this building, and it was at elevation 15.30/15.80m. The outer mound wall BM2 was preserved to the east of buildings EH1-3. The eastern walls of EH1-2 adjoined the external mound wall, 505 and a parallel retaining wall also belonged to the structure. Therefore, BM2 was in use during the use of houses EH1-3. BM1, instead, was visible in cross section under the walls of EH1-3, and was no longer in use in this area after these structures were built. The architectural relationships between EH and the terrace T2 of NOP raise several issues: given the layout drawing (Plate 22), it is possible to maintain that the southern wall of T2 was also the northern limit of EH1506 . However, the wall of T2 was represented in section 2. 5-6 507 as dug into the walls of EH1-2, and the well drain, which contained the waters drained from the terrace, was

BM1

BM2

EH1-2

Levelling EH3

EH1-2: floor 1

NOP: T2 Dry well

Pebble levelling layer AH

EH1-3: external floor 2

This diagram shows the building sequence in this area: during the construction and use of BM1 none of the excavated structures had been built, after BM1 was partially abandoned, several units (EH1-2) were built, which used BM2 as eastern limit. These units underwent a general levelling. A new third unit EH3 was constructed not directly above EH1-2, where an external floor possibly covered the remains of the structures. The dry well of the drain running from T2 was dug in this area, showing that all features (the dry well, the terrace, and EH3) were used and possibly built at the same time. In a third phase, the area was rearranged again and a new external floor covered both EH and the dry well. AH was built above this layer. Objects and texts; among the objects found in the group of houses EH1-3, only one pot and several cuneiform tablets were published. These tablets were found in the north-eastern room of EH1. From the section and the plan, 509 it is possible to establish that they lay in between the floor of EH1-2 and the upper floor (EH1-3: floor 2), which was built at the same time as the structure AH. The

502

F. von Langenegger 1950: 195-197. F. von Langenegger 1950: 197. 504 F. von Langenegger 1950: Fig. 96 sections 1-2 and 5-6. 505 It is preserved here on a lower level than EH. 506 A large distance separates both of these structures. A step trench was dug that should connect the two areas. Archaeologists affirmed that terrace T2 covered this whole area. 507 F. von Langenegger 1950: Fig. 96. 503

508

We doubt (cf. pg. 115-116) if this wall, which was interpreted as the southern limit of T2, really belonged to the NOP, in light of the fact that the length of the terrace would have been 70m. 509 F. Langenegger 1950: Fig. 95 and 97 pg. 195-197.

89

Pucci – Ch. IV Building Periods at Tell Halaf

dry well containing the waters drained from NOP 510 was dug into the same room where the tablets were found. The top of this well coincided with the level of the second repaired floor (floor 1) of this room. During this paving, the room was probably no longer used as a room, but the area was employed as a neighbouring outer area for the new houses EH3. The fact that these tablets were found between two floors allows us to consider them an important dating element for the building phases. It remains uncertain whether this archive belongs to the inventory of building EH1-2 or not. Weidner 511 indicates that the tablets had accumulated along with stones and collapsed material, which was used as filling, leaning up against the eastern wall. He maintains that the tablets were not found in situ, but that they were inside a jar, 512 which was discarded inside the collapsed room EH. However, the reports do not mention any jar; the 123 fragments were a part of 97 tablets, all belonging to the same archive. The “accumulated” fragments leaning against a wall may indicate that the tablets were probably put on a shelf, and when the wall collapsed the tablets also collapsed with it. Even if this uncertainity might be important in defining the function of units EH1-2, it is not a relevant to date the levelling: whether it was discarded outside in EH1-2 or kept inside this building, it establishes a terminus post quem for the floor 2 in EH1-3. The archive consisted of letters, lists, receipts, and decrees 513 dating to Assyrian king Adad Nirari 3rd (810-783), and belonged to Mannu-ki-Assur, governor of Guzana.

14.00/13.50 and the floors of building LSG were at elevation 14.00. The same levelling layer was preserved between this structure and the mound wall, and above this layer, the internal mound wall 516 (BM3) was built, parallel to BM1. BM3, then, belongs to the same building activity as LSG, and its construction dates to a later period than the levelling activity. By comparing the elevations of the structures in this area with those of the buildings 20m to the north, it is now possible to ascert that the top of the levelling layer to the north was at the same elevation as the levelling layer to the south (13.50-14.00). Furthermore, both layers were made of the same sandstone pebbles and had a similar thickness. It seems likely that this levelling occurred at the same time: the older EH1-3 was levelled and new structures were built (AH and LSG). Later in this area several other domestic units were constructed. Diagram 22. The south-eastern Area EH1-2 First levelling layer

EH3 Pebble levelling BM3

NOP: T2

Second Pebble levelling LSG

EH floor 2

AH

VE2.

Other Structures including the “Long” Building (LSG)

Domestic structures

Approximately 24 m to the south of AH, the Long Building (LSG 514 ), with its east-west axis, was found. The position of this structure within the building sequence of the mound was based upon information provided by one main layer: the levelling layer called “Klarsteinschlag Abgleichung.” The foundations of LSG were dug into this layer, and, therefore, the building is more recent than the layer. The LSG building was constructed in two phases. The southern row of rooms with deep stepped foundations was built first and the northern row, with smaller and higher foundations, 515 was built immediately after it. The top of the levelling layer was at elevation

VE3.

The Building Sequence in the south-eastern Area

Construction in this area was characterised by one main levelling activity (see Diagram 22). This was executed with pebble layer, which extended from NOP to the southern mound wall. The structures were divided into two groups: those built before the levelling layer and those built after it (Plates 20 and 22). Before the levelling, houses EH1-2 were built to the south of structure NOP. Several other unexcavated structures probably occupied the southern extent. 517 The NOP was then enlarged to the south with the construction of terrace T2, which in part destroyed EH1 (the first levelling). The houses were then repaired (EH3) and enlarged extending to the south. Later, the extent between NOP and the southern mound wall was completely levelled in a single building phase by a 1.5 m thick sandstone pebble layer. New structures LSG, and building AH were built on it. These structures were continuously modified. The southern mound wall was provided with an internal wall. The northern external mound wall (BM2) was also still in use as far as the terrace of NOP.

510

The drain was not found, but the opening of the shaft was turned towards NOP. Moreover, similar downcast shafts were built outside of the building. The water drained from here, and it makes little sense to build a shaft inside a room that is still in use. 511 “mit Steinen und Schutt waren sie offenbar als Füllmaterial, gegen die Ostmauer des Raumes geschichtet” E.F. Weidner in J. Friedrich et al. 1940: 8. 512 E.F. Weidner in J. Friedrich et al. 1940: 9. The theory that the tablets were preserved inside a jar was probably influenced by the fact that a jar filled with tablets was also found on the mound above the mud brick platform. 513 J. Friedrich et al. 1940 tablets nr. 1-97. 514 F. von Langenegger 1950: 188-190. 515 Cf. section in pl. 16.

516

This wall was probably connected with the two rooms behind the south-eastern bastion, which were found during the excavation at this bastion. 517 In section Pl. 16 shows a thick wall under the levelling layer. F. Langenegger 1950

90

Pucci – Ch. IV Building Periods at Tell Halaf

VE4.

axis as the eastern mound wall 520 was found in the west, where the gate was badly preserved, and no connections to other defensive structures were documented. To the west, the newer gate (ST) joined another mound wall (BM4) with different features and a different course than the eastern section of the mound wall (Plate 16). 521 BM4 then dates to the construction of ST. On the eastern side, the eastern wall of gate ST stopped approx. 11 m to the west of the eastern wall of the older entrance, AST. Therefore, the eastern row of rooms of AST was in between the mound wall and the new gate. In a later period, this row was covered by a massive mud brick platform (MUd). In room D, a concrete floor () covered the levelled wall of AST. Several floors in AST were found at the same level as the floor of the new gateway ST (in rooms H and A4). Thus, several eastern rooms of AST may have been kept in use after the construction of ST, and before the platform MUd was built. 522 Objects and texts; no objects from the southern gates (AST and ST) were published. In the publication of the texts, three tablets are said to have come from “east of the southern gate.” A fragment of an undated amulet (100), 523 and two fragments (107 and 115) of cuneiform tablets from the archive of Sil-Nanâ (648 BC) were found to the east of the gateway. The location of both tablets was indicated as being “deep” within the eastern section of the gateway. It seems probable that these two tablets did not have a relationship with the younger or older gateways, nor were they found on the floors of the later structures that reused the walls of gateway ST. They probably collapsed into the gate with structures originally located above the mud brick platform.

Connections to the north-eastern Area

The connections between EH, the southern terrace T2 of NOP, and the pebble levelling layer allow us to establish a relationship between the north-eastern and the southeastern areas. When T2 was built, EH1-2 were already in use. After its construction, EH1-2 were repaired and enlarged becoming EH3. AH appears to partially cover the wall of T2. However this connection is not indicated in the plan of the building, and no certain chronological relationship between the two structures can be defined. Therefore, it is not possible to confirm that the terrace T2 was abandoned, when AH was built. However, as the time relationships between AH and the structures EH are clear, it is possible to assume that AH was built later than T2. The pebble levelling activity was pursued when T2 was already built; therefore, all buildings built on the top of this layer (e.g. LSG, whose foundations were dug into this levelling layer) date to a period after the construction of T2.

VF. The Southern Area of the Citadel: the Gates and Neighbouring Structures This area comprises the southern gates of the mound wall and the neighbouring structures inside and outside the acropolis.

VF1.

The Southern Main entrances to the Citadel: ST and AST

Two gateways were found in this area, 518 one built on top of the other. The walls of the upper southern gate ST stood partially upon those of the older gateway AST (Plate 17). Therefore, the chronological sequence of both structures is clear: after the abandonment or destruction of the older gate (AST), the area was levelled to allow for building the new gate. The filling layer between the older paving and the new one also confirms this thesis. Both structures (AST and ST) have a distinct alignment: AST has the same alignment as northern gate SKT, while ST points to the direction of the building TP. To the west, the walls of AST were preserved up to a height of 40 cm. To the east, they were preserved at a level that slopes up towards the eastern wall, which was kept in use and preserved to a height of 2m. However, the older gateway had already collapsed to the west before its reconstruction. The following information concerns the relationships between these two gateways and the mound walls: the eastern wall of the older gate (AST) was architecturally connected to the middle wall of mound wall BM1; the later external part of the mound wall (BM2) leaned against the eastern wall of the gate itself. Thus, AST was constructed at the same time as BM1 and was still in use when BM2 was built. 519 No mound wall with the same

VF2.

The Graves and Statues inside the Platform:

G1 Group G1 identifies two structures, each one was characterised by a statue standing on a pit. This pit contained pots, objects and ashes. 524 Both structures were found inside the southern platform LZM, MUd (Plate 17). The southern structure (G1/2) consisted of a mud brick basement surrounding a pit dug down to rock level. The pit was limited by stones and plastered on the inside. A floor ran above this mud brick basement, and the seated statue was inserted in the floor. A square stone covered the pit, causing the statue to be fixed inside the floor. An older wall to the west rested upon the same floor and was probably part of this structure. In his reports, Langenegger illustrates the mud brick basement under the floor of G1 as part of the mud brick platform Mud. This implies that the statue, the floor, and the wall were all 520

During the excavations, the newer mound wall was not removed to investigate the lower structures, nor was the western area excavated, because this area had a high top soil elevation and required intense labore. Cf. Langenegger 1950: 121. 521 From Pl. 6 in the reports, the mud bricks do not seem to be associated with one another. 522 However, access to the acropolis from these rooms was hindered by two walls that limited access to the platform. 523 In the publication [J. Friedrich et al. 1940] the amulet bears the number 100, the tablets 107 and 115. 524 F. Langenegger 1950: 159-166.

518

F. von Langenegger 1950: 115-142. As mentioned above, there was a short interval between the construction of both walls BM1 and BM2. 519

91

Pucci – Ch. IV Building Periods at Tell Halaf

built to be included inside this platform. This seems improbable, however, because a floor and a plastered wall bearing traces of use and destruction imply the past presence of a structure. The pit and statue were probably surrounded by mud brick structure, whose walls were later removed, or naturally destroyed. This allowed the platform to be built, though the statue was left in place. The other northern structure (G1/1) provides a clearer picture. Here the archaeologists recognised a mud brick basement and two walls supporting and surrounding the statue. These mud bricks are different from the mud bricks of platform Mud allowing us to conclude that the statue was located inside a room. In addition, the walls of this room were plastered, and section 23-24 525 shows that the structure had most likely collapsed to the east, and its were found in the surrounding area. Thus, this room was later covered by the platform MUd of LZM. 526 Objects and statues; W. Orthmann dated the two statues to two different periods. The statue (A1) 527 of G1/2 is older than the statue to the north (A2). The northern one is more rounded, both in the rendering of the body and the face, while the southern one bears more superficial carving. 528 Furthermore, each side of the basalt block is carved as if it were a relief instead of a statue. The pit of G1/1 included a ring, a bronze glass, a jar, and many ivory fragments. The carved scene on the ivory fragments is north-Syrian in style, which continued to develop in north Syria until the 8th century. 529 More precise dating does not seem possible due to the fragmentary nature of the objects, which do not permit an iconographic analysis. However, it is possible to conclude that the carvings on the objects are similar to those on the carved orthostats at the entrance of building TP. 530 The shape of the gold and silver rings found inside this grave cannot be compared with the rings found in Assyrian graves, but they are nearly identical to a ring found in the southern grave. 531 In this grave G1/2 archaeologists found a metallic cup, a limestone tripod with carved scenes, earrings, a jug, and a small clay cask. These materials are also very difficult to date. The tripod includes hunting scenes, a winged lion or sphinx, and a bird, and belongs to the same iconographic typology as the orthostats. By analysing these objects, it is not possible to detect different phases between these structures, though Orthmann has argued different phases for the two statues. The end of the North Syrian ivory carving production during the 8th century provides a terminus ante quem for the production of the objects found in G1/1, but not for the construction of the structure. 532 Moreover, the

similarities between the two rings and between the grave goods suggest a similar tradition. In addition, from an architectural point of view, the two structures are at the same elevation, both had existed prior to the construction of the mud brick platform and were covered by terrace MUd. Hence, they were probably built in the same building period and were likely to be used simultaneously. 533

VF3.

The mud brick platforms and graves: LZM and G2

The massive mud brick platform, LZM, is divided into four sections: MUa, b, c and d. 534 Each part is architecturally independent from the others (Plate 17). MUa is a mud brick platform filled with stones. Its southern limit adjoins the northern wall of AST. The floor above this platform was preserved at elevation 17.00m. This platform was built after AST and when it was still in use. This platform was built to a height of 5m. MUb is a platform made of a mud brick layer 1.30/1.50 m thick. It covered the eastern rooms C-G of gate AST. This socle of mud bricks was situated on a plain layer of sandstone pebbles. The pebble layer stopped at the eastern wall of the older gate AST, and leaned against the mound wall BM1. Therefore, it did not extend as far as the mud bricks and was not a part of the platform. Rather, this layer was probably a levelling surface that existed previously. The top of this layer was at elevation 16.00m. The composition and width of this layer are similar to those of the levelling layer, which was found under the building LSG, approx. 80 m to the east at elevation 14.00m. 535 It is possible that this layer ran continuously under platform MUb, sloped to the east, and joined the layer under LSG overcoming the height difference (slope of 0.03 m each metre). According to this hypothesis, the levelling activity took place when gate AST and the mound wall were still in use, but before the construction of the newer gate (ST) and platform MUb. The stone floor of MUb was at elevation 17.00m, (the same level as MUa). On top of this floor, the archaeologists found another level of mud bricks that may have formed a mud brick pedestal. No other floor was preserved above it. MUd is a platform resulting from the southern extension of the two platforms mentioned above. It covered the external mound wall (BM2 and BM1) and had a baked brick paving, at elevation 16.80m. This platform was built with mud bricks for a height of 5m. It included the two “graves” of G1 (1 and 2), as well as the two statues described above. MUc is a ramp that leads to the top of platforms MUa and MUb. Two walls limited the ramp and an earth filling formed the sloping passage. The eastern wall not only was part of the platform MUb but also was probably built

525

F. Langenegger 1950: Pl. 16. Cf. next paragraph. 527 The numbers refer to original publication. M.F. von Oppenheim 1955. 528 W. Orthmann 1971: 126. 529 I. Winter 1976, eadem 1988. 530 I. Winter 1989. 531 The jewellery does not vary greatly either geographically (Assyrian and Syrian areas) or temporally (Iron Age II). Cf. Z. Bahrani 1995; B. Sass 1997; J. E. Curtis et K. Maxwell-Hyslop 1971; B. Musche 1992. 532 For luxury goods were usually conserved for a long time 526

period. 533 The graves were likely to be built when the person died, but not at the same time. 534 F. von Langenegger 1950: 144-158. Langenegger already divided the Platform into four parts MU a-d. 535 A height difference of 1m is not perceivable over a length of 80 m.

92

Pucci – Ch. IV Building Periods at Tell Halaf

at the same time as gate ST. The western wall, which was situated on a higher level than the floor of ST, limited and narrowed the entrance. It was constructed by cutting into the walls of ST, and therefore when ST was already standing. The platforms had several architectural connections with neighbouring structures. Some platforms were built when older structures were still in use, and others after they had collapsed. Only after analysing these relationships is it possible to establish a sequence of the time of construction for these platforms. The following elements provide clues for our chronological sequence: 1. Platform MUa implies that AST was in use. 2. Platform MUb implies the partial collapse of AST and the use of the BM. 3. Platform MUd implies the collapse of BM in this section and G1. 4. Platform MUc implies the collapse of AST. Thus, it is possible to establish the following sequence:

The walls of the three structures of G2 were not connected, but parallel and architecturally independent of each other. The bottoms of the foundations were at different elevations: G2/1 had higher foundations than G2/2, because the mound sloped to the south. Each room had only one floor. 539 The elevations of the floors are presented in the following table: Table 55:

Floor elevation

Floors elevations in structures G2 G2/1

G2/2

G2/3

11.00m

10.60m/ 10.90m

11.34m/ 11.69m 540

The diagram above illustrates the sequence of platforms according to their relationships to the neighbouring structures, not according to the direct connections between them. 536 The architectural group G2 indicates three structures 537 (1-3), which were built outside the mound wall in between the southern gate and the mud brick platform (Plate 17). The northern wall of G2/1 was parallel to the western façade of platform MUd; therefore, it was built when this part of the platform was already standing. 538 At the same time, the same northern wall ran parallel to the preserved wall of the older southern gate (AST). The 12 cm gap between this wall and the southern wall of the new gateway (ST) was filled with pebbles and sherds. Therefore, G2/1 was built after the construction of both the new gateway ST and mud brick platform MUd. In addition, the eastern wall of G2/3 leaned against the western wall of the southern mud brick platform MUd, and therefore was built after its construction.

As it is demonstarted in Table 55: , the average difference in elevation between the three units is 50 cm. The elevations of the floors also differ within the same structure; therefore, the difference in height between the floors does not help in establishing a building sequence. There are two later openings to G2/3 in the eastern walls of G2/1 and G2/2, and remains of a plaster on the external face of the eastern wall of G2/2, which suggests that structure G2/2 was temporarly clear on the eastern side, with G2/3 added later. It is interesting that no effort was made to build floors at the same level, even when new openings were built. The height difference between the two adjoining rooms of G2/3 and G2/2 is approx. 0.60m. Objects and written texts; no materials found inside platform LZM provide a date for its construction, because they were from elsewhere and used as filling materials, or to make mud bricks. Directly above the preserved floor of LZM no objects were found. However, one archive was found in the layers above the platform. These layers were only partially excavated as far as the trenches, which were dug on the top of the mound. The topsoil was preserved at a higher elevation, allowing archaeologists to find the remains of phases dating to the period after the destruction of platform LZM. By analysing the sections in Pl. 16 and Pl. 6 in their reports, it is possible to identify the exact location of the six fragments of cuneiform tablets and five Aramaic small tablets in square B1IV2. These fragments were found together in one jar. The jar was found 1m above the floor level of the platform LZM, 30cm under a floor of a later structure, and 1m under a later oven. Therefore, it is possible to make the following different hypotheses: A. The jar belongs to a structure that was built on top of LZM, and collapsed with it. Therefore the archive provides a date for the use of LZM. B. The texts were no longer in use and the jar containing them was buried under the floor of the later structure in order to preserve them.

536

539

Diagram 23. The platforms MUa

MUc

MUb

MUd

Cf. also Diagram 24. F. von Langenegger 1950: 169-178. 538 F. von Langenegger [1950: 159-160] provides an alternate proposal: G2 should be contemporary with the older gateway AST because it leans against its wall, and had a gap of 12cm with the wall of the later gateway ST. However, the connections between the northern wall of G2 and the mud brick platform, which also covers the older gateway, seem to confute this thesis.

Only one floor is visible in the sections. We do not interpret the cut rock under the floor as a true floor because it is irregular and uneven. As a matter of fact, plain and regular rocks were found in several rooms where they composed the floor. 540 The main room of G2, 3 had a floor with drain and pot in it. The lower clay floor had no direct relation with the building itself. Cf. F. Langenegger 1950: Pl. 16 section 19-20 and Pl. 15 section 11-12.

537

93

Pucci – Ch. IV Building Periods at Tell Halaf

If we consider that: 1. The jar was intact, 2. The platform was preserved at elevation 16.60m with no traces of a floor left (preserved to the south at elevation 17.00m) 3. The jar was found at elevation 18.10m and so it is possible to argue that the destruction of the platform and any superstructures was so violent that no remains of the upper buildings or the floor of the platform were left. With such a destruction, it seems improbable that a jar could have remained intact while the building in which the jar was located was completely destroyed. Moreover, the foundations of the later structures were built directly on the collapsed material of platform LZM without any levelling of older structures. Hence, we can conclude that the jar was buried under the floor of a later structure. The tablets inside in the jar belonged to the archive of IlaManâni, and dated to 650 BC. Thus, the platform LZM and the possible superstructures were already destroyed at that time.

Diagram 24. The Platforms, gates and mound walls to the south

VF4.

Building Sequence of the Platforms, the Gates and the Mound Walls to the South

Diagram 24 illustrates three building periods: in the first period, the older gateway AST and mound wall BM1 delimitated an area that was already higher than the street. This higher area was levelled with pebbles and enlarged to the north by platform MUa. Quite obviously, not all of the building activities took place at the same time, but the structures were constructed over a period of time. In the second period, the older gate AST collapsed and was not repaired, but replaced by a new gateway ST. This gateway was built to the west, where the older gate was mostly destroyed. Also, the mound wall to the west (BM4) was completely rebuilt. The eastern rooms of the older gate AST were left standing and partly reused until platform MUa was enlarged to the south by platform MUb, which covered them. Rooms AST/B-E were probably still used, in order to reach the top of the platform. In the third and final period, the platform was enlarged to the south, and covered the remaining rooms of AST. Tha platform also covered the mound wall and the structures G1, which were outside the acropolis. A ramp (MUc) was also built in order to reach the platforms from the mound. The structures G2 were built during the same period.

VF5.

Archaeological Connections to the southeastern Area

The archaeological connections between the southern and the south-eastern areas, as mentioned above, are based upon two features: 1. The sandstone levelling layer that was found under the mud brick platform MUb and under building LSG. This is thought to be a unique levelling layer. 2. Several parts of the mound wall ran continuously from the south east area to the south area and were frequently modified in the same period. BM1 was found in both areas. BM2 was also found in the southern and eastern area, providing a limit for the structures EH1-3.

VG. The Western Area of the Citadel: the “Tempel-Palast” (TP) and Neighbouring Structures The western area was the first section excavated by Oppenheim. 541 He first visited the site after receiving information provided by the inhabitants of the village. He 541

94

M. F. von Oppenheim 1908.

Pucci – Ch. IV Building Periods at Tell Halaf

then discorvered and excavated the southern façade of TP and its small orthostats. Later, he expanded and focused on this western area.

as the elevation of the floor belonging to the TP building phase. 3. The walls of ATP were not only levelled, but also dismantled down to a lower level than the top of the foundations. However, building ATP showed no traces of destruction and no objects or installations were found in the building. We can also propose another more likely hypothesis, though. This older building “ATP” is part of the socle of TP, and not an independent structure. Archaeologists argued the existence of an older structure because the the top of the walls were plastered to a height of approximately 0.5 m. This might be due to the difference between the buried part of the structure and the socle part, which was exposed. The following analysis of the gates to the acropolis also supports this hypothesis (cf. VG3). Following table shows the architectural features of both structures that archaeologists listed in their reports.

VG1. The so-called “Tempel-Palast” (TP) , its forerunner (ATP) and the Kapara Period The reports state that two buildings were found on top of each other, TP and AltenTempelPalast. 542 The upper building, TP, had a lower part and an upper superstructure. The lower part was located under the stone floor level and identified as the foundation socle of the building. The lower structure of TP consisted of mud brick walls and “rooms” between the walls filled with earth. An older structure, called AltenTempelPalast, was found under this socle/foundation of the building TP. The walls of ATP were preserved to a height of 0.5m and had the same width and length of the walls of TP that stood on top of them. Therefore, the layout of this older structure was identical to the layout of the TP standing above. The layout of the superstructures of TP, above the foundation/socle, was slightly different; the walls were thinner, and a stone floor partially covered the top of the foundations. The chronological relationship between these two structures (ATP and TP) was not in doubt, though there are some issues with the older building (ATP). 1. No floor belonging to the older building (ATP) was found. 2. There was no mention of plaster, sills, doorways, or other architectural elements in ATP that suggest that the preserved walls and spaces delineated actual rooms and that they were not the remains of older foundations or substructures. Furthermore, the external area 543 in front of these two buildings (TP and ATP) provides information about the paving surfaces relating to each building. To the south, no external surface was found between the top and the bottom of the walls of ATP. At the same level as the socle of TP, an external surface was found (at elevation 14.80m), and the row of orthostats on the southern side of the building was also at the same elevation. Both architectural elements belonged to building TP. To the south the ground level rose from the entrance ST at elevation 12.00m to then entrance SKT at elevation 15.00m to the north. To the north, a terrace (at elevation 17.40m) exhibited signs of several enlargements and led to building TP. Its filling leaned against the socle/foundation of the building itself. Under this terrace, there was a plain surface at elevation 16.80m that lacked a revetment, and it was interpreted as an older terrace belonging to ATP. This surface was 1.40 m higher than the preserved top of the walls of ATP. Therefore, we might hypothesise the following: 1. The floor of the underlying building ATP was higher than its preserved level. 2. To the south, the elevation of the external surface was approximately at the same level 542 543

Table 56:

Floor Levels in the Southern Area.

Extrn surf Floors inside Extrn surf SKT ST/AST Belong to the north TP/ATP to the south north to south 16.80 el. of (17.00?) 11.60 floor ATP 13.70 the external Reconstructe Level of to the north area of AST surf d floor of the ATP not under floor of external preserved TP 17.20 el. of 19.70/ 20.00 13.70 level 14.69, 12.00 el. of TP of of the raised floor the street to the street to building TP floor external of the south the north of surface of SKT ST the external area

As mentioned above, no objects or installations were found in building ATP. The structure, if it existed as an independent building, cannot be dated using these features. On the other hand, two objects (a bronze crescent and a bronze bowl) 544 were found on the floor of the eastern room in building TP, 545 as well as numerous carved orthostats and statues that were parts of the building. As archaeologists and scholars have already argued, the carved small orthostats, which were part of the southern façade of the building, were reused from another structure. This statement was argued not only because of to the style of the small orthostats, which greatly differs from the style of the orthostats on the northern façade, but also based upon the physical features of the slabs. The slabs were not flush with each oher, but had gaps that were filled with mortar. Some slabs carved on two sides (originally corner slabs) were used in another location revealing only one side. 546 On the other hand, the orthostats and statues on the northern façade do not reveal any traces of reuse, except for the lion supporting one of the statues at the entrance. This lion

544

B. Hrouda 1962: Pl. 34, 1 and Pl. 48, 16. In the same room, pearls, precious stones, and two pots inserted in the floor (not published) were found directly above the floor and under the collapsed wall. 546 M. F. von Oppenheim (ed) 1955, G. Elsen-Novàk et M. Novák 1994. 545

F. von Langenegger 1950: 23-86. Cf. table 11.

95

Pucci – Ch. IV Building Periods at Tell Halaf

was too high, and so it was partly inserted into the floor. 547 In conclusion, the small orthostats are older than the other sculptures at the front of the building, but do not help in dating the construction or use of the structure. However, when we try to provide these sculptures with an absolute date, we face the problems that concern the Kapara Period. 548 The different phases of this long debate, which has divided scholars and has produced different dates (10th to 8th cent) for the Kapara period, will not be discussed here. 549 However, it is necessary to emphasise the features that were used to date the structure: The Style and the Iconography: Orthmann has dated all these Kapara reliefs, and small orthostats and statues, to the SPH II, for they are not different in iconography but in carving techniques. He therefore argued that the time gap between the two groups was not very large. 550 Statues as Architectural Elements: Akurgal interpreted this concept as a development stage in the local architecture. 551 However, the dual function of architectural elements (practical, as a structural part of the building, and formal, bearing images), was already present in the orthostats in the Late Bronze Age. The orthostats protect the base of the wall from water damage and alos serve a decorative purpose. Therefore, using statues as columns represents this same principle, instead of a new development. 552 The Inscriptions: small orthostats and orthostats on the northern façade bear inscriptions referring to king Kapara. These inscriptions were added later to the small orthostats, to empty space around the reliefs and other older inscriptions. To the north, however, the inscription was planned and not added later. The inscriptions on the small orthostats indicate that the structure was the building of king Kapara and the weather god. 553 The inscriptions on the statues to the north glorify the artisan/architect of the building and the king himself. The Assyrians are not mentioned in these inscriptions, nor is Kapara mentioned in the Assyrian Annals. Thus scholars have dated these to the period before the Assyrian conquest of Adad Nirari II (911-891 BC). Furthermore, by analysing the palaeography of the inscriptions, Meissner dated them to the 10th century. 554 Since scholars are currently still discussing how to date the Kapara period, none of the criteria above mentioned

seem to be sufficient. We will attempt to establish a relative architectural sequence of the whole mound, and then analyse the datable elements in each structure in order to propose a date for the Kapara period (cf. VID3). 555

VG2. The Graves G3 and the Northern Structure (NB) facing “TP” In the northern area, two structures (G3/north and G3/south) were found (Plate 18), and were these interpreted as graves. The walls of G3/south lacked foundations. Its floor was 20 cm higher than the bottom of the walls. Moreover, an external square paved surface was connected to the outer face of its wall and is therefore possible to argue that the wall of G3/south was dug down from this level at 16.80m. The walls were not plastered on the inside or outside. The top of this structure was not preserved, and the terrace enlargement of TP later covered the vaulted roof of G3/south. 556 The bottoms of the walls of G3/north were 1.22m higher than those of G3/south, and the later terrace stopped in front of this structure. Therefore, Langenegger 557 assumed that structure G3/north was later than G3/south, and that it may have been built at the same time as the later terrace of TP. However, the following points should be noted 1. The terrace stopped at this point, and G3/north was already in existence when the area was levelled. 2. No floor was preserved in G3/south, and so it is not possible to determine whether the structure was accessible from the outside. 3. G3/north was situated only 1m beneath the top of the terrace and thus it was not dug into the earth but stood above it. This distinguishes G3/north from G3/south. Only the domed roof of G3/south was visible from the ground, while G3/north was built above the soil level and may have been connected to the outside by a door. This represents the main problem with this structure: no doors were found in it, nor were any later closed doors found as in G3/south. The only possible entrance to this area was on the north-western corner, where the wall was not preserved. A similar opening was also found in the middle wall, between the two rooms. The walls bore traces of plaster, but it was not preserved at a height sufficient to identify the level of the floor. However, the lowest seven rows of mud bricks were heavily damaged and their colour was modified by the humidity of the earth. This feature may indicate that the lowest 70/75 cm of the walls were under the soil level, and therefore may have been the foundations of the building. In conclusion, it is evident that both structures had very different features. G3/south was built into the soil, but G3/north stood above ground level. Furthermore the width of its walls, floors, layout and plaster were completely different.

547

This does not imply that the lion was reused, but only that it was manipulated in situ to fit in its final location, considering that the statue were rough-hewed out directly at the stone quarry. Cf. for the quarries S. Mazzoni 1984. 548 The name of king Kapara appears in the inscriptions on the façade of TP, and is frequently found as later addition on the small orthostats. 549 Cf. VID3. 550 W. Orthmann 1971: 127. 551 E. Akurgal 1979. 552 Moreover we cannot rule out the possibility that wooden columns were not carved. 553 For the ideological background and consequences, see VIA4. 554 B. Meissner 1933: 71-72.

555

Cf. Diagram 25 and VID3. F. Langenegger 1950: From section 3-4 in Plate 11, the terrace appears to be cut from the grave. 557 F. Langenegger 1950: 100-103. 556

96

Pucci – Ch. IV Building Periods at Tell Halaf

To summarise their connections to neighbouring structures it is possible to state: 1. G3/south was built when the older terrace of TP was already in existence, though it was no longer accessible when the later terrace of TP was constructed. 2. G3/north was built before the construction of the later terrace of TP. The structure was in use at the same time as the later terrace of TP. The foundations of the northern building, (NB), were dug into the later terrace of TP. Therefore, this structure was built when TP was already in existence and its terrace was enlarged. Floors were found in each room. Several rebuilding activities changed the layout of the structure, and indicate a long period of use. The eastern wall of building NB cut an older structure, which was only partially excavated and its layout remains unclear.

Moreover, the bench mentioned above indicates also a contemporary use of both structures. Thus, the architectural features of gate SKT show connections to TP and it seems that the building depended on building TP. The eastern rooms (SKT/3 and SKT/4) of the gate were not added in a later period. Two different floors divided by a filling layer of approximately 1m are inside these rooms. In contrast, only one paved street was found in the passage. This paving inside the gate runs continuously into the street, which leads to TP and NB. No other floors were found either inside the gate or under the street. The street paving was partially covered over by the construction of several rooms in the external area in front of TP. The enlargement of the terrace of TP later covered these rooms. Therefore it seems clear that first the main entrance (AST) was constructed, and that a north-south wall, belonging to a previous gate or to another building, indicates the axis of the main entrance. This axis may lead to a building that would be under the so-called North Building (NB). 559 Later the whole complex of SKT and TP was built, and their relationship is indicated by a small bench that runs uninterrupted from TP to the western gate tower. The layout of the new SKT was influenced by the previous structures, part of which were reused and by the new necessities of building TP. The builders represented the entrance with the street leading visitors directly to building TP. The only archaeological link to the southern area is the street leading from the southern gateway (ST) to the northern one (SKT). The paving material in both gates is similar, though a direct connection was not found. However, only one paving was discovered in both. We may assume that both structures were used at the same time and that the street was paved when TP was built because this street leads to TP and was partially covered by its terrace enlargement.

VG3. The gateway to the western Area: SKT and TP The so-called Scorpion gateway (SKT) was found on the eastern side of TP (Plates 24 and 15). The western wall of this gateway adjoined the eastern wall of TP. There was a gap between the walls of both buildings, and the western bastion of the gateway leaned against the eastern part of the socle of TP. 558 This feature may indicate that the walls of SKT were built against the walls of TP and therefore are later in date. However, after comparing the alignment of this building to the alignment of TP, it is clear that the builders adapted to the alignment of the main building TP the structure of SKT, which therefore already existed. In order to build the walls of TP, the western side of SKT was probably partially destroyed and the bench running along the western bastion could have been added at that time. According to this second hypothesis, the original layout of SKT should date to a period before TP, which, as mentioned above, has an identical alignment. However, there are several elements with this reconstruction: 1. There was a wall on a north-south axis under SKT, which bordered the raised area of TP and possibly delineated the south-western area. This structure was therefore older than gate SKT, and might even be linked to an older boundary or gate in this area, though no archaeological elements are available to support this hypothesis. This wall appears to follow the alignment of SKT. 2. SKT and AST have the exact same alignment, which suggests either that an older gate under SKT existed, or that the older main entrance axis to the acropolis was also in this area. The north-south wall under SKT might be the remains of the original arrangement of the entrance. Parts of this older wall were kept in use during the time of the use of TP and SKT. 3. SKT was surely in use at the same time as building TP, for the paving led from SKT to TP, and the decoration of the jambs of SK belongs to the same period as the decoration of the orthostats in the entrance of TP.

559

There were traces of an older building under it, but excavations did not continue below this point. This hypothesis excludes the existence of ATP, which would have had the same alignment as TP.

558

Current excavations at Tell Halaf, directed by Lutz Martin, have not provided evidence for this gap.

97

Pucci – Ch. IV Building Periods at Tell Halaf

VH.

The Lower Town

Archaeological activities in the lower town occurred in the first two years and served practical needs such as digging the foundations of the excavation house and pits to gather building material. 560 However, as soon as the foundation of the storerooms in excavations house were dug, they found the so-called Kultraum (KR). This building contained statues and other interesting materials, prompting archaeologists to realise the importance of a widescale excavation in this area. The 4th of January in 1913 they opened trenches in various parts of the lower town; the activities stopped in July, but did not continue in the last campaign sixteen years later (Plate 21).

VG4. Building Sequence in the Western Area Diagram 25. The western area

VH1. The main Structures on the Lower Town: Town Wall (SM), KR, and STL The town wall (SM) was very poorly preserved and its construction was only recognisable at the south-western corner. In this area three parallel walls formed the wall. As they were not joined together, the architect Müller argued that the internal and external parts were added to the original central wall in a second phase, as within the mound wall. 561 However, it is not possible to discern the time gap between the construction of the central part of SM and the external and internal walls. The foundations of the three walls were at the same elevation and all structures excavated inside the lower town near the town wall, were built when the internal wall already existed. Both of these elements suggest that the internal wall was built after a short period had passed since the building of the central part of SM. The southern section of the town wall was excavated and its course was followed to the eastern and to western sides. Connections to the mound wall were not found, 562 and thus it is not possible to chronologically date it to the mound wall or to any other structures on the acropolis through archaeology. The gate to the lower town was not found because the area, 563 was greatly eroded by a modern street leading to the village of Tell Halaf. Immediately behind the town wall, the layout of the lower town suggests the presence of a complex urban settlement. A pebbled street from the south may have rejoined the street at the southern gateway (ST) of the mound wall, but no archaeological data can support this hypothesis. Two buildings in the lower town attracted the attention of archaeologists: the cult room, shrine (KR), and the town temple (STL) (Plate 21). The “shrine” (KR) 564 was built among a group of houses

As shown in Diagram 25, the western area had two phases of construction. The first phase ended with the construction of TP and of the gate leading to it (ST), and the partial destruction of AST. This large building activity reorganised the whole area, created a space between the gates and a large western area with TP and G3/north. In the diagram ATP is in a dotted box, because its existence is still uncertain. The older SKT is also in a dotted box, because its existence has been hypothesised above. The second phase represents a continuous building activity that involved enlargements (terrace of TP) and the addition of new buildings (NB) after the construction of TP and of SKT. G3/south was beneath the topsoil, with its top visible from ground level during the first phase. Its “visibility” function may indicate its continued use.

560

K. Müller 1950: 327. However, a short period passed between the construction of the external part (BM2) and the core (BM1) of the mound wall. Cf. above. 562 Archaeologists [F. Langenegger 1950: 237] have argued that the town wall joined the mound wall to the east, where the rocks were levelled. However, no traces of a structure were found. 563 The southern gate was reconstructed according to two main elements: the internal paved street leading to the mound and the distance between two towers of the town wall. 564 K. Müller 1950: 357-360. 561

98

Pucci – Ch. IV Building Periods at Tell Halaf

that faced a street. The structure itself was not completely excavated, so it is not possible to understand if it was architecturally independent from the surrounding structures. However, some walls heading towards the external area suggest that this structure was part of a larger complex. Two statues (C1 and C2) were found in situ inside KR. Orthmann assigned their style to the same period as the statues at the entrance of the TP (TH III), which is the so-called Kapara period. 565 Considering that KR was connected to dwelling structures that adjoined the town wall, we can hypothesise that the lower town was fortified at least since this period. The “town temple” (STL) 566 was built in an area outside of the lower town, for the town wall seems to isolate this higher area from the urban area. Other smaller buildings surrounded this structure, using the walls of STL. These structures were later added to the building, so that STL was originally isolated from the urban settlement. Other structures were found under the foundations of this building, 567 leading us to conclude that the building belongs to a later phase of building activity in the lower town. Moreover, the building STL was possibly in use during the last phase of construction at the site, because its layout shows a strong Assyrian influences. No small finds were found inside the structure.

VH3. The Lower Town: Conclusions The information on the lower town is quite scarce in comparison to its size. Because it is not possible to completely understand the spatial organisation of the lower town, we should focus our attention on data that may elucidate the stratigraphy: The houses in the lower town had two building phases that were not separated by a destruction layer, but demonstrate progressive improvement. This element indicates a long period of use. A destruction layer covers the second building period, with some structures constructed after the destruction of houses and the town wall. These new structures had decorated pivot and architectural features similar to the architecture of building NOP but are isolated in the southeastern corner of the town. Building STL was built above older structures. This probably occurred in a second building activity within the lower town. An area of the lower town was reused as a cemetery in later periods. The layout of the graves suggests that the remains of the houses were still visible. The graves were generally dated to both the Assyrian and Hellenistic periods. 572 We may therefore conclude that the lower town had an extended building period, but suffered a large destructionin the south-eastern corner that collapsed the town wall. The KR was probably built before this destruction. STL does not have a clear relationship to this destruction. It is interesting that the architectural quality of this structure was as developed as in the later buildings on the acropolis. The organisation of the structures in the lower town seems to indicate continuous growth. This activity does not appear to be related to the architectural activity on the mound. If one street led from the town wall through the mound wall and to the scorpion gate (SKT), we might assume that the lower town and the town wall were at least in use at the same time as the building TP.

VH2. Soundings Apart from the two buildings described above, the excavators put soundings in the lower town in order to find the course of the town wall 568 and to understand the sequence from virgin soil to topsoil, clarifying the building phases in the lower town. Müller, using the housing remains from the soundings, identified two building periods. 569 During these building periods new layouts replaced or modified older buildings. In the published sections, 570 however, these two phases do not appear to be separated by any destruction layer, but were progressive modifications of the town’s spatial organisation. A third period is only attested only in the south-eastern corner of the lower town. It includes structures built above an ash layer that covers the structures built in the first two periods mentioned above as well as the town wall. The architectural remains (stone paving, decorated pivots, and baked bricks) of this third period were interpreted as belonging to the Assyrian period. 571 However, no small finds, pottery, or sculptures could confirm this hypothesis.

VI. Conclusions: Overview on the Building Periods Architectural development at Tell Halaf is characterised by the absence of any evident destruction periods between building periods. Thus, Tell Halaf enjoyed continuous construction without interruptions or abrupt changes. Only two elements suggested a true change in the spatial organisation: firstly, the change of the building alignment in the southern area and the disuse of gate AST. In particular, the completely different layout of gate ST may imply a different use for this area. Secondly, the levelling activity in the southeastern area indicates a building program in that area, 573

565

The possibility that the statues were carried into the structure in a second moment and that the construction of KR dates consequently to the third building period still exists. But this woul be a “lectio difficilior” of the remains. 566 K. Müller 1950: 349-352. 567 These structures did not belong to the Halaf period. Considering that the site was occupied only in the Halaf period and in the Iron Age, these houses must date to the Iron Age. 568 K. Müller 1950: 343-348. 569 Soundings “hinter der Südostecke der Stadtmauer”, VII, VIII, and XI. 570 K. Müller 1950: fig. 147, 149 and 155. 571 K. Müller 1950: 341-342.

572

K. Müller 1950: 366. We know very little about the structures that may underlie this levelling layer. Parallel to BM, a wall is visible in area F. Langenegger 1950: sections 15-16 and 17-18. However, the layout of this area before the levelling is unknown. 573

99

Pucci – Ch. IV Building Periods at Tell Halaf

and divides the structures that had been built before from those build in this levelling layer. The older structures below this 1.5m high layer are: EH1-2, AST, and BM1-2. Those built after its construction are EH3, AH, LSG, and ST. Our final diagram illustrates that the structures were built in progressive sequence. Two main characteristics of the building activity allow us to connect the different areas. The sandstone levelling layers found in the southern and south-eastern areas belong to the same levelling activity. Similar elevations and the building material of these layers support this hypothesis. In addition, the street leading from the southern gate (ST) to the Scorpions gate (SKT) was only paved once, and suggests that both structures date to the same period. Therefore, the building phases are not defined by any real interruptions or gaps in construction, but are characterised by distinct changes in the spatial organisation. A clear style sequence of the carved images and statues does not exist to help us date the different phases. Therefore, the inscriptions and archives are the main source of information to date these phases.

VI1.

Period I: the earliest Layout of Syro-Hittite Tell Halaf/Guzana

Period I (plate 14) began with the reoccupation of the mound. Numerous soundings dug into the mound confirm that Iron Age structures were built directly above the Halaf layer; therefore, no sedentary occupation took place on the mound in more than 4000 years, which separates the Halaf and the Iron Age periods. 574 In this first period, southern gate AST and mound wall BM1 were built and thus the defensive system was already in use. Shortly later, the external mound wall BM2 was built. The elevation of its foundation and the relationship to the southern gate are very similar to those of the first mound wall. A building in the southern area was possibly built (under NB or TP) 575 in the same period as both the southern gate (AST) and a structure under the Scorpions gate (SKT) (cf. reconstruction of the possible location in Plan 14). The paving of gate AST did not continue as a street to the north, but was limited to the gateway. Building activity also began in the north-eastern corner of the mound. Some independent structures were built here, 576 which were grouped together in a complex by a mud brick terrace. New rooms were built in the spaces between them. Thus, the terrace T1 and several groups of rooms, which were first independent from each other, occupied this area in in this first period. To the south, structures EH1-2 were constructed in a second phase of the first building period and were not directly connected to

574

Recent excavations under the area to the north-east of SKT could provide evidence for halaf occupation in this area. 575 This building should have been located here as arrival point of a street from AST. It seems difficult to support the idea that this building was ATP. Cf. above. 576 It seems that the mound was uninhabited in the Late Bronze Age, so these structures were built probably at the beginning of this period.

the northern T1 terrace. As mentioned above, the archive on the floor, which dated to Adad Nirari 3rd (810-783 BC) provides a terminus ante quem. This archive provides us with a date just after this area was levelled. The transition to the second period is characterised by a new building activity in the south-eastern part of the mound. A large area was levelled by a sandstone layer that also covered some previous structures (s. a. EH 1-2).

VI2.

Period II : the so-called “Kapara” Period

The second period started with an intense building activity to the south, with new buildings constructed above the levelling layer (Plate 15). To the east, structures LSG and EH3 and a new internal mound wall (BM3) occupied this area. BM3 ran parallel to the mound wall. To the north-east, building NOP was enlarged to the south by platform T2. This date of the terrace correspond to the baked mud brick floor in structure NOP. To the west, the levelling layer was continued as far as the eastern wall of AST. The time gap between the construction of this layer and the building of the upper mud brick platform MUb was probably short. In a matter of fact, the MUb was built when the gate AST had already collapsed, the new gateway was already built, but some rooms of AST were kept in use. It is therefore possible to divide this period into two phases: during the first one the area to the southeast was levelled, the building NOP was enlarged to the south and paved with mud bricks. In the second phase, platform MUb was built and the older gateway was abandoned, when the new entrance (ST) was built. Initially, three rooms of AST were kept in use. A paved street led from southern gateway ST, through the internal gate SKT to the new building TP. A stairway led up to building TP, which stood upon a high mud brick pedestal. A terrace and several small rooms were built in front of it. The socle of TP was built with its foundation dug into the earth and a substructure, which made the floor in TP higher. A height of four metres separated the level of the street from the level of the floors inside TP, while the external bench running along the walls of TP was at the same level as the external paving. If we interpret the levelling activity to the south-east corner as a continuation of the building activity at the site, the disuse of building AST and of the other unexcavated structures located in this area. If building ATP existed, it was levelled. It is impossible to discern whether the building was before destroyed by violence and levelled later, or if or the new structure TP simply replaced it. If we consider that the layout of the new building was the same as the older one, it seems that there was no reason to level the older building to construct a new structure with an identical layout. The southern gateway collapsed to the west, but no traces of fire or destruction were detected. Some better preserved rooms of AST were kept in use, while the most destroyed section was replaced by the new structure. According to this reconstruction, it seems that there was no intentional destruction in order to build a new gateway, but that ST was built because the older gateway collapsed. Thus, there is little evidence that destruction

100

Pucci – Ch. IV Building Periods at Tell Halaf

took place in this area. The structures of G1 were probably built in this period. It is only possible to conclude that these two structures were built and in use before the construction of the platform MUd which covered them. Additional changes and enlargements characterise the transition to the third period. In this transition, only few structures were abandoned; this happened not because they had been destroyed or were collapsed, rather because architectural changes required their abandonment.

VI3.

Period III: the last Architectural Changes

In the third period, building activity occurred out in the south-western area (Plate 16). The area in front of building TP was expanded. The last enlargement covered several of the small rooms that were built in front of the stairway leading to building TP. Later, a smaller building (G3/north) was constructed to the north of TP, and then a larger structure (NB) occupied the northern area. Moreover, the northern area in front of the entrance to TP was limited by a wall on its western side, which connected the western wall of TP to the mound wall. Thus, this northern area became an enclosed extent surrounded by buildings. MUd was added to the south, when platform MUb still existed: MUd covered the mound wall, G1, and the three rooms of AST that were still in use. Structures G2/1-2 were later built in this area between the southern gate ST and the platform MUd. This area was physically outside the acropolis, but was surrounded by buildings, which were structurally part of the mound. Therefore, this area should be understood as belonging to the inner town, as a place where inner and outer town meet. Because this new platform MUd blocked the access to the platform MUb and MUa from the street, a new entrance was built (MUc). In addition a third structure was added to the group G2/1-2 in the south. This created a small internal courtyard, which faced all three structures. We therefore witness a consisten trend of the architectural activity. The efforts were focused into two areas independent in all three periods: the south-western and the north-eastern areas. In the south-western area, several independent buildings, frequently changed, enlarged and replaced surrounded an open area. In the north-east several units were continuously added to form a larger complex. The end of the third building period on the mound coincided with the construction of domestic structures on the eastern part of the mound. Several of these structures reused the wall of the southern gate, while others were built on top of the collapsed platform. It is not possible to argue whether building NOP was also destroyed at this time, because this structure was not originally evaluated for any reuse. The archive of Ila-Manâni found under the floor of a domestic unit may provide a date for this building period, as well as provide a terminus ante quem for the destruction of structures on the southern part of the mound. By this time, the inhabitants of the lower town had probably already moved to the mound to live inside its enceinte and reuse its structures and materials.

101

Pucci – Ch. IV Building Periods at Tell Halaf

Table 57: Diagram 26. Building Activity at Tell Halaf

102

Periods of Use of Buildings at Tell Halaf

Pucci –Ch. VI. Functional Analysis of Architecture at Tell Halaf

Ch. VI. Functional Analysis of the Architecture at Tell Halaf It was possible to identify also at this site three building periods (Plates 14-16), which outlined different spatial organisation of the acropolis. The connections of the lower town to this building sequence were not archaeologically arguable, as the links of the town wall to the mound wall were not physically proven. Hence, I will analyse the buildings on the lower town depending on the sequence discussed in the previous chapter. The building sequence does not take into consideration what it is called “the reuse phase”, which should be dated to the neo-babylonian period for two reasons: first, because it is not part of the historical period analysed here, and second because the remains were so scarce that they prevent any functional analysis. As for Zincirli, the site will be analysed starting from the younger period so that the objects found in the buildings can also be considered.

VIA. Period III: the last layout of the Town VIA1. Structures in use during the third phase Two features characterised the last building period (Plate 16) at the site: the highest number of buildings was in use at the same time and the acropolis was not abandoned after this period. As a matter of fact, several later Babylonian remains were found on top of the ruins and indicated that after the Syro–Hittite period and the fall of the Assyrian empire, the acropolis continued to be in use, possibly because it was a better-defended area, and dwelling structures were built on it. The buildings of the third phase were located in two areas on the mound, the southern and the north-eastern areas. The southern area was the highest and most visible one due to its elevation, to its location near the mound wall, and near the lower town. Here a main building and several gate structures were located. A large complex organized around three courtyards occupied the north-eastern corner of the acropolis. Table 58:

Buildings in use during the third building period

Building

Location All Lower town Lower town North east North east North east North east South South South South South

Elev. of Size main floor 340 12 2800 16.7 154 13.6-13.9 1439 13.7-14.4 2732 14.1-14.6 5031 13.5 103 11 343 16.5 696* 16.8* 694* 16.7 608 144

Building Phase II Yes No Yes Yes Yes No Yes Yes Yes Yes No No

BM 1-3 STL KR NOP1 NOP2 NOP3 QT G2 (1-3) LZM Mua LZM Mub LZM Mud LZM Muc NB SKT ST

South South South

17.7 15.5-16.6 10.7

No Yes Yes

790 513 524

Building

Location

TP AH BM 4

South South east South west

Elev. of Size main floor 19.9 1538 15.3-15.6 613 20

Building Phase II Yes No Yes

VIA2. The Defence System of the Citadel, its Terraces and Graves A mound wall surrounded three sides of the acropolis, while the river defended the northern side (Plate 16). Three parallel walls added over time (BM 1-3) formed the mound wall, which was punctuated by rectangular bastions at irregular intervals. The western part of the mound wall differed from the eastern one, in that it was narrower (5 meters as compared to the eastern which is 6.5 meters wide), built out of a single wall, and the rectangular bastions were located at regular intervals. The towers at the south-eastern and the south-western corners differed from each other. The eastern tower was round and was built by adding several walls adjoining the others over a period of time. The western tower is rectangular, was built at once and occupied an area 577 which was 700 m2. This size implies that this corner was not only fortified with a massive tower, but also that it was probably used as a terrace to support other structures. The layout of the western section of the wall was excavated only in the northern area and the few remains of a rectangular tower would suggest similarities to the southwestern section. Two terraces covered the mound wall to the south and to the north-east. The north-eastern terraces were defended by the slope of the mound (the floors on the terraces were 7.5 m higher than the level of the levelled rocks) and therefore their eastern side did not need further fortifications. The southern terrace was massive; it formed a block, which was preserved 2.5 meters higher than the floors of the adjoining structures, and which protruded 28 meters into the lower town. Moreover, this terrace adjoined the entrance to the acropolis and probably enhanced the defensive system. Standing on this terrace, it was possible to attack from a higher position and from behind anyone attempting to force open the only gate of the mound. Thus, the mound wall, even where it was covered by terraces, fulfilled a defensive function and obviously gave to the acropolis a secluded location separated from the lower town. The southern platform Mud 578 , the last added to the building, protruding into the lower town, formed the eastern limit of a built area (Plate 17); the mound wall and the two walls flanking the street limited this built area to the north and to the west. A complex (G2, 1-3) of independent structures was constructed here. Three buildings adjoining each other occupied an area of 300 m2.

577

The area was not completely excavated but the trenches dug into this area allow only one reconstruction. 578 Cf. Plate 17

103

Pucci –Ch. VI. Functional Analysis of Architecture at Tell Halaf

Table 59:

Rooms in the southern G2 complex

Room

Size

Accesses

Quality

G2/1a G2/1b G2/2a G2/2b G2/2c G2/3a G2/3b

7 35 31 5 5 23 69

2 1 1 2 2 3 2

High High High High High High High

Visibilit y Medium Medium Medium Medium Medium Medium Medium

roofed and the upper area was in use. In conclusion, it is interesting to observe that an external smaller wall like a “support” ran along the southern walls of G2,2 and G2,3. This installation whose top was at the same elevation as the floor probably protected the face of the wall and the gap between the mud bricks and the underlying rocks. The wall along the western side of the LZM seems to have served a similar function.

Floor. elev 11.9 11 10.90 10.67 10.76 11.3 11.6

VIA3. The Southern Entrance: the access to the so-called Tempel-Palast

The building G2,1 to the north was divided into a long (G2,1b) and a smaller room (G2,1a). This smaller room was accessible through a short (1.10 m high) arched gate that was closed at a later period. Both the rooms had mud brick walls supported by the levelled natural rocks, the inner faces were plastered and the floors covered with lime. Room G2,1a had a niche dug into the north western corner where human’s bones and ashes were placed. The openings between the small rooms (G2,1a and G2,2b-c) were later closed and because of their height (0.75m) most probably were never supposed to be used as a frequent passage. Their later closing might perhaps have been related to a ceremony or as a structural solution since the arch between G2,1a and G2,1b was collapsing, as testified by the cracks, 579 and closing with mud bricks could provide support to the wall. The jars found in front of the closed arches in both rooms G2,1b and G2,2a establish another similarity between these spaces. 580 Later an opening to G2,3b was built. Langenegger has argued that in the first phase the buildings including G2,1 and G2,2a were grave structures with an antechamber and a grave room (G2,1a and G2,2c) that were closed after the bodies were buried. In the second phase, the “grave rooms” were reopened by digging new openings from the structure G2,3 (from G2,3a to G2,2c and from G2,3b to G2,1a). He interpreted the jars and the basalt stand found in front of the closed opening between G2,2a and G2,2b as the burial equipment. The human remains found in the collapsed materials in G2,2b also support this hypothesis. Thus, in the last phase of these structures, the building G2,3 was the entrance and accessible area to the whole complex. The accesses to the “grave rooms” were opened probably to perform other rituals concerned with death, and not to plunder the rooms as they were left intact. The pot base connected to a stone drain and the pot stand found in G2,3b suggest not only that G2,3b was probably roofless, but also that activities connected to the use of water or liquids in general were carried out in this area. Considering that G2,3 (G2,1b and G2,2a) was the entrance and the ceremonial area for the small surrounding rooms, the two western rooms which were probably accessible from the west, served a different purpose as after G2,3 was built, they no longer fulfilled their original function. The clay pipeline running along the vertical face of G2,2c confirms that the structure was

579

Cf. F. Langenegger 1950: 171. In B. Hrouda 1962, two jars (T 63 and T 56) bear the location “in front of arch 3” while those found in front of arch 4 were not published. 580

The southern entrance (ST) and the only one to the acropolis 581 was accessible through a pebble-paved street (Plates 16 and 17), 582 and was bordered by two walls on the eastern and western sides. These sidewalls fulfilled an important formal function. They limited the extent of the street, underlined its existence, and indicated the entrance obliging anyone in this area in front of the gate to choose whether to enter or to exit the acropolis. Moreover, they separated this passage from the neighbouring structures built outside the mound wall, but strongly related to the border between the acropolis and the lower town. Two parallel large rooms with a paved passage made up the layout of the gate. Two towers flanked the entrance and stone paving marked the sill of the southern door. A drain running under the passage let the water flow out from the acropolis. The first door had pivot stones with a decorated basalt covering. The slab paving on the sill was covered with limestone, while a plaster with limestone paved room ST/2. ST/2 and /3 had a similar layout, size and architectural features. In room ST/3 a baked brick structure was found collapsed on the floor. The function of this structure is not clear. It is similar to a pillar built with baked bricks the ones above the others. It could be either have been part of a larger mud brick structure located in this room, or according to the drawing, it might have been part of a domed roofing. 583 Table 60:

Rooms in ST

Room

Size

Accesses

Quality

Visibility

ST/1

70

2

High

Very High

ST/2

98

2

High

Very High

ST/3

98

2

High

Very High

ST/4

711

3

High

Very High

The estimated size of ST/4 is based on the large area on the north of the gate, which is seen between gate ST and the northern internal gate SKT. Hence, this area did not belong to the gate structure, but was an open area limited by structures entailing interesting features. The mud brick 581

The northern gate (QT) faced the river and probably served as entrance only for those who arrived from the river. Also in Karkamish the acropolis was accessible from the lower town through a large and representative gate (the King’s gate) and from a smaller gate by the river (the Watergate) 582 The street has a paving similar to the paving of the entering street in the lower town, but possible connections are not arguable. 583 However, as far as I know, there are no other examples of baked bricks arches and mud bricks walls used together.

104

Pucci –Ch. VI. Functional Analysis of Architecture at Tell Halaf

massif limited the eastern side of this area; the scorpions’ gate (SKT) and the building TP bounded its northern limit. A pebbled street ran from the southern gate to the internal gate and crossed this area. To the north, the back wall of TP, decorated with small carved orthostats, limited the area and dominated the view. Far to the west, two parallel walls connected TP to the western mound wall, so that the northern area was separated from this southern zone. Moreover, the small orthostats on the rear wall of TP were visible only from this area at a height of 1.20 meters above the paving. By constructing this “intermediate” area, which was not inside the acropolis and at the same time was not in the lower town, it was possible to fulfil two functions. First, a second gate, as at Zincirli, guaranteed a better control of access to the acropolis and second, a border area having as its scenario a 49 meters long wall, standing on a higher level with carved orthostats, fulfilled a representative function and underlined the non-accessibility of the northern TP area. In conclusion, ST fulfilled a practical function as a passage, along with a representative purpose, which was achieved through the use of precious materials such as basalt stone and of formal elements like the decoration on the pivot stones. The gate ST was connected on the west to the new section of the mound wall BM4. The eastern section of the southern gate adjoined the remaining standing walls of the older gate (AST) (Plate 17). During this period, these remaining rooms were no longer in use and a high mud brick wall limited the ramp leading to the top of a mud brick platform LZM. The platform, covering approximately the area between SKT and ST (ca. 30 meters), and leaving a small corridor to reach the eastern side of the acropolis, was the substructure of one or several buildings, which stood on its top 584 . Table 61: Roo Size m MUa 696* MUb 694*

LZM Accesse Accessi Quality Visibility Elev of s bility main floor 1 2C Mediu High 16.5 m 1 2C High High 16.8*

MUd 608

0

2

high

Very high 16.7

MUc 144

1

2B

High

Low

This platform was built by adding over the course of time three main blocks (Mua, Mub and Mud) that slight differ from each other in their construction technique (Plate 17). 585 This structure, which covered older underlying structures and the mound wall, extended outside the acropolis into the lower town. It was an impressive structure that dominated the scenario of the entrance to the acropolis. The top of this platform was six meters higher than the sill of the southern gate, thus giving an 584

The remains of stone paving, drains and pivots prove that roofed structures were build on the top of this terrace 585 MUa was built with mud bricks and filling pebbles, MUb had an earth filling, stones and mud bricks and MUd had bricks. F. Langenegger 1950: 146-149

impression of might to those entering the acropolis. Moreover, for those standing on the external street outside the ST limited by the two walls the difference in height was even greater. With the walls flanking the street covering the sight of the smaller and closer structures (G2, 1-3) behind them and adjoining to the external side of the mound wall, the terrace dominated the view. The massif LZM was accessible only from the acropolis, through a ramp (MUc). 586 This access was not architecturally emphasised.:The ramp was not visible from the street, only a small door (1.54 meters wide) with a stone paved sill opened to street, and those who entered the acropolis had to make a U-turn to climb on to the top of the platform. Thus, the platform gave importance and visibility to the structures built on top of it, but at the same made access to them difficult: those structures were meant to be visible, but not accessible.

VIA4. The Structures on the terrace of the socalled “Tempel Palast” and the surrounding Area Having entered through gate ST, and passed the “intermediate” area, the northern gate SKT (Plate 18) regulated the access to the north-western area. This gate adjoined to the substructure of building TP on the west and to a smaller structure at the same elevation as the floor of the gate on the east, which has not been completely excavated. By analysing the layout of the acropolis, it is evident that this gate served as entrance to the north-western complex and that the route indicated by the stone paved street led only to one building: TP. The two structures SKT and ST were 30 meters apart from each other and the paved street running through ST continued and reached SKT. The layout of SKT was similar to the layout of ST, but on a smaller scale: 587 two large rooms, whose long axis were parallel, two towers flanking the entrance. 588 SKT was divided into two areas: the two passing rooms that built the gate and three eastern rooms that were not connected to the gate, but were accessible from the southern area in front of the mud brick massif MUa. The two rooms SKT/1 and /2 were paved with stones and the southern threshold was paved with larger stone slabs. On the western face of the southern end of the wall, a clay large bowl was embedded into the wall: it seems to have been a large ordinary container, which was probably used for practical needs such as to hold water or food. The bases of the walls in the southern entrance were covered with plain orthostats of alternating basalt and limestone slabs. These orthostats stood on a pebble layer and were not part of the mud bricks of the socle. The two northern orthostats of the southern passage were carved to represent two fantastic 586

The walls limiting this ramp are connected to those of ST. Cf. F. Langenegger 1950: Abb. 74 587 The sizes shown in Table 58: concern SKT with the eastern rooms, the gate section (the two passing rooms) is 213 m2, i.e. less than the half of ST. 588 Decorated slabs used to cover the pivot holes similar to those found in situ in ST were found in the collapsed materials of SKT.

105

Pucci –Ch. VI. Functional Analysis of Architecture at Tell Halaf

animals: two human headed sphinxes with scorpion tails looking to the south occupied the base of the jambs. These figures stood on a sloping pebble layer that followed the steep street. Since the passage was covered and rainwater flowed out through an underground drain, the orthostats did not protect the wall from water. 589 As the foundation and the superstructure of the building were made of mud bricks, the orthostats did not contain the socle as is usually the case in stone architecture (as in Zincirli). Hence, the carved or plain orthostats had a formal function. The stone, which was not available in the region, was a luxury building material and the use of these stones for paving and for the sill gave an impression of opulence and power. Both scorpion figures fit within the tradition of carving apotropaic animals at gate jambs, which recurs in the Iron Age architecture. 590 Thus, SKT/1 and /2 obviously satisfied the need of a passage, emphasised a route and consequently gave relevance to the building/buildings they led to. No religious or royal aspect was emphasised. TP, which was visible and impended from outside the gate SKT (Plate 18), stood on a higher level and the structures leading to it were luxurious and also marked a route that anyone who wanted to reach TP had to take. Moreover, here too, the access to the higher building was not visible and those passing through gate SKT had to make a U-turn to enter it. The eastern rooms of SKT had different architectural features. The mud brick socle, which ran in front of the western tower, disappeared in front of the southern external wall. Two rooms were clearly identifiable; a larger rectangular room (SKT/3) with plastered floor and two smaller square rooms connected to each other. This structure was reused at a later period and it has not been completely excavated. The section that was preserved and brought to light was accessible through a small door in SKT/6. A chicane course led through SKT/4 to /3. The function of these rooms is unclear and it appears that they did not have any relation to the gate, but were built directly adjoining to the gate to highlight a border between the southern and the northern areas and probably as guard room. 591 The street starting from the structure SKT ran continuously to the north and after 15 meters turned in the western direction. It was paved with pebbles and fragments of baked bricks (several were glazed) and bordered with larger stones. The higher terrace of the building TP limited the western side of the street. The room SKT/5 indicates the area where the paved street had a dominating role. Probably, the remains of an older north-south wall, with stone foundations and mud brick superstructure limited this area to the east. As a matter of 589

The base of external face of the western tower, which was exposed to rain, was not covered with orthostats, but with a plastered mud brick socle. 590 The scorpion men have appeared since the period of Akkad. The iconography of these figures differs from the older one and it is attested in Kassite, neo-Assyrian and neo-Babylonian period art. J. Black et A. Green 1992: 161. Cf. also van Buren 1937-39. 591 Also R. Naumann 1971: 298-299.

fact, the preserved wall was at an elevation of 18.39m while the street was at elevation 16.90m. Consequently, the area was not only separated from the southern but also from the eastern area. Table 62:

The rooms in TP and SKT

Room Room Accesses Accessi Quality Visibility Elevation Size bility of the main floor SKT/ 37 2 2A Very Medium 15.5-16.6 1 high SKT/ 29 2 2C Very Medium 15.5-16.6 2 high SKT/ 158 1 2 Very Medium 15.5-16.6 3 high SKT/ 17 2 2B Mediu Medium 15.5-16.6 4 m SKT/ 272 1 3A Very Medium 15.5-16.6 5 high SKT/ 16.7 2 2A Mediu Medium 15.5-16.6 6 m TP/1 111 2 3C Very Very high 19.9 high TP/2 187 2 3C Very Very high 19.9 high TP/3 292 3 3E Very Very high 19.9 high TP/4 35 0 3F Very Very high 19.9 high TP/5 35 1 3F Very Very high 19.9 high TP/6 35 0 3 Very Very high 19.9 high TP/7 58 1 3F Very Very high 19.9 high TP/a 52 2 3A Very Very high 19.9 high TP/t1 123 1 3D Very Very high 19.9 high TP/t2 104 1 3D Very Very high 19.9 high

The street ran in front of the wall limiting the area of TP (Plate 18). The paving in front of the door leading to this area was made with larger slabs, exactly fitting with each other. The same paving covered the floor of the small courtyard, the terrace and the internal rooms in TP. The area of TP was divided into a northern open area articulated into two terraces (T1 to the west and T2 to the east) 1.5 meters higher than the entrance floor, a small courtyard TP/A, a portico terrace in front of TP (TP/1) and a building TP with six preserved rooms (TP/2-7). 592 A wall limited the northern open area, with a three meters wide opening. People entering this zone in front of the palace were flanked by two raised terraces (T1 and T2) and faced a stone staircase leading to the portico. In front of the portico, there was a stone paved terrace 5.4 m deep (TP1) where the carved coloumns and orthostats stood. The building was divided into two large parallel rooms (TP/2 and TP/3), also paved with stones. Five smaller rooms, probably 593 accessible from TP/3, surrounded these two main rooms. Glazed ziqqatus and knobs decorated the external faces of the building. 594 TP was

592

Cf. Table 62: The accesses were not preserved except for TP/7 594 F. Langenegger 1950: 51 and fig. 18. Cf. pg. 69 593

106

Pucci –Ch. VI. Functional Analysis of Architecture at Tell Halaf

constructed on top of an older building or high podest 595 and it was consequently prominent in comparison to the surrounding structures. The courtyard TP/A, plastered with slabs, was a closed area; on three sides higher walls bordered it and stone stairs limited it to the north. Its access from the street was not closed by a door and the large stairs were on the same axis as this access. 596 Two small bastions flanked the stairs, and in front of the western one, a basalt basement was found still in place. 597 The surface of this slab was 0.6 meters higher than the level of the paving in TP/A, and a statue probably stood here, enhancing the already impressive effect caused by the bastions and the stone stairs. The stone statue of a raptor standing on a capital was also found in this area. Archaeologists have argued from the dowel hole under the statue that it was located on a high column standing in TP/a. It is not possible to determine whether only one or several columns with raptors stood in this area. Several large fragments of similar statues were found spread on the mound but their connections to this area were not arguable. The iconography of a bird standing on a high perch recurs on a Kassite kudurru found at Sippar 598 and had a religious meaning. The stairs rose through a height of 1.6 meters and led to the terrace. As seen from the remains, the whole terrace (T1, T2 and TP/1) was paved with stones. Two towers flanking the entrance to TP and a portico were directly in front of the stairs and limited the southern side of TP/1. The niche built by the towers and the entrance was covered with carved orthostats. Also a rectangular installation built with glazed bricks forming geometric patterns was located in this area in front of the second passage from the east. The lower four courses of bricks were still in situ, the upper eight were found collapsed but in situ, while several others mud bricks were found spread in the neighbouring area. This installation stood on a clay layer above the stone paving. It was probably at least one meter high and found some similarities with the altar made of glazed bricks 599 in the central court of the Nabu temple at Khorsabad.600 These two installations and possibly another altar in Elam 601 are the only independent structures made of glazed bricks found in the Ancient Near East. The installation was likely used as an altar or podest and implied that worships were celebrated on it in front of a divinity that would have been located on the façade of TP. A second square stone installation was located in front of the second passage from west, where

only four stones (basalt and limestone) were found inserted in the floor. Thus, both structures (the altar and this base) were symmetric like the towers of the entrance. The same symmetry was observed in the scenes carved on the orthostats: the western sequence of scenes representing in order 1. Fantastic figures, 2. Hunt, 3. God, 4. Lion found a correspondence with the eastern sequence of scene representing 4. Lion, 3. Sun, 2. Hunt. Again, symmetry is also visible in the statues supporting the roof span of the entrance. The sequence sphinx-lion-bull-lionsphinx showed the figure to which all architectural elements pointed to, the god above the bull. 602 According to the descriptions of the preserved fragments, this statue was more decorated than the others and this feature also supports its central role. The symmetry of the decoration and of the architectural elements did not correspond to a real symmetry of the plan; the axis of the entrance did not coincide with the central axis of the building, and hence the building was more developed to the west than to the east. The need for a symmetric appearance of the external area of TTP appeared at a period later 603 than the time of construction of the building, and it was achieved by adding architectural elements that did not have a structural function. Consequently, the use of formal elements provided the area with a ideological meaning: the entrance and the terrace in front of TP played a dramatic role as a scenario whose architectural elements did not correspond to the real architectural plan. This scenario was created to delimit an area with strong religious elements. Archaeologists found several stone installations in front of the external reliefs; 604 two were visible in front of the sphinxes at the entrance and two others were located in front of the orthostats representing the gods (winged sun to the east and Hadad to the west). 605 These installations had a dowel, which was inserted into the floor and emerged in part from the ground, and a top shaped like a half moon. Archaeologists have not provided us with information about these installations; hence we can infer their dimensions and locations only from the architectural drawings and from the field photos. The dowel was 0.62m long, 0.28m wide, the half moon shaped part was 0.23m high, and 0.47m wide and the whole object was 0.17m thick. They protruded from the ground for approximately 30-40cms. These objects could not have contained liquids, and were probably used as stands; their top left a hollow 0.17m wide and 0.23m high that could

595

See Ch. V for the structural analysis. The plaster is preserved and there are no traces of pivot stones. 597 The slab was partially under the bastion. 598 J. Black and A. Green 1992: 42. “The bird standing on a high perch probably represents a bird standard and is common on the Kassite kudurrus.” The bird standing on a low perch is a divine symbol on the rock stelae of Sennacherib. The bird at Halaf was probably standing on a high column, as the carved capital suggests, and belonged to the Kassite tradition. 599 The glazed brick was commonly used in Assyria as building material: cf. P.R.S. Moorey 1985: 171-174 600 G. Loud et C.B. Altman 1938: 42 601 P. Amiet 1966: fig. 395-400. He reconstructs an altar decorated with animals and trees 596

602

Fragments of the statue were preserved but they were not published. After the destruction of the Tell Halaf museum, the original remains of this statue were lost. Therefore, we should refer to the reconstructed copies that stand in front of the archaeological Museum in Aleppo and to the pictures taken in the Tell Halaf Museum before its destruction. Cf. N. Cholidis and L. Martin 2002: fig. 55 603 The western tower of the entrance was added to the structure in an older period and it was not connected to the wall of TP. F. Langenegger 1950: 27 604 Cf. B. Hrouda 1962: Pl. 55, SP211 605 N. Cholidis et L. Martin 2002: first and last figures (not numbered). M.F. von Oppenheim 1934: taf. 5-6, 8

107

Pucci –Ch. VI. Functional Analysis of Architecture at Tell Halaf

have hosted the bottom part of a bowl. It could have been used either to pour liquids in front of figures represented on the orthostats or to support a lighting. Some of these installations bore a symbol incised on their face – a lightening above a socle. This symbol was the double lighting; it represented at all times the storm god and entailed a religious significance. 606 This element has a correspondence to the inscription found on the small orthostats decorating the back wall of TP, indicating that the structure was the house of the storm god Hadad. The same symbol recurs in several objects 607 found spread on the mound. All the objects referred to a religious sphere thus supporting the divine connotation of this symbol. Considering that other similar objects were found spread on the terrace and on the floor of room TP/3, probably similar installations were inserted in front of each animal/statue of the entrance. All the elements –the altar, the statues, the stands and the quality of the architectural features– suggest that the area in front of the building and TP/1 in particular was used for ceremonial purposes. The entrance of TP had a stark religious meaning in the sense that rituals were carried in honour of a figure considered superior to humans. The inscriptions that were carved on the statues and on the orthostats indicate that the building was the “house of Kapara son of Hadianu”; several inscriptions on the small orthostats of the rear wall of TP indicate, as mentioned above, that the structure was the “house of the weather god”. All scholars have maintained that these smaller orthostats, whose style starkly differed from the style of those on the façade, were older and they were reused in this building; 608 hence, the indication “house of weather god” would refer to an older structure. Moreover, they were located 1.20 meters higher than the paving of the street and neither the inscriptions nor the details of the carvings were visible. This dichotomy (house of Kapara/house of the Weather God, symbols of the Weather god, reception rooms) was already evident in the name that the archaeologists gave to the structure: “Tempel-Palast”. The two parallel northern rooms (TP/2 and /3) were both paved with slabs similar to those of the external paving (TP/1). In these rooms, which were roofed, 609 the stone floor had a formal role fulfilling a representative function for both rooms. 610 The eastern part of the northern room (TP/2) was the connecting area between the wide portico from TP/1 and the door to /3. This area was open on both

606

J. Black et A. Green 1995: “lighting”. A similar lighting above a bull was also represented on the Kassite kudurru of Sippar. 607 B. Hrouda 1962: Pl. 52/102, pl. 53/115, pl. 55/211, pl. 37/227, they are small steles, supports all made of stone. 608 See Ch. V. Cf. M. Novàk et G. Elsen-Novàk 1994 609 Rests of wooden beams were found collapsed on the floor of room TP/3 610 The stone slabs were covering the level of the foundations and they could be used to make the structure more stabile: but they do not run under the superstructure (which is connected to the foundations) so that it seems more probable that it was not a levelling for the substructure rather a paving for the main rooms of the building.

the northern (9.8m) and southern (3.8m) sides. Two carved orthostats representing two winged lions both walking in the direction of the door, flanked the passage leading to TP/3. Two gryphons 611 and probably two 612 orthostats representing a winged genius marked the jambs of this passage. Stone bases supported the orthostats and the jambs, which were connected to the mud bricks of the wall. Both gryphon jambs were on the same axis as the openings from TP/1 so that it was possible to see these statues from the outside. The head of the gryphon was similar to the raptor statues in front of the building, but they were here represented as “Mischwesen”, as were all other figures represented in this door, and followed the tradition of guardians of the access. Because of its size and the presence of these figures, the room TP/3 gained a central role for the building. The walls were plastered with gypsum and a layer 0.35m thick, with clay, charcoal, sherds and bronze sheets, was found above the floor. These bronze sheets were probably decorative elements of the room. A wheeled rectangular installation made of wood and bronze was found on the north of the room. According to the archaeological remains this installation was a fireplace, a movable hearth that was supposed to run on rails across the room. Rails were not necessary in this room as its floor was made of stone and was smooth and the wheels could run without hindrances. 613 Among the objects found in this room, mention needs to be made of several basalt column bases, but since none of them was found in situ, we cannot argue about the existence of vertical supports for the roof of the room. 614 No other objects were reported as being found specifically in this room. From the connection of this large and central room to the others, we can argue that its eastern part was a passage area connecting this room to TP/4-/7, while the western part was probably used as a reception or grouping area. Room TP/7 was the only room preserved among the small rooms, which surrounded TP/3. Several beads, a bronze half moon and an ivory tool were found on the preserved portion of the tamped earth clay floor. Further, two jars embedded into the floor could fulfil the need of a storage area. The luxury goods were probably also part of the things stored in this room as a treasure. Among the few published objects, sixteen belong to TP and most of them were sherds. We can note a complete bronze bowl 615 with finger base, which was also represented on orthostats and recurred in the Assyrian palaces. 616 The building was destroyed by fire and after this period, several squatters’ phases probably plundered the structure. These objects were the only few traces which testified to the richness of the furniture of the building. The internal arrangement of the structure did not have 611

J. Black e A. Green 1995: 99; A.M. Bisi 1965: 121-126 A. M.F. von Oppenheim (ed) 1955: T116-T117 612 Only fragments of one are preserved. Cf. M.F. von Oppenheim (ed) 1955: Pl. 119b and 119c 613 F. Langenegger 1950: 45-46, Fig. 14 614 The room was 8 meters large so that a covering without central supports was possible 615 B. Hrouda 1962: Pl.48 T16 616 I. Winter 1988; D. Stronach 1958

108

Pucci –Ch. VI. Functional Analysis of Architecture at Tell Halaf

religious characteristics like the external area. The smaller rooms were used as storage area and the central room probably served as a reception and grouping space (also considering the presence of the fireplace). This dichotomy between internal and external areas recurs in many features of the external arrangement of the building. It is possible to demarcate an external religious area and an internal “secular” space. The main element that characterises this structure is the mélange of both; the king and the weather god seem to merge into one another. The structure is the residence of a living man, who is celebrated as a god outside. Table 63:

Objects found in TP

Figure Inventory Description Location II T 34 A. 1 Bronze half moon with In the collapse of dowel eastern room. TP/7 T 44 A. 279 Ivory spoon On the east in the middle rubble. TP/7 T56 K 15 Red polished clay At the higher level of the older walls of TP -K 16 – 17 Yellow grey clay with At the higher level of red stripes the older walls of TP T58 K 33 Black, grey clay, jar On the north-east of TP 1.5 tief T 81 KH 102 fragment of bowl with Near TP, upper debris dark slip and flower decoration (later) T 71 KH 49 Red clay, red paint Southern debris T 71 KH 59 cup handle, grey clay On the east middle with red and black paint debris T 72 KH 82 Grey clay with red Above paint, dish T 72 KH 83 Grey clay, black paint, Above dish T 73 KH 96 Grey polished clay, On the north, upper sherd debris T 73 KP 16 rim sherd On the north, at the level of the floor T 48 P. 16 Bronze bowl T5

S 39

T 55

SP 211

Limestone painted with 15 meters to the north ochre of TP, at the same height as its floor Limestone installation In front of the statues (fragment)

In front of the TP, 17 meters to the north, another building was constructed (NB) (Plate 18). As this structure covered an older one visible under its walls, it was probably built during the reassessment of the area that led to the construction of TP. The last layout of the building occupied an area of 560 m2 and was divided into five rooms. The building was erected by digging its foundations into the terrace of the TP. Its location suggests a direct relationship to the building TP. Table 64:

The northern building

Medium High

17.7

NB/3 101 Medium High

17.7

NB/4 29

Medium High

17.7

NB/5 10

Medium High

17.7

VIA5. The Final Layout of the north-eastern Structure: Distribution of the Functions The north-eastern area was completely separated from the area described above and it was accessible from the passage between the SKT and the LZM. The large

Room Size Quality Visibility Elevation of the main floor NB/1 46 Medium High 17.7 NB/2 41

about the main entrance to the building, so it is very difficult to establish the internal circulation. Among the five rooms preserved inside the building, rooms NB/4 and /5 were accessible through a gate covered by an arch and both accesses were closed with mud bricks. These closings were carried when the arches were still standing and supporting the ceiling 617 so it seems not probable that the accesses were filled with bricks to support a collapsing arch. The floor in the larger room NB/3 of the building consisted of a mud brick foundation and a 15 cm thick layer of concrete covered with lime. As Langenegger has argued, such a floor as it is waterproof and very resistant to weather erosion might have fulfilled a practical function in a roofless room, or a formal function inside the main reception room. As a drain was not found we can assume that the room was possibly covered and it was the main room of the structure. Moreover, the layout of the structure reproduces the usual layout with two large rooms parallel on the long axis and smaller rooms on the back-side with the addition of a large room on the front 618 . Hence, the entrance was in NB/1 through NB/2 to NB/3, which was the main reception and representative room. The regular holes dug into the floor at the same depth as the terrace, which were interpreted as holes to host trees, might have fulfilled a different function. Langenegger 619 maintains that the holes were dug at different times. Probably they were used to host pots or containers for food or liquids, inserted into the floor at different times. The smaller room NB/5, later inserted in the building, 620 had a plastered floor and it seems that the holes found in it were due to the erosion of the floor and not holes intentionally dug into the floor. The single jars in the floors of NB/4 and NB/2 were probably used to contain frequently used materials, such as water. The structure was not destroyed, but abandoned and probably any objects or formal decorative elements there were plundered. Considering its location on the top of the terrace and the internal sequence of reception rooms, we can hypothesise a reception/representational function, which was strictly related to TP. The older structure, found under NB, was not excavated. Only a small corner was dug, while the archaeologists were excavating the foundations of NB. Here a large amount of sherds was found as if it were a storage room. However, considering that the older gates AST and SKT pointed to these directions in older period, it could also have had a more relevant function.

617

The preserved remains do not provide us information

In the sections of the arches, there are no traces of damage or a crack. Cf. F. Langenegger 1950: Fig. 53 and 54 618 I am grateful to Prof. J. G. Schmid who pointed my attention to this feature. 619 Cf. F. Langenegger 1950: 108 620 The walls were laid against the walls of NB/2

109

Pucci –Ch. VI. Functional Analysis of Architecture at Tell Halaf

structure of NOP (Plate 19) resulted from the progressive addition of sectors to pre-existing structures. However, during this period, the complex reached its final layout and as regard the previous layouts, a new sector was added to the north, a new stone paving was laid in the courtyards and some north-eastern rooms were abandoned (Ca, Ct-Cv). The last layout of the structure was made up of two main sections: the northern and later area and a southern area made up of small rooms around two/three courtyards (BN, AU and CP). The northern area, which corresponded to NOP3, comprised of twenty-six rooms, twenty-three of them were located to the north. The preserved access to this area was a narrow corridor, which led from the river through I-S and H and overcoming six meters in height brought to two sectors: one to the east accessible from corridor H-G and the terrace E, and one to the west (rooms A, L-R) accessible from the same corridor H, which leading on a second storey above I, brought to N. This entrance, narrow and well defensible was a supply/service entrance and it was a structural part of the sector. In the preserved structure the access to the southern area is missing. Hence, we can describe them as two separate sectors. The northern section had some features different from the southern one: 1. Possibly the rooms did not all open to Au as it is the case with the southern area. 2. The northern area was not organised around a courtyard, rather it was developed on an axis: the western rooms were accessible from a higher level and the structural element, which allowed the internal circulation, was the corridor area. 3. A towered external wall limited the northern and the southern face of this northern sector. The wall also had regular bastions without a defensive need as in the case of the wall facing the courtyard Au. 4. The size of the rooms to the north was larger than the size of those to the south. 5. The preserved architectural features showed a greater care in the details than in the southern section: decorated pivot stones, arches covering the corridor, stone installations inserted in the floor, a developed drainage system, an articulated access. Thus, according to this overview, we can stress a strong functional difference between the northern and the southern areas. The elevation of the floors in the north-western area (rooms A, L-R, U) was 0.8m higher than the elevation on the neighbouring eastern rooms and this area was accessible through a long corridor which ran above the corridor I-S. The builders constructed a high foundation and the empty rooms between them were filled with tamped earth, thus the area was intentionally raised and hardly accessible. Only rooms Q, R and U were preserved to an elevation sufficient to reconstruct their internal arrangement; the three rooms were connected to each other, the floors were paved and the walls of Q and R were plastered and painted with red or yellow colours. In the north-western corner of room U a storage jar was inserted into the floor. The absence of a drain, which was widely present in the building, suggests that water was not supposed to be used in this area. Rooms M, O and

P 621 were similarly arranged: a larger room (P) and two smaller rooms in line. Their connections to each other or their architectural features were not preserved. Due to the location of rooms A and L, they probably served as defensive areas or also as stairs leading above the roof. Although the connections from room N were not preserved, considering that the only access to this sector was in this room, it could be inferred that it fulfilled a passage function. Considering the low accessibility of the area, the architectural quality of the rooms, their dimensions and higher location we can stress that the area mainly functionated as private dwelling, to which a defensive function for the northern rooms was added. The northern group of rooms (Plate 19) was accessible through an open terrace E: the preserved conditions were not very good so we can stress that this unroofed space E was open to the east. This terrace connected the rooms VZ and Aa-Ab to C-D. The four rooms (B-D and F) were characterised by a waterproof floor and a tight correspondence between rooms F and D: both had a basalt slab 622 with a deeper central area inserted in the floor, so that the edges of the installation and the floor were at the same elevation. One or two grooves in the edges of these installations let flow outside the liquids collected there. Both rooms had an exhaust hole inserted into a niche in the wall 623 and in both rooms baked bricks protected the bases of the walls. Langenegger states that they could have been used as bases for bathtubs, but we do not have any archaeological evidence to support this hypothesis. 624 Baked bricks with a lime covering made the floors of the bathrooms waterproof; the closing on the top of the drain also suggests that the area could be closed so that water remained inside the room. Thus, the sector with these four rooms was entirely dedicated to the use of water. These rooms C-D and B and F formed two room-groups. Each room-group was made of a room connected to a place where water was used. The group C-D was accessible from E and it could be connected to the group of rooms V-Z and Aa-Ab and was probably the service

621

Only the foundations of these rooms are preserved. Cf. F. Langenegger 1950: Abb. 131 623 In both rooms, the niche and the drain are in the same location with reference to the entrance of the room, so they were not visible from outside. This feature would explain the “strange” drain in room D that crosses the floor of the whole room to reach the exhaust pit on the opposite side: the niche and the exhaust had to be located in the most concealed part of the room. 624 Cf. F. Langenegger 1950: 283. Moreover, basalt slabs and bathtubs were never found in the same room. By contrast, a similar slab inserted in the floor near a drain was found also in rooms 22 and 25 of the palace at Arslan Tash (cf. F. ThureauDangin et al. 1931: pg. 26 footnote 1, Fig. 10-12 and R. Naumann 1971: 203) and at Khorsabad. The parallel to Arslan Tash is interesting because not only the internal arrangement is identical but the room organisation is also similar: in the palace of Arslan Tash two bathrooms, not communicating with each other, had bent-axis entrances, niches and slabs. Both rooms were accessible through two “entering” rooms also separated from each other. 622

110

Pucci –Ch. VI. Functional Analysis of Architecture at Tell Halaf

area for these rooms. The western group B and F was possibly accessible from the upper storey leading from the western rooms A, L-R through the corridor H, and hence at disposal to this western sector. In the north-eastern section, four rooms, grouped in two sectors, were accessible from the corridor G. One group, made of two large rooms articulated in an antechamber and a main room (V-Z), was probably accessible from corridor G. A pillar on the corner and two bastions/pillars flanking the entrance characterised the northern wall of room Z. The corner pillar had a structural function because it supported the western wall of the room which was not connected to the others, as it was added in a second time, 625 the other two pillars did not have any practical function or, better still, they served only to reduce the width of the corridor from 2.90 to 1.70 meters. In addition, the two bastions shaped a niche, where the access to Z was located, so that this entrance was emphasised. Hence, it is possible to assign them a formal function. Two stones 626 with a dowel inserted into the floor and a rounded top with a passing hole were located inside this niche, probably on the two sides of the passage. As a matter of fact, the northern superstructure of room Z is not preserved, so the door is reconstructed by comparing the two vertical pierced stones to those flanking the access from G to Aa. The function of these installations is still problematic. According to Langenegger’s original interpretation, these objects are usually interpreted as the upper rings, which were fixed into the wall or jamb, and in which the upper extremity of the lateral post was lodged. Obviously, 627 they were never found in situ except the example proposed by Aurenche at Tchoga Zambil; here a stone ring was found inserted in the internal corner of a room built with baked bricks. From the finds at Tell Halaf and the example of Tchoga Zambil, all scholars 628 agree about their primary use, but they ignore the archaeological evidence. At Tell Halaf, three ring stone were inserted and fixed into the floor and their holes were on one axis. At Tell Shekh Hamad, inside the “Red house,” a ring stone was found inserted in the floor in front of a door between two rooms (CW and DW). 629 A stone object, which was approximately 0.60m high, was probably not very stabile, if partially inserted in a mud brick wall (while the only one found in place was inserted in a baked bricks wall and in a corner and could be easily supported). 630 Thus, it seems evident that these stones inserted into the floor were not reused; rather they

were built to stay into the floor. They were surely connected with the entrance but probably not with a closing. In the entrance to room NOP2/Aa, where an external ring stone was found, there were sockets set inside the room, which proved the existence of an internal door. Room Z was probably the antechamber to V. On the eastern corner of room Z there were traces of asphalt and lime at a level 20 cm deeper than the floor: a hollow that probably contained liquids. Moreover, an installation along the eastern wall gave the impression of a bench. Langenegger 631 reconstructed a door from room Z to the southern room V, 632 which was visible from the some traces left on the wall. No other elements (socket, sill) suggested an opening between these two rooms. Room V (108 m2) bear traces of a baked brick floor. Its southern and northern walls are thicker (approximately 2.85m) than the other walls (2.00m), moreover the southern wall appears to have had a large bastion which brings the thickness of the wall at this point to 3.9m. This bastion, 11m long, is not central either in relation to the courtyard Au or to the room. Rather it is slightly moved to the western side. Heinrich demonstrated that the different size of a wall is probably due to the presence of openings it; their thickness provides the doorway with a depth, which prevented the viewer from seeing the interior of the room. 633 The bastion emphasises this wall face of the courtyard, but it also might indicate the location of the opening from room V to the courtyard. This idea suggested by W. Orthmann was confirmed by the 2006 excavations in the area and provides us, at least for the original layout of the building, with the connection between the northern and southern sectors of the complex. 634 This opening was possible through the presence of stairs leading from the courtyard Au up to room V and with an opening that was very large and not in an axis with the opening to room Z. Because of the size, the higher and emphasized location, and the formal elements, room V evidently fulfilled representational and reception function. It is also, as per this reconstruction, the only passage between southern and northern sectors. Only the corridor regulated the circulation inside the northern sector. The eastern two rooms (Aa and Ab) were very poorly preserved: their eastern wall was completely eroded, so we do not know if a third room existed to the east of Ab. The door from G to Aa had a stone sill and decorated slabs covering the sockets. 635 A hole in a slab close to the

625

631

Probably, the entrance was at the beginning on the western side of the room, or the structure underwent damages or changes that required the construction of a new western wall. 626 B. Hrouda 1962: Pl. 42,c. 627 The walls are not preserved to a similar height 628 F. Langenegger 1950: Abb.68; R. Naumann 1971: 167; O. Aurenche 1977: 66-67; K. Galling et H. Rösel 1977: 348-349; G.R:H. Wright 1985: 447. 629 Cf. H. Küne 2006. 630 F. Langenegger 1950: 137 argues that the door leaves were not very heavy so that the wall could keep the ring stones in place. Nevertheless, there would have been no reason to make a stone pivot holder if the door was light.

F. Langenegger 1950: 277. However, from the plan, it seems that the wall was preserved to a level higher than the floor, so we could argue that V was accessible only from a higher floor. 633 E. Heinrich and U. Seidl 1968. Langenegger has argued that the walls were thicker because the room was domed. 634 W. Orthmann and M. Novak personal communication, W. Orthmann 2002: 41. The existence of this opening in the last layout of the complex is not proven. 635 The grooves on these slabs did not have as Naumann maintains (R. Naumann 1971: 167) the practical function to drain the water outside the socket hole, as they were located in a covered room. 632

111

Pucci –Ch. VI. Functional Analysis of Architecture at Tell Halaf

sill indicated that a closing system existed. Room Ab had a baked brick floor, baked brick bases of the walls, and gypsum plaster above them. A drainpipe running under the floor had probably its beginning in a niche in the northern wall, as also in the rooms F and D. The access between Aa and Ab was reconstructed to the western side where the north-south wall ran continuously between the two rooms. Thus Ab was a place where water was used and it was closely linked to the neighbouring rooms Z-V. Table 65: Room NOP1/ad NOP1/ae NOP1/af NOP1/ag NOP1/ah NOP1/ai NOP1/al NOP1/ba NOP1/bb NOP1/bc NOP1/bd NOP1/be

Rooms in NOP Size 7* 5* 14 9 26 12 9 21.5 (10) 41 25

NOP1/bf

Accesses 2 1 1 0 1 0 0 2 2 1 1 1 1

NOP1/bg

1

NOP1/bn NOP1/ct NOP1/cu NOP1/cv NOP2/am NOP2/an NOP2/ao NOP2/ap NOP2/aq NOP2/ar NOP2/as NOP2/at NOP2/av NOP2/au NOP3/a NOP3/aa NOP3/ab NOP3/b NOP3/bh

190* 16 12.5 13 8 15 31 14.6x1.4 15 15 24 64 11 1090 64 65 32 18

0 1 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 2 1 9 0 1 0 1 1

NOP3/bi NOP3/bl NOP3/c NOP3/d NOP3/e NOP3/f NOP3/g NOP3/h NOP3/i NOP3/l NOP3/m NOP3/n NOP3/o NOP3/p NOP3/q NOP3/r NOP3/s NOP3/t NOP3/u NOP3/v NOP3/z

16 21 48 25 120 20 27 63 45 37 9 40 14 26 23 10 18 8.6 x1.5 10 108 30

1 1 2 1 3 1 4 3 2 0 0 1 0 0 2 2 2 1 1 0 1

occupied the southern area of the complex. During this period, the area was repaved and the floors were raised both in the courtyard and in the adjoining rooms. We can recognize two courtyards Au and Bn, with several rooms grouped around them. Courtyard Au was the main one (1090 m2), it was paved with stones and the wall faces were plastered during this period. Starting from the east we find following groups of rooms: Two groups made of two rooms (AD-AE, AF-AG) were accessible on axis. Drainages were at disposal in each group so that in each area it was possible to use water. In rooms AD and AE a stone sill, a pivot socket made with decorated slabs was added to these rooms during this period. The construction of the drainpipe running from room AB through AD caused the floor to be elevated and the consequent reassessment of the rooms. A U-shaped installation was located on the floor of this room: its function remains unclear, but I would exclude its use as a closing, considering its location in the middle of the room. It may have been more easily used as a base, where a tenon could fit in the mortise of this installation. Considering the sizes of the rooms, the absence of architectural formal features and the role of the courtyard as a connecting area, we could assume that these eastern groups could be used for two main functions: as services or dwelling areas. To the south, on the eastern side, two groups were made of three rooms each (AH-AL, AM-AO): a larger entering room, Ao and AH, and two smaller less accessible rooms of the same size. The group AH-AL dates to an earlier phase than AM-AO, but their layout is similar. The entering rooms AO and AH have similar size and connect the courtyard AH to the two smaller rooms. The two groups differ in their function: in AM-AO the floor is made of plaster with gypsum and a drainpipe runs from AN to the east outside the structure. These features indicate substantial use of water. The group AH-AL is plastered with baked bricks and it lacks any draining system. The south-eastern corner of the courtyard is occupied by room AP, which due to its layout and archaeological evidence has to be interpreted as a staircase. Rooms AQ-T and AV limited to the south by the central courtyard AU. AT was the gate, the passage between the central and the southern courtyard CP. The stone paving of AU continued into this room and marked a street in CP leading to the western direction. Two pivot sockets hosted the pivots of the door closing the southern opening. During this period the northern opening, which was not on the same axis as the southern one, was narrowed. Considering that AU was not accessible from the outside, we can argue that this southern court was the first court by which one could enter. The western room AV communicated directly with the passage room and it was probably used as a guardroom. The eastern rooms AQ-S were also accessible 636 from the passage room and were probably related to the control of the circulation between the two courtyards. To the west, only two rooms opened to the courtyard AU: 636

NOP2 and NOP1 indicate two groups of rooms, which

The passage was not preserved, but if they were accessible from this level, the only possibility was room At

112

Pucci –Ch. VI. Functional Analysis of Architecture at Tell Halaf

BC and probably BB. Room BC, is a large room (the opening is on its long axis) and resembles the layout of the bigger room V. The floor of this room consisted of pebbles covered with clay plaster. Near the entrance from the courtyard, four baked bricks with burnt traces on their top and on their surroundings characterised this area of the room. The floor bore heavy traces of use. Considering that this room had only one entrance from AU and was not part of the western area with the smaller courtyard BN, we should consider it as a space related to the main courtyard. The fireplace suggests that working activities were probably carried on here or, better still, that people were supposed to stay in this northern part of the room. Considering the complete absence of formal architectural elements here –in fact, instead of a paving with large slabs there was a pebble floor, the door not having a closing, the wall faces plastered only with clay– we can stress that BC was used as a working or informal grouping area. The southern rooms BB and BA were probably the connecting areas 637 between the central courtyard AU and the western one BN. The openings were not on the same axis, a stone sill marked the door between BA and BB and a stone paving covered the floor of the southern part of room BA while the northern side was plastered with clay. These elements suggest that a route led from AU to BN probably entirely plastered with stones. In fact, the other internal rooms did not have similar architectural features. In the south-eastern corner of BA, a large storage jar was inserted in the floor and was probably used as water container as in modern times. Considering the accesses of BA and BB, we can stress that BB was a passage room, the entrance to the western courtyard, and that at least the southern part of BA had a similar function. In the courtyard AU, against the northern wall, a rectangular installation was found: the structure was built above the stone paving of the courtyard. It is not certain that this installation was really used during this period, as the elevation drawn in the plan of this structure is 1.5m higher than the preserved stone floor elevation, and that its lowest point is 15 cms above the floor. It consisted of a tamped clay base 0.8m high, which also connected and separated the northern wall of the courtyard from this structure, and of four baked brick pillars on the long sides. A hollow in the clay base filled with charcoal occupied the central part of this installation, and remains of clay, ashes and sherds covered the structure. At the time of the excavations, archaeologists immediately identified this structure as a pottery kiln, 638 also taking into account the presence of abundant sherds in its proximity and several jugs with pointed bases found in the courtyard. 639 The firebox of the kiln was located B

B

B

637

B

This is argued from the few remains that were excavated. The southern limit of the courtyard was not excavated so that we cannot exclude that BN did not have another access from the south. 638 This identification seems likely; the metal melting ovens have completely different features. Cf. A.M. Palmieri et alii 1993. 639 One of them was found above a baked brick base whose hollow fit with the feet of the jar. F. Langenegger 1950: 293-

inside the clay lower part, which a clay grid divided from the upper chamber. Baked bricks pillars, leaving small spaces between them that made the draught and consequently the combustion easier, flanked the upper part, where the pots were laid. 640 The shape of this installation finds some similarities with the pottery kilns found in Mesopotamia and Syria, and in particular the Mesopotamian kilns at Tell Asmar and Uruk. 641 As the rear side of the kiln was laid against the wall of the courtyard, the kiln could only have had a vertical draught whether from the gaps between the pillars, as argued above, or from the roofing like the pottery kiln at Bogazköy 642 . The location of this kiln inside the courtyard of a complex does not have similarities with other structures. It seems that the kilns, when they were not located at the periphery of the town in workshops or in normal dwelling houses, 643 were rarely part of palaces 644 or representative buildings. Moreover if the kiln was in this location during this period, it prevents the existence of an entrance from the courtyard to room V and would give a specific working/production function to the northern part of the courtyard and consequently to the surrounding rooms. To the west, seven rooms surrounded another smaller courtyard BN: two (BD and BH) of them were closed on four sides and accessible through a small opening while the others (BE-G, BI-L) were completely open on one side to the court. 645 On the eastern side of courtyard BN, the walls of rooms BA, BD and BC limited another niche and from here began a drain which ran across the courtyard, the rooms BE, Q and R and joined the drain in I. This drain began in the eastern niche, likely to be unroofed, where probably all the water from the courtyard flowed. A basalt and limestone irregular paving was employed also in room BH, 646 which was accessible from the courtyard through a door with stone sill; considering that the room was roofed and protected from rain-water eventually coming from the courtyard, this paving could indicate that liquids were used inside BH. Benches or small walls were built along the walls of the northern rooms BE-G. Langenegger states that they were only one B

294. 640 This kiln would be part of the typology of kilns with a firebox dug into the ground to retain the heat. G. Delacroix et J. L. Huot 1972. 641 Cf. in general G. Delacroix et J. L. Huot 1972: 91-92 in particular. A. Müller-Karpe 1988 for a Hittite ceramics oven. 642 A. Müller-Karpe 1988. 643 G.R.H. Wright 1985: 313, the Palestinian pottery kilns are frequently installed within the ambit of normal housing. 644 G. Delcroix and J. L. Huot 1972 maintain that the kiln from Tell Asmar was part of the Earlier Northern Palace. But as Delougaz argues it did not have any relationship with the palace as it was inserted in the wall inside a covered room. P. Delougaz et al. 1967: 183-185, Pl.36, Pl. 41a 645 Therefore, Langenegger call them “niches” of the courtyard. F. Langenegger 1950: 312-313 646 A Hellenistic wine cellar was dug into the southern part of this room and many complete jars and bowls were found in it. The pit is 2.5 m wide and has a plain floor, but Langenegger does not provide us with the elevation of this floor so that we could establish a clear relationship with the room. Cf. F. Langenegger 1950: 313 and B. Hrouda 1962: Pl. 9-24

113

Pucci –Ch. VI. Functional Analysis of Architecture at Tell Halaf

course high, but according to the information provided from the plan, 647 at least those in room BG were preserved to a level much higher than the floor. We can argue that the small one course high and one course thick “benches” along the walls in BE and BF were probably a protection for the base of the wall, considering that these room were completely open to the courtyard. The installations along the wall in BG, which were also larger than those in the other rooms, were used as benches or working surfaces. In conclusion, a small access, marked by a paved street, indicates that the area had a low accessibility and more private features. No formal architectural features were employed here and several rooms completely open to this western courtyard imply that activities that required a good light and ventilation were carried on in them. The jar in room BA and the bowl in BL also imply that living activities were pursued here. We can stress that in this courtyard peoples carried on private working and living activities. The southern extent of the complex NOP was not preserved in part and not excavated in part: the southern courtyard CP was probably in good conditions as its level was not very high, but the south-eastern rooms which stood on a mud brick terrace (T2), whose remains were excavated, were completely eroded. The functions of this southern part are not arguable. The main entrance of the complex was located far to the south on its western limit. As a matter of fact, the gate AT connected the two courtyards (AU and CP) and the stone route excavated in CP indicates a south-western direction. This element implies that the above-described sector of the complex was also the less accessible one, while the “public” area was possibly organized around courtyard CP and is not preserved. This statement implies that the representative and reception room V, would have been at the end of a long rout through the complex. Part of a gate structure was excavated, directly adjoining the western limit of NOP. QT was founded above older walls and its eastern wall was damaged by the construction of the western wall of NOP. Its layout seemed as a mutilated plan of a common gate layout with protruding towers. The room QT/2 had an irregular shape, was small (15m2) and had no accesses from outside. To the east of room QT/1, a small corner of an eastern room was found. Hence, the walls of NOP cut it, but the gate remained in use. During this period, the gate had defensive and passage functions and it appears that representational or religious functions, which the other gate had, were completely absent. Having once entered inside, it was probably possible to directly access the complex NOP.

VIA6. The “Assyrian House” south of the Northern Complex Fifty-seven meters to the south of gate AT an independent structure AH was excavated (Plates 16 and 20). Its relationship to the complex NOP are unclear: in the plate the southern limit of the complex NOP is reconstructed according to the findings excavated, while archaeologists

647

F. Langenegger 1950: Pl. 8

were investigating the structures EH. It is evident that during this period the southern limit could not be the same, because it is underneath the structure AH. Langenegger maintains that the walls of AH adjoined the southern limit of NOP 648 , and therefore it had direct connections with NOP. AH had two accesses from the same room AH/1 to outside: one to the west, which was probably the main external entrance of the structure, the other, later added to the north, led to the area of NOP. According to this and the findings in the trench, which connected both areas, it seems probable that the northern opening of AH connected this structure to the larger complex. The western external area of AH probably belonged to the structure as it was also paved with baked bricks. Seven rooms were identified within the structure AH. The rooms were distributed around a central square room (AH/3) paved with baked bricks. This room was interpreted as a central open courtyard due to its location, the architectural features and the similarities to the usual plan with central courtyard known from the Assyrian houses. 649 Each room opens on its long side to AH/3 except for the smallest one (AH/7), which is connected only to AH/6 and to the entrance room AH/1. Room AH/1 with its two opening to the outside, and its necessary opening to room AH/2 (reconstructed), fulfilled passage and control functions. The walls of room AH/5, which was accessible only from the courtyard via a small antechamber/niche, were plastered and their base was covered with baked bricks. The baked brick floor, the two drains running outside AH/5 to AH/3 implied that a large amount of water was used inside this room. Moreover, a bank along the northern wall 650 of room AH/5, probably a working surface, and a jug with animals’ bones found in the small antechamber suggest its possible use as a kitchen, where food was prepared. 651 On the southwestern corner of AH/5, several baked bricks limited the corner and separated it from the rest of the floor. Langenegger interpreted it as a fireplace, and although there were no traces of ashes or burnt surfaces, it is possible that a movable fireplace was located in this corner. The food might have been cooked outside in the court or with a movable fireplace inside AH/5 directly connected to a place where people could group together, i.e. AH/3. The northern wall of AH/3 was crooked probably in order to make narrower the area where the drain ran, because this space was not needed for other purposes. The drainpipe running from AH/5 also collected the rainfall in the courtyard AH/3 and ran 648

According to the reports, F. Langenegger 1950: 198-199 and 203-208, the walls of the southern terrace were preserved and ran more to the south than the northern walls of AH. Cf. Plate 19 649 E. Heinrich 1973: 211-212, P. Miglus 1999: 162 cf, also P. Pfälzner 2001: 280 650 Cf. F. Langenegger 1950: Fig. 110 and 109. 651 The similarities between this building and the modern houses in the land in the Khabour region are astonishing: both have a small room accessible only from the courtyard were food is prepared in order to be eaten in the court, while the oven to bake bread is located outside the house as in this plan. K. Pütt 2005.

114

Pucci –Ch. VI. Functional Analysis of Architecture at Tell Halaf

through the eastern wall of the building outside the area. Room AH/4 was the largest one, its walls were plastered with red paint, and a pillar preserved 1.5 meter high was located in the eastern side of the room. It does not seem probable that this pillar had a supporting function, because it was located far to the east (and not in the middle of the room, as in the case of Zincirli) 652 and it could help in roofing only a small area. Probably its main function was to separate the internal space between a large western area and a smaller eastern portion. 653 A stone sill connected this room to the courtyard. In the western side of the room near the wall, a jar was inserted into the floor and its top was covered with a bowl. Several mud bricks built the plain surface of the floor and remains of a stone paving were found in front of the pillar. Langenegger 654 argued that the whole room was plastered with stones and consequently the jar was covered and probably used to contain precious objects. However, according to the archaeological remains, the jar was found intact and empty; its covering was also in situ and it was only in part damaged from the collapse of the wall. Thus, it seems probable that the jar was accessible from the room and that probably its location inside the ground had a practical function, e.g. to keep its contents fresh. 655 Considering the internal circulation, the size and the formal elements of this room we could argue that it was used as grouping/reception room, which Miglus calls family room. 656 AH/6 was a large room accessible from the courtyard with a brick floor covered with a clay plaster. Room AH/7 also had a baked brick paving with gypsum plaster, a baked brick revetment of the base of the walls, a drain to the south and was accessible only from AH/6. These elements imply the use of water. Hence, it was probably used as a facility of room AH/6. This group of rooms entailed both working and dwelling functions. Table 66: Room Size

The rooms in the “Assyrian House”

AH/1

27

AH/2

70.8

AH/3

153

Access Remarks es 3 A ramp was built leading to the northern door 2 not completely excavated 4

AH/4

67

1

AH/5

13

1

Function 1

Covered

Passage

Yes

Reception

Yes

Passage

No

A pillar sustain the Reception roof In front of the Kitchen entrance to this room there is a small passing

Yes Yes

Room Size

Access Remarks es room

Function 1

Covered

AH/6

34

2

Dwelling

Yes

AH/7

13

1

Bathrooms

Yes

AH/8

(186) 1

This room was not Working completely excavated

Yes

Another room was added to the western wall of AH: AH/8, which was accessible from the external courtyard. The floor of this room was at the same level as the paving of the external court (15m) and the walls were made with the rest of the older structures. Probably this room was kept in use as a working external area (the oven in this room was probably part of the internal arrangement). 657 In conclusion, the structure seemed to fulfil mainly the needs of the private life of a family, and did not fulfil any representative functions.

VIA7. The two Structures in the lower town Several trenches were dug in the lower town (Plate 13 and Plate 21) and two of them brought to light two buildings, which had a relevance to the distribution of functions among the buildings of the town: STL and KR. STL was a large complex occupying an area of 2350m2. At least thirteen rooms belonged to this complex. A massive façade flanked by two bastions gave access to a passage/entering room (STL/1). From this room, it was possible to enter the courtyard (STL/4), which was paved with limestone slabs, drained by a pipe running to the east through a wall. 658 Two fireplaces were located in the courtyard and several holes in the platform probably hosted small supports. 659 Opposite to the main entrance two towers marked the door leading to rooms STL/5 and /6. The entering room STL/5 was paved with limestone slabs and had large pivot sockets and a closing system. From this room it was possible to enter, on the same axis as the door to the courtyard, the main room STL/6, which was also plastered with slabs tightly joined to each other. Its western part was raised and accessible through two stairs. Between the stairs, a base protruded to the east. Two basalt round bases, with a hollow on their top, flanked the stairs. From this main room a second large room STL/3 was also accessible; the entrance to this room was not architecturally emphasised, the gypsum floor was slightly raised (only 15 cm) and the interior of the room was not visible from STL/6. STL/7, a room that communicated with both the courtyard and the entrance room STL/5 also belongs to this room group. From this room it was possible to enter the long corridor which runs around rooms STL/6 and /3 but does not open to them. Room STL/2 was accessible only from the courtyard, and

652

Cf. IVB5.Table 33: and ff. F. Langenegger 1950: 211 maintains that the pillar had a supporting function for an upper wall limiting a room in the storey above. Cf. fig. 104. 654 F. Langenegger 1950: 211, Fig. 106, Pl. 34, 1. 655 This jar could also have been used as an archive. However, no tablets were found and considering that a dish was found covering it, it seems improbable that a jar was emptied and successively closed. 656 P. Miglus 1999. 653

657

Also in modern times, the ovens are located outside the houses. 658 It is interesting that the drain does not run as usual under the paving of the doorway but through a massive wall. 659 The holes in the floor remind a stone installation similar to the small column found at Tell Tayinat in front of building II. Cf. K. Müller 1950: fig. 166 and Pl. 66, R. Haines 1971: Pl. 81 A and 113 J

115

Pucci –Ch. VI. Functional Analysis of Architecture at Tell Halaf

had a slab paving similar to the paving in room STL/5. Both western walls of rooms STL/2 and /3 were decorated with semi-columns, painted with red and yellow colours, adjoining the wall. Many clay nails were found in the collapsed materials inside STL, and they probably decorated the walls of the building. 660 The other rooms opening to the courtyard, here indicated as STL/8, have poorer architectural features – no decorations, clay floors and irregular shapes. Therefore, it seems evident that the courtyard was the place where many persons could group and carry on activities in front of the main part of the building: namely, the room-group STL/5, /6 and /3. There are no elements that clearly indicate a religious function for this group; but the large number of formal elements in /6 and the fact that the raised platform inside STL/6 was also visible from the courtyard when the doors were open, needs to be pointed out. Therefore, though STL/6 was not easily accessible physically, it was potentially easily visible. STL/3 was neither easily accessible nor visible and probably fulfilled specific functions only related to the space /6. The rooms /8 lack any formal elements and seem more related to every day activities or as storerooms. 661 The function of this building has never raised any doubt. Its strong similarities to the Assyrian temples at Khorsabad and Nimrud confirm that the structure was a temple with long room cella, a front courtyard and several smaller rooms. 662 To the extent that it was excavated, it seemed to be a structural independent building inserted in a dwelling context. Several small houses, probably dwellings, were built in part along its walls and in part adjoining them. The location on a higher level and above the remains of older structures was obviously intentional and it gave to this structure a visibility and consequently an importance among the houses of the lower town. This structure, which did not have connections to the general stratigraphy of the acropolis, was dated to this period because of the strong Assyrian influence in the layout. Table 67:

The temple in the lower town: STL

Near the southern gate to the lower town and under the excavation house, a second structure was excavated: KR. The external walls of this structure were plastered many times, so also was the internal gypsum plaster frequently renewed; hence, the structure was in use for a long period. The structure consists of one group of five rooms: a first small entering room, which gave access to a long room with brick paving, benches on the sides and a large number of statues and objects. From this room a tripartite room-group was accessible: a “wide” room with two smaller rooms on both the small sides. Table 68:

Rooms in “Kultraum”

Room

Size

Accesses

Function 1

KR/1

5

2

Passage

Yes

KR/2

48

2

Yes

KR/3

17

1

Religious (god's house) Religious (god's house)

Yes

The building does not have external formal elements and neither the walls nor the access was marked. By contrast the baked brick paving and the stone sills point to a specific attention to the internal arrangement. A large number of bronze and basalt statuettes were probably located on the benches in room KR/2. An altar was located in the western section of the room, in front of which two statues C1 and C2 were positioned. 663 It is difficult to determine whether these figures are only bigger versions of the votive statuettes found in the room or they were the worshipped figures. The figures do not bear divine features, and Bonatz has argued that the seated figure represented dead ancestors, while the standing figure is probably a ruler. 664 The altar seems to be functional to these figures, and was used to worship them. Either way, the cultic function of this structure seems evident. The statues found in KR were dated to the last phase of the carving production at the site and for this reason the structure was in use during this period. Table 69:

Covered

Covered

Objects found in KR

Room

Size

Accesses

Function 1

STL/1

24

2

Passage

Yes

STL/2

19

2

Yes

Figu re T 13

Invento ry C. 103

STL/3

42

1

Religious (god's house) Storage

Yes

T 21

C. 197

STL/4

467

6

No

T 30

J. 17

STL/5

21

4

Religious (god's house) Passage

STL/6

74

2

Services

Yes

T 30

J. 18

STL/7

15

2

Services

Yes

T 59

K 115

STL/8

67

1

Storerooms

Yes

T 63

K 18

T 56

K 19

T 63

K 20

Yes

Description

Location II

Clay statuette Clay statuette (fragment) Quartz beads forming a necklace Bronze half moon Green polished clay jug Green light grey clay goblet clay bowl

On the north of KR

Yellow clay, with red stripes bowl

660

Similar objects also decorated the internal walls of TP. A storage jar was still in place cf. K. Müller 1950: Pl. 64,1 662 E. Heinrich [1982: 259, 270-271 and Fig. 356] inserts this building in the catalogue of the neo-Assyrian temples as “Langraumanlage”. 661

663

M. F. von Oppenheim 1955: double seated statue, T146-148 and the standing figure T149. 664 D. Bonatz 2000: B9, pg. 152

116

Pucci –Ch. VI. Functional Analysis of Architecture at Tell Halaf Figu re T 56

Invento ry K 21

T2

M10

T2

M11

T2

M12

Bronze statuette (fragment) Bronze statuette

T2

M13

Bronze statuette

T2

M14

Bronze statuette

--

S 18

Basalt statuette

T 46 Opp T4

S 19

Basalt Statuette

S 20

At the feet of the double statue. KR/2

T4

S 21

S 22

Basalt statuette of a woman (hands in front of the chest) Basalt statuette of a woman with hair dress and bag (hands in front of the chest) Basalt Statuette

S 23

Basalt statuette

Near the double statue. KR/2

S 24

Basalt statuette

S 25

Basalt Statuette

S 26

Basalt statuette

S 27

Basalt statuette

S 28

Basalt statuette

S 29

Basalt statuette

S 30

Basalt Statuette

S 31

Basalt statuette (hands in front of the chest)

S 32

Basalt

T4

Description

limiting the N-S street, and not accessible from it. While it is not the intention here to analyse the living quarters excavated in the lower town, it is interesting to note the following: 1. Common houses had installations and architectural features (drain, waterproof floor, bathtub etc.) similar to those employed in the buildings on the acropolis. 666 2. In general, the layout of these houses frequently shows long rooms, also quite big (ca. 44m2) as modules employed structures, in which central courtyards were very rare. 667

Location II

Polished grey brown clay dish Bronze statuette

BM

S 33

Basalt

Opp. T46, 4 T 52

S 34

Basalt

SP 78

Basalt bowl

T 52

SP 98

T 52

SP 99

Basalt bowl with high foot Basalt bowl with high foot

Near the double statue.KR/2

VIA8. Distribution of the functions during the third Building Period Table 70: sums up all structures (Plates 16 and 21) in use during the third building period and their functions. In the north-western area a cultual external area connected to a reception structure is isolated from the remaining structures. The architecture of this area is articulated as a scenario and it mainly points to formal elements guiding the visitor to the main building and shaping the external arrangement. The north-eastern section with the smaller structure to the south, instead, has mainly practical features: the southern area of NOP and its main courtyard as also AH were the seat of working and administrative activities. To the north, inside the complex, the reception rooms with a private access from outside were strongly functionally connected to the internal arrangement of the complex and not open to the external area.

At the feet of the double statue. KR/2

Middle of the main room. KR/2

Both KR and STL fulfilled a religious function. Their cellae have a similar layout, a long room with access on the short side, but differ in size. Both have neighbouring rooms accessible only from the cella (STL/3 and AH/3). Structurally the cella of STL is inserted into a wider complex in which the the courtyard and the rooms surrounding the courtyard fulfilled also functions connected to the rite; this seems to be absent in KR. 665 This element might indicate a very different use of the cellae; while the rituals performed inside STL/6 could be attended by a large number of persons, the rituals in KR/2 in contrast could only be attended by a smaller number of persons inside the room itself. Moreover, STL was visible from outside, while KR could possibly also have been considered as one of the domestic units in the lower town 666 665

The area was not extensively investigated, but the walls of KR were not connected to other surrounding walls.

Cf. K. Müller 1950: fig. 163, fig. 157 and fig 152 See also P. Miglus 1999 for comparison with Assyrian living quarters. 667

117

Pucci –Ch. VI. Functional Analysis of Architecture at Tell Halaf

Table 70:

Functions of the buildings during the third building period

for room V. Moreover, it is possible, as Langenegger argues, that the northern entrance through the north-south corridor (I-S) was built during this period and was a minor entrance to the whole complex. Table 71:

Structures in use during the second building period

Building Location BM 1-3

All

Elevation of the Remarks main floor -

Size Building Phase I 340 ●

EH3

East

14

NOP2

North east 13.7-14.4

259 2732

QT

North east 13.5

103 ●

G3 north South

16.4

66

LZM Mua LZM Mub SKT

South

16.5

696* ●

South

16.8*

694*

South

15.5-16.6

513

ST

South

10.7

564

TP

South

19.9

1538

LSG

South east 13.3

BM 4

South west

G1,1

South

11.2

82

G1,2

South

11.2

5

Not 276 completely excavated 20

VIB2. The entrance to the Citadel and the socalled Tempel Palast

VIB. Period II: functions of the Structures VIB1. The NOP Complex during this Period The rooms in use in the NOP complex during this building period (Plate 15) differed only in the layout of the northern section from those in use in the following period. The northern part of the complex had a different layout. The excavations did not provide any representative area in the NOP for this period. The archaeologists did not investigate clearly under the northern rebuilt area, but however, recent excavations at Tell Halaf have shown elements to sustain an older phase

During this period, the gateway ST adjoined some older walls of AST, which were still in use. AST/b in particular was the access to the terrace (LZM) as the ramp was not built yet. The idea behind this does not change in the following period; the entrance to the raised area was “hidden” and accessible only across several rooms. Thus the rooms AST/f, /d and /c became a route to the stairs and to the upper structures. The rooms /g and /e were probably used as storerooms for goods that would be needed to defend the acropolis (food or weapons). The external area outside the southern gate was occupied by two structures, which were in the later period included inside the mud brick terrace: G1, 1 and G1, 2 (Plate 17). Archaeologists found very few remains of the architectural structures: in fact it was not easy to distinguish the mud bricks of the older walls from those of the terrace. In addition, the original preserved conditions of the structure were not very good. Probably two single covered rooms, separated from each other, contained each a statue seated on a chair above or near a pit with human ashes and funerary equipment. The remains suggest that the structures collapsed and underwent damage: 668 probably the statue of G1, 2 was slightly damaged and located in a more stabile place. 669 668 669

118

Rest of the collapsed walls surround the statues. The statue in G1,1 was laid against the western wall of the

Pucci –Ch. VI. Functional Analysis of Architecture at Tell Halaf

After the collapse, the statues were left inside the remains and buried in the mud brick terrace. The archaeological evidence from the one side clearly points out the function of the structure as graves, but from the other side make these graves singular among the Iron Age graves. We do not have any exact comparisons with similar grave structures in this area. Contemporary burial customs are available from the Assyrians and we could compare some elements with the archaeological evidence of these burials. The funerary equipment, which was found intact, comprised of many objects, such as bronze bowls, jewellery and ivory elements. Several objects found in these pits are common elements of funerary equipment and find similarities with finds that were part of funerary equipments in graves in Mesopotamia during the Iron Age. 670 Nevertheless, this feature is the only element similar to the Mesopotamian funerary traditions. At tell Halaf, the deads were cremated and their ashes were buried in a pot: this funerary practice was also employed in Mesopotamia contemporary to inhumation tradition. 671 But, in this case, the grave pit is buried under the floor of a single room structure underneath a statue. Does the statue represent the dead? The represented figure does not bear divine elements, it is seated as in the meal funerary ritual holding a cup, hence it probably shows the person buried under it. Ash layers with votive objects found outside the grave pits near both statues in rooms G1/2 and /1, suggest that these places were probably not only the “place of burial” but also the place of religious worship, of ancestor cult. In this case, the stone cup in their hand would have been a container for libations. 672 Moreover, the square surface of the statue acted as an offering table in front of a “divinity” or, as in this case, in front of an ancestor. Actually, the two graves are unique at the site, they were located near the gate (AST) to the acropolis and inside the lower town (they do not belong to a cemetery), and considering their architectural features and their location, they might have been the burial of persons with a special social position inside the town. Moreover, in the ancient Near Eastern burial practices, apart from this case, never 673 did a statue, which was the object of ancestors’ rituals, also mark the burial place. 674 It seems that the

structure. 670 Cf. N. B. Mofidi 1999; H. Baker 1995: 219. The ivory fragments are numerous and were probably part of a furniture piece or a box and fixed into a support (through still visible nail holes), which decayed. B. Hrouda 1962: Pl. 9, pieces 49-58 671 In the Urartu kingdom, the cremation was popular. Cf. Ch. Burney 1995 672 The strange dark remains visible on the thighs of the statue in G1/1 seem probably due to some liquids which flew down along the statues, probably outside the cup. Moreover, the similarities between the rendering of the legs of the statues and an offering table could also represent a mix of religious symbol and altar. Cf. M. F. von Oppenheim 1931: Pl. 42 673 Usually, stelae (Urartu), or plain stones (Ugarit), mark the graves. Cf. J.F. Salles 1995, Ch. Burney 1995. The Assyrian and Babylonian graves were not visible from the ground level. H. Backer 1995. 674 The funerary rituals were carried out when the body was buried inside or near the grave, while the cult of ancestor had

funerary or post-mortem rituals and the cult of ancestors mix with each other in this place. Further, the statues were not removed but kept in place and “buried” under the later structure: i.e. they were considered as sacred objects. 675 In conclusion, we can argue for both structures G1 a religious function connected to the ancestor worship and ritual. It is very difficult to assign a specific function to these buildings: they are not only graves, neither are they sanctuaries nor temples because the represented figures are not gods. But as several scholars 676 have argued, the cult of ancestors developed more and more in the Syro-Hittite towns, these structures could represent the archaeological evidence of this process. Table 72:

Objects from G1

The building arrangement of the north-western area

probably a different location (as in Ugarit J.F. Salles 1995: 176177). 675 As the statue of Hadad near the gate Q at Zincirli, cf.IVB5 676 D. Bonatz 2000, idem 2001, J. Voos 1988

119

Pucci –Ch. VI. Functional Analysis of Architecture at Tell Halaf

(Plate 24) was very similar to its layout during the last phase. The terrace in front of TP was smaller and a larger space was left in the lower area in front of the entrance. The western bastion, which in the next period flanked the entrance, was not present during this period, so probably the attention focused on the symmetry of the entrance of TP (which we have emphasised above) was not the main purpose of this period. In addition, the northern lower area of TP was flanked to the east by several small rooms, which in the later period disappeared inside the enlargement of the upper terrace. In the extent outside the TP area, to the north, a small structure was built: G3/north. The foundations of this structure were dug into the terracing of TP. Its architectural features are very poor. No floors were found, the faces of the walls were plastered with mortar, no internal installations such as sills, pivot stones or benches were found in it. The two rooms communicated with each other through a break in the wall. 677 Langenegger has argued that the structure was a grave for two reasons: first, an older structure identified as a grave was located to the south very near this one. Considering that G3/south belongs to an older building period, it has been argued that this building G3/north replaced the older G3/south in the same way as TP replaced ATP. Second, the structure was small, not accessible and he thought, engraved under the earth; thus it had architectural features, which are typical for a grave. However, no archaeological elements support this statement. G3/north differs from G3/south in several elements. First, G3/north was not engraved, 678 its walls were thin in comparison to those of G3/south, it lacked the floors and was articulated into two rooms with a size sufficient to carry on daily activities, while the only room in G3/south was 5m2. G3/north was roofed probably with a flat covering, while G3/south was vaulted. G3/south had an external access with evident connections to the external paving, whereas G3/ north did not. In G3/south several objects were found, which referred to burials, while G3/north was found completely empty. G3/south had formal elements, which G3/north lacks. Thus, we can argue that G3/north was linked to the TP area and emerged from the earth level. It was however not accessible from the ground level, but from an upper floor. The function of this building remains unclear.

VIB3. The structures on the south-eastern Corner of the Citadel Several small structures occupied the south-eastern area (Plate 22) near the mound wall. They were not deeply investigated as their features were not particularly representative or well preserved so we have little information about them. 679

The largest structure is a rectangular building with six rooms (LSG): it was not completely excavated so that we have no idea of its complete size. Rooms LSG/1 and /2 have a southern external access while the other rooms are not accessible from the ground level. Room LSG/1 is structurally independent from the others. Its walls are not connected to the surrounding ones. Moreover, the rooms LSG/2 and /3 are independent of the northern row of rooms LSG/4-6, whose walls have thinner and higher foundations than the foundations of the southern rooms. 680 This feature does not imply a different time of construction of the rooms, but either a different function or a different stability of ground, above which they were built. In room LSG/1, a large jug was found inserted in the floor near the northern wall. On the floor of the western part of the room, which a small wall separated from the eastern part, a fireplace was located. In room LSG/2 a baked brick installation, suggesting a fireplace, was part of the floor. Remains of the bottom of a jug were found inserted into the floor and a clay basin and a clay “bathtub” occupied the eastern section of the room. These elements suggest that both rooms were domestic living areas. Considering that room LSG/2 did not have a drainage system or a waterproof floor and that in general the architectural features of the building did not have any formal function, we can exclude any representative, receptive or religious function to it. According to Langenegger, 681 several “working, economic” objects were found inside and outside the southern rooms, which support also a working function for these rooms. The northern spaces were accessible only from an upper floor. Considering this, they were probably used as storerooms. Table 73:

The “Long Building” Room Size Accesses Function 1 Covered LSG/1 25

1

Dwelling

Yes

LSG/2 21

1

Production Yes

LSG/3 (6)

0

LSG/4 25

0

Storage

Yes Yes

LSG/5 30

0

Storage

Yes

Thirty-three meters to the north, another building EH3 was dug (Plate 22), which adjoined the external part of the mound wall (BM2). It consists of five spaces: three rectangular rooms and two smaller square ones. To the north, one room (EH3/2) was accessible from outside on its short side. From here probably there was an opening to the northern EH/1, which was of a similar size. A row of rooms occupied the southern sector of the building: a large room (EH/3) was connected to one smaller room (EH/4). Another small room was built between the mound wall (BM2) and the walls of EH3, but its accesses are not arguable.

677

Langenegger has argued that the wall was broken when the structure was plundered. 678 Cf. VG2. Moreover, it does not make any sense that the structure was plundered from one side, while it was unearthed and consequently robbers should penetrate it from the top. 679 Both elements are not foreign to each other: a representative architecture uses building materials and employes techniques, which guarantee long lasting conditions.

680 681

120

Cf. F. Langenegger 1950: Pl. 19 section north-south Idem 1950: 188 and 190

Pucci –Ch. VI. Functional Analysis of Architecture at Tell Halaf

Table 74:

Rooms in EH3 Room

Size

Accesses

EH/1

33

0

EH/2

40

1

EH/3

19

1

EH/4

11

1

EH/5

6

0

Table 75:

The Functions of the buildings in the second building period

The internal circulation is not clear: only the southern access to room EH3/3 and its door leading to room EH3/4 were preserved. In room EH3/4, the pebbled floor and the stone sill suggest that water was probably used in this space, even though there was no drain system. Room EH3/2 communicated with EH3/1 and formed a dwelling unit separated from the southern section. The layout of EH3 finds some similarities with the houses excavated in the lower town and with KR; 682 the long rooms with access on the short side seem to be common in the layout of the excavated structures.

VIB4. Distribution of the Functions during the Second Building Period During this period, the separation of functions, evident in the last phase, starts to become clear. The area of the southern gate to the acropolis was rebuilt and outside the gate, a burial and ritual area was constructed. The area between the southern gate and the newly built Scorpions’ gate, limited to the west by the carved rear wall of TP, had become a place where the architecture obliged the visitor to stop and made him experience the feeling of being in an intermediate place: already outside the lower town, but not yet inside the acropolis. Therefore, this north-western sector still bears formal architectural elements. By contrast, storerooms, dwelling units and production area occupy the eastern half of the mound. No representative or reception areas could be identified with certainity in this section of the acropolis. Several buildings seem to be located on the mound independent of one another in this section; hence this area lacks the attention to the external space, which appears evident in the western section.

VIC. Period I: the earliest layout of the Citadel The buildings (Plate 14), which form the first architectural arrangement of the acropolis, were mainly investigated in the southern and south-western areas. As far as the north-eastern area is concerned, few and partial structures can be assigned to this phase. Table 76:

682

Cf. K. Müller 1950: fig. 148, fig. 154, fig, 161.

121

Buildings during the first period

Building

Location

AST

South

Elevation of the main floor Size 10.7

1173

BM 1-4

all

-

340

EH1-2

East

13

300

G1,1

South

11.2

82

G1,2

South

11.2

5

G3 south

South

13.2

39

Pucci –Ch. VI. Functional Analysis of Architecture at Tell Halaf Building

Location

LZM Mua South NOP1

North east

SKT, older South SM

Lower town

Table 77:

Elevation of the main floor Size 16.5

The older entrance to the acropolis

696*

13.6-13.9

1439

15.5-16.6

513 50ha

VIC2. The Original Entrance to the Mound The entrance to the acropolis (AST) (Plate 17) was excavated without removing the later gate above and only by digging under its floors. 683 The layout, which was reconstructed according to the excavations is very articulated and does not reproduce the classic layout of mound gates. The access was possible by passing through four “gate chambers” (AST/a1-4) and four doors along a double “bent-axis”. Only at the southern passage, traces of a door were found, while the other passages probably did not have closings. At least nine more rooms to the east (AST/b-k) were part of this structure, and Langenegger reconstructed four more rooms in the western part of the building, which the later construction of the new gate (ST) damaged heavily. Room AST/b inside the protruding tower was, in view of its shape, probably a staircase that connected the eastern rooms of the gate and the top of the mound wall and possibly a second storey of the gate. From AST/a4, it was possible to reach two groups of rooms, AST/f-g and AST/c-e. Rooms /f and /c gave access through a door covered with an arch to the recessed rooms /g and /e. The successive collapse of the arch between /f and /g, made it necessary to open an entrance between /e and /g and to reinforce through retaining structures the western wall of room /g. The rooms were roofed; their floors were made of tamped earth. The accesses of rooms /c, /d and /f were on the same axis; these rooms connected the stairs to the internal entrance of the gate (/a4). In /e a drainpipe running vertically along the eastern wall drained the water from the roof into a pit under the floor of the room. The floor in room /d was made with a thick (28 cm) layer of lime and bitumen indicating that water or liquids 684 were used here. The two side rooms /e and /g could be used as storerooms according to their location and accessibility, but no other elements support this hypothesis. We should, however, point out that these five rooms are not strictly related to the access to the acropolis: they were accessible from /a4, thus from the inside of the acropolis and they act as a room group separated from the gate itself. Its purpose was probably connected to the use of the roof and to the control of the mound walls. In addition, these five rooms were to be reused in a later phase, also at the same time as the later gate, probably because their function was more related to the mound wall than to the gate itself.

Few things could be argued about the western reconstructed rooms (AST/l-o): their size and their accesses are uncertain, 685 and according to the information at our disposal, that they being accessible only from the top might have fulfilled storage function. However, the archaeological evidence is not sufficient to maintain it. The three rooms to the north (AST/h-k) did not communicate with the southern group of rooms; their function was linked to the passage, to which they opened to, and to the regulation of access or to the administration of the goods entering. The spatial organisation of the north-western area needs still to be archaeologically investigated. As it was 685

683

Cf. F. Langenegger 1950: Fig. 59 684 A drain starting from here could join the drain in /A1. However, the walls of the later ST cover this part which was consequently not investigated.

In this structure, the foundations are much larger than the superstructures and their protruding part has not everywhere the same length. Thus, as we have only the foundations of these rooms, we only know the extent left by the benches and not the real one.

122

Pucci –Ch. VI. Functional Analysis of Architecture at Tell Halaf

discussed in the previous chapter, the existence of a second entrance probably under SKT is possibly proven by the presence of the N-S wall found under SKT. The direction of this wall, whose southern end opened into a square bastion, indicated that the route led to the northwestern direction, to the area of NB. 686 It seems possible that an older structure occupied a central role in this area as the focal point of the route. Only an underground structure (G3/south) located in the north-western corner of this area was brought to light. This square structure was vaulted, accessible through an opening surmounted by an arch, 687 closed in a second moment (as in G2). A niche was built into the western wall 18 cm higher than the plastered floor. In front of the closed entrance, a pebbled external floor was connected to the structure. The external floor was at elevation 16.15 and could not give access to the structure, but rather bring and delimit the area in front of the closed access. 688 Vaulted rooms are particularly suited to underground structures and underground closed structures are frequently graves. The structure was intact and a large amount of precious objects was found in the five square meter large room. The materials have some similarities to the funerary equipment of G1, but are more precious: gold carved sheets, bronze bowls, glasses, stone bowls and golden earrings. A gold mouth covering 689 found among the other objects represents a typical funerary element 690 . The main missing element to identify G3/south as a grave is the absence of human remains: no traces of bones or ashes were found in it, hence it is very strange that funerary equipment was buried without the body of the dead. We could stress two hypotheses: 691 1. The remains of the body were moved to another location or 2. It was a cenotaph. It seems that no other function could be argued for this structure according to the architectural and internal features. The paved area in front of the entrance to the grave was probably used to carry funerary rituals connected to the person buried in it. The proximity of this burial to the terrace of AST may imply that funerary and religious elements were mixed in the 686

Under this structure were found the limiting walls of an older structure not further investigated. Cf. F. Langenegger 1950: fig. 51 687 F. Langenegger has pointed out the instability and the scarce supporting features, so probably the arch was built to be closed and only to “represent” on the wall face the entrance and mark through its vertical bricks the border/limit. 688 The older terrace was at elevation 16.80 689 B. Hrouda 1962: Pl.1 fig. 8a-b 690 This object reminds us of the use of funerary masques. The tradition of metal funerary masques covering the face of the dead is present in the Egyptian burial tradition. The Egyptians preserved in particular the head of the deads. This tradition is attested also in the Syro-Palestinian burial customs. The socalled “partial masks” like the object found at Tell Halaf were found in the Assyrian burials and are well attested in the Minoan, Cypriot and Hellenic Tradition. Cf. L. Aström 1967: 108. 691 The possibility that archaeologists did not find cremation remains spread inside the structure seems not probable: when they dug the structure, they had already identified the structure as a grave, so that they probably paid attention to single out human remains.

same open area. 692 The eastern area (Plate 23) of the mound was not excavated deep enough to reach this building period. Only on the slope of the mound, the older structures that became part of NOP were brought to light. It is impossible to reconstruct the original layout of NOP1. We only know that a levelling and a mud brick terrace were built in this corner and that probably during this period an older entrance (the walls found under the eastern sector of NOP) gave access from the riverside to the acropolis. 693 On the terrace (T1), several rows of small rooms limited on the east and on the west side a large open space (the future courtyard Au). The tower on the eastern external wall of NOP1/ct was the original northern limit of the complex. It seems that the extent of NOP 1 was more developed on the east-west axis, as the smaller western court NOP1/Bn with several surrounding open structures were already built. The drain system and almost every formal architectural element were added (also in rooms reused from this first period) in the later periods. During this first phase, the area was probably only a work and domestic area. To the south, some structures (EH1-2) probably 694 were built during the last phase of this period (Plate 22). Two groups of rooms limited to the north and to the south an open area (EH1-2/c). The rooms have mud brick walls and only a small portion of floor in room EH1-2/b was preserved. A hollow into thís floor against the eastern wall, as a basin or a container, might indicate the use of water in this room. The accesses were not preserved as the walls were brought to a low level by the construction of the younger building (EH3). However, considering the absence of architectural formal elements or other installations, which could suggest a representational function, the structural elements and the size of the rooms point to a dwelling or defensive (due to the location near the mound wall) purposes. In room EH1-2/a a complete archive of cuneiform tablets was found. The archive of Mannu-ki-Assur comprised 97 tablets concerning letters of the Assyrian king Adad Nirari 3rd, lists of animals, of weapons, of people employed in the administration. Independent of the relevance of this find for the dating of the sequence of the building periods at the site, it would assign to the room the function of an archive, if these tablets were part of the inventory of the room. Friedrich 695 states that the tablets

692

The reused small orthostats in the younger TP may be first employed in a structure in this area. Considering that, the orthostats bear the inscription “house of weather god”, the building could have been the temple of the town. However, we do not have any archaeological elements to support this hypothesis. 693 The layout QT was possibly complete and considering that the western row of rooms NOP3/Bh-l was not built yet, it extended probably a little further to the east and had a layout more “complete” than the later one. Cf. VD3. 694 These structures were built above the central part of the mound wall but under the pebble-levelling layer found in the south-eastern corner of the mound. Consequently, they belong to a later phase of the first building period. Cf. VE1. 695 J. Friedrich et al. 1940.

123

Pucci –Ch. VI. Functional Analysis of Architecture at Tell Halaf

were found all together in a jar, but there is no mention of this feature in the reports, while Langenegger affirms that they were found all together against the eastern wall (so probably standing on shelves), suggesting that the tablets were in situ. If the tablets really refer to the building they were found in and considering the fact that they dealt with the administration of the whole town, we could argue that these rooms had specific administrative purposes inside a larger complex. However, following Friedrich, another hypothesis is that the tablets were thrown in this location after the collapse of the structures. Therefore, it seems difficult to establish whether these tablets were really in use in the room they were found in and it is only possible to support a domestic function for these structures. Moreover, this element points to a main division of activities on the mound. The eastern area seems to be completely dedicated to practical activities while the western one had a religious/representative meaning.

Table 78:

Functions during the first building period

VIC3. Distribution of Functions during the first Building Period During this first building period (Plates 14, 22-24), the mound was already fortified with a wall, which was then over a period of time continuously improved by adding an external and an internal parallel wall. An articulated fortified entrance with mainly a defensive function led to the acropolis. Before entering the acropolis, to the east, funerary rituals and ancestor cults were celebrated in an area which comprised two small structures with graves. Having entered the acropolis a second gate (SKT old) led to an area where probably a single structure (the temple of the Weather God?) was built. To this structure belonged the small orthostats reused later in TP. This building was accessible only after a long route, like a processional route. Moreover the presence of a grave visible as a monument and object of worship suggests a religious function. The eastern area has productive and domestic purposes: here the defence was organised, the administration of the town was carried on and probably also small manufactures were. This area had a direct access to the river, probably also because material activities and dwelling activities required the use of the water.

VID. Historical development of Halaf VID1. The Aramean town The town of Tell Halaf is identified with the ancient site of Guzana, capital of the “country” Bit Bakhiani, which is one of the Aramean states. Tiglat Pileser I (1114-1076 BC) was the first Assyrian king, who mentioned the Arameans, and he claimed to have crossed the Euphrates against them on twenty-eight campaigns. Thus if the town of Halaf was the result of a settlement of nomadic peoples in the area, we may argue that at the time of Tiglat Pileser I the site was not yet inhabited. However we cannot exclude that local people started to live at the site. For the following two centuries the Arameans maintained a severe pressure on Assyria, which was much more weakened. Arameans penetrated and settled upper Mesopotamia, forming large tribal states like BitBakhiani. No architectural information from the site of Halaf suggests reference to this old Aramean Period, except for an altar with an Aramean inscription, which is said to date to the 9th century BC, 696 and set the oldest date in the Iron Age for the occupation of the town. Thus, the exact date of the foundation of the town Guzana 696

H. Donner et W. Röllig 1964: 231, cf. also R. Bowman 1941.

124

Pucci –Ch. VI. Functional Analysis of Architecture at Tell Halaf

remains uncertain, but it should be located in the 10th century BC. In fact the town appears as existent in the Annals of Assurnasirpal II (883-859 BC). His three predecessors starting with Ashur-dan II (934-912 BC) had re-established the Assyrian presence on upper Mesopotamia by concentrating their attacks on strategic Aramean-held centres of Nisibina, Guzana and Amed. This implies that by the end of the 10th century the town was already under Assyrian influence. However, only under Adad-Nirari II (911-891 BC) and its fight against a rebellious king Nur-Adad from another neighbouring centre, the town Guzana and its king Abi-Salamu fell in Assyrian hands. It is impossible to establish which or if any of the buildings can be dated to this first period of the town before the Assyrians arrived. In our timeframe the sequence of building periods is mainly regulated according to the levelling activity, which marks the beginning of the second building period, in the southeastern part of the mound. This period is dated to a time after the date of archive of Mannu-ki-Assur (between 793 and 783 BC). 697 Hence, the period of time before this date is very long and the sequence of the building activities and the the original layout of the town remain unclear. Probably a mound wall with a main southern entrance and a second northern entrance to a not investigated built area did exist. At this point we should quote a letter from the above-mentioned archive in which the Assyrian king asks its governor to worship in the temple of the Weather God. 698 This temple was well known in the Assyrian texts, and it is also known that trials took place in this place and the accused was judged by the god himself. 699 Thus we can argue that a temple might have stood on the mound since the foundation of the town, as it became an important religious centre for the region. The small orthostats found reused in the socalled Tempel Palast were probably originally located in this older structure, which has to be looked for in the area to which the two older gates lead.

VID2. The Assyrian Provincial Centre

imply that at least during the ninth century, the political situation of the town as regards the Assyrian Empire was ambiguous. Probably the governor acted in the town as a king and was probably a local person. 703 Moreover since in the statue the ruler also names his father as the governor/king before him, we can argue that for the inhabitants it seemed like a royal dynasty. Officially, the town was part of the Assyrian empire, as a province, experienced relative peace in comparison to other towns to the west, and at the same time a relative independence in local administration. During the 8th century, the town experienced a continuous development of the architecture with the progressive construction of the North-eastern palace (NOP) and the buildings of the Kapara period.

VID3. Kapara After the analysis of the architecture, it is necessary to deal with the Kapara question again. As it was outlined in the introduction to this chapter, the various scholars, who have researched the dating of the Kapara period, have provided different results. 704 From the former analysis the building bearing the inscriptions of Kapara was ascribed to the second period. The main connections are as follows: The building TP was built at the same time as the street leading from the southern gate ST. The southern gate ST was built after the levelling of the southern area of the mound. This levelling layer covers the archive in EH1-2, which dates to 793 BC. Thus, the ST and the TP were built after this date. It is possible to raise two objections to this reconstruction: first, the levelling layer to the west was not the same as the one to the east. Nevertheless, as analysed above, the material, the elevation and the thickness of this levelling layer were so similar both to 703

Governors of Guzana appear in the Eponym list under Assurnasirpal II (883-859), Adad-Nirari III (810-783), Salmanassar IV (783-777), Tiglat Pileser III (745-727, and Sargon II (721-705) 700 , and consequently we can argue that the relationships between the town and the Assyrians were peaceful. During the difficult period, which followed the long reign of Salmanassar III (858824), the Assyrian presence was probably also less constant in this area, although it was a nearby province of the empire. The Assyrian-Aramean statue, found at Tell Fekheryie, 701 is dated at the middle of the 9th century and provides some information: the ruler of Guzana and Sadikanni named himself as “governor” in the cuneiform text and as the king in the Aramean one. 702 This seems to

The name of the governor is Aramean: Hadad-yis’i. Following table illustrates the scholars, the dating which they propose and the reasons, which sustain their dating. 704

697

M. Fales 2001: 39. M. Fales 2001: 39. 699 M. Fales 2001: 183-190. 700 A. R. Millard 1994. 701 'A. Abou 'Assaf 1984. 702 M. Liverani 1991: 722; M. Fales 2001: 216. 698

125

Scholar Albright 1956b

Dating 9th century

Material Absence of Assyrian influence in the Iconography Akurgal 1966, end 8th cent The layout of the TP shows a 1979 canonical form of the Bit Hilani, the bases of the statues are a later development of the bases flanked by lions. Meissner 1933 10th cent. Ductus of the inscriptions Naumann 1971 850-830 Evolution of the Hilani layout Hrouda 1962 9th /8th cent Style of the small finds Moortgat in 2nd half 9th Style of the orthostats and statues Oppenheim 1955 cent of TP von Soden in 2nd half 9th Palaeographic analysis of the Oppenheim 1955 cent inscriptions Sadér 1987 She maintains that the philological and archaeological information do not fit with each other Dion 1995 9th century Absence of Assyrian influence in the style of the orthostats Frankfort 1954 9th cent Style of the orthostats Orthmann 1971 After beg. Style of the small finds of 9th cent

Pucci –Ch. VI. Functional Analysis of Architecture at Tell Halaf

the east and to the west that the identification with a single building activity seems inevitable. Second, the paving of the street leading from TP to ST cannot be used as a feature, which dates the construction of the three building to the same time, but instead it only implies that the structures were used at the same time. However, we should consider that the paving of the street was part of both gates and it was not added in a later period. Moreover, the street was paved when TP was already standing and before its terrace was enlarged to the north. Thus, even if the three buildings were not built in the same year, they should belong to the same building program which previewed a street leading from the southern mound gate through a second mound gate to the building TP, standing on a socle and accessible through a stairway. How would this new dating to the 8th century of the Kapara period fit within the datings provided by the previous scholars? From a philological point of view, the scholars seem not to have reached an agreement. Meissner dated the writing to the 12th century while von Soden demonstrated that the criteria used by Meissner were not decisive and he dated the writing to the Neo-Assyrian period, 9th century. Therefore, the results from the analysis of the writing are not useful to date the period. From the stylistic point of view, it seems that one main criterion was used: the absence of a neo-Assyrian influence in the style. However, by analysing the stylistic development of the reliefs in Halaf a main feature came out: there was no Assyrian influence in the style of the reliefs either in the orthostats or in the statues that were found at the site. It seems therefore probable that the Assyrians did not influence the style, because of a strong local tradition and active school. On the other side, the reuse of the small orthostats in the back wall of the Kapara building, changing their sequence, covering some carved sides and putting them in a location from where they were not really visible 705 seems point to a single interpretation. The carved scenes were acknowledged as worthy and probably belonging to a tradition but their meaning was probably no longer important. The mix of the figure of a specific king with the representation of gods and demons seems to have greater relationship to Assyrian iconography than to a local tradition. These elements would also then support a late date and an Assyrian influence. Several questions remained open: why was Kapara not mentioned in the Assyrian annals? Was he a local ruler under the Assyrians or did he fill an Assyrian power void, which allowed a local ruler to become independent and to represent himself as the Assyrians did?

VID4. What happened after the Collapse of the

(612 BC) in the post-canonical period. 706 The number of eponyms in this period is very high in comparison with the few years between 648 and 612 BC. Therefore, scholars have argued that probably several Eponyms were named after the fall of Nineveh in the provinces which did not undergo destruction like Guzana. From the archaeological point of view, on the mound were found several later phases with smaller structures above the area of the massif (LZM). Buried under the floor of one of this structures was found the archive of Ila-Manâni dated to the end of the 7th century. 707 Consequently we can maintain that the western area of the mound was occupied after the end of the 7th century by houses, which had a private character and also bore luxury features such as stone floors, drains etc. Probably the North-western complex (NOP) was during this “postAssyrian” phase continuously inhabited until the mound was abandoned, as there are no traces of destruction.

VID5. Parallels to Zincirli It is here important first to emphasise the essential differences between the development of the spatial organisation at Zincirli and at Halaf. It seems evident and it is confirmed by the historic sources that the history of the town of Zincirli was characterised by an uneasy political situation, frequent attacks, and unsettled relationship first with the neighbouring kingdoms and later with the Assyrian empire. On the other side, Tell Halaf had a settled relationship with the Assyrians, which guaranteed a peaceful condition and allowed an uninterrupted architectural development. Therefore, this continuity and the absence of gaps in the architectural trend was caused by the absence of comings and goings of foreign governors, or frequent attacks. The other marking difference, which directly concerned the architectural technique, is the environment and the materials sources that are different at the two sites. The abundance of stone and wood at Zincirli was absent at Tell Halaf and this absence deeply influenced the architecture: at Halaf the use of stone was limited to the architectural elements, which had to be made of stone (carved orthostats, some floors). Nevertheless, some elements were evident at both sites: the mound was provided with a defensive system from the first period of occupation. This defensive system was later not much improved or repaired, the builders at both sites instead made it weaker by constructing buildings on top of it, or by providing new openings to the acropolis. At both sites, the acropolis was divided into two independent areas: in one area, one isolated building was built while in the other area several structures were grouped around a courtyard.

Assyrian Empire? The Eponym list stops in 648 BC and scholars have tried to follow the development of the Assyrian administration until and after the conquest and destruction of Nineveh 705

The orthostats severing the eastern wall face of TP were completely covered by a north retaining wall

706 707

126

M. Falkner 1954-56; K. Radner 1998: XVIII-XX Cf. VF3

Pucci –Ch. VII. Building Phases at Tell Tayinat

Ch. VII. Building Phases at Tell Tayinat VIIA. The excavations at the site: methods and interests VIIA1. The Excavations at Tayinat as part of the Amuq Project The excavation activities in the Amuq valley, pursued by the Oriental Institute, were carried out with one objective: to find the capital of the Syro-Hittite kingdom of Pattina, Khunalua. Breasted’s 708 research indicated that according to the Assyrian annals the temple at Khunalua should have hosted the statue of Salmanassar III, 709 and through his analysis of the texts he located this important town in the Amuq valley. In 1929, the executive secretary of the Oriental Institute reached Chatal Höyük. Due to its width this site was suggested as the location of Khunalua while the nearby Tell al-Judeidah was possibly identified with the town of Aribua 710 , another town name quoted in the Assyrian Annals as part of the land of Pattina. For these reasons, in 1930 the Oriental Institute asked for a dig permit for these two sites. The excavations were authorised one year later, and in 1932 they officially started to pursue excavations at these two sites. The excavations at Tell Tayinat started three years later when the results of the excavations at Chatal Höyük and Tell al-Judeidah disappointed the expectations of the archaeologists: they did not found any “public or representative” buildings 711 , thus they realised that they had not found Khunalua. Therefore, as soon as they discovered the imposing structure on Tell Tayinat, they limited the extent of excavations on Tell al-Judeidah, and improved the excavations on Tayinat.

VIIA2. The Publication of the Architecture One preliminary report 712 on the Tayinat architecture was published during the campaign, which included several pictures and some basic information. The excavations finished in August 1938, and the archaeologists immediately went back to Chicago and started working on the publication of small finds, pottery and architecture. For several reasons (the Second World War and new excavations at other sites), the publication of the stratigraphy and materials was delayed. The first volume concerning the Amuq project was the publication, in 1960, of the early assemblages from Chatal Höyük and Tell al-Judeidah, as well as materials from the older

phases from four soundings 713 in Tell Tayinat, which were dug under the Iron Age structures. Eleven years later, the architecture of the later phases 714 was finally published; this work presented the building phases of the later structures at the three sites. Haines, who was working as the architect at all three sites during the whole excavations period, analysed and published the results of the campaigns. Actually, this publication focused upon architectural features and few objects were published. The architectural features and the relationships between buildings allowed him to fix a building period sequence in which structures were ordered. The architecture of this site has never been re-analysed 715 . The stratigraphy with small finds and potsherds has never been published; some Iron Age potsherds from the sites were analysed by Swift. 716 Unfortunately, very few fragments were analysed, so the Iron Age pottery sequence of the site is not complete 717 .

VIIA3. The Unpublished Documentation The original documentation (Object Register, Field Notes, Plans) of Tayinat was brought to the Oriental Institute, and the small finds and potsherds were divided between the Oriental Institute Museum and the Archaeological Museum in Antioch. These materials were analysed in further studies 718 which were focused on the typology of objects. Therefore, the documentation was sorted according to the various research goals. According to the objectives of this research, attention was primarily focused on two kinds of documentation: 1. The Object Register and all other documents which provide more information on the location of the small finds or on their description. In the Object Register, small finds from Tayinat bears a T-number in sequence continuously for the three campaigns, a short description and the location 719 of the object. The location was indicated by the Building number, the floor or layer number and sometimes by the locus number. As R. Braidwood 720 also reports, the archaeologists used to leave 10 cm of earth above the floor: thus, all small finds coming from these 10 cm were considered to be in situ and were marked with the word “floor” in the Object Register. I have sorted out these objects according mainly to this feature, i.e. their location within the 10 cm range above the floors. Approximately 600 objects out of 3200 713 714

R. Haines 1971. The results of the excavations were not published when Naumann republished in 1971 and enlarged his work on the architecture. 716 G. Swift 1958. The PhD dissertation was not published but is available on Microfilm. 717 A complete publication of the stratigraphy and small finds is forthcoming. T. Harrison, personal communication. 718 They have not yet been published. Currently Heather Snow is working on the publication of the Iron Age materials. 719 The Register also indicates the photo number, the Oriental Institute Museum inventory number, and sometimes a note on the typology. These notes were added at different times. 720 R. Braidwood et L. Braidwood 1960: 22. 715

708

J. H. Breasted 1933: 306. The identification of Khunalua with Chatal Höyük was suggested by E. Frorrer in a latter to Breasted dated 1932. 709 D. D. Luckenbill 1926: item 585. 710 Or with the town of Hazazi, which is also in the Assyrian Annals said to be “Hattinean” and therefore located in the land of Pattina. D. D. Luckenbill 1926: items 478, 600, 614, 821. 711 C.W. McEwan 1937: 8-9, R. J. Braidwood and L. Braidwood 1960: 1. 712 C.W. McEwan 1937.

T1, T5, T8, T13 lower floors. R. Haines 1971, footnote 3:

37.

127

Pucci –Ch. VII. Building Phases at Tell Tayinat

bear the word “floor” and these are the objects that have been used in this research. The cards concerning several objects were helpful in better defining the object itself and its dimensions. 2. The plans and the architectural notes supply more information than what was published by Haines. Actually, no published plans bear levels 721 , which are instead indicated in the text of the publication, although some of them were published on a very small scale. The original drawings were completed with the levels and loci indicated, and several of these were not published as the represented areas were considered not interesting. For the current research, the original drawings were used to identify loci and levels and to digitise the plates with a higher definition.

description was taken from the excavation notes. The buildings are grouped in Areas, and the numbers in bold are those used in the publication and in this research. Table 79:

Buildings Numbers at Tayinat

Old Bdg NR I

Bdg NR

Floors

Loci

Haines BP

Description

I

1-3, traces of a fourth one

A-Q incl.

2-4

E-II

With bld.I

II

II

1

AB-C

2

III

III

1?

No

XIV, XXIII1E

IV

1-2

2-4

V

V

1-2 a-b

A-N incl. (for fl.2) No

Building on the south of courtyard VIII. Three floors. Hilani south of court Area around stone well head (?) So-called “temple” on the south of building I. Megaron. Gate. Southern gate Building above XIII. Hilani north of court

XV, XXV floor 2 XVII

VI

1-2, 1-4

A-F 3AG4

2

VII

1-2

XVIII, XXIII2 IX; XIII

VIII

XX

X

2 (96.77/ 97.35) (94.05 723 ) 1-3 1 many repairs -

XIX

XI

1

T8

XII

T2, 1 or XXIII1 wall XXVI

XIII

1 (room E, 96.05)

XIV

1 (95.05)

1

XXV floors 1 & 23 724 &

XV VI

1-3

3-5

VIIA4. Building numbers and the Archaeological Research As we will see later on, Haines building phase sequence is still valid for the most part; the information he omitted does not allow for major changes in the building periods. The most problematic element of this documentation is the absence of usual excavation reports. The architectural notes were not written on a daily basis, and while Braidwood was mainly dealing with pottery, Haines alone was dealing with architecture and stratigraphy. Thus, a single person was observing, drawing and studying walls and floors; and possibly even digging. Moreover, the excavations took place over a very short period of time. By means of comparing the notes with the plans and lists of buildings, the results are very homogeneous with the published ones, but unfortunately, also the doubtful points remain obscure. Moreover the custom not to draw mud bricks and apparently to dig only wall faces partially hinders the understanding of the connections among structures. Nevertheless, sufficient attention was paid during these excavations to a real stratification of layers and floors; earth floors were identified and documented and the location of the objects is the most accurate among the three excavations. As Haines 722 explains: “the grid of 20-meter squares shown on the contour map was not laid out on the mound itself. All the surveying was from the established benchmarks or from secondary points located by triangulation. The various structures were given roman numerals as they were excavated, and the loci were designated by capital letters. The tests pits, which were essentially exploratory, were given Arabic numbers preceded by the letter T. The building activities within each structure were designated ‘floor 1’, ‘floor 2’, and so on, the floors being numbered in the order in which they were excavated.” In the publication, a new sequence of Roman building numbers replaced the original one, which was used during the excavations. Haines published a list of correspondences between the two number series. Table 79: shows the complete list of buildings (Plate 25) including also the discarded structures. The original

721 722

As it is also emphasised in A. Kempinsky 1973. R. Haines 1971: 37.

723

IX

1-3

2-4 A-S

AM

3

1

Area on the north west occupied firstly by a gate and then by a building. Structure west of Bldg. I Building Plastered structure Gate. Eastern citadel gate Courtyard Palace. Assyrian palace Rusticated stones near city gate Gate. Eastern city gate Gate. Western gate Building.

Building. Building underlying I&XXV Platform. Fl. 3 test under mud brick platform

Haines affirms: “in these places the pebbles seemed to belong to a foundation layer for the square paving blocks rather than a lower pavement”. But this level would fit with the step of building XIII. We should also consider that the floor is considerably sinking on the west, so that it reaches the level of 90.05 at gate VII. 724 This floor became fl. 2.

128

Pucci –Ch. VII. Building Phases at Tell Tayinat Old Bdg NR 3 TP, or T1

Bdg NR

Floors

Loci

T1

6 (94.5, 90.45, 89.6)

T3

T3

T4 T5

T4 T5

T6 T7 V

T6 T7 T8

1-6

XVIII a IV

T9

1-5

VI

T 11

XVI

T 12

XXVII

T 13

XII III-s

Disc Disc.

E-IV

Disc.

VII

Disc.

A

VIII

Disc.

A

X XI XXI

Disc. Disc. Disc.

A A

XXII south XXII north XXIV

Disc.

1-9 incl.

T 10

Disc.

1-2-3 A

Haines BP

VIIB. The North-Western Area: progressive sequence of structures

Description

The largest number of structures was found concentrated in the North-Western area of the tell (Plates 26-28, 3133). 728 This concentration could be due to the fact that archaeologists 729 focused their efforts on it, or because the building activity took place mainly in this area. As a matter of fact, archaeologists did not extensively excavate the whole mound 730 , but focused their efforts in the two higher areas and dug trenches in the remaining extent. However, the trenches did not provide architectural remains interesting enough to enlarge the excavations. In the following analysis, we will investigate architectural links between structures covering or abutting each other. The structures will not be described as the architectural features were already published. Main aim in this section is to focus attention on spatial changes, i.e. the time when a new building was built, or was levelled and abandoned, or its internal organisation was completely changed.

In G18. Pavement of courtyard VIII with later structures. Incorporated in new XV In G-23 Step trench in B/C/D 20 In f-26 In Q-13 Deep trench in Area V (Fl. 4), in H/J17/18 Test pit NE corner of Graveyard. In M/N-23/24 Trench along western edge of graveyard. L-23 to 27 Test pits at NE mound, H/J11/12. Trial holes at extreme until below Exp. House. Burned rooms in Tayinat village, D/E-30 ? Test pit south of road Trench south of IV West of mound, looking For city wall Extreme NE of the mound ? ? Trench East Centre of mound, at about R-18 725 Trench North Central wadi, at about N-12. 726

VIIB1. The first excavated buildings: Building I, II and XIV Buildings I and II were dug at the beginning of the excavation campaign (Plate 31). Building I limits courtyard VIII to the south while II is located outside the area and has no connection to the courtyard. Both structures contained the largest amount of finds 731 . The northern wall of building II is 1.30 m away from the southern wall of building I, and its floors are three meters deeper than the highest floors in building I. Haines identified three floors in building I, and one floor in building II. The main feature which points to a change in spatial organisation in building I is a rebuilding phase that occurred at the level of floor 1; the older walls were levelled, new walls were reconstructed above them and some architectural changes were pursued; 732 the entrance was slightly changed and the location of the doors to the small southern rooms was moved. A very different floor 2 is attested only in room E, while in the other rooms it defines only “the highest earth floor in an accumulation of floors and ash layer above floor 3”. 733 Therefore, floor 2 and floor 3 do not represent two different building phases, but the lower and the upper level of a floor sequence without interruptions: the building will be named as I, 2+3. Moreover, we can argue that only the entrance was rebuilt and slightly changed during the period of use of I, 2+3. Thus, it is possible to emphasise two main phases of the building. 1. Floors 2 and 3 reveal a continuous sequence

E-W trench south of IX, MN 727 30

728

In Haines it is called West Central Area. They started to dig in this area, and due to the number of finds and to the importance of the structures that were brought to light they kept on digging mainly here. 730 The distinction between mound and eventual lower town will be discussed in the analysis of the defensive system. 731 32% of all objects found on the floors come from these two buildings. 732 E.g. some doors were dislocated. 733 R. Haines 1971: 46. 729

725

a

[Building Numbers, season ’35-‘36] “Showed private houses, discontinued in about 10 days, July ’37.” 726 [Building Numbers, season ’35-‘36] “was unsuccessful and discontinued.” 727 [Building Numbers, season ’35-‘36] “Attempt to find upper south gate. Discontinued after about 5 days, no good architecture. Being covered by IX dump.”

129

Pucci –Ch. VII. Building Phases at Tell Tayinat

of occupation and only the entrance was completely rebuilt (Plate 32). As the entrance was the only part of the building with a huge amount of wood in its construction, it was more susceptible to the risk of fire than the other rooms of the same building. It is therefore possible that the entrance was reconstructed after a local fire 734 which damaged it. 2. Building I was rebuilt following the original layout, floor 1 (Plate 31). In order to provide a parallel to Haines terminology, the two building periods of this structure are named as building I, 1 for the younger floor/ period and I 2+3 735 for the older one. Table 80: lists the elevations of the different floors in several rooms of building I; these were extracted from the maps and notes. Here the average difference in height between floor 2 and 3 is ca 40-60 cm while the difference between floor 2 and 1 is almost 1 meter. This feature would support the idea that during the occupation of floors 2+3, the building was continuously inhabited and repaired from usual wear. However, the debris found above floor 2 was probably due to heavy destruction and to the collapse of the walls. After this destruction, the structure was rebuilt; its plan was similar to the previous one and the new walls were mostly founded on the remains of the older ones. Table 80:

Floors elevations in building I Floor 1

Floor 2

Floor 3

98.85/99.05m

97.72/98.05m

97.12/97.42m

J

99.05m

98.05/97.83m

97.60m

B

99.10m

-

97.50m

P

99.10m

E

97.60m

97.20m

K

97.59m

97.51m

G

97,91 (98.42)m

97.32m

L F

99.10m

97.75m

96.92m

98.17m

97.19m

In building II, one floor was found and as far as its condition allows us to see, no reconstruction activities were pursued. The architectural relationships between buildings I and II are arguable only by the stone revetment and glacis on the eastern and southern external face of the walls of building I (Plate 31 and plate 32 for the loci). This revetment was built in three different ways; 1. in the north-east, the wall has a stepped-in revetment, which Haines argued to be later than the glacis on the southeastern corner of the wall. However, this revetment has no architectural connections with the glacis. 2. In the south-east, a glacis was built which was connected to the stone paving of the area in front of it. This glacis covers the corner of the wall and stops in front of the stairs at building II. It is interesting to note 736 that this revetment stops abruptly and irregularly at this point; it is possible

that the construction of the steps in building II caused the partial destruction of this revetment. 3. The third stone revetment which protected the southern wall of building I was vertical and parallel to the northern wall of building II; the gap between these two walls is ca. 40 cm wide. It is possible to argue as follows: the glacis on the southeast (2) was built at the same time as the pavement in the area in front of it. The revetment to the south (3) was possibly built shortly before the construction of building II. This revetment runs along the wall of building I until the parallel northern wall of building II begins. Thus it seems probable that this revetment not only protects the foundation of building I, but also contains the slope on which building I was built in order to allow building II to be built. Assuming that the gap between the northern wall of II and the southern wall of I is ca. 80/120 cm wide, and that the gap between the revetment of I and the wall of II is 40 cm, it seems physically impossible that they could built a vertical stone revetment (3) when building II was already standing. They could simply fill the gap between the two buildings with stones without rebuilding a proper vertical revetment and leaving a small gap 40 cm wide. It seems more logical that this revetment was built prior to the construction of building II. Therefore, building II was built after the construction of building I, and after the vertical revetment to the south was finished. It is impossible to establish if the glacis (2) belongs to the original layout of building I, i.e. whether it was built at the same time as the building I, or it is a later addition. Thus, building I was constructed first, its external eastern wall was protected by a glacis, and this outside area was paved. Later, a stepped-in revetment surrounded the south-eastern corner of building I. As building II was planned, a vertical stone revetment protected and supported the southern wall of I and the northern wall of II was built parallel to it. Building I rests on an older structure which was named building XIV (Plates 25, 26 and 33). The plan of this building (Plate 33) is extremely unclear since it was excavated without removing the upper structures. In other words, building I walls were not removed and XIV was investigated only in the areas which were visible by digging under the floors of building I. The locus numbers were approximately indicated according to the room order of building I and do not correspond to real rooms in building XIV. However, it was possible to learn that the walls of building XIV were levelled in order to construct building I and several walls of building I were founded directly on the walls of this older structure. Therefore, building XIV was visible and standing when structure I was built. The main floor of building XIV was never found 737 , the walls were founded on a single course of stone, but those foundations lie at different elevations; to the south, the bottom was one meter deeper than the level of the foundations to the north of the structure itself, and

734

The rest of the debris from this fire was found on floor 3 in this room. 735 These numbers obviously refer to the floor numbers in the publication. Here 2+3 identifies the whole period in which several floors were repaired, rebuilt or renewed. 736 R. Haines 1971: Pl. 80A.

737

The presence of a floor in square J20 was investigated, but the only one, which was found, was at elevation 95/ 95.3 m, and was not drawn in section. The bottom of the foundations at this point was not reached.

130

Pucci –Ch. VII. Building Phases at Tell Tayinat

possibly follows a natural height difference of the soil. Two walls were found under the western limit of building I. One runs parallel and external to the western wall of I, and the base of foundations for this wall was at elevation 95.30, slightly lower than the bottom of the foundation of building I. The second wall was found under floor 3 of building I, room H. The archaeologists did not investigate the bottom of the foundations of this second wall. Both walls were called “intermediate walls” and they have been taken into consideration with the western structures of Area V. However we should consider that: 1. The wall inside building I was levelled to build building I. The western one was kept in use, in order to protect the slope. 2. The level of the bottom of the foundations of the western wall are higher than the structures in Area V. It seems arguable that probably the two walls are not the one linked to the other. Thus, the western one was built to protect building I, the eastern one belongs to an older period and is probably connected to building XIV. These architectural relationships are represented in Diagram 27: Diagram 27. The southern limit of Courtyard VIII

Diagram 27 shows three phases and each phase is characterised by one of the three main buildings: XIV, I 2+3 and I 1. First, building XIV occupied the southern extent of the area and the intermediate wall to the west was also probably connected to this structure. Later the older building XIV was completely replaced by a new structure (building I, 2+3) which was frequently repaired and repaved. A glacis protected the eastern external wall of this structure and the area in front of it was also paved. To the west of building I, 2+3, a new retaining wall was built and was probably kept in use also in the following period. A floor between I, 2+3 and I, 1 and the stepped revetment inside the wall of building I testify that after the destruction or collapse of structure I, 2+3, the building I 1 was not immediately rebuilt, but the collapsed structure was probably reused in part. Later, the new structure I, 1 was built: the remains of structure I, 2+3 were still visible as the new structure reused the older walls as foundations and socle. During this rebuilding activity, the southern wall of the building was also protected and building II was then built. Objects: 65 small finds 738 were found outside building I, and very close to this structure. Among them we can point out two main find spots where the larger number of objects was found: one is directly in front of the entrance in courtyard VIII, in locus V, while the other one is on the eastern side in locus T. The objects found in locus V will be analysed in relationship with the courtyard VIII. In locus T and in general in the external area surrounding the south eastern corner of building I, many inscribed fragments of stone were found which may have a direct relationship with the building. Hawkins joins together three groups of fragments from among those found on the mound. The group which is connected to the building I forms the inscriptions TT2. These eight fragments or group of fragments 739 were found spread in different locations as Table 81: shows. Thus, the fragments belonged to an inscription that was destroyed and used as building material for other structures, and therefore represents a terminus post quem for the date of construction of the building in whose walls the fragments were reused. As seen in Table 81: three find spots are particularly interesting: locus T mentioned above, building II, and the southern side of building I (locus R). The three fragments discovered in locus T were found on/in 740 “stone filling against wall”, which probably means in the external stone revetment against the wall. Moreover, three fragments (T300, T398 and T3277) were found under the floor of building II and one was found in the gap between building I and building II 741 . Another 738

None of them are useful for dating. Some of the objects’ numbers do not designate a sole fragment but a group of them found together and clearly belonging to the same stone. 740 Unfortunately the hand writing in the object register is at this point not very clear. D. Hawkins 2000: 368 reads “in stone fill against the wall.” 741 It is not clear whether this fragment was used as part of the southern revetment of building I or was just in this gap. 739

131

Pucci –Ch. VII. Building Phases at Tell Tayinat

fragment (T2584) of the same inscription was found inside platform XV, and therefore places the construction of this platform to a period after the destruction of the inscription. According to Hawkins reconstruction, these fragments are part of an inscribed cubic stone, and “the generally cursive sign forms would point more to an 8th century BC date than 9th” 742 . Hawkins argues that the inscription was carved on a square pedestal approximately 1m wide. Its height is according to the preserved fragments not available. Not all the inscribed fragments found in building I, locus T belong to the same inscription TT2. The writing on some of them (T 2623-26) differs greatly from the writing of inscription TT2 and Hawkins ascribes them to another monument. Therefore, it is possible to argue that not one single base, but at least two inscribed monuments were destroyed. It seems probable that this destruction is connected to the destruction of building I, 2+3 for the following reasons; 1. The fragments of both inscriptions were reused to build the revetment on the eastern wall of building I. It seems improbable that this revetment was the pebble one, because it is not a filling, but rather a covering. As locus T comprehends the eastern side of building I, the revetment which is meant in the Object Register is probably the so-called stepped-in revetment which was built after the destruction of I 2+3. 2. The fragment located in the revetment of the southern wall of building I, 1 indicates that the base was destroyed when this revetment was built, which was after the destruction of I, 2+3 and the materials were re-employed when I, 1 was built. 3. The fragment found in platform XV suggests that the inscription was destroyed when this structure was built. As platform XV was built after the destruction of building VI, which was in use at the same time as building I, 2+3, we can also relate the destruction of building I, 2+3 and of building VI with the destruction of the inscribed base. 4. Those fragments, whose location is indicated as building II, were found under the floor of the structure. The foundations of building II were 0.95 m under the level of the floor. Hawkins 743 interprets these fragments as “being buried in the foundation fill for building II”, but Haines 744 does not mention any levelling activity for the construction of II, so the foundations were probably dug into the existing soil level. Therefore, we can argue that these fragments provide a date after which building II was built, but it is impossible to establish how much time passed between the destruction of the inscription and the construction of building II. Thus, these fragments allow us to argue as follows: An inscribed base (TT2) and another inscription were probably in use at the time of building I, 2+3 and building VI.

As the largest amount of fragments belonging to these inscriptions was found at the south-eastern external corner of building I, we can hypothesise that the original location of the base was in this area. Probably both inscriptions were destroyed at the same time as the destruction of building I, 2+3. The fragments of these inscribed stones were reused as building material for the revetments of building I 1 and for platform XV. The inscribed base appears to date to the 8th century (according to the palaeography), and , therefore buildings I, 1, XV and II were after this date. Table 81:

742

This dating is based on the analysis of the writing and not on the quotation of rulers’ names on it. It is therefore not certain. D. Hawkins 2000: 372. 743 Id. 2000: 369. 744 R. Haines 1971: 54. The paving was set upon a foundation layer that went to a depth of 17 cm below the top of the pavement.

132

Inscribed Fragments in north-western Area

Description

Location BLG ROOM

Basalt fragment, W XV with pictographs trench, over taboucs, XXV 1 m below surface Inscription II-C fragment, black basalt

Remarks

T-

Hawkins TT2

2584

II

C

Hawkins TT2

300

Stone fragment, #21 S Ie inscribed, Hittite On/In Hieroglyphs, i, stone filling against wall

T

Hawkins TT2

199

Inscription II-B fragment black basalt

II

B

Hawkins TT2

398

#13,south Ie side of building (march 21)

R

Hawkins TT2

125

Ie

T

Hawkins TT2

598

Stone fragment, #21 S Ie inscribed, Hittite On/In Hieroglyphs, i, stone filling against wall

T

Hawkins TT2

201

(13) Basalt II-B, II fragments with under 1st glyphs floor

B

HawkinsT 3277 T2, Gelb VII

Stone fragment, #21 S Ie inscribed, Hittite On/In Hieroglyphs, i, stone filling against wall

T

Hawkins TT VIII, 2

Fragment of Floor, I- Ie Hittite T inscription, basalt

T

Hawkins 693 TT VIII,16-20

Two fragments of Floor, I- Ie Hittite inscription T basalt

T

Hawkins 690 TT VIII,19

Stone fragment, #21 S Ie inscribed, i, On/In stone filling against

T

Hawkins 206 TT VIII,45

Stone fragment, inscribed Hittite hieroglyphs, i, (first fragment)

Inscription I-T fragment, black basalt

200

Pucci –Ch. VII. Building Phases at Tell Tayinat Description

Location BLG ROOM wall

Remarks

T-

Stone fragment, #21 S Ie inscribed, Hittite On/In Hieroglyphs, i, stone filling against wall

T

Hawkins 203 TT VIII,45-

Inscription I-T. fragments black basalt

Ie

T

Hawkins 559 TT VIII,815, 17, 18

Inscription I-T fragments black basalt

Ie

T

Hawkins 578 TT VIII,815, 17, 18

Inscription I-T. fragments black basalt

Ie

T

Hawkins 554 TT VIII,815, 17, 18

Inscription I-T. fragments black basalt

Ie

T

Hawkins 555 TT VIII,815, 17, 18

Inscription I-T. fragments black basalt

Ie

T

Hawkins 556 TT VIII,815, 17, 18

of Floor, I- Ie T

T

Hawkins 671 TT VIII,815, 17, 18

Fragments hieroglyphic inscription

Inscription I-T fragments black basalt

Ie

T

Hawkins 577 TT VIII,815, 17, 18

Inscription I-T. fragments black basalt

Ie

T

Hawkins 553 TT VIII,815, 17, 18

Inscription I-T fragments black basalt

Ie

T

Hawkins 579 TT VIII,815, 17, 18

Stone fragment, #21 S Ie inscribed, Hittite On/In Hieroglyphs, i, stone filling against wall

T

Hawkins TT VIII.3+21

202

Inscription I-T. fragments black basalt

Ie

T

Hawkins TT VIII.6

550

Inscription I-T. fragments black basalt

Ie

T

Hawkins TT VIII.7

551

VIIC. The structures limiting the eastern side of the court: building VI, platform XV and T 3 Building VI and platform XV are on the north east of building I (Plates 31 and 32), and limit courtyard VIII to the east. First, during the excavations, archaeologists identified the top of platform XV, then they excavated and dismantled the southern side of the platform and found building VI. Thus, the two buildings were found the one above the other. Two main problems concern these two buildings: 1. Both structures were identified with a sole building number and different floors number (XXV 1, 2-3 for platform XV and XXV 3 for building VI) and only later were they separately named. 2. The northern part of platform XV was not completely excavated in order to investigate whether other structures were in existence to the north of building VI.

It is possible to emphasise the following elements in order to establish a building sequence at the site: platform XV is younger than building VI as it covers it. Platform XV was limited and contained by four walls: the northern, eastern and southern ones had stone foundations 1-1.5 m deep, while the western one had only one row of stones, which rested on the paving of courtyard VIII. These not only contained the mud brick terrace but also they overcame a difference in height (1m) between the area surrounding courtyard VIII and the eastern external area. The southern retaining wall ran parallel to the northern wall of I and it widened to the south from the point, where the northern wall of building I stopped to the east. Thus, this wall of the terrace was built when building I was standing already and still in use. It is interesting to observe the traces of damage on the northern wall of I: the corners are still preserved while its northern face is uniformly eroded. It seems improbable that the wall was eroded by natural elements than human intervention. In this case, this erosion might be interpreted as the trench of the building pit which was needed to lay the foundations of the southern wall of platform XV. The northern retaining wall had stone foundations, whose bottom was 2m deeper than the bottom of the foundation of the abutting building IV 745 . We can argue the relationships between platform XV and building IV from two main clues: 1. The western wall of platform XV is interrupted where the wall of IV starts. 2. Building IV has another wall leading to the east which is covered/cut by the construction of Platform XV. From these two elements, we can argue that XV was built when IV was already standing. 746 Only one baked mud brick floor was identified on the top of platform XV. The floor was not even: the brick pavement at the top of the stairs, leading from courtyard VIII to XV, was at elevation 98.5 m. The top of a drain, which is 20 m to the north-east, was at elevation 99.09 m. The foundation structures found 10m to the south, which stay directly on the pavement, are at elevation 99.15/ 99.20m. The pavement sloped slightly down to the west, and the north, as some foundations found there were associated with a stone paving at elevation 98.90m. Archaeologists found structures only on the southern area of the platform. Two rooms were built directly on the floor of the platform, their stone paving at elevation 99.33m. Other walls were found in the middle of the platform, but it is difficult to determine whether they were part of the original platform or they were added later. If we consider that at the beginning of the excavations in this area the topsoil was only 50-60 cm higher than the level of the floor of XV, it is then possible to remark as follows: 1. The debris on the platform was not very high meaning that whether there were imposing structures built on the terrace or not, or whether they were eroded by natural elements as well as spoiled by humans, 745

As we will see later on, the foundations of the two buildings have a similar difference in height, because, while building IV was using the walls of the underlying structure XIII, Platform XV had to overcome an artificial slope on the north. 746 Cf. also item 3 in this Chapter.

133

Pucci –Ch. VII. Building Phases at Tell Tayinat

because they were visible from the surface. 2. The southern wall of the structures above platform XV to the south runs parallel to northern wall of building I. Thus, building I was still standing when this structure was built. 3. The platform does not bear any traces of foundations dug deep into it 747 . Thus we may argue that this terrace supported a small building (whose remains are to the south) and was free of building in the rest. The objects coming from the floor of platform XV are only two and they are not very helpful for dating. It seems that no objects were found in the structures on the south. Building VI was completely covered and filled with the mud bricks of platform XV. Two main features explain the relationships between this building and the attaining one (building I): Relationships between buildings VI and I: the walls of both buildings run parallel to each other, and a doorway connects room G in building I to room E in building VI. This door was in use at the level of floor 3 in building I, i.e. during the first period of building I and it was later closed. The baked mud brick threshold of the doorway was at elevation 97.8m, and the bottom of its mud bricks closing is at elevation 98.08m. If we consider that floor 2+3 in building I room G is at elevation 97.32m and 97.91m, we can also maintain that the gate was closed after the living phase of floor 2+3, but before the construction of floor 1 (el. 99.05m). Moreover, another “intermediate floor” was found in G at elevation 98.42m and possibly this closing should be ascribed to a period in which only this room G was reused. These considerations allow us to maintain that: 1. Building VI was contemporary with building I floors 2+3 and that it was used at the same time and in connection to building VI. 2. After the destruction of I, some rooms of the building I were reused before its complete reconstruction and before the construction of platform XV on top of building VI. Between VI and I, a one-course stone wall or paving runs beside the north wall of G and the south wall of VI. From the section 748 it is arguable that the wall of VI was 6m wide, and that at elevation 98.5m, a stone wall covered the extent of four metres next to the wall of building I. In the isometric view 749 , the wall of building VI seems not to be parallel to building I but to be interrupted by this “revetment”. These stone are not uniformly in line; they widen to the west and to the north partially covering also the northern part of the wall of VI. There is no trace of a building pit, thus it seems improbable that these stones are the rest of the foundations of another upper building 750 . This stone line was built either during the construction of VI or after its abandonment. On their eastern side, these stones were also stepped as with the stone revetment of building I, as if they protected the

northern wall of I, which remained undefended after the collapse of building VI. I would also ascribe this architectural feature to the period after floor 2+3 in building I, i.e. after the partial destruction of I 2+3 and before the construction of platform XV. As building I does, building VI also covered the structure XIV: as in section E-E' in Pl. 105 the walls of VI stay directly on the levelled walls of building XIV, therefore their relationship is not in doubt. Forty-five objects belong to the floors of building VI: among them, five seals could provide a terminus post quem for the destruction of the building. These seals do not bear any inscription, and as their style has not been analysed, a correct dating is impossible. Diagram 28. Platform XV and building VI XIV

VIII

I, 2+3 Reuse of room G in I. Stone wall

XV

I, 1

The diagram shows the relationships between the two phases of building I and the two structures (VI and XV) to the east. The black line emphasises a time gap between the second and the last period. In the last period, as we have already argued previously, the rebuilding activity did not begin immediately after a destruction but after a time of reuse of the collapsed structures.

VIIC2. The open space surrounded by structures: Courtyard VIII (with T 9 and 10) Courtyard VIII was the area to which all buildings faced (Plate 25, 31-32). While this area was not excavated for its total extent, archaeologists found a main stone paving and traces of a pebbled one. It is possible to give an overview of the several floors, or traces of them, in the following table. Table 82: Description Stone Pavement Pebble and shell paving Main stone pavement

747

Furthermore, a mud brick structure would probably not be suitable to support a large building whose foundations were not dug in the platform. 748 R. Haines 1971: Pl 105 section E-E'. 749 Ibidem Pl. 106. 750 The foundations of the southern wall of platform XV are ca. 1 m. higher.

VI

Floors level in courtyard VIII East North: 95.93m96.03m North: 97.35m South: 96.77m North: 97.58m Centre: 97.18m South: 97.12m (97.40m)

Central -

West 94.05m

South: 96.90m

North: 96.45m Centre: 94.45m South: 93.40m

The lowest stone paving of courtyard VIII was found only in front of building XIII; it was not found in other trenches which were dug under the level of the main floor in the courtyard. Therefore, by means of this floor level it

134

Pucci –Ch. VII. Building Phases at Tell Tayinat

is impossible to establish whether building XIII was facing onto a courtyard or to an external area. The second paving was excavated in three places; Haines assumed that it was the foundation of the upper stone floor. However, as this pebble floor was found in all three find spots ca. 25-40 cm lower than the other one, it seems possible that this paving might be an older floor of the courtyard, 751 rather than the foundations of the main floor. The main floor is paved with pebbles and crossed by a street paved with limestone and basalt slabs. Both the paving of the street and the floor of the courtyard are joined together as they were built and used at the same time. Moreover, the floor of the courtyard was partially repaired and at the south-eastern corner another floor overcame the slope due to the reconstruction and arising of building I, 1. The court was not flat, but it sloped deeply to the west south-west, approximately following the direction of the street. Several later structures were built above this floor. In square G 18-17, in courtyard VIII (cf. Plate 31), some walls were excavted as well as an apparently square room with stairs leading up to an unpreserved area to the west. The plan of these structures remains unclear. However, it is possible to stress that they were built after a period of abandonment in courtyard VIII as their walls stay 15-33 cm above the courtyard floor level. They are not contemporary to the structures surrounding the courtyard and the stairs, which are connected to these structures in G 18, are leading up to a higher, thus later, structure or floor. Another structure was found above the paving of the courtyard. A course of stones divides the square into two parts, running in a north-south direction. From the published plates, it can be seen that very little of this structure is preserved. However, it is evident that this course of stones was built above the street paving and was holding back a slope to the south. Stone stairs, parallel to the northern wall of building I, were leading to an upper level whose pavement was partially preserved. The key thing to determine is whether this “terrace” was built on the paving of the courtyard or not, i.e. if the terrace was already planned as the courtyard was paved. From the reports, we can argue that no paving of the courtyard was found under the terrace because the terrace itself was not removed. Therefore, assuming that: a. The stone revetment was following the wall which was built above the street; b. The stone wall was limiting and supporting the terrace; c. The terrace was built at the same time as this stone wall and its revetment We can argue that the stone revetment, the stone wall and the terrace were built above courtyard VIII and, thus, in a later period. As the stone revetment is preserved for the entire width of the courtyard, the terrace was as large as the courtyard 752 was, and it connected building I with building IV. Thus, in a later period courtyard VIII

became an internal closed courtyard surrounded by buildings whose access is not preserved. Furthermore, this terrace was also covering the later structures in G 18 analysed above, which testify to an intermediate period between the use of the “open” courtyard and the construction of the terrace. The length of this terrace is not known 753 . Diagram 29. Courtyard VIII and its superstructures

The relationships between the courtyard VIII and the buildings facing it are as follows: Relationships with building XIII: as mentioned above, traces of a stone pavement were found in front of building XIII. In this building, the tread, which probably belongs to the stairs leading to the entrance of the structure, is at elevation 96.25m to the west and at elevation 96.35m to the east. The patch of stone pavement in front of it is at elevation 95.93-96.03m. As this pavement was not found in other parts of the

751

This paving could also have an extent different from the extent of the upper floor. 752 Consequently the level of the courtyard was in this western part ca. 1m higher.

753

In dealing with Area V and gate XII, this terrace will be reanalysed looking at its western side.

135

Pucci –Ch. VII. Building Phases at Tell Tayinat

courtyard, it is only possible to state that building XIII had an external paved area, not necessarily a courtyard. Relationships with building IV: at the level of floor 2, the entrance of building IV had three treads which led to the main stone pavement of courtyard VIII, therefore building IV, 2 was built at the same time as the main floor of VIII was in use. The later floor 1 in building IV, however, was preserved only in the main room. The layout of the entrance of this rebuilding is not known. Floor 1 is ca. 50-60 cm higher than floor 2, and the layout of the building was considerably changed, therefore it is not possible to prove a re-use of the stairs and entrance of the period before. Relationships with building XIV: this building does not have a clear layout; it is not even known where the entrance was. This structure was built on the eastern and southern side of a large space, which could be a courtyard, but no floor was found either inside the building or outside of it, therefore it is impossible to prove its existence. Relationships with building I: the main stone floor in front of building I was at elevation 97.12m. The entrance to building I floor 3 was between el. 97.12m to the north and el. 97.42 to the south, thus the main pavement was at the same level as the entrance and both were linked together. When the entrance was rebuilt the level of floor 2 in this room was 60cm higher than floor 3 and consequently higher than the main floor of the courtyard. Therefore, two treads were built in the courtyard directly above the stone pavement; the lower tread was at elevation 97.40-97.00m. The courtyard itself was repaved in this area with a floor 25cm higher than the lower one. Thus, we can argue that building I, 2+3 was used at the same time as the main stone floor in courtyard VIII. Floor 1 in building I was 1m higher than floor 2. Neither stairs nor architectural changes were found in the courtyard leading to the higher level of building I, 1. Possibly these later structures are not preserved as they were very close to the topsoil. However there is no evidence of a contemporary use of both the building I, 1 and the stone pavement of courtyard VIII. Relationships with building VI: the plan of building VI has a gap between the eastern and the western side. The wall, which is supposed to divide this building from the courtyard, was not preserved, the east-west northern wall stopped at the point where the north-south wall of platform XV was built. Therefore, the wall of building VI seems to have been replaced by the supporting wall of platform XV. It is probable that an opening to the main floor of VIII existed but is not archaeologically proven. The levels of both floors in VI were slightly higher than the level of the main floor in courtyard VIII, and building VI was architecturally connected to building I, 2+3 which was built and in use at the same time as the main floor of courtyard VIII. Thus, it is possible to hypothesise that both courtyard VIII and building VI were in use at the same time. Relationships with platform XV: as mentioned above the western wall of the platform XV was built directly on the pavement of the courtyard. Stairs were built in order to reach the top of the platform and their lowest tread was connected to the floor of the courtyard. Therefore, the

platform was built at a time when the courtyard was already paved, and they were both used at the same time. Relationships with the “western area”: the floor of the courtyard was excavated as far as square F 17-18. In this area, the main stone paving stops surrounding an area where no archaeological remains were found. However, it is possible to maintain that a structure might have been closing the courtyard to the north-west. Here the paving is at elevation 96.45m, and approx. forty metres to the south, the level of the paving sinks 2m and reaches el. 94.05m. The street is also sloping with the lowest excavated point at elevation 93.5m. In front of the building in Area V, remains of a pebble paving were found at elevation 93.75-94.05m. Possibly, they also belong to the paving of courtyard VIII but the excavated area was too small to allow us further hypotheses. Fifty-two objects were found on the floor of the courtyard. As this floor was so long in use as stated above, these objects date to the last period of use. A group of “weights” was found in front of building I (locus V), and other small finds were found in trenches dug in the courtyard; in square G 18 and in trench XXIII. Obviously, as the courtyard was later abandoned, this formed a depression which was filled with rubbish in later periods.

VIID. The Northern Limit of the Courtyard: Buildings IV, XIII Two buildings, the one partially overlapping the other, limited the northern area of courtyard VIII (Plate 31-32). The upper, thus later, structure was named building IV. Archaeologists identified two floors (1st and 2nd floor), and two distinct building phases. The external walls of these two buildings had the same course and the same size, but their internal layout changed considerably. First, archaeologists found a stone paving (at elevation 98.6292.72m) in room E and remains of stone foundations to the east. These are all the remains of building IV, 2 (second floor). Underneath this paving, they excavated a complete layout for another building with mud brick walls and an internal room organisation that was considerably different from the upper one. The floors were poorly preserved: there are traces of floor only on the entrance at elevation 98m. The relationships between building IV and the neighbouring platform XV are argued in VIIC, and can be summed up as follows: 1. The foundations of the wall of IV, 1, running to the east, stopped abruptly. 2. The western wall of platform XV stopped where buildings IV, 1 and 2 start. 3. The northern wall of the platform abutted the wall of building IV. These elements suggest that building IV was already built when the platform was constructed. The wall running to the east was probably removed in order to allow the platform to be built, while the platform had to fit and adapt to the layout of IV. The relationships between building IV, 1 and courtyard VIII are derived from the stairs leading from the courtyard to the building (cf. VIIC2). Building IV, 1 was accessible from the main paving of courtyard VIII. Among the twenty-one objects coming from the structure IV, we can point out a few of them which could be useful

136

Pucci –Ch. VII. Building Phases at Tell Tayinat

for dating. Directly on the first floor, archaeologists found a stone lion head (T-3266), which was reused in the foundations. Moreover, two fragments of stone statue were found near the drain to the west. A lion orthostat and remains of a inscriptions were found related to the second floor of the structure. Probably, all sculpted fragments were originally located in building IV, 2 or in the underlying structure XIII, but no archaeological elements could confirm this hypothesis. On the second floor several incised seals were also found, but none of them provided a fixed chronological term. Underneath building IV, 2, on its western side, another structure, named XIII, was found. Several floors were found inside this building, but as they were at a lower level, they were not considered as belonging to the building itself. Actually, Haines maintains that the foundations of building XIII were dug into these floors and that these floors belong to older structures under XIII. As a matter of fact, the distinction between the mud brick foundations and the superstructure is not in doubt: the preserved superstructures are thinner than the foundations at the level where the floor is supposed to have existed. Thus building XIII has mud brick foundations 5 m deep and its original floors were not preserved. Moreover, the stone tread, which may belong to building XIII is at elevation 96.25m. This element proves that the internal floor of the building probably was not lower than this level. Building IV was built on the eastern part of structure XIII, thus, when IV was constructed, the walls of building XIII were destroyed and both structures were not in use at the same time but rather the one replaced the other. Assuming that the original floor of building XIII was not preserved and that the other floors, cut into by the foundations of XIII, dated back to an older period, none of the 95 objects, which were found on floors, belonged to the building itself, but they were already existed.

when IV, 1 was already in existence, but both structures were in use during the same phase.

VIID2. The Access to the North-western area: Area V (with T8) and Gate XII Area V is comprised of one main building and its surrounding area and is located to the west of building I (Plates 31, 32). Only the north-eastern side of the structure was excavated: its external walls were limited by stone orthostats and headers. The layout of this building is not complete, and the excavated remains do not have any architectural connection to other structures. Therefore, only the elevations and the analysis of the external area are helpful tools in assigning this building to one architectural phase of the mound. The main problem concerning this building is to identify its relationships with building I and with the terrace on courtyard VIII, therefore the elevations of the external area of structure V will be compared with the elevations of the neighbouring buildings. The bottom of the orthostats on the façade of the structure in Area V was at elevation 93.90m on the north-western corner and at elevation 94.57m on the south. These elevations probably indicate the level of the external paving. In the following table, the levels of the courtyard, building I and area V are shown in order to argue their relationships, the square numbers are always indicated to give a notion of the distances 754 : Table 83:

Levels of area V, gate XII and the eastern structures

Building I

Terrace on Courtyard VIII

Area V

Courtyar d VIII

Gateway XII

97.5m

Bottom: 96.97m

93.90m 94.57m

94.5m

90.05m (E 21)

Top: 97.60m (H 19-20)

(G 21)

2+3 in room b, (H 20)

(G 18)

20-

Diagram 30. Buildings IV and XIII Courtyard VIII, stone pav.

XIII

IV, 2

Courtyard VIII, main stone pav.

IV, 1

Platform XV

Diagram 30 shows the temporal relationships between the structures to the north of courtyard VIII. As the three buildings (XIII, IV, 2 and IV, 1) were built above each other, their sequence is not in doubt. Initially, building XIII was connected to an external area whose size cannot be argued. Later, this building was abandoned and IV, 2 was built more to the east and was accessible through a stairway from courtyard VIII, which already had its main stone paving. Building IV, 2 was then completely levelled and reconstructed with a different internal room organisation. As analysed above, platform XV was built

This table emphasises two main elements: 1. The bottom of the orthostats in area V and the floor 755 of courtyard VIII have the same elevation, but the paving found in front of building V was not continuously excavated as far as the area of the terrace in order to investigate whether this paving in area V was the same paving as the one in courtyard VIII. However, as the external materials used for the paving in area V were very similar to those used for the paving of courtyard VIII, it is possible to assume that the floor found in front of the structure in area V was the same floor of courtyard VIII, which sloped up to building I, 2. The levels of the paving of the terrace, which was built on courtyard VIII, and of the floor of building I, 2+3 are two metres higher than the floor in area V. Therefore, both structure V and building I were on two different levels. As both structures do not overlap each other, it is probable that building I, 2+3 and the structure in area V were in use at the same time and that they were accessible from courtyard VIII.

754 755

137

Each square is 20 metres wide. There is a gap of two metres between these structures.

Pucci –Ch. VII. Building Phases at Tell Tayinat

Thus, it is possible to maintain that: The building in area V was in use at the same time as building I, 2+3 since the paving of courtyard VIII was the same both in front of this building and in front of structure I, 2+3. The level of the floors of the buildings surrounding the eastern and southern part of courtyard VIII were 2.5 - 3m higher than the level of the floors in the western area, (i.e. than area V and the western part of courtyard VIII). The paving of courtyard VIII was sloping to the west, connected the several buildings facing it, and was in use both in the period of building I, 2+3 and of building I, 1. The street linked both areas by connecting the east with the western part of courtyard VIII and overcoming the slope. Thus, both building groups could have been in use at the same time and there appears to be nothing contradictory to this idea in the existing remains 756 . The relationships with gate XII are more difficult because the gate itself was basically unexcavated. As a matter of fact, archaeologists dug a square to investigate the western side of area V and, as the slope of the mound here is very steep, they did not find remains of the structure they were looking for, but excavated a threshold. They interpreted as a gate threshold (at elevation 90.5). If this threshold really was a part of a gateway structure and if the plan of this gateway was the canonical one with flanking towers and a passage room, structure V would overlap the gateway XII. But even if the stone pavement and the wide threshold are part of a gate structure, as it seems probable, we should however consider that 1. Not all gateways have the same plan. 2. There is no archaeological proof of a link between the street crossing the courtyard and the gate XII. Thus, the archaeological elements are too few to locate correctly the structure XII in the building periods’ sequence of the mound. It is only possible to hypothesise that the structure may be a gateway and may date to a period before the construction of the building in area V. In area V only a large group of iron plate armour section was found. Diagram 31. Area V and gate XII XII VIII, street

Terrace VIII

756

on

I, 2+3

Area V

I, 1

A different hypothesis would affirm that when the terrace was built in courtyard VIII, the area V was no longer in use. In this case we should also hypothesise that the whole area to the west was either levelled, higher and consequently a different entrance was built, or it was left in ruins. However, the archaeological remains do not provide any element to maintain one of these hypotheses.

The diagram illustrates the architectural relationships between the structures on the west of courtyard VIII. As mentioned above, the building in area V was built at the same time as the construction of building I 2+3, in a period when gate XII was not more in existence or its layout was deeply modified. If the building in area V was still in use at the time of building I, 1, it would have been completely isolated by the construction of the terrace on courtyard VIII and thence it would be external from the north western built area.

VIIE. Building sequence western Complex

of

the

north

All architectural relationships between the buildings belonging to the north-western area are represented in the following diagram 32 and in Plates 26-28, 31-33. The division in periods is based on features such as consistent architectural changes in the organisation of space, abandonment, or destruction of buildings. The first change is marked by the abandonment of two main buildings (XIII and XIV), which were then levelled and had new structures built on the top of them. No traces of a violent destruction were noted for this change. There are no proofs that these two structures were in use at the same time. The orientation of their walls strongly differed from each other and could suggest that at least they were not built at the same time. Considering that they are both under structures which were certainly used at the same time in the later building period, they were considered here as belonging to the same period. Thus, in the first period, two main structures occupied the north-western part of the acropolis: building XIII and building XIV were limiting an area on the northern (XIII), eastern and southern sides (building XIV). Building XIV is made of two parts: the northern one seems to be independent from the eastern and southern ones, and was possibly connected to the neighbouring building XIII. Both structures surrounded an area that was partially in part paved. 757 Gateway XII could also belong to this period, even if, as we already analysed, its chronological location is doubtful. However, the sole entrance to the built area was the western one, where gateway XII is situated. In the second period, the acropolis was completely rebuilt: none of the previous structures were preserved (except possibly the gateway). However, the general organisation of the buildings keeps a feature similar to the previous period: the buildings still surround a courtyard open to the west. As the architectural remains are better preserved in this period, it is possible to point out that three independent buildings (VI, IV, 2 and I, 2+3) limited and faced courtyard VIII. Assuming that gateway XII was still in use, the access to this area was steep and the structure V was not directly open to the courtyard, but rather it was facing the street leading up to the courtyard itself. The second period ended with the complete 758 destruction 757 758

138

Remains of paving in front of building XIII. Traces of fire in rooms: E, J, K2, Q2, L, G, N2, T2.

Pucci –Ch. VII. Building Phases at Tell Tayinat

of building I, 2+3, and the reuse of materials from the other buildings. 759 The rebuilding phase did not immediately follow the destruction and for a certain period of time, small structures were built in the courtyard and some rooms in building I were reused with a different entrance 760 . This “intermediate” period shows a phase of abandonment after the destruction and a “gap” in the architectural planning of this area. In the third period, it is possible to point out a tendency towards closing the courtyard and raising building on terraces. Two mud brick platforms limited the courtyard to the east and to the west (platform XV and the western terrace), so that the court, which was before completely open on the western side, was probably accessible only from the north western area. Buildings I and IV were completely reconstructed, i.e. not only the floors were reconstructed and raised but the walls and the internal accesses were changed as well as special care was given to the south-eastern area, outside of building I. A new building was constructed here and it faced this external area, which was repaired and had added installations. This period ends without destruction; no traces of fire were found in these structures thus it was probably abandoned.

only one (T2164) could be used for the stratigraphy. This was a fragment of hieroglyph inscription with very few recognisable signs, whose dating is therefore unclear. 761 Diagram 32. General relationships between buildings in North-western Area

VIIF. The southern area: one isolated Structure This area is the second high point of the mound (Plate 30). This peak is smaller in size than the north-western area, but it is as visible as the other one, and it was preserved to a greater degree. Archaeologists found two buildings in this area (originally XIII and IX), which were later identified as part of a sole building and called building IX. A step trench (T 11) was dug on the northern slope of this small rise, but there were no significant remains.

VIIF1. Building IX This structure was poorly preserved because its floors were found only 30cm beneath the topsoil and they were therefore very near to the surface. The floors of this building provide the layout since few walls were identified (Plate 30). As this structure was not architecturally connected to other excavated structures on the mound, then it is the length of use of this building, i.e. the number of floors or architectural changes which were pursued on the structure that is the element, which could help in locating this structure in the building sequence of the site. The western courtyard was frequently repaired in the areas were it had sunken and two drains which were not in use at the same time were built in the eastern courtyard. The northern wall of room C showed some repairs and small changes in its course. No other architectural changes were visible in this building, so that it is difficult to argue the length of its use. Among the twenty-nine objects found on the floors of this structure

759 760

In building IV and in the revetments of building I. Probably the access to room G was from the eastern side.

Archaeologists investigated partially underneath this structure, and they found “domestic structures with several floors”. No other information was given about these lower structures, or data about their dating. It is interesting to note that among the objects found underneath the floor of building IX, three fragments (T2111, T2134 and T2133) of “Greek” pottery were recovered. These sherds were documented and later thrown away, therefore it is not possible to further analyse these objects. Moreover, we should suppose that the term “Greek” probably identifies geometric pottery rather than classic figurative Greek pottery, or else building IX dates to a late period. However, considering that the other objects found in situ inside building IX 762 , even if they do not provide an exact dating, were ascribed to the Iron Age Period, we may argue that the term Greek identified Geometric pottery. 761 762

139

D. Hawkins 2000: 378. Cf. VIIIA3.Table 90:

Pucci –Ch. VII. Building Phases at Tell Tayinat

VIIF2. Gate III This structure was not architecturally linked to building IX, nor was it completely excavated (Plate 30). Only the external paving to the north and the northern passage and threshold were investigated. Therefore, it is not possible to reconstruct its complete layout, however the two protruding towers/ bastions, the large door, the paving and its location on the mound point to the existence of a doorway. This doorway is reconstructed as being part of the mound wall and being accessible only from the lower town. There are no traces of re-paving or repairs to the structure, and its relationship with the internal town are limited to the wide paving which was running parallel to the structure and identifying a street or a large area in front of the gateway. Among the objects found in this structure we should note a cylinder seal depicting two worshipers in front of an altar.

VIIG. The eastern area of the town: the gates This area mainly identifies a passage area (Plate 25 and 29); here two gateways with the same axis and the remains of a building or limiting wall were found. As this area was not extensively excavated, the lack of structures has not been proven by archaeological activity and therefore we should not denote this area as an extent free of structures.

VIIG1. The internal gate VII and the neighbouring building X Gate VII was excavated for an extent large enough to reconstruct its layout. On its western limit, two walls were found probably part of an unexcavated building (X). In gate VII (Plate 29), the passage area was limited by square stones, which were partially found in situ. Three floors were found in the area of the gate, the one next to the other but at different elevations. The higher one (floor 1) was not directly connected to the gate, but to its western external area. It started outside the gate to the west and ran along building X in a westerly direction. This pebble floor was, from the east to the west, at elevation 90.13m, 90.27m and 90.35m. These elevations are 70cm deeper than the lowest course of stones, which forms the foundations of building X. If we consider that the lower row of stones of this building was meant to be unearthed 763 , we might argue that building X was built in a later period and was not connected to this floor 764 . In floor 1, six carved orthostats (T1253-58) and fragments (1260) of a hieroglyphic inscription were re-used as building materials. The second stone floor (floor 2) belongs to the gate structure. At the external threshold it was at elevation

763

This course of stones was not polished as the upper one, therefore it is supposed to lay under the soil level. 764 It was not investigated whether this upper floor also extended under building X.

88.78m and ran through the gate chamber to the internal threshold at elevation 89.02m. The third floor (floor 3) was identified only outside the gate to the east at elevation 88.53m. The relationships between the first and the second floor do not raise any doubt: floor 1 is 1m higher than floor 2. This difference in height was not evenly distributed throughout its length; as a matter of fact, floor 2 ran also to the west and probably under floor 1, and the one meter high “step” between both floors is clearly visible in Haines Pl. 87, C, where it is also evident that a period of time passed between the construction of these two floors. Probably, as this upper floor was built the gate was no longer in use. As the elevations between floor 2 and 3 were not very large, they were possibly belonging to different repairs of the same period, i.e. to the time in which the gate was in use. Only two external walls of structure X were dug, and in particular those which were facing the street leading from the gate. These walls were built on a limestone socle, whose lower row was not polished while the upper one, possibly the visible one, was smoothed. If we argue that the external soil level of the structure was at the same elevation as the second row of stones, it would be at elevation 91.00m at its lowest point. The paving inside the gate is at elevation 89.00m, while the level of the street where the orthostats were reused is at elevation 90.00m. Therefore it seems probable that this structure did not have any link to the gate or to the street, but dates to a later period of reoccupation. The rooms of this building were not excavated, nor was its complete size identified. Diagram 33. Structures VII and X VII

Floor 2 Floor 3 Floor 1 X

Among the fifty nine small finds found on the floor of the gateway and on the street outside the gateway, the reused carved orthostats mentioned above and the fragments of hieroglyph inscription provide a terminus post quem for the dating of the street paving. The style of the reliefs is similar to the Assyrian “provincial” style of the 8th cent., while the inscription 765 was dated by the inscribed name of the ruler Halparuntiya, identified with Qalparunda cited in the Assyrian Annals and dated to 857-853 BC. The inscription was carved on a basalt throne and base, possibly bearing a seated statue. The location of this statue was probably inside the gate, but no archaeological elements provide clues for it. However, if we consider that it is improbable that a massive statue were transported from another location in order to be destroyed, it is then more likely that the original location 765

140

D. Hawkins 2001, I. Gelb 1939: 39.

Pucci –Ch. VII. Building Phases at Tell Tayinat

was inside or near the gateway. Therefore the entrance and the street were paved in a later period probably after the destruction of the gate and of the statue, thus after 853 BC. If we consider that the six carved orthostats 766 were reused together with the fragments of this inscription, the date can also be more precise. As a matter of fact, the style and the iconography of the reliefs are strongly influenced by the Assyrian art. The Assyrian influence in this area is attested by the annals only after the conquest of the town in 738 BC, when the town was organised as an Assyrian province under a eunuch governor. Moreover the style of the slabs shows similarities to late Assyrian representations at the time of Tiglat Pileser III (end of the 8th century) such as the supine bodies and the overlapping of figures. Therefore, it is possible to shift the construction of floor 1 to a later period, probably after the end of the 8th century. However, even if it is probable that the carved orthostats (when they were entire) were originally located in the gate, 767 it is difficult to affirm that the statue was also in existence and in place until this floor was built; only some fragments were found and these were probably spread in the neighbourhood.

VIIG2. The external eastern Gate XI Gate XI was located to the east of gate VII (Plate 29). This structure was completely preserved; the faces of the walls were excavated and its layout is complete. The stone floor at elevation 83.90m on the east and at elevation 84.70m on the west is completely preserved. As the external threshold in gate VII, which is 200m to the west of XI, is at elevation 89.02m, we can argue that the probable street leading from XI to the east through gate VII to the north-western area was slightly steep. The jambs of the two doors were reinforced by square stones, which had traces of orthostats or wood architectural elements standing on the top of them. The entrance axis of gates VII and XI were slightly different, and gate XI pointed in the direction of building IX. However, considering the long sequence of floors in gate VII and the fact that it was the only gate to the acropolis from the lower town, it seems unlikely that gate VII was abandoned when XI was in use. Probably the gate directed the sight of the entering persons toward building IX, which was 10m higher than the level of the floor in this gate and consequently clearly visible. This feature might be a useful element to locate this structure in the building period sequence: the gate was probably built when IX was also constructed. No small finds belonging to this structure were registered and we do not have any clues to locate this structure in a specific timeframe.

VIIG3. Conclusions: the Defence System From the elements presented in the previous section, two problems appear evidently: archaeologists did not found any traces of a town/mound wall, but only gates; dating

the period of construction of these gates is very difficult (Plate 25). If we consider the axis of the gates and the places where archaeologists excavated without finding a defensive wall, it is possible to reconstruct the wall system in use when all gates were in use. Following conclusion seem to be the most probable with the actual status of excavations and by comparing the topographical plan with the Corona images of the mound kindly provided by Heather Snow. 768 Gate VII and gate III were connected by a wall which was probably surrounding the whole hill. This wall ran to the west of gate XII. At this point the wall was straight following the banks of the Kara Su River. According to the Corona image the mound wall was curved to the north and to the east. In Plate 25 the course of the mound walls is also reconstructed by comparing the enceintes of other Syro-Hittite towns built near a river like Tell Halaf and Karkamish: in these towns the lower town develops only to the direction opposite to the river and the mound and twon wall seem to become a single wall along the rivers. The gate XII, was not part of this enceinte, but it was rather the entrance only to the north-western area, and it was connected by a short wall to the mound wall. Gate XI was part of an external wall and its entrance was on a similar axis as the entrance of gate VII. The course of the external wall is slightly irregular and developed certainly to the east and possibly to the south. It seems unlikely that the gate XI was the only gate of the town wall, but at the actual status of excavations it is not possible to determine the location of other town gates. It is possible to determine that the mound had a seaparated north-western area accessible through gate XII and later V. This arrangement find striking similarities with the arrangement of the nort-western area at Zincirli, which was also accessible trhough an internal gate. This reconstruction is valid when all gates were used at the same time, but it is impossible to outline the development of the wall system. It seems obvious that the outer enceinte was built when the internal one already existed. Only for gate VII, and possibly for the mound wall, is it possible to indicate a date of use: if the statue was standing in relationship with the gateway VII, then the structure was already in existence during the first half of 9th century. Therefore, the defensive system of the mound was probably in existence in the 9th century and still in use until and after the Assyrian conquest (738 BC). Moreover these carved orthostats were found reused in floor 1 of gate VII. This floor, which does not belong to the gate, was paved with stones. If these slabs were carved during the last period of occupation of the town, as the Assyrianised style would suggest, and were originally located in gate VII, floor 1 would date to a paeriod after the third building period and would suggest that a rebuilding activity was carried in a possible reuse phase.

766

This orthostats are published in K. Wilson et al. 1989: fig. 32, and on the Museum home page: http://oi.uchicago.edu/museum/highlights/syria.html. 767 Building X was not in existence at that time.

768

This image is published in the Home Page of the Tayinat Project. http://www.utoronto.ca/tap/home.htm

141

Pucci –Ch. VII. Building Phases at Tell Tayinat

VIIH. Building Sequence As emphasised above, the remains on the site of Tell Tayinat are mainly concentrated in the north-western area. Therefore, the building sequence of the structures in that area forms the backbone for the general period analysis. Three periods and one “intermediate” period were suggested for the north-western area. In the following analysis we will add to the building sequence of this area both structure IX and the defensive system and compare the building sequence to the information which the historical sources provide.

VIIH1. Period I: two large structures on the mound The first building period (Plate 26) on the mound is focused on two structures, XIII and XIV, built in the north-western area. Both structures are assigned to this period due to their relationships to the later buildings. It is however evident that even if both structures were in use at the same time, they were probably not built contemporaneously. As a matter of fact their alignment differs. The external area of these buildings was probably paved and was open and accessible to the south-west. Here a gate (XII) marked the access to this area. In Plate 26 the gate is reconstructed as part of the larger building XIV. Therefore, we should suppose the existence of a wall which limited this extent and isolated it from the rest of the mound. It is not clear whether the other rise of the mound was also built at this time. The “domestic” structures found under building IX allow us to think that the “acropolis” area was concentrated to the north-west. However, considering the small extent that was excavated under IX, we can only affirm that some structures were built in this area and that these structures probably date to the Iron Age. The mound wall with gates XI and III was probably in existence during this period.

building K was dated to the last phase of period I, 771 thus to the 9th century, it is possible to argue that the older portico in building I at Tayinat was also built during the 9th century. The base to the south of building I was added later, in the first half of the 8th century. Thus, it is probable that the period of use for this area lasted 150 years.

VIIH3. Period III: the second centre The following and last period (Plate 28) is characterised by new building activity which took place again in the north-western area. Building I was completely rebuilt and its layout changed slightly, but the biggest changes were pursued to the other neighbouring buildings. Two platforms were built and courtyard VIII became an open space completely surrounded by buildings. This area, which in the preceding period was comprised of several buildings grouped around an open court, became one complex with two buildings facing each other and connected through two terraces which were accessible from the courtyard. Moreover, to the south of the rebuilt building I, at the place of the inscribed base, structure II was built. It is also probable that the six orthostats, which were later reused, were added to gateway VII in this period. As a matter of fact, the style of both the six orthostats and the lion base is strongly related to the end of the 8th century carving and influenced by the Assyrian style. Table 84:

VIIH2. Period II : the new reassessment The north-western area was reorganised (Plate 27); three buildings (I, 2+3, VI and IV) were grouped around a paved courtyard (VIII), and a street led to the entrance of building I from gateway V, which flanked the street. This area was repaired, and in building I the rooms were frequently repaved and several small architectural changes were pursued. These elements allow us to hypothesise a long period of uninterrupted use for these structures. Probably, the inscribed base, whose fragments were reused in the gap between buildings I and II, was installed to the south in this period. The ductus of the inscriptions would suggest, according to Hawkins, a dating in the 8th century. The sphinx, 769 found on floor 2 of room G in building I, has a style which dated to the 9th century. Moreover, the column bases found in the oldest floor of the portico of building I bore an identical decoration and form as the column bases found in Zincirli on the entrance of building K. 770 As

769 770

K. Wilson et al. 1989: fig. 31. R. Jacoby 1914: Fig. 201.

BUILDINGS

DESCRIPTION

XIII; XII

XIV;

In the north-western area, two buildings surrounded an open area, probably paved. A gate led to this area. The lower town extended immediately outside this north-western area.

I,2+3; VI; IV,2; VIII; V; VII

In this period, the layout of the north-western area was completely changed; the area was closed and surrounded by structures. It was probably in this period that a defensive system with three entrances was built

I,1; VIII; XV, V, X? VII; IX; II

During this period, after a destruction, building I was rebuilt, a new structure was added outside this zone, and IX was built on an external rise.

771

142

Building phases

Cf. Chapter III item F.1.

Pucci-Ch. VIII. Functional Analysis at Tell Tayinat

Ch. VIII. Functional analysis at Tell Tayinat

Table 85:

Tell Tayinat shows several differences from the other two sites. First, the excavated area covers 15% of the extent of the Iron Age acropolis, while in Zincirli and Tell Halaf more than 60% of the acropolis was excavated, thus the materials of this site at our disposal are less than in the other sites. Second, the course of the town wall is not clear. Plate 25 shows a reconstruction of the wall system in the chapter above: the area is divided between a western area with the excavated representative buildings (the acropolis) and an eastern area, which possibly was the lower town. Moreover a narrow mound wall limited the north–western area, which was accessible from gate V (or XII). The lower town extended to the eastern and possibly southern and northern sides and it was accessible from gate XI. Assuming this reconstruction is valid, the mound wall and the town wall followed the contour lines of the mound, and would have joined only to the west near the river. To the west of the mound, the wall and the river were the defences for the town. Moreover, following this hypothesis, the lower town would have had a very small expanse in comparison to the acropolis, 772 which doesn’t happen in the other analysed sites (at Zincirli the lower town is 5.6 times bigger than the acropolis, at Tell Halaf the lower town is 7.8 times bigger than the acropolis). 773 Moreover the extent of the acropolis of Tayinat (10 ha) is bigger than the extents of the acropolises at Zincirli (4.9 ha) and Tell Halaf (5.9 ha). Therefore, we can assume that the core of the acropolis was mainly located in the north-western area accessible from gate VII and that further investigations may bring new informations concerning the lower town.

VIIIA. Period III: construction

the

last

phase

of

VIIIA1.Overview The last building period (Plate 28), which started after the destruction of the north-western area, comprehends the largest number of buildings. Table 85: below lists the structures in use during this third period and distinguishes those, that were kept in use from the previous second building period and those which were newly built. The chronological problems, which concern the location of the gates in the building periods, remain unclear due to the absence of archaeological elements. In the analysis of the stratigraphy, we argued that the mound wall and the belonging gates were in use during all three building periods, the mound wall might have been contemporary but no archaeological clues prove this hypothesis.

Bldg Loc Elevation of Remarks Size Building the main Phase II floor XI E 83.90mThe building phase is 571m2 Yes 84.70m uncertain X E 91.10m9x36m 92.60m VII E 88.78m255m2 Yes 90.13m XV NW 98.90m 3880m2 VIII NW 94.4m97.5m IV, NW 98.70m 1 II

NW 95.90m96.22m NW 95.80m

Ie I, 1 IX III

NW 98.85m99.05m S 95.70m96.85m S 85.05m

4022m2 Yes The layout completely reconstructed

is 1295m2 304m2

External area east of 400m2 Yes building I Bad preserved 1775m2 3485m2 Only the internal passage was excavated, The building phase is uncertain

Yes

VIIIA2.The gates The mound wall surrounded the “acropolis”, which was accessible through two gates: III and VII (Plate 25). The town wall developed to the east and to the south of the site and was accessible through gate XI (and probably others not excavated yet). As mentioned above 774 , the gates III and XI were only in part excavated and they lack any element, useful for their dating. Gate VII, instead, provide several clues (the reuse of carved slabs in a later paving) to affirm its existence and use during the third building period. Therefore the mound wall and consequently also gate III were in use during this period. The use of the town wall during this period remains uncertain. Analysing the eastern area, we find that the two gates, XI (town gate) and VII (mound gate), had similar features such as a socle made with pebbles and limiting stones and probably orthostats. Both gates differed in the dimension and in their alignment. The external XI had larger dimensions than VII, and it pointed, as mentioned above, towards the direction of building IX. The rooms of XI were larger and its towers protruded from the structure for 6 meters, while those in VII emerged only for 2.5 metres. This difference is probably because XI was an external gate, thus it was supposed to be more massive than the internal one. The pebbled paving in XI was similar to floor 2 in gate VII, and as far as XI was excavated the floor continued to the west. It indicated a street that probably led to VII. The quality of the structure XI fulfilled representational function while the size of the

772

Considering the reconstruction, the lower town was 22.3 ha and the acropolis 10 ha. 773 All measurements are an approximation, because they are based on the drawings.

Structures in use during the third building period

774

143

cf. VIIG3

Pucci-Ch. VIII. Functional Analysis at Tell Tayinat

structure and the layout fulfilled the defensive 775 and passage functions. Table 86: Room Size VII/a

Gates VII and XI rooms and sizes Access Quality ibility 1A Very High

Visibility Elevation of the main floor High 88.78m-90.13m

VII/b

16

1B

Very High

High

88.78m-90.13m

VII/c

42

1C

Very High

High

88.78m-90.13m

Very High

High

88.78m-90.13m

VII/e VII/d

133

1

Very High

High

88.78m-90.13m

XI/a

50

1A

Very High

High

83.90m-84.70m

XI/b

135

1C

Very High

High

83.90m-84.70m

XI/c

50

1A

Very High

High

83.90m-84.70m

The carved slabs showing Assyrian soldiers carrying the heads of their enemies were found reused in a later floor near gate VII and had probably decorated gate VII. The presence of other foundations and walls under this gate and reproducing a similar layout indicates that the structure underwent a basic reconstruction, which probably also allowed the addition of the slabs. No objects or installations were found in gate XI, whereas a large number of small finds belongs to structure VII. Among the objects found in this gate, Table 87: shows both those, which were found on the second floor or in the filling between the second and third floor and consequently were related to the gate, and those found in floor 1, which might point to materials reused from the gate. We can see that there was a variety of objects and, except for the six orthostats, only three other small finds have some interest; the basalt fragment of a great figure (T1260) and the fragment of hieroglyphic inscription (T1040) suggest that a statue standing on an inscribed base may have been located here. As we do not know when this statue was destroyed, where exactly it was located, and if it stood together with the orthostats mentioned above, it is not possible to make any further hypotheses. However, it is interesting to note that also at this site, as in most of the Syro-Hittite towns, a statue was connected not to a closed structure but with an open space near a gate. We do not have any proof to maintain that a seated statue was erected between the two gates, or inside gate VII, we can only point to this interesting feature. Second, a large quantity of seals (nine pieces) was found on the second floor of the structure; these objects were probably related to an administrative activity pursued in or near the gate. Table 87:

Rm

VII/C

VII/E

VII/A

VII/D

Objects in gate VII

Rm Description TLocation Pd VII/E Gold pendant, circular disk of gold 2033 XVII, 2nd leaf, simple repoussé design, whole, alongside fortification

VII/C

775

However, the preserved mound wall at gate XI is 2.5 m wide, thus very small for a defensive structure, and the foundations of the gate are one course of stone deep so that its strength and resistance against attacks was not very high.

VII/C

144

Description

T-

Location walls Bead, blue frit, small and grooved 2034 XVII, 2nd alongside fortification walls Bronze projectile point, head is 2035 XVII, 2nd alongside lanceolate in shape. End of blade fortification widens out into a rectangular bead. walls The tang has a rectangular cross section and very short Gaming piece?, steatite, small 2036 XVII, 2nd conical, w alongside fortification walls Two links fastened together bow- 2037 XVII, 2nd alongside wise. Maybe a chain link, iron fortification twinned, I walls Bone point, polished, concentric 2038 XVII, 2nd circle ornament alongside fortification walls Bead, serpentine long cylinder, w 2039 XVII, 2nd alongside fortification walls Joggle, steatite w. 2040 XVII, 2nd alongside fortification walls Iron, curved blade, hilt broadens and 2046 XVII, street then tapers off to a point.. under 2nd fortification Stamp seal, light steatite, pyramidal, 2047 XVII, street grey, linear polypedal animal, cuneate under 2nd space fillers fortification Beads, glass and blue frit (9) 2048 XVII, street under 2nd fortification Scarab, fired steatite, guilloche motif 2049 XVII, street on bottom, w under 2nd fortification Beads, blue frit, 10 small, w 2050 XVII, street under 2nd fortification Anthropomorphic pot, mother 2051 XVII, along 2nd goddess type, I fortification stones Kohl box, sandstone fire blackened, 2052 XVII, along 2nd fortification one hole, w stones Pot, bowl, brittle red washed ware of 2053 XVII, along 2nd fed. X fortification stones Bronze button 1003 FloorXVII-2 Scaraboid, serpentine, combat of 1004 Floor,XVII-2 animals Scaraboid red stone, seating figure 1006 XVII, Between paving 1 and 2 Gold bead 1044 Floor,XVII-2 Pottery gaming piece 1135 Floor, XVII, 2 Statue fragments of great god, basalt, 1260 XVII, used in with Hieroglyph inscription 1st pavement Cornelian head 2002 XVII under 1st floor Bronze needle with eye. Head 2003 XVII under 1st flattened slightly and slit to form floor perforation Stone object 2004 XVII under 1st floor Bone disc 2005 XVII under 1st floor Bone handle, concentric incised circle 2006 XVII under 1st ornament, perforated floor

Pd

3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3

Pucci-Ch. VIII. Functional Analysis at Tell Tayinat Rm

Description THead of polished bone pin. Incised 2007 decoration with a herring bone design. Bluish glass head 2008

Location Pd XVII under 1st 3 floor

XVII under 1st floor Eye head, incomplete 2013 XVII, under 1st floor Scaraboid, serpentine, illegible 2014 XVII, under 1st floor White frit cylinder seal. Drill 2015 XVII, under 1st technique. Single line border, floor guilloche above, scene limited by sacred tree, centre bush, worshipper in conical hat and robe faces right, animals 2 small blue frit beads 2016 XVII, under 1st floor Bronze head, pendant 2017 XVII, under 1st floor Blue frit head, elliptical, decorated 2018 XVII, under 1st floor Spherical cornelian head 2019 XVII, under 1st floor Buff ware leg amulet, with 2020 XVII, under 1st perforation floor Whitestone head (bead) 2024 XVII, under 1st floor Stone pendant 2025 XVII, under 1st floor Glass barrel (b/h)ead 2026 XVII, under 1st floor Bone object, polished, both ends 2027 XVII, under 1st broken off, decorated with four floor deeply incised rings, cylindrical, perforated in four places Scaraboid, steatite, animal impression 2030 XVII, under 1st floor Steatite stamp seal, rectangular with 2031 XVII, under 1st stud handle, unfinished piercing from floor both sides. Base trilateral, lion, tail curved over back Rough bone pin. Uncompleted 2032 XVII, under 1st floor Stamp seal(?), steatite, pyramidal, one 2041 XVII, under 1st face bock floor Fibula bow, bronze, i., the middle of 2042 XVII, under 1st floor the bow is flattened and thickened, no ornaments. Fragment of Hittite inscription 1040 XVII-2 Horse head, fragment of figurine 981 Floor,XVII-1 VII/C Flat eye bead 2066 XVII, 1st floor Blue frit bead, barrel 2067 XVII, 1st floor Cylinder seal, hematite 839 XVII 10cm above sculpture paving Bronze arrow point 982 Floor,XVII-1 Limestone orthostat 1253 From inner gate E; VII VII/D Limestone orthostat 1254 From inner gate E; VII Limestone orthostat 1255 From inner gate E VII Limestone orthostat 1256 From inner gate E VII Limestone orthostat 1257 From inner gate E; VII Limestone orthostat 1258 From inner gate E; VII VII/A Steatite stamp seal, dark green stud, 2321 XVII, 1st (card) trilateral base, and notches on edges give base appearance of being trifoliate. Rampant lions face each other, a paw crossed

3 3 3 3

3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3

3 3

3 3 3 3 4 4 4 4

In conclusion, during this period gate XI first had a defensive and passage functions. It fulfilled also a representative aim; it focused the attention of the entering persons to building IX. Gate VII had more a representative function (with the carved orthostats) and was a control area given that the smaller dimensions of the gate permitted fewer people entrance than through gate XI 776 and given that a large number of seals was collected here. A second mound gate (gate III Plate 30), was excavated to the south. This gate opened to the lower town and its entrance axis pointed in the direction of building IX. The layout of the gate was in part not preserved and in part not excavated. Archaeologists brought to light the internal paving of a “street” running across the entrance and a stone paving between two internal bastions. We have very few elements to analyse this structure: a good paved street in front of the opening, a very good stone paving for the space limited by two towers or two bastions of the structure, an opening (2.5 m) limited by basalt orthostats whose bases with dowel holes were still in situ. The most interesting feature of the preserved remains is the general layout of the structure. Haines 777 reconstructed for this gate a layout similar to the gates VII and XI: a gate with one gate chamber, two doors, and two external towers. The only difference is the existence of two internal towers/bastions. While gate VII did not have any internal towers, and gate XI had two elements protruding 1.4 m from the main body of the building, structure III had bastions protruding 3.2 m to the north, i.e. to the internal mound. This feature, which is archaeologically proven, is very strange since it appears as a defence was needed also from the inside. These bastions fulfilled probably representative needs related to the space between this gate and building IX. The objects (cf. Table 88: ) related to the structure are not helpful in better defining its function. In conclusion, we can only affirm that gate III had passage and possibly defensive function. The quality of the construction implies a representational aim mainly for the area inside the acropolis. Due to its location and axis it seems to have been mainly related to building IX. Table 88:

Gate III, objects

Description Glass Bead, orange red and white design

T-

Location

257 Floor,IIIB-1 Bead, blue frit, fluted 258 Floor, IIIB-I Bead, blue frit, fluted 259 Floor, IIIB-I Bead, fragment. Stone 260 Floor, IIIA Stamp seal, stone. Serpentine crude 270 Floor, IIIunfinished seal B-I Whitestone 271 Floor, III-

4 4 4 4 4 4

Room III/B III/B III/B III/A III/B III/B

4 4

776

The space between the mound and the town gate was not excavated so we do not know if structures occupied this area of the lower town or it was left empty. It seems however likely that the lower town was occupied as it was in the other Syro-Hittite towns. 777 R. Haines 1971: 58.

145

Pucci-Ch. VIII. Functional Analysis at Tell Tayinat Description

T-

Location

Room

B-I Bone paint

272 Floor, IIIB-I Weight, pottery 277 Floor, IIIC-I Weight, pottery 278 Floor, IIIC-I Potsherd concentric rings incised 333 Floor, IIIA Bead grey stone 334 Floor, IIIA Shell fragment, incised decoration 407 Floor, IIIC Bark or charred wood samples 1263 III-B, 1stfloor Limestone cylinder seal. Perforate through 408 Floor III-c length, off centre. Two worshipers face (card) across an altar, cuneus centre, 6 pointed star, rhomboid.

III/B III/C III/C III/A III/A III/C III/B III/C

VIIIA3.The southern complex The mound includes two higher zones where the building activity was focused: the southern and the north-western ones. In the southern area, one main building (structure IX, plate 30) was probably 778 constructed during this phase. The preserved remains show a structure divided into two courtyards (IX/a and /e) onto which several rooms faced. As only the floors and very few walls were preserved, we can identify few rooms and the accesses from these rooms to the courtyard. The main access to the structure from outside was not excavated. We can discern two large parallel rooms, IX/c and /d, accessible on the long axis, both with niches. In room IX/d two parallel stone rows indicate possibly the location of a fireplace track. A stone slab with a hollow at the centre was found inserted into the pebble paving in a niche on the southern wall. The room was accessible from the south through a door with a stone sill and decorated covering pivot stones These elements, the size of this room (222m2), the presence of a wooden revetment on the sides and of a red coloured plaster with a pebble paving 779 inside a covered room suggest reception and representation functions. From this room it was possible to reach a second southern room IX/J. The dimensions or the functions of this room are not arguable. It seems to have been roofed because the pivot stones are located inside this room 780 . Room IX/c opened to the northern courtyard IX/a through a door with stone sill and two pivot stones. This room was smaller than IX/d, had

thinner walls, and less installations. In general it seems to have also fulfilled representational fnctions but on a level lower than IX/d and mainly related to courtyard IX/a. Room IX/g had a baked brick waterproof floor and a drain running to the east: it was probably used as a bathroom or generally a place where water was used. Room IX/h also had a baked brick floor at least on its northern side but no drain: water might have been also used in this part of the room. Size, accessibility or connections of these rooms to the rest of the structure are not clear: Room IX/g seems to have been connected mainly to the estern part of the building, while room IX/h probably opened to courtyard IX/a, and consequently related to the north-western part of the structure. Two smaller rooms, IX/b and /f, were paved with baked bricks. They connected courtyard IX/a to courtyard IX/e forming a double axis route. These two rooms seem to bear the specific function of isolating the courtyard IX/e and controlling access to this area. In general this structure seems to use as the Assyrian house/residence schema: several rooms grouped around courtyards. But, two main elements differ from the well-known Assyrian palatial schema: 1. Rooms IX/c and IX/d could be analysed as the well-known “throne room” with fore room, but they are not connected with each other, so they do not fulfil this schema. 2. In Neo-Assyrian residences, the representational rooms also connected both courtyards with a double axis route: in this case again room IX/d opens only to the south and not to a courtyard. Other rooms (IX/b and /f) fulfilled this passage function. However the distinction between two courtyards with possibly different functions and certainly different accessibility is also existent in this building. Considering the accessibility of the rooms, the location of room IX/d, and also the presence to the south of the mound gate III, we may generally hypothesise that courtyard IX/e and the surrounding rooms were the parts of the structure which were used to receive peoples (including room /d) and where public activities were carried out, while the northern courtyard was probably kept as a private area. Table 89:

Room Size Accessibility Quality Visibility Floor

778

Connecting this structure to the sequence of building periods based on the remains in the north-western area is very difficult because IX was architecturally isolated and had only one building period. Its assignment to the third period, i.e. the period when the Assyrian influence was stronger, is due to the layout of the structure, which is reminiscent of Assyrian architecture articulated with in internal courtyards. 779 The pebbled paving implies an intense labour and is frequently used in roofless areas. Its use in covered rooms has a formal function and makes its practical waterproof feature useless. 780 In case a room opens to a courtyard the pivot stones are usually not located in the courtyard.

Rooms in building IX

IX/a

681

2

High

High

tamped earth

IX/b

80

2

High

High

tamped earth

IX/c

89+

2

High

High

tamped earth

IX/d

280

2

High

High

Pebble

IX/e

208+ 2

High

High

Baked bricks

IX/f

12

2

High

High

Baked bricks

IX/g

34

2

High

High

IX/h

47+

2

High

High

Baked bricks bitumen Baked bricks

IX/J

?

2

-

-

-

and

Among the objects found in or under the building, we can draw our attention to two of them: 1. a box of bronze plaques found on the floor of the small room near IX/d, which emphasise the presence of luxury goods and probably a representative function for the building, and 2. six cups found with the skeleton of an animal under the

146

Pucci-Ch. VIII. Functional Analysis at Tell Tayinat

door sill in room IX/c, 781 which recalls rituals connected with the construction of a building.

Description

Table 90:

Stone duck weight

Unfinished stone bead

Objects in IX

Description

T-

Location

Room

Stone mould

773

Floor, XIII-A

IX/b

Torso of figurine

774

Floor, XIII-A

IX/b

Frit bead, incised decoration

916

Floor, XIII

Steatite cylinder seal, with bronze roller wire, two kneeling figures face each others across a small sacred tree above which is a horned winged disc. Astral symbols Pottery figurine fragment. Pinched nose with blob eyes, fin like structure projecting from back of head Potsherd, Greek fragment. Of base Potsherd rim of Greek bowl

2097 XIII, under floor, G-F

1st IX/f-e

2098 XIII, under floor, G-F

1st IX/f-e

Duck weight

IX/f

Bone object, cylindrical, 2574 IX, 1 floor decorated Iron hook/Staple, has form of 2715 IX 1st floor cotters pin with ends turned back to form hooks Bone pin 2716 IX 1st floor Painted sherd

2718 IX 1 floor

1066 XIII-1st (card)

In the north-western area (Plate 31), during this period, new building activities were carried out. The area underwent destruction in the previous period so that the complex was reorganised. As a matter of fact, it is archaeologically proven that buildings I, 1, IV, 2, and platform XV were built during this period and limited courtyard VIII on three sides. We also have some remains indicating the existence of another terrace just in front of platform XV, whose paving remains were found to the north of building I. Archaeologists also found a room built in a later period above the paving of courtyard VIII, which is indicated as VIII/g-18. On the other hand, we do not know how big the terrace in front of platform XV was and if it divided the courtyard into two parts. In the analysis of the stratigraphy, this hypothesis was considered valid. 782 The area with the buildings was closed and courtyard VIII was no longer a square surrounded by buildings but an open space completely inserted into a complex made of several buildings. As a matter of fact, the construction of platform XV, which adjoins the eastern walls of building IV, also closed the area to the east, which was in the previous periods open. The archaeological evidence at our disposal provides a large amount of information about building I, which was

st

st

IX

surrounding the open courtyard VIII

2210 IX, 1st floor

2717 IX 1st floor

2982 IX 1 floor

Room

VIIIA4.The north-western area: structures

Steatite, stamp seal, circular 2195 IX, 1st floor base, stalk, Glass head 2206 IX, 1st floor

Handle of (roman lamp)

st

In conclusion, we can argue as follows: building IX is a large structure articulated around two courtyards. The structure was probably planned at once and not built adding group of rooms. The building underwent several repairs/maintenance works: repairing the paving of the courtyard where it had sunk, reconstructing a drain or renewing a floor. These elements imply that the structure had been in use for a long period and without interruption. In general, the organisation around the two courtyards, the connections between the courts, the small doors, the layout of the “reception” rooms, the installations found in them and, as far as arguable, the separation of a dwelling private area from a public working one suggest a direct Assyrian influence, which was modified for local needs. A similar situation can be found in the structure G at Zincirli.

Bone seal, rect. 2 sides 2184 IX, 1st floor decorated, indistinguishable design Scaraboids, steatite grey green, 2193 IX, 1st floor geometric markings on back, small cuneal border, figure with birds. Scaraboids, steatite, illegible 2194 IX, 1st floor

Scaraboid, steatite, dark green, 2216 IX, 1st floor geometric markings on back Glass head 2324 XIII, 1st floor

Location

3108 IX, under 1st floor Fragment of stone censer, rim 3109 IX, under 1st floor Steatite stamp seal, 3110 IX, under 1st floor hemispheroid, possibly not a seal Glass bead decomp 3111 IX, under 1st floor Six pots, small simple handle 3275 IX-N, 1st. Found IX/c less cups, with the skeleton of an animal under the north door socket Duck weight 1065 XIII, 1st (card)

2111 XIII, under 1st floor 2133 XIII, under 1st IX/f-e floor, G-F Potsherd Greek 2134 XIII, under 1st floor, G-F Box of bronze fragments, plaque 2159 Floor, IX-C, 1 IX/locus d Bone slip, decorated. Curved 2165 Floor, XIII, 3rd IX/b implement with pointed end and flat end. Incised decoration with dots alternating with herring bone lines Hittite inscription, fragment 2164 IX, between surf. and 1st floor Bronze pin, head shaped like 2166 IX, 1st floor spring Blue frit heads, 2 2167 IX, 1st floor

Basalt duck weight

T-

IX IX

2802 IX 1st floor, BM IX drain Perforated cylindrical stone bead 2980 IX 1st floor Basalt duck weight

Silver earring, the bottom is 2981 IX 1st floor thick in section

781

For ritual burials inside houses cf. M. Krafeld-Daugherty 1994: 182

782

147

Cf. VIIE

Pucci-Ch. VIII. Functional Analysis at Tell Tayinat

well-preserved, and very little information about the other structures. Building I, 1 has ten rooms that were preserved and the western rooms (the staircase I, 1/a-d, and room I, 1/h) are reconstructed according to the layout of the older structure under it. In general, the structure has large walls standing on older walls which are plastered on the internal and external faces. A large amount of wood was used in constructing I, 1 as all the sills and doorjambs were made of wood. The entrance of this building faces courtyard VIII and room /e opens to all directions. The floor in I, 1/e is 1.6m higher than the level of the courtyard and therefore some steps were reconstructed. Six openings to the internal room of the building make this room an entering and passage space: the thresholds were made of wood and there are traces of a doorframe left in the wall. From room /e it was possible to reach the largest room in the building: I, 1/j. The walls in this room were plastered and the accesses to the southern rooms I, 1/l-n had wooden sills and wooden jambs. No fixed installations were found in I, 1/j and no other formal elements distinguish this room from the others. Three doors connected this room to the entering room /e. From this central room four smaller neighbouring rooms were accessible and formed with /j a room group.

Room

Size

Acsy Quality

I,1/e

101

3

I,1/f

31

3D

Very high High

tamped earth

I,1/g

75

3F

Very high High

tamped earth

I,1/j

172

3C

Very high High

tamped earth

I,1/k

128

3F

Very high High

tamped earth

entrance through a second small passing room (/f) or through the larger gate /j. This room formed a separated group, with smaller adjoining rooms and was found completely empty. By contrast, in the adjoining rooms, several groups of objects were found. There was a group of bronze elements and boxes with bronze pieces in the southern rooms, /p and /q, while a large group of whorls was found in /f, and several pots were in /g. In conclusion, from an architectural point of view, we can argue that the two larger rooms could contain many persons, but the “formal” architectural elements seem not to be particularly improved. All rooms are plastered and the doors are all in wood; no other elements distinguish some rooms from the others except for their size. Considering the objects, we may argue that the smaller rooms, all of similar size, may have been storage or working areas. The bronzes in rooms /l, /p and /q, with some other elements such as the box containing ivory and bone inlays, lead us think that these pieces were probably assembled together, kept in this building until they were needed, or stored as treasure. The whorls in /f may suggest that textile activity took place in this room. Room /g was reused in a later period; an entrance from the eastern external wall was opened, a later floor was built, and probably the content of the room was taken away. Identifying all these rooms as storage/working areas, both larger central rooms seem to bear a different function. Their central locations amid the other rooms and the connection with each other indicate that they had a direct link to the surrounding rooms. Considering the accessibility of the building and the internal circulation, only room /j was probably used also as a reception area, while /k was surrounded by working/storerooms had mainly grouping and administrative features.

I,1/l

29

3E

Very high High

tamped earth

Table 92:

I,1/m

28

3E

Very high High

tamped earth

I,1/n

29

3E

Very high High

tamped earth

I,1/p

33

3F

Very high High

tamped earth

IV,1/A

182

3F

High

High

rubble

VIII/street 280x 6 2

High

Low

XV/a

22

3

High

limestone and basalt blocks Very high stone

I, 1/e Small shallow bowl, buff 50 # 5 (debris) ware, red glazed I, 1/e Box of brow fragments, I 86 #5, NW, on high floor

XV/b

40

3

High

Very high stone

I, 1/e Pot, small jar, collared with 35 #5, NW flop shoulders, i I, 1/e Whorl, stone, w 119 #15, (indoor to #5)

Table 91:

Rooms in building I, 1 Visibility Foundations

Very high High

tamped earth

By analysing the objects found in room I, 1/j we can see the large amount of metal finds. Hooks and pins were probably fixed in the walls, but the boxes of bronze fragments and other bronze and iron objects were found mostly in this room and in the neighbouring room /l. This indicates two possibilities: room /l was intended as a deposit for metal objects, or metals were worked and prepared in this room. Considering that the area had a roof, it lacked traces of fire and it does not seem to have been suitable to work metals, it is more probable that these elements were kept in room /l. The other rooms adjoining I, 1/j had a similar size as /l, but they were found empty. A similar situation pertains in the eastern area: I, 1/k was a large room from which two smaller rooms, /p and /q, were reachable. Room /k was not directly connected to the entrance I, 1/e, rather it was accessible from the

148

Objects found on the first floor in building I

Room Description

T-

Location

I, 1/b Ornament, glass, i

98

# 2, besides stone wall

I, 1/f I, 1/f I, 1/f I, 1/f

Whorl, stone, convex face, 53 decorated, w Whorl, stone, convex face, 54 w Whorl, stone, convex face, 73 w, Bronze hook, w 74

I, 1/g Pot, pink ware, shallow bowl, recon, I, 1/g Pot, pink ware, doubles angle bowl, recon. I, 1/g Pot, large handled jar white slipped ware, painted (Cypriote), recon I, 1/g Whorl, stone, circle dec., w

#15, NE #15, NE #15, NE #15, NW

190 #16, cache “a” level 2 192 #16[1], cache “a” level 2 198 Cache "a”, level 2, Room #16 118 # 16 SE

I, 1/g Pottery object, cosmetic box, 124 #16 recon. I, 1/g Whorl, pottery, i 193 # 16, cache "A", level 2 I, 1/h Potsherd, rim storage jar, i

of

large 8

6, NW

Pucci-Ch. VIII. Functional Analysis at Tell Tayinat Room Description

T-

Location 7, SC

I, 1/j

Nail or hook

9

I, 1/j

Metal object, head

30

I, 1/j

Outside N#7wall, above high floor Small shallow bowl, red 31 Outside N#7 wall, above glazed, ring base high floor Box of bronze fragments, 170 Level, 1 Room, on sill of blades, projectile points etc. door (high) between #9 + #7 Base of pot stand or cup, 385 Floor 1a, I-J buff Bronze object, bell? 387 Floor, I-J

I, 1/j

Bronze drill

389 Floor, I-J

I, 1/j

Stone object, inlay, grey 52 #7, NE stone, i Bronze, Pierced armour 22 #7, NW plate Metal object, pierced, i 24 #7, NW

I, 1/j I, 1/j I, 1/j

I, 1/j I, 1/j I, 1/l I, 1/l

Stone object, basalt, weight, 37 #8, upper floor WC, as w bronze plaques Large plaque, bronze, I 218 #8, near door

I, 1/l

Small plaque, bronze, i

I, 1/l

I, 1/l

Metal object, iron hook or 42 #8, NW nail, i Metal object, large nail, iron, 46 #8, SW rounded bead, i Iron object, hook or nail, i 47 #8, SW

I, 1/l

Small plaque, bronze, i

I, 1/l

Bronze nail, large head

I, 1/l

I, 1/m Figurine fragment

we can add the existence of a drain running from this room to the outside, which also confirms that a large amount of water was used in this room. The level of the topsoil at the beginning of the excavations was directly above this floor; therefore the collapse of a possible roof was not preserved. The openings to both the north and south might refer to a large room with several openings, or to a row of smaller rooms as it is reconstructed in the reports and here. Considering the poorly preserved condition of the building, it is very difficult to argue the layout of the structure. We may argue that the original stone stairs belonging to the older phase of the building were also in use during this period, and that there was a front room and several rear rooms (as the preserved structures suggest). Considering the access with stone stairs, the possible presence of columns 783 , the care of the architectural elements and the size of this room, we could argue that both reception and representation functions were fulfilled here. Table 93: shows all the objects found under the topsoil, which could be associated with the building. The most interesting elements for the dating are the fragments of a stone hieroglyphic inscription and a lion-headed stone, which were probably used here as building material from an older destroyed structure. However, these objects do not provide any element for the function of the building. The two seals and the other objects are also not helpful in defining the function of this building. In room /m a large pot, probably a storage jar, was found lying on its side and could also indicate a depot function. In conclusion, we can affirm that building IV, 1 had a central room where a large quantity of water was used, to which several small rooms opened. This building followed the destruction of an older underlying structure (IV, 2). The stone fragments of a lion's protome and of an inscription, which were reused as building materials for the younger IV, 1, might have been originally located in this older building and would suggest a representational function for this older structure. In this case, we could argue that IV, 1 took over this representational function.

219 #8, floor within door

220 #8, floor within door 23

# 8, NE

10

9, SE

I, 1/p Metal object, iron hook or 43 #11, NE nail, i I, 1/p Iron object, long narrow 48 #11, NE blade, i I, 1/q Box of bronze fragments 160 #17, NC,over a period of several clays I, 1/q Box of bronze fragments, 103 # 17, N tacks, nails, ivory or bone inlays, i I, 1/q Bead, glass, i 104 # 17 I, 1/q Ornament, bone radial 105 # 17 incising, w I, 1/q Box of bronze fragments 215 # 17, E (cup), also matter found with (?) I, 1/q Box of bronze fragments 216 # 17, E (cup)

Table 93:

On the opposite side of the courtyard, building IV, 1 stood (Plate 31). This structure was very poorly preserved: only the entrance, the paving of the main room IV, 1/a and an eastern wall were preserved. The stone floor in the only preserved room (IV/a) is made of rubble and the lower parts of the walls were covered with baked bricks standing on edge. Further remains of baked brick floors were found in two other rooms of the building. The vertical revetment of the lower part of the walls in room IV/a allows the reconstruction of the accesses to other unpreserved rooms, and several baked bricks found in the middle of the room might suggest that this rubble paving was the foundation layer of an upper baked brick paving. Therefore, this large room (32m) had a waterproof paving and the lower part of the walls was “protected”. These elements may indicate that the room was roofless, or that a large amount of water was used here. To these elements

Objects in IV,1

Room Description

Location

T-

IV, 1/a IV, 1/a IV, 1/a

Floor, XIV

820

IV, 1/a IV, 1/a IV, 1/a

783

Fragment of pot incised decoration

Cylinder seal, dark stone brown Floor, XIV, g16 jasper (fleck of green). Stone duck weight XIV, under 2m from top soil, on floor Stone censer fragment, hand XIV, under 2m from top soil, on floor Glass eye bead XIV, under 2m from top soil, on floor Steatite Stamp seal, dark green, stud, XIV, under 2m circular base. Quadruped with long from top soil, on

878 2885 2886 2887 2888

The lintel above the opening would have been too large (14m) to be covered with only one beam.

149

Pucci-Ch. VIII. Functional Analysis at Tell Tayinat Room Description tail, inverted bird, space fillers IV, 1/a

Location

T-

floor

Stone whorl

XIV, under 2m 2889 from top soil, on floor IV, 1 Hittite inscription, fragment. XIV, under the 2957 Hawkins TT VIII,24, 27, 30, 31-34, surface 35-[37], 53 IV, Stone lion's head XIV, 1st paving 3266 1/a IV, 1 Basalt fragment, hieroglyphs XIV, under the 2618 surface

Platform XV limited the eastern side of courtyard VIII (Plate 31). It was a terrace with four walls that limited an extensive area built with mud bricks and which was accessible from courtyard VIII via a set of stairs. The surface of the terrace was probably completely paved with baked bricks and two pipes drained the water from the top of the platform. Considering that the top of the terrace coincides with the surface of the mound, all possible structures built on its top are lost. Only several walls delimiting an area of approx 100m2 are preserved, but the information at our disposal concerning these walls is very scarce. Two rooms were visible, the walls were internally plastered, and their stone foundations laid directly on the platform. Some repairs were carried out on these structures by renewing the plaster or by rebuilding the walls. From these elements we can argue only that a modest size building was constructed on this terrace, due to the absence of foundation trenches into the terrace. The northern, southern and eastern walls limiting the platform had deep foundations because the whole area of VIII was approx. 4m higher than the external area to the east, and these walls had to fill this slope and support the structure. The western wall was built directly on the pebble paving of courtyard VIII; its foundations were not dug into the courtyard. Four rectangular towers lined the western wall at regular intervals and the niche created between the two southernmost ones contained the steps leading to the top of the platform. The towers supported the wall and provided the façade 784 of the terrace, but considering the location of these structures, they did not have a defensive function. The western wall faced a courtyard, which during this period was internal and consequently “safe”. No other elements could provide us with clues to argue the function of the terrace but it appears to have had one function: to raise the level and consequently make more visible a building, which is not preserved. This structure was then the most visible one from the main street leading from gate VII. Only one pot was found in situ on the floor of the platform and all other objects belonging to this structure (six seals) were probably part of the building materials and are not related to the room inventory. Another platform opposite to XV also was built during

this period, but the excavated area is limited and the preservation was very poor. Traces of a limiting wall crossing the courtyard from north to south correspond in the southern area to the limits of a raised area paved with mud bricks. Stairs adjoining the northern external wall of building I led to the top of the platform. We cannot argue the size of this platform, or if it closed completely the courtyard as the wall would indicate. The preserved baked bricks of the floor are at elevation 97.60m, thus 1.30m lower than the floor of I, 1/e and 2m deeper than the floor on the facing platform XV. Considering that the paving of the courtyard sloped consistently down to the west and that it sunk in the middle at elevation 94.05m, this platform was higher than the courtyard. The entrance to the whole complex was probably 785 on this western side and this “platform” probably created a border with the external area. In addition, there two drains let the water from its top flow down to the court. During this period courtyard VIII was half (1104m2) its original size in the previous period. The main pebble paving was reused and only some changes were added. In front of building I, another paving, 0.25m higher than the previous one, was built, probably because the entrance to I was completely changed. Consequently, all objects found on the paving of the courtyard refer to this last period of use. Two areas of courtyard VIII are particularly interesting. The first is located to the south just in front of building I and indicated as VIII/v. In this area a large number of weights (16 pieces) were found. These objects, 786 which refer to a textile working activity, were probably related to the finds in the nearby room I, 1/f where a large amount of whorls was excavated. There are two hypotheses: 1. a textile activity was carried out just outside building I in the courtyard, or 2. these weights were part of the collapse from the building I. There is no specific information about the context of this finds, but assuming that the object register always indicates if the finds were located on a floor, the absence of this indication would allow us to argue that these materials were probably part of the collapse from the upper building. Near the stairs leading to building I, a stone base was built in line with the face of the western wall of platform XV. This installation suggests that a statue or a stele was probably erected on this base between the entrances to XV and to I. Another group of finds is located outside the analysed portion of courtyard VIII and refers to the small structures built on the courtyard in square g/18. Six seals belong to this structure and these allow us to suggest that the structure was probably an administrative area that regulated what entered the closed area limited by the buildings analysed above. Given that the dating of the construction of this small structure (indicated as VIII/g18) is not known for sure and it only dates to a period

785 784

The southern towers were probably built to limit the stairs and to emphasise the entrance to the platform. The towers were not identical: the southern ones were deeper than the northern ones. It is also interesting to note that the wall between the two northern towers was not preserved since an an entrance was also located here.

In the previous periods, the entrance was on the western side and there is no other possibility. 786 These weights have a different shape (double nut) than the weights (duck) found in room /g and were probably made of clay rather than of stone, and therefore probably had different functions. The double nut shaped weights are usually related to a textile activity. Cf. S.M. Cecchini 2000.

150

Pucci-Ch. VIII. Functional Analysis at Tell Tayinat

after the construction of the courtyard’s paving, we cannot establish a relationship between VIII/g-18 and the other building of this period for a fact. Table 94:

Description

894

Cylinder seal; frit, compost, once Floor, XVIII glazed. Archer and snake Foot of animal, pottery Floor, XVIII, 1

996

Location

1016 Fragment of cylinder seal

Floor,XVIII-1

2327 Bronze pin

XXIII, 2nd floor

2328 Bronze nail head

XXIII, 2nd floor

2329 Eye bead

XXIII 2nd floor XXIII 2 floor

2978 Bronze 2 pointed object with perforation in the middle where it broadens 2979 Fragment of stone disc with incised decoration 2722 Bronze sphinx, crouched, perforated 697 Basalt bowl, 3-legged

XVIII 2nd floor

709

3u-shaped iron bands with hooks at ends Cylinder seal, yellow frit, compost, once glazed Fragment of large pot, elaborated incised decoration Seal impression on bulla

710

Small painted pot

728

Bronze fibula

729

Sealing with seal impression

731

Fragment of ring

736

770

Seal, black stone, roll seal and stamp seal Cylinder seal, agate, fish goddess with streams. Central group broken Scaraboid, yellow frit, compost once glazed Stamp seal, steatite; hourglass shape. Double stamp Bone handle, incised decoration

771

Glazed Assyrian potsherd

792

Pot stand

707 708

737 738 742

906

Scaraboid, red jasper, birds under a tree 1012 Piece of gold foil 1013 Head of figurine 1014 Head of figurine 1032 Animal figurine, fragment 1152 Bead, large, clay 167

Lamp fragment, pierced, i

364

Weight black basalt large turtle shape Weight black basalt, duck shape

365

366

Weight, pottery, doublenut shape

90 115

Bead, amber(?), cylindrical, w

VIII/v

369 370 371 372 373 663 664

XVIII 2nd floor XXIII, under surf. Floor, T.P., 1 VIII/g18 Floor, T.P., 1 VIII/g18 Floor, T.P., 1 VIII/g18 Floor, T.P. 1 VIII/g18 Floor, T.P. 1 VIII/g18 Floor, T.P. 1 VIII/g18 Floor, T.P.-1 VIII/g18 Floor,T.P.-1 VIII/g18 Floor,T.P.-1 VIII/g18 Floor,T.P.-1 VIII/g18 Floor,T.P.-1 VIII/g18 Floor,T.P.-1 VIII/g18 Floor,T.P.-1 VIII/g18 Floor,T.P.-1 VIII/g18 Floor,T.P.-1 VIII/g18 Floor, T.P. 1 VIII/g18 Floor, T.P. 1 VIII/g18 Floor, T.P.- 2 VIII/g18 Floor, T.P. – 2 VIII/g18 Floor, T.P. – 2 VIII/g18 Floor, T.P., 2 VIII/g18 Floor, T.P., 6 VIII/g18 #14, E,above VIII/v orthostats I-V. (in one VIII/v group) I-V. (in one VIII/v group)

Room VIII/v

368

Room

Location

I-V. (in one group) Weight, pottery, doublenut shape I-V. (in one group) Weight, pottery, doublenut shape I-V. (in one group) Weight, pottery, doublenut shape I-V. (in one group) Weight, pottery, doublenut shape I-V. (in one group) Weight, pottery, doublenut shape I-V. (in one group) Weight, pottery, doublenut shape I-V. (in one group) Weight, pottery, cone shape, I-V. (in one perforated group) 5 loom weights I-V level of high brick pavement Basalt duck weight I-V level of high brick pavement stone fragment, carved # 14

nd

2330 Basalt duck weight

706

Description

367

Objects from the courtyard VIII

T-

T-

# 14 E

VIII/v VIII/v VIII/v VIII/v VIII/v VIII/v VIII/v VIII/v VIII/v VIII/v

VIIIA5.The temple II Outside the area analysed above, the structure II was found directly adjoining the southern wall of building I, (Plate 31). The floors of this structure, in comparison to those of the neighbouring building I, lay 3m deeper than them. Consequently, building II was not part of the area and did not have any connection to building I. The internal space was divided into three rooms, whose openings were all aligned. The first room, II/a, was accessible via three stone paved steps on which a basalt installation was fixed: a small pedestal made with a reused stone bearing a hieroglyph inscription was inserted in the step. A basin on its top suggests that it was probably used to burn things in it, such as a lamp, or to contain liquids, which were poured inside it. 787 On the highest step, a limestone column base flanked by two lions was still in situ and fixed with bitumen. A second base was reconstructed in the missing part of the stairs. According to this reconstruction the opening II/b to the outside was divided by the two coloumns into three passages. This room II/b was paved with sandstone slabs bevelled to insure a tight join at their top. Two small walls separated this room from the second room II/c, which was paved with cobblestones and where a small bench (82x125x63h) was set into the north-western corner. Both the bench and the eastern walls of this room stayed above the paving and had mud plaster and white coat finish, as did all the walls in the structure. Room II/d also had similar features. Centred in the opening to II/d, an unbaked brick stand (95x85x22h) sat partly on the cobbled paving and partly on a central area paved with mud bricks. An altar was found adjoining the western wall. This altar was bordered by reused slabs and filled with mud bricks, and nearby were remains of red and blue plaster. All these elements led archaeologists to one conclusion: the structure was a religious building, where rituals were conducted. Obviously, the size of room II/d

787

However, the absence of a drain makes this hypothes is unlikely.

151

Pucci-Ch. VIII. Functional Analysis at Tell Tayinat

did not permit large numbers of people to attend the public cult, but room II/c at 70 m2 and the external area facing the building were large enough to contain additional people. We can stress that the internal space was the temple, as house of god, while in the external paved area rituals were celebrated. Once the function of the structure was evident, building II’s layout was compared with descriptions of the Solomon temple in Jerusalem. 788 This layout was interpreted as a development of the Late Bronze Age square temple with access in antis, 789 or as an early example of the megaron temple. 790 It is not my intention to analyse the developmental stages of the sacred architecture, but some observations are needed. Between the temple at cAyin Dara and building II at Tayinat, we do not have intermediate stages of the development. Moreover, the layout of building II, which appears here as a well defined plan and complete in its details, does not find any comparison with any structure at the site (as far as it was excavated). It seems that this layout appeared abruptly in the last phase of architecture at the site. However, the schema of a long room 791 with an altar on its short side has similarities with the building KR in the lower town of Tell Halaf and this is probably due to a local tradition, which is evident at Emar and Tell Mumbaqa in the Late Bronze Age. The location of building II in the external area of building I, and on the route leading from gate VII to the north-western area, is probably due to the previous presence of a religious space in this area. In contrast, the tripartite schema (antecella, cella and adyton) might find a forerunner only in the Late Bronze Age North Temple at Emar. It is however probable, as Margueron 792 points out, that this tripartite schema already existed in the division of the space of a long cella by using light frames, which were not preserved. The third element, the porch, is evidently the typical architectural feature of this period and marks the connection of the internal space of the temple with the external area.

788

P. Matthiae 1992, C. Orrieux 1984. Also building IV at Hama was supposed to have connections with this structure. Cf. D. Ussishkin 1966. Th.A. Busink 1970 also emphasises the differences between the two temples. 789 A square layout was used in the small temple at Karkamish, the temple of cAyin Dara, and in the temple at Alalakh (levels 14 and 12), and an in antis access to a long room is visible in the temples of the religious area E at Emar and at Tell Mumbaqa. The Bacal temple at Ugarit had a different layout but a tripartite space. However the term in antis does not seem to be a definite module but only to indicate a type of entrance. Cf. P. Werner 1994: 80-81. 790 R. Naumann 1971, Th. Busink 1970: 561, J.Cl. Margueron 1985: 18, Wright uses the term “megaron temple” referring to structures with porch, large rooms and bent axis schema. 791 The term “long room” is referred to the cella and not to the whole building, according to the German term Langraum. For long buildings (Langbau) with a large cella cf. P. Wright 1985. 792 J. Cl. Margueron 1985

Table 95:

Objects in building II

T-

Description

Location

Room

51

Scarab, blue frit, w

# 18

II/D

100

Loom weight, pottery, spherical, w Loom weight, pottery, spherical, w Loom weight, pottery, cylindrical, pierced, w Bronze object, flower or wire (one w, one i) Stone fragment, bowl rim, I

# 18 C

II/D

# 18 C

II/D

# 18 C

II/D

99 101 76 172

#18 W, under the II/D surface #22 II/A

197

Projectile point, iron, i, (plaster or #22, against outer II/A paint attached to surface) face of wall with column base 171 Box of bronze fragments #22, floor with II/A lions 189 Box of ostrich egg fragments, i #23, lion floor II/B 162

#23 NC. Seal on II/B floor level of column bases.

222

Scaraboid, red jasper, domed +scarab incised, oval face, w, perf. through length, design illegible Box of bronze fragments

332

Shell, worked

in door between # II/B 23+ #19 Floor, II-C II/C

320

Painted wall, blue and black

Floor, II-C

II/C

662

Group of 24 beads of stone, shell, Floor, II-C bone, glass and bronze. Several pieces of ostrich shell Floor, II-E

II/C

668

II/D

1261 Altar, with Hittite glyphs 398

Floor, right side of II/A portico. II-A, 1 Inscription fragment, black basalt II-B II/B

3277 (13) Basalt fragments with glyphs II-B, floor 300 Inscription fragment, black basalt II-C

under

1st II/B II/C

Table 95: shows the objects found in the area of the building II. The symbol “#” identifies the objects which were not located on the floor and they are followed by the locus number. Considering that the building was not visible from the surface and that consequently had a large amount of debris, it is unclear if these objects really belong to building II. Among the finds in situ, the group of beads probably part of a necklace and the shells were probably part of the “deposit” of the temple. The fragments of hieroglyph inscription found spread inside and under the structure with the inscribed slab reused as pedestal imply that before the construction of the temple, at least one inscribed stone monument was destroyed and its fragments reused as building materials. It is interesting to note that the hieroglyphs were clearly visible upside down on the pedestal base. It seems probable that during this period, this writing was no longer in use and consequently ignored.

VIIIA6. Distribution of the functions during the third Building Period In conclusion, the organisation of space (Plates 28, 30 and 31) during this period was articulated into two areas. In the southern part of the mound, building IX had a reception area, and it was probably used as a dwelling structure. The representative elements are related to the use of precious materials, the construction of large spaces and the architectural formal elements. The access to this structure was not preserved as well as the routes leading

152

Pucci-Ch. VIII. Functional Analysis at Tell Tayinat

to the building. In the northern section of the mound was a larger complex built over a longer period and accessible through a gate. The central square was divided into two sectors. A production and reception building occupied the eastern sector and several terraces limited the areas. Representation, administration and reception seemed to be the functions, which were fulfilled in this area. The temple was not part of this complex; rather it was located on the way to the north-western complex.

XI

●

VIII

●

●

●

● ●

●

●

XV

●

X IX

● ●

IV, 1

●

●

●

●

II I, 1

Passage

●

III Ie

● ●

●

●

● ●

●

●

VIIIB. Period II: the reassessment of the mound VIIIB1. Overview During this period, all the structures (Plate 27) were new. None of the buildings listed in the following table was kept in use from the previous period and, the northwestern area was completely reorganised. Probably only the gates were kept in use, in particular gate VII. There were traces of an older building under the excavated remains of the third building period. The layout was probably similar to the excavated one, given that its walls were used as foundations for the later building. The fragment of hieroglyphic inscription and the inscribed fragments of a seated figure found reused in the later floor 793 were probably part of the older entrance and were destroyed and used as building materials after this second period. Gate XI did not show traces of long use, nor are repairs or changes reported. Under this structure was found an older paving which is said to run under the foundations of the gate, and consequently it does not belong to the structure. It may also be linked to a passage or an older gateway.

793

Building Location Elevation of the Remarks main floor VII E 88.78m-90.13m

Size

I, 2+3

NW

97.12m-98.05m

1775

Ie

NW

95.70 ?m

IV, 2

NW

98.10m

V

NW

94.10m

VI

NW

97.40m-97.85m

VIII

NW

94.4m-97.5m

255

External area east of 400 building I 1450 298 Two layers accumulation

of 744 4022

surrounded by structures

●

VII

Structures of the second Building Period

VIIIB2. The north-western area: an open space Storage

Representation (h f h Limit

Production

Religious god's h Religious rite

Defence

Reception

Dwelling

Distribution of the functions during the third Building Period Administrative

Bldg

Table 96:

Table 97:

Both the fragments and the statue were part of the second paving, thus we cannot indicate for certain the period to which they belong. Cf. VIIIA2.Table 87:

In the north-western area (Plate 32), four buildings limited courtyard VIII to the north, the south and the east, while the western side was left empty as far as the area was excavated and the whole area was accessible from gate XII. To the south and to the east, two buildings (I, 2+3 and VI) were open to the courtyard and connected together (Plate 32). The main entrance to building I, 2+3 was room /e. When the building was constructed, the walls limiting this room were covered with wooden panels, the floor was paved with pebbles, its northern limit was open to the courtyard, and three columns supported the lintel (14.70m wide). The bases of the columns were still in situ. This room was destroyed by fire, and then rebuilt. The fire was probably an accident and the remaining rooms did not suffer any damage. As a matter of fact, immediately after the fire, room /e was repaved with stone slabs and the entrance was narrowed. Since their needs seemed to have changed, the builders decided not to reuse the stone bases but to leave them on place and change the entrance. In this rebuilding, two curtain walls narrowed the entrance, which became 4.90m wide, and the lintel was supported by one column 794 . To the western side of room /e, a staircase (I, 2+3/a-d) led to the upper level. The passage had a wooden frame and a wooden sill, but the first four steps were made with mud bricks while the others were of wood. The stairs probably had three or four flights around a central core (I, 2+3/c). As in the later period room /e was probably 795 a passage area, a room where the visitors were distributed into the several facing rooms. The passage from room /e to the surrounding rooms /f and /j were not preserved due to the damages which the later rebuilding of I, 1 had caused. The access to /j was reconstructed according to the later layout of the building. We can reasonably assume that there was an access to I, 2+3 /j from /e because it was the easiest means of reaching the southern area of the building. However, it is not possible to argue whether this access was divided by two pillars or was a single large aperture as was the opening from /e to the courtyard. When the floor in the entrance room was reconstructed,

794

Probably at the same time, the floors in the other rooms were renewed. 795 The accesses were not preserved.

153

Pucci-Ch. VIII. Functional Analysis at Tell Tayinat

two steps were added to the stairs leading from the courtyard to the building, and orthostatic panelling was built on the external face of the northern wall. Haines assumed that this revetment fulfilled the function of containment the rising floor of the entrance room (/e). Considering that the orthostats used for this revetment were polished, we can argue that it also fulfilled a representative function. The general layout of the building shows two large rooms, /j and /k, connected with each other and several smaller rooms accessible from these two rooms with a similar size (approx. 30 m2). The architectural features were similar in all rooms: tamped earth floors, plastered walls, the foundations of the external walls were made of stone. None of the rooms seems to differ from one another from the architectural point of view, with the exception of their size and accessibility. There were two rooms which have a central position and the widest size (/j and /k) while the others had a bordering position and a smaller size (/l-n, /p-q, /f). Another feature which distinguishes the rooms was the floor accumulation: the highest build-up was in room /f and in the eastern part of room /j. This feature suggests that an activity producing ashes was carried out in these areas. As far as room /f is concerned, the presence of a stone mortar on the floor can fit with the large amount of ashes and “deposits” found in it. In room /j in the south-western corner, four baked bricks were set upon the topmost floor and probably used as a fireplace. No other installations were found in these rooms. The size and location of room /g are different from the groups discussed above, this room opened to both /k and to building VI, its walls were plastered with blue colour and it was the connecting room between both structures. In conclusion, the architectural features would suggest that; 1. all rooms were covered, and 2. the larger rooms /j and /k served as passage rooms to the smaller ones, and as central rooms where many people could gather together. Room /f served as a working room and also a passage space to reach through room /g to building VI. The others smaller rooms /l-n and /p-q were closely related to the central spaces and may fulfil such functions as working, dwelling or storage spaces. If we compare these elements with the objects (cf. Table 99: ) found on the floor of these rooms we can argue as follows: Room /e: only a few sherds were found, thus, the room had the function of entrance and passage, but no activities were carried out within this space. Room /f: except the mortar quoted above and a roof roller that had probably collapsed from the roof, only a fragment of tablet was found, probably discarded. Room /g: the largest amount of objects was found in this room. Nine duck weights, a basalt sphinx, the head of a limestone statue, and five decorated pots. The duck weights are of different dimensions and could not have been used as loom weights. 796 They may have been used with a scale, but we do not have any traces of such an instrument. The five decorated pots and a seal also suggest an administrative function. There are two

796

The duck weights are not apt to be tied to a thread and some of them are simply too heavy (T 739 weights 10.5kg)

possible interpretations for the sphinx and the limestone head: they were stored or they were displayed in this room. Given that /g is a passing room to another building, that all other objects were used and not stored inside it, it seems more probable that the statue and the sphinx were displayed here, the missing parts were probably reused as building materials. We do not know the dimension of the head, so that it is not possible to reconstruct its height, but the sphinx was ca. 0.50m long. Considering that this room is the connection between both buildings, the sphinx could be related to the entrance to VI 797 . /k: some elements such as eye inlay or the clay lion’s head suggest that small statues were probably located in this room. It is probable that the scarabs (five pieces) and the box of bronze fragments found here also belonged to the activities pursued in this room, but they do not provide any clear information about its function. Several pot stands might indicate that a living activity was carried out in this space. /h: this room was located to the east of room /j, and was accessible from both /j and /b, the latter which was a room under the stairs. Room /h had a larger size than the smaller rooms to the south, and it was found empty, although this could be due to the poor preservation. Its function was probably linked to the main room /j. Rooms /l, /m and /n had similar architectural features, but different materials were found in them. /l: in this room, probably due to the poor preservation, only a nail with gold head was found. /m: almost all objects are made of bronze. They are all elements, which are supposed to be fixed to objects made of different materials. /n: in this room several bronze objects were found, such as nails or mountings and plaques, together with several gaming pieces. All elements seem to be assemblage elements, and not complete objects. /p: some bronze cups with wooden pieces in them were interpreted as a piece of furniture with bronze elements. The other main elements found in this room were 330 “gaming pieces” found on the floor. This term was used in the reports to identify conical shaped clay objects, very similar to tokens. 798 It is not certain if these objects were used for administration (counting) or really as gaming pieces. Given that the association of similar objects with seals appears also at the Iron Age site of Tell Shekh Hamad, it may be possible that similar objects were mainly related to administrative purposes. /q: in this room several egg-shell cups and a bone box were found. From the Haines’ Architectural Notes 1935 we know that “a great quantity of nails in connection with bone ornament were found in this room, also against the north and west walls several bronze cups about size and shape of cocktail glasses, in one of these decayed wood 797

In Arch. Notes Haines affirms that many pots were found here. “Sphinx and five duck weights were found against the north wall with charred wood around. One duck weight was found in door. Pieces of blue plaster were found in dirt on the south wall, no design could be seen”. 798 The name was employed due to their similiraty to the Egyptian gaming pieces.

154

Pucci-Ch. VIII. Functional Analysis at Tell Tayinat

was found”. /j: Considering the size of the room, relatively few objects were found here: the bronze plaques were probably part of furniture pieces. Several “precious” bowls support the function of a reception room. In conclusion, the objects at our disposal provide us with results similar to those of the architecture: the finds are similar and distributed in all rooms. Only /f was empty and was used as a passing room. The furniture was top class, and the small rooms stored the luxury goods and objects employed for living and possibly administrative activities. Table 98: Room

Rooms in buildings I, 2+3 and VI Size

Accessibility Quality

I, 2+3/a-d 38m2

Visibility Floor

3D

Very High High

mud bricks

I, 2+3/e2 101m 3B

Very High High

clay fill

2 2

I, 2+3/e3 101m 3A

Very High High

pebble

3F

Very High High

tamped earth

I, 2+3/g

2

75m

3

Very High High

tamped earth

I, 2+3/h

56m2

3

Very High High

tamped earth

I, 2+3/f

31m2

2

I, 2+3/j

189m 3C

Very High High

tamped earth

I, 2+3/k

128m2 3F

Very High High

tamped earth

I, 2+3/l

2

3E

Very High High

tamped earth

I, 2+3/m

2

28m

3E

Very High High

tamped earth

I, 2+3/n

29m2

3E

Very High High

tamped earth

I, 2+3/p

2

33m

3F

Very High High

tamped earth

I, 2+3/q

34m2

3F

Very High High

Tamped earth

VI/a

23m2

3G

High

High

Earth

VI/b

2

3F

High

High

Earth

VI/c

2

47m

3F

High

High

Earth

VI/d

88m2

3F

High

High

Earth

VI/e

2

3F

High

High

Earth

2

3F

High

High

Earth

VI/f

29m

22m

75m 19m

799

superstructures. There is no mention in the reports of a gap in the wall, which could have proven that a wall was a later addition in this eastern part. Considering that the eastern external walls of this section were not as thick as the internal ones, and that thickness of a wall and elevation of a surperstructure are not directly connected, 800 we can also exclude the possibility that this section had a higher superstructure than the western section. Consequently, it seems that the rooms VI/a-c had to be separated from the western rooms and built as a unit. The western limit was not preserved due to the building activity of the later phase, which probably destroyed the older wall. Haines reconstructed an entrance from courtyard VIII and an entering/passage room. It seems probable that this building opened to the outside, otherwise it was accessible only by a long route through building I. The layout is similar, though on a smaller scale to the layout of building I. Two long rooms (VI/e and /d) with a similar expanse were connected on the long axis. The floors were made of tamped earth as in building I and the objects were also similar to those found in I, 2+3, particularly, 11 seals and scarabs from among the 47 objects found. Considering that the rooms were filled with mud bricks, we cannot use these objects to argue the function of the building because they could be part of fill materials thrown inside the rooms from elsewhere. Several fragments of a hieroglyph inscription were reused in the filling between buildings I, 1 and II. This inscription 801 was carved on orthostats limiting a square installation a base for a stele or monument. Hawkins suggests that it is a royal inscription celebrating construction activities. It seems probable that this base was located to the south east of building I, where structure II was later constructed. We may stress that a royal statue stood on the inscribed base just outside the entrance to the complex. Table 99:

Building VI (Plate 32) was not identified during the excavation because it was completely filled with mud bricks and the distinction between the mud bricks of the walls and those of the filling was not clear. For this reason, the accesses are not always clear, even if it seems that the superstructures were all preserved. The architecture shows an interesting feature: the internal walls limiting the eastern sector of the structure are thicker (3.4m) than the other internal walls (2m). The external walls to the north are 4m thick and those to the east are 2.3m. By comparing the thickness of the walls with building I, 2+3, we can see that the external walls were usually thicker than the internal ones, and the layout in building VI had some unusual features. We may argue that the greater thickness of the walls in the eastern sector may suggest that either a wall have been added later, or that this part had a particular function or supported higher

799

The accessibility of building VI is based on Haines` reconstruction.

Bldg

T-

Description

I, 2+3

748

Painted potsherd

I, 2+3

747

I, 2+3

767

I, 2+3

776

I, 2+3

806

I, 2+3

775

I, 2+3

784

I, 2+3

791

I, 2+3

797

800 801

155

Objects in building I and VI Location Room

Floor, I- I, 2+3/e E, 2 Glazed Assyrian potsherd Floor, I- I, 2+3/e E, 2 Cylinder seal, bead, white Floor, I- I, 2+3/e frit. Probably originally E, 2 glazed. Birds above filled border Fragment of inscribed Floor, I- I, 2+3/f tablet F, 2 Duck weight, basalt Floor, I- I, 2+3/g G, 2nd Duck weight Floor, I- I, 2+3/g G, 2nd Bone stamp seal, pendant, Floor, I- I, 2+3/g hammer handle, ovoid G, 2nd base, winged lion or bull, broken Pot stand Floor, I- I, 2+3/g G, 2 Pot Floor, I- I, 2+3/g G, 2

H. Heinrich and U. Seidl 1968. D. Hawkins 2000: inscription Tell Tayinat 2, Plate 193.

Pucci-Ch. VIII. Functional Analysis at Tell Tayinat Bldg

T-

Description

Location Room

Bldg

T-

Description

I, 2+3

801

Duck weight, basalt

Floor, IG, 2nd , found in door Floor, IG, 2nd Floor, IG, 2nd Floor, IG, 2nd Floor, IG, 2nd Floor, IG, 2 Floor, IG, 2nd Floor, IG, 2 Floor, IG, 2 I-G, below floor of 2 Floor, IG, 2 Floor, IG, 2 Floor, IG, 2 Floor, IG, 2 Floor, IG, 2 Floor, IG, 2 Floor, IG, 2 Floor, IG, 2 I-G, 2nd floor Floor, IG, 2

I, 2+3

760

Bronze bell

I, 2+3

759

I, 2+3

701

I, 2+3

830

I, 2+3

786

I, 2+3

998

I, 2+3

97

I, 2+3/g

I, 2+3

718

I, 2+3/g

I, 2+3

102

Floor, I-J, I, 2+3/j 2 Bronze boss, perforated Floor, I-J, I, 2+3/j edge 2 Sherds of large pot, Floor, I-J, I, 2+3/j elaborate incised 2 decoration Head of lion, black pottery Floor, I- I, 2+3/k K, 2 Scaraboid, red jasper, Floor, I- I, 2+3/k geometric impression K, 2 Stone eye inlay I, K-3 I, 2+3/k west end Silver fragments, wire or # 12, I, 2+3/k fitting, i besides stones Bone containing two Floor, I- I, 2+3/k bronze needles K, 2 Box of bronze fragments, i # 12 SE I, 2+3/k

I, 2+3

799

3 faience beads

I, 2+3

762

Clay gaming piece

I, 2+3

980

4 beads

I, 2+3

743

I, 2+3

1051

I, 2+3

778

Rectangular bone plaque, undecorated Glazed steatite scarab, set in bronze guard, or basket, with loop top 2 bone disks, inlay?

I, 2+3

777

I, 2+3

765

I, 2+3

800

I, 2+3

744

I, 2+3

764

I, 2+3

763

Clay amulet in shape of human leg Two beads

I, 2+3

802

Duck weight, basalt

I, 2+3

803

Duck weight, basalt

I, 2+3

804

Duck weight, basalt

I, 2+3

805

Duck weight, basalt

I, 2+3

787

Stone pendant

I, 2+3

807

Duck weight, basalt

I, 2+3

808

Sphinx

I, 2+3

1064

Red bowl with Aramaic inscription Bronze object

I, 2+3/g

I, 2+3/g I, 2+3/g I, 2+3/g I, 2+3/g I, 2+3/g I, 2+3/g

I, 2+3

994

I, 2+3

815

I, 2+3

816

Spindle whorl, decorated Gold pendant

I, 2+3

818

Several scarabs, blue frit

I, 2+3

819

Rattle

I, 2+3

832

I, 2+3

933

Head of statue, bearded man, limestone Sherd from painted bowl

I, 2+3

836

Head of figurine

I, 2+3

837

Bone blade

I, 2+3

1264

I, 2+3

700

I, 2+3

739

Grain(?), debris from within a pot Sherds of large pot elaborate incised decoration Duck weight I-G-2nd

I, 2+3/g

I, 2+3

724

Bronze ferrule

I, 2+3/g

I, 2+3

965

Nail, gold head

I, 2+3

704

Faience scarab, blue

I, 2+3/g

I, 2+3

1034

Scarabs, blue frit

I, 2+3

722

6 clay gaming pieces

I, 2+3

745

3 gaming pieces

I, 2+3

712

Arrowhead

I, 2+3

975

Bronze plaque with holes

I, 2+3

838

Bronze plaque with relief

I, 2+3

974

Fragment of bronze handle

I, 2+3

973

I, 2+3

1033

Bronze disk, scalloped edge, hole in centre Bronze boss, perforated edge

I, 2+3

1031

Stone eye inlay

I, 2+3

971

I, 2+3

972

I, 2+3

932

Tongue-shaped bronze object Bronze object, with two hooks Small painted pot

I, 2+3

1019

Glass bead, fragment

I, 2+3

741

I, 2+3

711

I, 2+3

661

I, 2+3

660

I, 2+3

976

I, 2+3

41

I, 2+3

761

stone,

Bone plaque, horse jumping one hill Fragment of clay boat, painted Sherd of blue faience bowl, incised decoration Sherd of blue faience bowl, incised decoration Gold earring or pendant Metal object, bronze, door fixture, triangular Several clay gaming pieces (50)

Floor, IG, 2 Floor, IG, 2 Floor, I-J, 2 Floor, I-J, 2 Floor, door I-J, 2 to I-K, 2 Floor, I-J, 2 Floor, I-J, 2 Floor, I-J. 2 Floor, IJ.2 Floor, I-J, 2 #7 SW, level of baked bricks Floor, I-J, 2

I, 2+3/g I, 2+3/g I, 2+3/g I, 2+3/g I, 2+3/g I, 2+3/g I, 2+3/g I, 2+3/g I, 2+3/g I, 2+3/g I, 2+3/g

Glass bead, folded, opaque, short regular, mottled grey and white 5 scarabs blue frit + 2, March 29 Bronze plaques, mountings? Head of figurine

I, 2+3/j I, 2+3/j I, 2+3/j

I, 2+3/j I, 2+3/j I, 2+3/j I, 2+3/j I, 2+3/j I, 2+3/j

I, 2+3/j

156

Location Room

Floor, IK, 2 Floor, IK, 2 Floor, IK, 2 Floor, IK, 2 I-K below floor of 2 Floor, IK, 2 Floor, IK, 2

I, 2+3/k

Floor, IK, 2 Floor, IK, 2 Floor, IK, 2 Floor, IK, 2 Floor, IK, 2 Floor, IL, 2 I-M, below floor of 2 Floor, IM, 2 Floor, IM, 2 Floor, IM, 2 Floor, IM, 2 I-M, below floor of 2 I, M below 2nd floor Floor, IM, 2 Floor, IM, 2 Floor, IN, 2 I-N below floor of 2

I, 2+3/k

I, 2+3/k I, 2+3/k I, 2+3/k I, 2+3/k I, 2+3/k I, 2+3/k

I, 2+3/k I, 2+3/k I, 2+3/k I, 2+3/k I, 2+3/l I, 2+3/m I, 2+3/m I, 2+3/m I, 2+3/m I, 2+3/m I, 2+3/m I, 2+3/m I, 2+3/m I, 2+3/m I, 2+3/n I, 2+3/n

Pucci-Ch. VIII. Functional Analysis at Tell Tayinat Bldg

T-

Description

Location Room

Bldg

T-

Description

I, 2+3

705

4 small bronze nails

I, 2+3/n

I, 2+3

780

4 beads

I, 2+3

992

3 bronze perforated

I, 2+3/n

I, 2+3

843

I, 2+3

1226

I, 2+3

1020

Eye

I, 2+3

702

I, 2+3

3270

I, 2+3

1018

Bronze mountings loop handle Bone blade

I, 2+3

1017

10 scarabs, blue frit

VI

2496

VI

2495

I, 2+3

997

Gaming pieces

Floor, IN, 2 I-N, below floor of 2 I-N below floor of 2 Floor, IN, 2 I-N below floor of 2 I-N below floor of 2 I-N below floor of 2 I-N, below floor of 2 I-N, below floor of 2 Floor, IP, 2 Floor, IP, 2 Floor, IP, 2

VI

2494

VI

2493

VI

2492

VI

2490

VI

2999

VI

2489

VI

2486

VI

2491

VI

2578

VI

2579

VI

2485

VI

2723

VI

2465

VI

3162

VI

2371

VI

2396

VI

2412

VI

2597

VI

2584

VI

2670

mountings,

with

I, 2+3

995

Bronze plaque, hole in the centre

I, 2+3

993

Bronze edge

boss,

perforated

I, 2+3

751

Bronze cup, very broken

I, 2+3

726

Bronze boss with tabs

I, 2+3

713

Gaming pieces of clay, cylindrical, triangular, and star shaped. 330 pieces Wing bone with gold and lapis lazuli Bone plaque, incised design Small bronze bowl or cup, perforated edge Stone eye inlay

I, 2+3

757

I, 2+3

756

I, 2+3

752

I, 2+3

1002

I, 2+3

984

I, 2+3

985

I, 2+3

986

I, 2+3

987

I, 2+3

983

I, 2+3

842

I, 2+3

1224

I, 2+3

779

I, 2+3

1227

I, 2+3

1225

I, 2+3

782

I, 2+3/n I, 2+3/n I, 2+3/n I, 2+3/n I, 2+3/n I, 2+3/n I, 2+3/n I, 2+3/p I, 2+3/p I, 2+3/p

Floor, I- I, 2+3/p P, 2 Floor, I- I, 2+3/p P, 2 Floor, I- I, 2+3/p P, 2 I p-3 I, 2+3/p

Bronze boss, perforated Floor, Iedge P, 3 Bronze boss with tab Floor, IP,3 Scaraboid seal, serpentine, I-P, men with animals (potnia below theron), bird floor of 2 Eye, bluestone as pupil I-P, below floor of 2 Gold foil Floor, IP, 3 Broken bronze ring Floor, IP, 2 Wares of C.H III period, Floor, supposedly all late. From I,Q, 2 fragmentary flared rim jars of “eggshell” ware, with round bottoms. Bronze cup or casing found Floor, Iwith wood Q, 2 Wares of C.H III period, Floor, supposedly all late. From I,Q, 2 fragmentary flared rim jars of “eggshell” ware, with round bottoms. Wares of C.H III period, Floor, supposedly all late. From I,Q, 2 fragmentary flared rim jars of “eggshell” ware, with round bottoms. Fragments of bone objects, Floor, Iplaque or box incised, Q, 2 decoration of rosette and circles

I, 2+3/p I, 2+3/p I, 2+3/p I, 2+3/p I, 2+3/p I, 2+3/p I, 2+3/q

I, 2+3/q I, 2+3/q

I, 2+3/q

I, 2+3/q

157

Location Room

Floor, I- I, 2+3/q Q, 2 Fragment of bronze cup Floor, I- I, 2+3/q Q, 2 Wares of C.H III period, Floor, I, 2+3/q supposedly all late. From I,Q, 2 fragmentary flared rim jars of “eggshell” ware, with round bottoms. Lion boss A S. I, 2+3 room of south Hilani I, rev. 3rd floor Frit scarab, animal XXV 2 impression floor Beads, 2 XXV 2 floor Bronze needle, eye is XXV 2 formed by head being bent floor over and tucked into a cobra-like hood Bronze pin, rolled head XXV 2 floor Steatite scaraboids, not XXV 2 inscribed, grey green floor Pottery figurine, horses XXV 2 head with trappings, frag. floor (appliqués) Bowl, red slipped inside XXV 2 and over edge floor Bronze crescent with one XXV 2 perforation floor Stone censer, frag., lotus XXV 2 floor Clay sealing with XXV 2 impression floor Beads XXV 2 floor Frit scarab, animal XXV 2 impression floor Stone box, fragment XXV 2 floor Sherd with stamp XXV 2 impression floor Buff ware, bird shaped XXV 2 rattle with base, feathers floor indicated by incisions, head missing. Double angle bowl XXV 2 floor Dark green stamp seal, XXV-2 square base, stud, steatite, animal Steatite stamp seal, dark XXV-2 green, stud base, quadrilateral, archer Frit stamp seal, with XXV-2 circular base, rounded head decorated with three rings at the bottom, horned animal Steatite stamp seal, dark XXV-2 green, conoid oval base, figure in belted robe, left arm raised, both hands hold a globe Basalt fragment, with W trench pictographs over taboucs, XXV below surface Painted rim potsherd XXV 2 floor (plastered

Pucci-Ch. VIII. Functional Analysis at Tell Tayinat Bldg

T-

Description

VI

2444

VI

1075

VI

2421

VI

2422

Bronze plate armour section Scaraboid, green feldspar, domed back, oval base, perf. Length ways. Nicely cut: winged figure (Karkamish) Faience fragment, white with black and green painted lines on one side Stone duck weight, small

VI

2423

Stone head

VI

2424

VI

2440

VI

2441

Clay sealing with impression Basalt duck weight, fragment. Stone censer fragment

VI

2467

Quartz bead cylindrical

VI

2443

Pottery figurine, ball like 2 mass of buff ware with pinches to indicate nose and eye sockets Bone ring, polished XXV 2 floor Bronze ring XXV 2 floor Eye beads XXV 2 floor Carnelian bead XXV 2 floor Miniature pot, crude XXV 2 floor Pottery compartment box XXV 2 floor Scaraboids, dark brown, XXV 2 winged sun and crescent (?) floor Potsherd with filled XXV 2 triangle floor Glazed steatite scarab, XXV 2 geometric impression floor Potsherd painted XXV 2 floor Potsherd painted XXV 2 floor Steatite, double faced (?) XXV 2 stamp seal, bulla, two floor figures facing under a winged sun/disc, with swords in one and hand in hand in second impr. (may Hittite for the long hats, or Egyptian for the hands) Stone object, cylindrical XXV-A, VI/a 2 floor Stone stamp seal, hawk or XXV-A, VI/a eagle handle, inverted lions 2 floor in unilinear border Bone spindle whorl, incised Floor, I- VI/e decoration U. 2

remains of floors in IV, 2/c and /g were still in situ, but in the other rooms there were no traces of floors and, therefore, no objects can be related to the building. The rooms IV, 2/a and /b due to their shape and location were probably part of a staircase leading to the roof or to a second storey. Room IV, 2/e may be the “reception” room. Considering its size and the absence of preserved internal supports we may argue that, if it was covered 802 , a large quantity of wood should have collapsed on the floor. The elevation of the floor of the above building IV, 1 was 0.60 m higher than the elevation of the remains of building IV, 2 and there is no mention of charred wood in the debris. We may argue that the superstructures were destroyed and the materials, which could have been reused, were taken to build IV, 1. Archaeologists found fragments of a statue and a lion jamb reused in the foundations of IV, 1. These elements could have been part of building IV, 2 and confirms a intentionally destruction and reuse of building materials. Moreover, building IV, 2 did not bear traces of fire as the southern structures (I, 2+3 and VI), so it is probable that the wooden elements were still usable.

Location Room bldg)

VI

2484

VI

2445

VI

2457

VI

2458

VI

2459

VI

2466

VI

2468

VI

2469

VI

2470

VI

2481

VI

2482

VI

2442

VI

2432

VI

2431

VI

658

XXV floor XV-I

2

XXV 2nd floor XXV floor XXV floor XXV floor XXV floor XXV floor XXV floor XXV floor

2, 2, 2, 2 2 2

Table 100:

Rooms in building IV, 2

Room

Size

Accessibility

IV,2/a

21

3

IV,2/b

15

3

IV,2/c

130

3

IV,2/d

11

3

IV,2/e

303

3

IV,2/f

25

3

IV,2/g

27

3

IV,2/h

30

3

IV,2/j

28

3

IV,2/k

23

3

IV,2/l

25

3

IV,2/m

24

3

IV,2/n

19

3

Two rows of smaller rooms occupied the northern section of the building. These rooms had similar size and somewhat irregular shapes. Only room IV, 2/g differed from the others due to the mud brick rectangular installation 803 in the middle of the room under which a drain flew: this feature suggests the use of water inside this room. No other functions are arguable for these spaces. To the south-western edge of courtyard VIII, on the slope of the mound and consequently on a lower level 804

Building IV, 2 limited courtyard VIII to the north (Plate 32). Its entrance IV,2/c reflected the layout of the entrance opposite, building I, 1+3. Room IV/c had a southern opening to courtyard VIII as large as that of building I, 2+3/e (14m), and both were accessible via stone stairs and have similar size (125m2). Only the foundations of building IV were preserved, so that the accesses between the rooms are not available. Few

802

There are no elements to argue the absence of the roof. The floor was not preserved, there was no drainage system in the room or protection for the lower part of the wall, and the large roof span of 9m could be easily covered. 803 It seems more probable that these remnants belonged to an installation rather than to a floor due to the fact that they were not aligned to the walls of the room. 804 The floors were approx. 4 m lower than the floor in I, 2+3 and 3 metres lower than the paving of the courtyard in front of I

158

Pucci-Ch. VIII. Functional Analysis at Tell Tayinat

building V was constructed. The preservation of this structure was very poor; only the external limiting stones of the wall, some slabs of the floor, and remains of earth floors to the south were preserved. Thus, the layout was not completely preserved. Haines reconstructed a rectangular wing of a gate with four rooms in it. The western wing was not preserved and should have been built on the top of the older structure XII. The building technique of alternating header and stretcher facing stones in the same course (basalt and sandstone slabs) appears to be employed only for the construction of this building. Several rows alternating stones created a stone socle for the structure: two rows were found in situ and other stones were collapsed in the area in front of it. The preserved wide opening (12.40m) was paved with stones and could also be interpreted as an entrance room similar to IV, 2/c or I, 2+3/e. The western limit of the structure was completely destroyed and it is not possible to reconstruct the southern extent of V/a. However, assuming that Haines’ reconstruction is plausible, the layout of the structure was completely different from the other gateways in the town and it is very similar to the layout of the Hittite gates: two massive wings with rooms limiting a corridor interrupted by small protruding jambs. Moreover, a basalt obelisk was found inside V/a along with other dressed stones; this installation was not found in place, its base is missing, and its connections to the building were not clear 805 . This building exhibits three features, which seem to be completely alien to the other structures: 1. the technique of headers and stretchers in the same course limiting a socle protruding from the floor. 2. the presence of an obelisk, and 3. the layout of the building is similar to a Hittite gate. The third point is doubtful as the reconstruction depends on a limited number of elements. However, the structure has formal architectural elements such as the stone socle that suggest a representative function. One basalt slab (nr 45) among the stones limiting the entrance to the structure from the courtyard bears a hole on its upper surface. This could have been a reused stone or it could have hosted a support for the roof span, or, as Haines hypothesised, could have hosted the obelisk (3.77m high). Obelisks belonged to the Egyptian and Assyrian cultures 806 and we do not have traces of obelisks used in Syria or in the Hittite culture. The stone architecture was typical in the older neighbouring site of Alalakh and in the Hittite centres of Karkamish, Zincirli and Malatya, but not the technique of alternating vertical and horizontal elements. In conclusion, we cannot argue if this structure was really a gateway to the acropolis or if it was a building with a large access and smaller rooms. We know from the rising paving found in front of it that it was linked to the courtyard. Courtyard VIII during this period was a large area,

entirely paved with pebbles, limited and probably closed to the east 807 and accessible from the southern side. A street paved with large slabs ran from the centre towards building I, 2+3 and VI 808 . Consequently, the courtyard had a function of circulation, but also displayed the route which an entrant would have had to follow. The paving of the courtyard and also the street were consistently sloping to the west.

805

807

The obelisk was found at the beginning of the excavations in this area, when the surrounding structures were not yet excavated. Cf. R. Haines 1971: 55. 806 Several obelisks were found in Mesopotamia and also in Palestine. O. Aurenche 1977: “obélisque”, J. Börker-Klähn 1982: numbers 131, 132, 138-145, 152.

VIIIB3.Distribution of the functions in the second Building Period The building activity during this period (Plates 27 and 32) was concentrated in the north-western area. In this area, none of the previous buildings were preserved and the area was completely rearranged. The central courtyard VIII was enclosed on all sides and was a representative area. The columned façades of the opposing buildings I, 2+3 and IV, 2 limited an open area in which a route was clearly marked. A statue probably stood just in front of I, 2+3 and fulfilled a representative function. The area to the south of this closed sector was probably used as an open place for rituals. Inside the closed area administrative and reception functions were fulfilled in building I, 2+3, which was connected to a second unit (building VI). This latter structure probably fulfilled dwelling functions. Working and production activities were possibly carried in IV,2. Thus, this area was organised as the central administrative sector of the mound. Inside it, the kingship was celebrated and goods were produced or stored in these structures. The organisation of the surrounding area remains unclear.

XI

●

VIII ●

●

●

●

●

●

●

V IV, 2

● ●

●

III

●

Ie I, 2+3

Passage ●

●

VII VI

Representation (house of the king)

Production

Religious (rite)

Religious house

Defence

Reception

Dwelling

god's

Function in the second Building Period Administrative

Building

Table 101:

● ●

●

● ●

●

Between buildings IV, 2 and VI there is a gap; this area was not excavated so we do not know whether a construction really closed the area or it was left empty. However, the slope of the mound at this point would hinder the access from this side. 808 Some slabs found to the east of the turn suggest a fork in the street to the east and to the south.

159

Pucci-Ch. VIII. Functional Analysis at Tell Tayinat

VIIIC. Period I: the earliest layout of the “Syro-Hittite” town of Tell Tayinat Very few structures (Plate 26) related to the first building period were brought to light. Only in the north-western section were some soundings dug under the upper structures, but these upper structures were not removed. Therefore, it is difficult to argue the general organisation of the spaces according to their functions.

VIIIC1.

The buildings of the first period

Three structures (Plate 33) belonged to the first building period and were located on the north-western area. Two structures are surely older than the buildings analysed above as they were found under them, while building XII bears some problem of analysis. Table 102:

The buildings of the first period

Bldg Loc. Elevation Remarks of the main floor

Size

XII NW 89.75m90.05m

Possibly part of XIV 38m2

XIII NW 97.05m

The superstructures 1214m2 are not preserved

XIV NW 95.00m ?

Poorly preserved and 4600m2 not completely excavated

VIIIC2.

The north-western area during the first Building Period: few excavated structures

Building XII was almost not excavated (Plate 33); its opening was found while archaeologists dug a trench to search for the western wing of V. As the top soil on this side was strongly eroded, the western wing of V was destroyed and the under lying structures were brought to light. The floor of building XII was six meters lower than the preserved step leading to building XIII, which was 85m away to the north. Building XII consists of a stone paving and two jambs, i.e. an entrance. Therefore, it was interpreted as a gate to the acropolis. As a matter of fact, the slab paving and the dressed basalt jambs with dowel holes find similarities with gate III to the south. Its layout is incomplete so we can only assume that the remnants of this structure represent a gateway. Assuming that the structure was a gateway, we should reconstruct a closed area for the north-western area in this first period. Building XIV really closes this area to the east and in part to the south, and probably it joined gate XII on its western edge and thus closed off the acropolis to the south. According to this reconstruction we might also hypothesise that gate XII was structural part of building XIV, rather than an independent building (see reconstruction on Plate 33). Building XIV (Plate 33) was a huge structure that could only be partially excavated. It underlay the later buildings I, 2+3 and VI, which were located in the eastern and southern areas and limited the later courtyard VIII. The later structures were not removed and XIV was excavated only by digging under the floor level of these later

buildings. Consequently, we do not have a coherent layout, but only the eastern and southern outer walls. We can see that building XIV was divided into two structures: a northern one where three rooms are visible and a southern one. The overlying eastern and southern external walls of buildings I and VI followed the course of the eastern and southern walls of XIV, i.e. they followed the limits of the mound. Building XIV was a large structure that probably surrounded a courtyard or had an L-shaped layout, whose paving was not excavated. 809 To the north, a better-excavated structure limited the area: building XIII, which contained ten rooms. Also here only the foundations are preserved so that the accesses between these rooms are not known for certain. The layout is comprised of an entering room (XIII/a) accessible through several stone steps into a large room (XIII/d) and beyond that a large main central room (XIII/f). The step was at elevation 96.20m and the floor, which belonged to the building, was found only in room XIII/e; the superstructures here were preserved and the floor laid at elevation 97.05m. This area was under the later building IV, 2 whose floors were at elevation 98m and therefore the earlier structure was preserved. The layout reproduces a “Bit Hilani” with one tower flanking the entrance and two large parallel rooms. Analysing the size of the additional rooms and their accessibility only from room /f, we can argue that the smaller rooms to the north (XIII/g, /h, /j) were “service” rooms related to the main “reception” room. It should be noted that this building was probably the highest in this area, as its floor was two meters higher than the floor in XIV. 810 The mud brick foundations were six meters deep to the east and cut several older paving and all objects found in this area are related to these paving and not to the building. Table 103:

809

Rooms in building XIII Room

Size

XIII/a

37

XIII/b

13

XIII/c

11

XIII/d

54

XIII/e

9

XIII/f

156

XIII/g

22

XIII/h

26

XIII/j

27

XIII/k

7

The walls of XIV run under the pebble floor of VIII. Consequently, the courtyard was smaller than the later one and had a different paving. 810 This element might also be analysed as a clue in maintaining that the two buildings did not belong to the same Building Period. See previous chapter.

160

Pucci-Ch. VIII. Functional Analysis at Tell Tayinat

VIIIC3.

Functions of the structures during the first Building Period

During the first period of construction (Plates 26 and 33), the north-western area was likely choosen due to its higher elevation. We can argue that from the beginning, the area was isolated from the outside and a gate regulated its access. A representative/reception building (XIII) directly in front of the entrance was located on a higher level and dominated the landscape. Stone steps led to the entrance and then through a passing room and into the main central hall. On a lower level, another large building surrounded the courtyard to the east and to the south. It was built all along the edge of the mound but its functions and its connections to the other structure XIII are unclear.

VIIID. Historical development of the town of Tell Tayinat (Khunalua?) The identification of the Tell Tayinat with Khunalua, the capital of the land Unqi, is based on the equivalence of the name Halparuntiya quoted in the inscribed statue found reused in the later floor near gateway VII with the name Qalparunda quoted in the Assyrian Annals. Qalparunda was said to be the ruler of the town Khunalua, capital of the land Unqi, and the geographical location of the town would fit with the location of Tell Tayinat. However, as this identification is not universally accepted 811 but is until now the most probable solution, it is important to consider this point and to analyse the Assyrian sources with special care.

VIIID1.

The birth of the town and the independent period

It is not known when the Iron Age town at Tayinat was founded. Several scholars connect this event with the collapse of the neighbouring town of Alalakh. This thesis maintains that the new foundation of the site was the result of a movement from the nearby Late Bronze Age town of Alalakh 812 . According to this thesis, the lower town, which extended between the mounds of Tayinat and Alalakh, probably remained where it was and only the “directive and administrative centre” moved. Moreover, if Tell Tayinat was the town of Khunalua, it was quoted in the Assyrian Annals as an “al-sharruti” 813 a royal town and an administrative centre and not simply a fortification (“al-dannuti”), which confirms that a lower town existed. The lower town seems to be located in the eastern part of the mound inside the town wall. We cannot, however, exclude the possibility that the lower town of Alalakh was continuously inhabited and administrated by the

811

Cf. W. Orthmann 1971: n21, D. Hawkins 1982: 389, D. Hawkins 1976-80. 812 Both mounds are very close and the mound of Tayinat probably adjoined the limits of the lower town of Alalakh. Cf. S. Mazzoni 1994. A similar phenomenon is visible at the sites of Domuztepe and Karatepe. Cf. H. Çambel 1948: 162 footnote 1. 813 Cf. Y. Ikeda 1979: Table II.

rulers of Tayinat, but the archaeological proofs are missing. The historical sources quote the name of Khunalua for the first time during the reign of the Assyrian king Assurnasirpal II (883-859 BC), wherein, he says that during his campaigns to the west, king Labarna was ruling Khunalua in 878-866 BC. The remains of the buildings constructed during the first period do not bear information which refers to a king, a historical period, or to the presence/absence of the Assyrian influence. Moreover, under these structures were remains of Middle Bronze Age material so that we may maintain that the town was re-founded at the beginning of the Iron Age. According to the other hypothesis that the two buildings (XIV and XIII), which are here ascribed to the same Building Period, were not used at the same time, we might assume that possibly a continuity of occupation from the Late Bronze Age occurred. This hypothesis could be proved only by analysing the materials found in the construction of the buildings itselves. It is possible to fix the end of the first building period with that point in time when both buildings XIII and XIV were abandoned and new ones were built. The focus of the building activity remained in the same area but the arrangement of the structures was changed. There are no traces of destruction in the earlier buildings thus we cannot suppose an invasion or a war, but we can maintain that this change occurred at the same time as Assurnasirpal II made his campaign against the west. This event might have caused the destruction of the ruling centre, but no Assyrian governors were left to rule the town as it was impossible to maintain control in such a distant province. However as the Khunalua dynasty is recorded in the Assyrian Annals, it is possible to find a direct Assyrian influence in the political life of the town. Salmanassar III (858-824 BC) drove out the usurper Surri from Khunalua and allowed the ruler Sasi to come to the throne. Therefore, we may argue that the relationship between Assyrian and local dynasty following the campaign of Assurnasirpal II was peaceful. In conclusion the first building period ended after the incursion of the Assyrian king, i.e. the half of the 9th century.

VIIID2.

The Second Period: the Assyrian

impact All structures of the second building period were destroyed by fire, the inscriptions were damaged, and their fragments were reused in a later building period. It seems that the whole north-eastern area was heavily damaged and left abandoned. This event would coincide with one particular reference in the Assyrian Annals; in 738 BC, Khunalua revolted against the Assyrians, but Tiglat Pileser III 814 seized the town, deported the ruler Tutammu and his courtiers to Assyria, and distributed people and animals as booty. Thus, fire destroyed the acropolis and the goods of the palace were brought to

814

161

D. Luckenbill 1926: item 769

Pucci-Ch. VIII. Functional Analysis at Tell Tayinat

Assyria. After this destruction, the acropolis was abandoned for a while and probably the inhabitants reused some of the structures and repaired them. In conclusion, this second building period shows a local development of the architecture and a period of wealth and relative independence from the Assyrians. However, they carried things too far and, in an attempt to free themselves from Assyrian control, they caused the direct intervention of the Assyrians: the destruction of the acropolis and the presence of an Assyrian governor in the town.

VIIID3.

The Third Period under the

Assyrians Tiglat Pileser III (744-727 BC) claims to have rebuilt the town or the palace and to have set his official as governor at Khunalua. It is probable that the rebuilding activity of this period is related to the new condition of the town as part of an Assyrian province. It seems more probable that the “palace”, referred to by Tiglat Pileser, was building IX. In fact, building IX is linked with the Assyrian architectural tradition because several rooms are grouped around internal courtyards connected with each other. This structure was built ex novo and its layout shows the need for a spatial organisation different from the previous ones 815 . If we consider the location of the site and its distance from the Assyrian capital cities, it seems very improbable that the Assyrians could strictly control this province. Therefore, locals probably continued to stay in the area and local traditions were kept in use, and a local governor ruled the town. This condition as an “independent Assyrian province” lasted for at least one hundred years according to the Assyrian Annals; the province Kullani was in existence in 684 BC, and under the reign of Assurbanipal (668-631 BC) 816 when it was ruled by a eunuch governor. We do not know when the site was abandoned or if it was continuously inhabited after the fall of Nineveh (612 BC), but as far as it was excavated, there were no traces of a later reuse of the structures for private houses (as happened at Tell Halaf).

815

It is important to emphasise that we do not have any proof to include building IX in this period except that an inscribed fragment was used in this structure as building material, just as in the construction of buildings I, 1 and II. 816 D. Luckenbill 1926: item 1196.

162

Pucci –Ch. IX. General Analysis

Ch. IX. General Analysis In this chapter the results concerning the spatial organisation of the three mounds will be discussed. Firstly, a brief overview concerning the planimetric forms or modules employed will be outlined without any reference to their function. This is done to relate the architecture of these centres to the history of architecture of the Near East (IXA). There then follows (IXB) a comparative study on each function without considering the chronological sequence (Synchronic Analysis). In that section we will investigate the distribution of the functions in the buildings on the mounds, as far as the sites were excavated, and the topographical criteria of spatial organisation at the sites (IXC). Similarities with other Syro-Hittite centres and differences to other contemporary towns in the Near East will be discussed according to each function. Secondly, we will try to focus on trends common to the Syro-Hittite centres in the architectural organisation over time (Diachronic Analysis) (IXD) and in the existence of building types. We will then (IXE) outline the meaning of this specific spatial organisation, focusing on the specific features of Syro-Hittite culture.

IXA. The basic modules employed in the planimetry. Here the term module is used to denote the basic volumetric unit which was employed in constructing the buildings: a unit which could recur several times inside the same building and which was probably used mainly in the process of construction, without any reference to the type of building. The smallest module inside the acropolis of the towns was a row of rectangular rooms, one next to the other, similar both in size and orientation. We find this module in Zincirli in the structures F and L and nowhere in the acropolis of the other towns. This is obviously a commonly used module in all kinds of architecture in the Near East in the second and third millennium. A second module much in evidence, which constantly recurs in the architecture of these sites, is a rectangular tripartite form. Two rectangular rooms (usually the length of the room was more than double the width) occupied two wings of this form and several smaller rooms occupied the third wing. This module was employed in all planned buildings with several variations and represents the basic layout of the structures, which were defined as Hilani. It seems evident that the tripartite structures, the two rectangular rooms adjoined along their length, are very common in the area. The tripartite concept dates back to the Obed period, the presence of two rooms accessible from their long side, adjoined together, is also commonly used in the architecture of the second millennium in Syria and Iraq. Thirdly a recurring module is the so-called “Hofhaus”, the structures organised around a central courtyard. As we are referring to modules and not models, it is important to distinguish the structures, which were planned with a central courtyard and those where a

central courtyard was the result. In actual fact, while in the structures IX and NOP at Tayinat and Halaf the rooms around the courtyards are directly structurally connected with each other, so that one wing could not exist without the other, at Zincirli, in building G, as has already been discussed, the builders seemed to carry out construction according to the tripartite modules in order to obtain a courtyard building. The “Hofhaus” module was used in the architecture of the second millennium both in Mesopotamia and in Syria (of controversial origin). It was standardised over time and became an Assyrian building “type” in the Iron Age. None of these modules is an architectural type, nor do they provide clear links to a cultural environment. They are modules which were all already employed in the Late Bronze Age in the area analysed here. From a semiotic point of view they were not signs but only forms.

IXB. Synchronic Comparative the Functions of the Citadel

Analysis:

It has become evident that the functions listed at the beginning of the research should be reconsidered in the light of the results, as it is clear that several functions should be considered as belonging together, or at least as being directly connected with each other. The aim of the following section is firstly to outline the principal group of functions in relationship to the buildings, in which they were fulfilled, and secondly, to emphasise the similarities in the distribution of the functions among the three sites, in order to outline the elements, which represent the hallmark of a culture.

IXB1. The religious areas: the temple? Our analysis provides us with the overview shown in Table 104: All the structures listed had a religious function; for the most part it was possible to identify structures and areas, where rituals were celebrated rather than the so-called House of God. At Tell Tayinat, the same place bore a religious feature throughout various periods of time: the external area, to the south-east of building I, was paved during a first period, the external walls of I were decorated with orthostats and inscriptions and an altar or base was located here. Thus, rituals were probably celebrated in this part leading to the north-western area near the gate XII. It is impossible to establish to whom this area was dedicated and its eventual relationships with buildings VI and I. During a later phase, building II occupied the same area and fulfilled the same function with one main difference: instead of an external open area, there was a closed, delimited building. Its internal arrangement, its decoration and its size imply that the main function was the celebration of religious rituals. There was no evidence of any statue of a divinity and therefore, althought it was a closed space, it cannot definitively be identified as the house of a god. The structure has a strong visual relationship to building I, keeping the connection between religious and secular power. 817 The layout of

817

163

P. Matthiae as argued that these structures might be

Pucci –Ch. IX. General Analysis

this structure, in terms of its form, represents an isolated case in the architecture of the site but refers to a building tradition of structures with long cella and a tripartite internal space, 818 which was used in the Late Bronze Age architecture in Syria (cf. VIIIA5). This structure appears at the site during its last phase and seems to represent a marked change in the fulfilment of the religious function. It was no longer an open space, rather a closed building much more similar to sacred spaces as KR at Tell Halaf or the Late Bronze Age structures at Mumbaqa and Emar. The relationship of this schema to southern Palestinian structures, which is traditionally used due to the similiraties of the Tayinat temple to the description of the Salomon Temple at Jerusalem, is not necessary, because on one side a similar tradition already existed in Syria, and on the other side the same tradition is not very strong in Palestina. 819 From a formal point of view, these structures with a long cella differ to the large/squared cella structures of cAin Dara or Aleppo. 820 In an attempt to find a relationship between form of the cella and function of the building, it might appear that urban religious structures tend to use a long cella module, while the regional sanctuaries have a square schema. However, the number of examples to support this hypothesis is very small, and the existence of a square temple at Karkamish invalidates it. At Zincirli, the areas outside the buildings fulfilled a religious function: both the southern gate area (D and LG) and the northern area outside Q (with the standing statue) revealed strong religious features. In the second building period, the area between the two gates LG, where the lions were buried, and mainly the gate D were cult places. The images carved on the walls of gate D limiting this area showed gods, secular scenes and symbols of royalty, but not a specific king. At the same time, the large amount of votive goods and ashes found in LG between the two gates (D and E) confirm that rituals were regularly celebrated. It is probable that on special occasions processions or rituals took place in this area, immediately outside the acropolis. The statue near Q and the area facing it were probably the arrival point where rituals were carried out and the place where the processions ended. The presence of hollow cup marks on the top of the basis also confirmed that libations were offered in front of the ruler by pouring liquids into these hollows. Finally the fact that the statue, once it was damaged, was later buried, 821 confirms its religious significance. Due to the existence of the lions’ base the figure represented on the statue was at first interpreted, as a god (Weather God). 822 Orthmann 823 argued that the interpreted as being strongly related to the palace. 818 Axial entrance on the short side of the structure and a tripartite schema in antecella, cella and adyton are the features of this module. 819 Th. Busink 1970, G.R.H. Wright 1985 820 This formal grouping was already evident in the Late Bronze Age as Margueron clearly points out, J.Cl. Margueron 1985. 821 Likewise the lions in LG, and the two statues of G1 at Tell Halaf, cf. IIID2, and VF2. Moreover also at Malatya the statue standing on the gate was later buried after it was damaged. L. Delaporte 1940:35-38. 822 F. von Luschan 1911: 364-366.

figure represented on its top was a ruler/king and several scholars welcomed this interpretation as valid, 824 so that we can argue that the figure worshipped was an ancestor and not a god. The existence of a second arrival point after the burial of the statue and the destruction of the buildings J and K is a matter of speculation. The remains of the horse base discussed above, which lack a clear location, do not allow us to clearly reconstruct a second focal point. The north-eastern area with the grave GK may also have had a religious meaning, in the sense of a place where rituals were celebrated. However, we do not have enough archaeological clues to support this hypothesis or the existence of a ceremonial area. On the acropolis at Tell Halaf, we can point out two main religious areas: the terrace facing building TP, which also includes G3/south, and the southern extent outside the gate, which the graves G1 and G2 occupied during different periods. A funerary component was present at all three structures (G1-3), and at all three structures there were areas of worship for the dead. The southern structures G1 and G2 provided spaces for celebrating rituals for the dead: 825 in front of the seated women inside the built spaces in G1, or in the small open space facing the grave rooms in G2. Their location just outside the southern gate to the acropolis was probably linked to rituals in movement (procession), as was argued for Zincirli. A similar connection between celebration spaces and burials can also be argued for the arrangement of the external area of TP. In the last layout of the terrace, facing building TP, a processional street flanked by statues bearing symbols led to the terrace where an altar was erected and small supports were located in front of the carved orthostats and of the standing statues. This arrangement of the external area and the presence of royal elements such as the inscription referring to the king and to his residence suggest that TP was at the same time the palace of the god and of the king, and that the two figures became one. The proximity to the grave (G3/south), which also had an external area where rituals were carried out, gives rise to several hypotheses. During a first period, the temple, in the sense of a house of the Weather God was located close to a grave (or cenotaph) of a ruler 826 (possibly the founder of the town) establishing a first connection between the two figures (the god and the dead king). During a second period, both elements (the ruler and the divinity) were united, a new building was constructed, the name of the king and possibly his seat (TP) were used together with the statues of the gods and their symbols. At this site there was particular evidence that the ruler was equal to a god and was the object of religious worship. We do not know if each king became a 823

W. Orthmann 1971: catalogue E/1. D. Bonatz 2000. 825 We have also argued (cf. pg. 119) that the statues in G1 represented the dead who probably did not worship the gods; they were the object of worship instead. 826 The term “ruler” in this research means a person who had a ruling position in the town. However, the figure represented on the statue is rarely clearly identifiable as a specific king (as e.g. for the statue of Punamuwa king of Guzana found at Tell Fekheryie). Some elements such as the rod may suggest the tenure of power. 824

164

Halaf

●

G1,2

●

G1,1

●

KR

●

● ●

G2 (1-3) STL

Phase ●

●

●

●

● ●

● ●

Building III

●

●

Tayinat Ie II

●

Building Phase II

Building Phase I

G3 south

TTP

827

Passage

Religious (god’s house) Representation

Defence

Reception

The structures fulfilling ritual function

Building

Site

Table 104:

●

● ●

The area between the southern gate ST, the scorpions’ gate SKT, the platforms LZM and the rear wall of TP with the carved small orthostats may also have a religious meaning, probably mainly as a marked route to TP. 828 I.e. the statues of the ancestors were preserved here. 829 Cf. Table 67: 830 We should distinguish buildings which revealed a foreign influence and those which were completely “imported”. We are faced with a phenomenon which also appears in the iconography: we have orthostats bearing images strongly influenced by the Assyrian iconography (e.g. the orthostats from gate VII at Tell Tayinat) and others which were completely Assyrian (e.g. the Esarhaddon stele at Zincirli).

Zincirli Q

●

LG D GK

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

Phase Building III

Building Phase II

Building Phase I

Passage

Religious (god’s house) Representation

Defence

Reception

Building

deity, if this took place during his life or after his death, but it is evident that this was the culmination of a slow evolution which united ancestor worship with the cult of gods. 827 In the lower town of Tell Halaf, the only one, among the three sites, which was excavated, building KR also had religious features: two statues, a couple and an upright man, were located in a room together with a large amount of votive statuettes and objects. The statues were located in front of the altar and were worshipped while the other statuettes were votive offerings. The main difference to the cult places on the acropolis is that this religious area was an enclosed, covered space, while on the mound the religious areas were located outside the buildings. KR was not part of a larger structure, but it was independent from the surrounding ones, so that it cannot be interpreted as a private sacred area, rather as a small “shrine” 828 in the town. The identification of structure STL as a religious building, a temple, was due to the fact that its layout and internal arrangement clearly belonged to an Assyrian building type: the long room temple with facing courtyard. This structure 829 was located on a higher level than the surrounding buildings, and it clearly fulfilled this religious function using a different language. It should be interpreted as a building constructed by foreigners 830 and, consequently, it did not have a special relevance in defining the spatial organisation of the Syro-Hittite centres.

Site

Pucci –Ch. IX. General Analysis

●

●

According to the previus analysis the features, which characterise these sites in relation to the religious function on the acropolis seem to be as follows: The spaces that were used to perform rituals had no roof and were limited by other buildings. Their relationship to passage spaces implied that the religious rituals took place in motion following religious axes and that these spaces were located along these axes. The arrival point of these routes was marked by the presence of a statue representing the ruler. The arrival point of these rituals was located immediately near the seat of the ruler itself, the gate Q at Zincirli with the statue just in front of palace J, the terrace of TTP, which was at the same time the seat of the ruler, and the area Ie that to the south adjoined building I in Tayinat. The connection between arrival point and seat of the ruler was mainly visual, since the entrance of these buildings was not aligned with the route of the procession. Graves or cenotaphs were also located along these axes; on the one side the statues represented the worshipped figure, on the other the presence of graves and cenotaphs correspond with the representations of this passage ritual on the orthostats at the gates, and with the idea that the worshipped figure was a dead ancestor. In part, these elements can also be found at other SyroHittite town centres: at Malatya at the Lion’s Gate, where the statue of a ruler was located and buried after its destruction. In Karatepe, the statue of a ruler was located at the mound gate. At Karkamish the seated statue of the ruler Atrisuhas was located at the King’s gate and a second standing statue was erected in the courtyard of the gate. Cup marks were dug on the top of the base of the seated statue. In Karkamish in particular the ritual area of the King’s gate is located inside the town in between two passages: the King’s gate itself and the entrance (the Great Staircase) to what may have been the upper palace. The temple was also erected here (a square layout with a small courtyard and a square room). Therefore, on the evidence of these elements we can say that the rituals which were carried out in the towns were related to features such as the concept of a border or limit, the ruler or ruler’s dynasty, the seat of the ruler itself. We can also argue, supporting the interpretation provided by Bonatz, 831 who maintained that an ancestor cult started to develop in the Syro-Hittite centres and became the main cult of the towns, that the cult of the town and

831

165

D. Bonatz 2000; idem 2001

Pucci –Ch. IX. General Analysis

consequently the buildings located on the mounds were mainly related to the deified rulers or founders of the family. 832 This kind of cult had two main aims. The emphasis was on the borders of the town, on the dead ancestors and the relationship between these two elements and the local dynasty. The seat of this dynasty provided the inhabitants with a means of identification with the ruling dynasty and with the town, and distinction from the other neighbouring towns, which had other dynasties. This kind of cult seems to have developed from a political situation in order to allow the towns a means of self identification, and it probably developed “spaces” different from the usual religious buildings. If one takes this view, the distinction between house of a divinity and place of ritual becomes less clear, because the worshipped figures were not the traditional pantheon gods, rather new divinities with new spaces. In actual fact, scholars defined the absence of central temples as a main problem in Syro-Hittite architecture: 833 they were looking for buildings with layouts, features and furniture which could be compared with the temples of the Late Bronze Age, or whose different layout varied considerably from the surrounding structures. It was mainly the absence of buildings with layouts different 834 from the surrounding structures that led scholars to formulate a number of different hypotheses. 1. Some of them argued that the “temples” had already been excavated and that they were not recognised as temples. 835 2. The temples were located outside the acropolis, in the lower town: the archaeological evidence at Tell Halaf supports this hypothesis. 3. The temples were located in cult areas, near springs or above mountains outside the town. 836 The last two hypotheses suggest the following: A. If the religious areas were located only outside the acropolis, the ruling class of the town was completely separated from the religious sphere, which was consequently ruled by priests outside the acropolis. But this division is supported neither in written texts, nor in the archaeological evidence, because several religious elements were concentrated on the mound. B. The presence, archaeologically proven, of cult areas near springs (as at Tell Fekherye) or in traditional religious places (probably such as the Weather God Temple at Aleppo) confirms that religious sanctuaries were located outside the towns and outside the region ruled by the town, and were kept in use. However, this feature follows a tradition largely attested in the Late Bronze Age: 837 sanctuaries outside the town coexisted 832

It is difficult to affirm that a “family” ruled a town as the names of the rulers sometimes have different origins. 833 M. Novák 1999, P. Matthiae 1997, R. Naumann 1971. 834 As is the case at Tell Tayinat for the temple (building II). 835 Large rooms with an entrance on the long axis or structures with a layout similar to the one of building II at Tayinat are interpreted as temples. Cf. P. Matthiae 1992, D. Ussishkin 1966. 836 M. Novák 1999. 837 The temple at cAyin Dara and the temple at Aleppo were both in use during the late Bronze Age. The presence of rock sanctuaries outside the town is confirmed at Yazilikaya near

with temples inside the town and this did not exclude the construction of “temples” inside the town. 838 Consequently it seems evident that as far as the towns are concerned, the main cult seems to be related to the local dynasty, to the founders of the town and their transformation into divinities. The traditional cult of divine whorship common in the Late Bronze Age probably remains. Temples or sanctuaries located outside the town, and related to a particular god, preserved their role which transcended the boundaries of the regions which the towns ruled and consequently was in common with different centres.

IXB2. The areas of the elites: representative and reception functions At the beginning of this research, the function “representative” was intended to characterise the structures which were the seat of the secular power, 839 i.e. the royal residence where foreigners were received and where the power of the ruler was most visible following a tradition, which seems to be present in other contemporary cultures, likewise the Assyrian culture. In this sense, the formal architectural features should have had the purpose of celebrating the terrestrial power and wealth of the king rather than of celebrating a god 840 . The reception function seemed to be directly connected to a representative one, so that the same structure was conceived as the place where the ruler welcomed representatives from other countries, carried out his duties and administrated justice. The size of the reception rooms, their accessibility and the formal architectural elements are the determining features of the spaces with these functions. 841 At Zincirli, in the first period, the northern structures J and K fulfilled representative/reception functions: a route leading from gate D through gate Q marked and emphasised the access route to these buildings. Both structures J and K had reception rooms with a fireplace on one side, and several formal elements: the symmetrical monumental entrance to K, the carved lions at the entrance to Q, and the carved orthostat at the entrance to J are some of the formal elements employed in the construction of this complex. During the second building period, building HIII and court R facing it took over representative and reception functions. The high building has a central position in between the neighbouring lower long structures (NHB and P) completely open to the courtyard. A stone socle carved with orthostats flanked the access route to HIII and the figures represented

Bogaz-Köy. 838 As at Bogaz-Köy, cf. P. Neve 1982. 839 The separation between god and king did not seem to be very distinct so that the representatonal function aim is also visible in the buildings possessing a religious function. 840 Obviously, rich temples also indirectly show the power of the leadership of the town which constructed them, but in the case of royal residences the formal features point directly to the figure of the king. 841 Among the installations, the fireplace seemed to represent a focal area around which people could group and recurred in several reception rooms in the Syro-Hittite centres.

166

Pucci –Ch. IX. General Analysis

842

The older buildings J and K were kept in use with a private function. In fact, the division of the courtyard separated a northern area, which became more private, from a southern representative and public one. Cf. IVB6. 843 However, this building belongs partly to a different tradition which was more related to the Assyrian construction tradition than to the local one. 844 The structure was built on the highest area of the mound and raised on a socle. The real height of the structure is not known. 845 We should consider that the older phases of NOP were not completely brought to light.

emphasising them, as is the case in the contemporary representative structure TP.

Tayinat

T. Halaf

ATP

●

TP

●

NOP3 ●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

Bld.Ph. III

● ● ●

● ●

●

● ●

●

●

●

K

●

●

J

●

●

●

HIII

●

●

●

●

●

HII

● ●

●

HI

G

Bld. Ph. II

●?

●

IX

Bld. Ph. I

●

I, 2+3 ●

Passage

● ●

XIII I, 1

Storage

Production

Religious (rite)

Defence

Reception

Dwelling

Representative and Reception areas

Adm.

Site

Building

Table 105:

Zincirli

indicated the direction of the entrance. The size of the main room, the installations and objects inside HIII confirmed that the structure was used to receive guests. 842 In the last period, HII with a massive socle and a huge reception room, located in a high position and probably with a monumental access route, may have had reception functions. During the same period, building G 843 lacked several elements to define it as a reception and representative area: the access to the complex was not preserved, there was nothing in the building representating the kingship, and the rooms, which were identified as the throne/reception rooms, were smaller than the other reception rooms. At Tell Tayinat, during the first building period, building XIII probably fulfilled reception and representative functions: the structure was built facing the same direction as the entrance to the area (XII), stone stairs led to its main entrance, it was the highest 844 structure on the mound and consequently the most visible one. The size of the reception room in this building was 182 m2 and it was accessible from the long side. In the neighbouring large complex XIV no reception, i.e. large and easily accessible rooms, or representative features were found, probably due also to the fragmentary condition of the structure. During the second period, building I, 2+3 took over this function: a long street led to the structure, several passages and architectural elements emphasised the entrance to the building, and a large room (189 m2) was the reception room. However, the materials found in this building showed that the structure also had a strong administrative function and several rooms were used for storage and probably as a production area. During the last period, a building comparable to I,2+3 fulfilled similar functions. However, during this period, as is the case in Zincirli, the 220 m2 large room (IX/d) in building IX to the south of the mound was probably also intended as a reception room, even if as in G at Zincirli, accessibility or formal architectural elements are missing. At Tell Halaf, the reception and representative buildings in the first phases are concentrated in the area of buildings which also had a specific religious purpose: TP contained a room, which was approx. 292 m2 large with a movable fireplace. A route led to the entrance of the building, which was large and bore formal elements. No other spaces 845 during the second building period could fulfil a reception function. During the last phase, in the north-western complex two rooms were also constructed with an evident representative and reception purpose (NB). Again, in this area the rooms lack a monumental access route or obvious architectural features

●

● ●

●

●

Considering the representational function it seems evident that at the beginning of the occupation at the sites there was no self representation of the king as a specific ruler. This role seems to be evidently connected to the religious function described above; it was linked to the founder of the dynasty or a dead ancestor who was the object of worship. The ruler was consequently legitimated by his affiliation to the dynasty and not by his role as a person. His role seems to have been related to the “house” rather than to his merits as a king. Over a period of time, this concept of the ruler changed: several rulers are portrayed in images and inscriptions acting as unique individuals distinguishing themselves from previous rulers. This practice became evident with Kapara at Tell Halaf, with Kilamuwa at Zincirli. A similar process over time is visible at Karkamish in the decoration of the King’s Gate: the first statue was probably related to the cult of the ancestors, while in a later period the images of the living royal family were added to the decorative program in the same place. It therefore seems possible that this kind of development in the role of the king was related to the strong influence of the Assyrians on the one hand, and to the fact that after consolidating the town’s identity over a period of time the ruler could also reaffirm himself as a king. The reception function is fulfilled by one room inside the buildings. These reception rooms were decorated 846 internally with bronze sheets applied to the plastered and coloured faces of the walls, and had solid floors. They differ in their position inside the structure of which they were part. The reception rooms, which seem to be typical 846

The internal decoration with niches or variations in the vertical of the walls appears sparse; the decoration seems to be limited to things applied to the walls.

167

Pucci –Ch. IX. General Analysis

of these centres and appear from the beginning of the occupation of the sites, were accessible from an ante room, which opened onto the external area, and they were the central part of a rectangular building. Private and service rooms were located behind them. These reception rooms differ considerably from the well known Assyrian reception suites because they were not part of a large complex articulated around courtyards, they did not connect a public to a private part of the building. The Syro-Hittite reception rooms were easily accessible from the outside because they were located in a second position from the entrance, but they were part of a more general arrangement of the acropolis. In actual fact, they were not physically easily accessible, due to the numerous frames, gates and passages, which the visitors had to pass through in order to reach them. The structure they belonged to was the destination of an ascent, it was visible from the outside as it was high, but its access was not in evidence. They had different dimensions. According to the following table, their sizes ranged between 160m2 and 300m2. The reception rooms in building G at Zincirli, in building IX at Tayinat and in building NOP at Halaf fulfilled the same function according to a different language; they were part of a larger building, open and accessible through a courtyard. Their sizes appear to be smaller than the ones described above (around 100m2) and also smaller than the usual throne rooms in the Neo-Assyrian palaces. 847 It should however be considered that during the existence of these buildings, two poles fulfilling reception functions were present on the mounds and that these complexes should not be compared with royal Assyrian architecture, rather with the provincial residences of the Empire.

168m2

Zincirli

2

Zincirli

J/3

2

216m

Zincirli

K/2

190m2

Zincirli

at Zincirli, TP or NB at Tell Halaf and building I, 1 at Tell Tayinat) on the opposite side of the mound. The coexistence of two structures which fulfilled the same function in different ways at the same time may suggest the presence of two parallel powers, a local ruler (with a building showing a traditional local layout) and an Assyrian governor (in a larger structure articulated around courtyards). It is very difficult to find similarities with other contemporary buildings representative of the local power in Syro-Hittite towns, due to the fact that they have not been excavated or as in Karkamish they are not preserved. Only at Hamath is there a structure which might be related to representation of the local ruler, and that is building III. This can be deduced from the layout of the building and from the presence of two columns at the entrance rather than from the analysis of its inventory. 848 The differences to Assyrian architecture are evident: representation of the king in Assyrian residences was related to the internal space, the complexes of the residences were huge and articulated but completely closed off to external areas. The Assyrian king with his suites, his inscriptions, and the images of himself was visible only on the inside of the complex, inside his “realm”, where various different activities were pursued and many workers entered and left the complex. The visitors were guided inside the palaces and residences. The Syro-Hittite spatial concept is open and enclosed within the acropolis, the images of the king, or his inscriptions are never located inside the rooms, rather always in the external area. Thus on the one hand the image of the king and his activities were part of the layout of the town, on the other his residence had a representational function only from the outside, and the interior was the private sphere of the ruler. This main element shows that the Syro-Hittite seats of the rulers were not complexes, rather buildings inside a complex. These buildings communicate and shape the external area, they enable access through a portico at the main entrance, from which the reception rooms could easily be reached; only these rooms inside the buildings were provided with representational and formal elements.

2

Tayinat

IXB3. The production, storage, and administrative

I, 1/j

2

172m

Tayinat

IV, 2/3

303m2

Tayinat

Table 106:

Size of the reception rooms

RECEPTION SIZE ROOMS HIII/d HI/b

I, 2+3/J

SITE

176m

189m

areas

During the last phases, at the three sites two reception areas were in use at the same time. One was part of a larger complex (G at Zincirli, NOP at Tell Halaf and building IX at Tell Tayinat) identified as the seat of the Assyrian garrison; the other was an isolated building (HII

By analysing the space organisation on the mound it became evident that very little could be established regarding production activity. Neither metal working areas nor large-scale pottery production spaces were found on the acropolis of the sites. However, several other work activities took place on the mound; we can distinguish the activities to do with the usual administration of a large building (such as cooking, cleaning, baking) from those which had a “production” purpose (pottery making, metalwork, weaving). The archaeological evidence is limited to the presence of tools, kilns or looms and of spaces without special formal elements, with good ventilation and light, which might

847

848

TP/3

2

Halaf

2

292m

G/c

105m

Zincirli

IX/c

89+ m2

Tayinat

NOP3/v

G. Turner 1970.

2

108m

Halaf

168

E. Fugmann 1958, A. de Maigret 1979.

Halaf 849

NOP ● 1

●

NOP 2

●

LSG

Cf. VIIIB2.Table 99:

●

BldPh III

Bld. Ph. II

Bld. Ph. I

Passage

Storage

Limit

Representation

Defence

Reception

Dwelling

Work areas

Admin

Building

Site

Table 107:

●

●

●

●

●

Tayinat

●

●

●

●

●

●

I, 1

●

BldPh III

Bld. Ph. II

●

●

●

● ●

● ●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

● ●

●

●

●

●

M F

Bld. Ph. I

●

●

NW H NÖH ●

Passage

●

R P

Storage

Limit

Representation

Defence

Reception

Dwelling

Admin

Building

●

I,2+3

M+R

●

● ●

The production of luxury goods, which was argued as being located in several Syro-Hittite sites, 850 is not based on clear archaeological evidence. The archaeological evidence from the analysed sites suggests that luxury goods were kept in the buildings, which had reception and representational features, and that some of them were possibly on display for those visiting the structures. Moreover, the large amount of metal and ivory objects, some of them bronze appliqués, of smaller parts such as nails, and the existence of boxes containing fragments (mostly from building I at Tayinat) might indicate that these goods were assembled inside the representative structures. However, we cannot prove this hypothesis by relying on archaeological evidence. We can only establish a parallel between the production of luxury goods and the carved orthostats. In actual fact, the carving of orthostats was related to the quarries, where the orthostats were sketched, so that less weight was transported, 851 and related to individual artisans, or groups of artisans working on the mound. Scholars 852 focused on the similarities between the production of ivory carvings and orthostats, so that it seems probable that the same group of artisans produced both. The location of these “ateliers” may have been on the acropolis, but as far as the remains are preserved, we are not able to identify the spaces where ivory or metals were produced 853 . Generally, scholars identified metal workshops and pottery kilns outside the acropolis and in isolated areas on the lower town, so that bothersome odours, noise and smoke were confined and kept away from inhabited areas. 854 Therefore, these production areas were possibly located outside the acropolis in the lower

850

I. Winter 1988; eadem 1989. S. Mazzoni 1984. 852 I. Winter 1988; eadem 1989; G. Herrmann 1989. 853 We only have the storerooms where luxury goods were kept. Concerning the difficulties in identifying workshops inside palaces cf. J.C. Margueron 1979. 854 A.M. Palmieri et al. 1993, P.R.S. Moorey 1985. 851

●

IV, 2

L

Zincirli

have been employed as working areas. Given these parameters, at Tell Halaf the production area was limited to the eastern section of the mound. The rooms (in NOP1 and NOP2) surrounding the courtyard Au seemed to serve this purpose: during the last period of occupation the pottery kiln was located in the courtyard, and the small rooms facing the courtyard were able to satisfy the respective needs. In addition, LSG to the south, with a large amount of tools found in its surrounding areas and small spaces might have fulfilled the needs of a production area and storage of the objects being produced. We cannot confirm the existence of any large-scale production. At Tell Tayinat, the southern part of building IV,1 is interpreted as a working area due to a series of similar small rooms surrounding a central long courtyard/room: the inside of the rooms was thus very bright and the fact that they had similar dimensions would imply repetition of similar activities inside them. On the other hand, the large amount of luxury goods stored in the small rooms of building I, 2+3 and I, 1 and the presence of weights and administrative objects would suggest a storage/administrative function. As the objects were apparently sorted in the rooms according to the type of material, we could argue that they were kept in these spaces in order to be processed together. 849 At Zincirli, several stone moulds found spread on the mound lacking any specific archaeological context suggest that metal working activity probably took place on the mound. The productive areas were mainly limited to the southern section of the north-western complex, the buildings which surrounded the courtyard R. A textileprocessing activity was concentrated to the north of this courtyard in NWH, while building P with its rooms completely open to the courtyard R offered an ideal place to carry out work activities, but archaeological evidence provides no further clues. In conclusion, production activities, which were related to the fabrication of objects, seem to have been restricted to small-scale production. Rooms used to store objects or goods seem more common: several rooms in building I at Tayinat, some rooms in building J and in building L at Zincirli, and possibly the LSG at Halaf were used for this purpose, to preserve a quantity of goods sufficient for the structure (as in every house) and to keep luxury goods as a sign of wealth and power.

Site

Pucci –Ch. IX. General Analysis

169

Pucci –Ch. IX. General Analysis

towns, where extensive archaeological investigations still need to be carried.

IXC. Synchronic Comparative Topographic Notes

Analysis:

IXC1. Walls, passages, carved gates and statues shaping the external “public” areas along axes At Tell Halaf and Zincirli and probably also at Tell Tayinat, from the earliest period onwards, 855 mound walls and gates limited an area, the acropolis, which was separated from the external space and which was not easily accessible. The area on the mound was modified and built and its analysis revealed a main feature: this external space between the buildings was shaped by constructing boundaries and terraces, and by marking circulation axes and routes. At Tell Halaf, the main axis started to the south probably with the street passing through the southern gate (ST) in the lower town. This route became more evident immediately outside the acropolis: the terrace (LZM Mud) and two walls parallel to the street marked the entrance. The course led through three passages into an area also limited by a terrace (LZM MUa and b) and a high socle decorated with carved orthostats (TP). Similarly, the person entering was guided through two passages flanked by animals in SKT to the courtyard, which faced the access to TP. The principal purpose of the walls limiting the courtyard of TP, and of those limiting the southern section of the street and the sector connected to the SKT (SKT/3-5) was to delimit the space both from a physical and also from a visual point of view. The effort in building architectural wings for a general scenario was concentrated in this south-western area. This axis which was oriented on a north-south direction turns at its northern edge making a U-turn to stop in front of building TP. Four stops were located along this route: the southern gate, the area outside the first mound gate, near the external graves, then the area between the two mound gates with the TP clearly visible from this location. The last stop was, after a turn, in front of the statues on the terrace of the TP. At Zincirli, this feature is even more evident. Almost all structures had a boundary role. Here not only a second internal wall isolating the area between two gates (D and E) limited the internal space, but also a second wall (IM) separated 856 the north-eastern area 857 from the rest of the acropolis. Moreover, P and NWH-NÖH clearly had a boundary function: to enclose and separate limited spaces from the rest of the mound. The main difference to Tell Halaf was the apparent absence at Zincirli of clearly marked routes from the mound gate, but the alignment of the internal gate E in the direction of the north-western complex clearly indicates that there was probably a paved street between gates D and E and that the main axis was

in the direction of gate Q. 858 Here through a fourth gate a stone route pointed towards buildings J and K. The axis has a north-south direction, turns slightly to the northwest and turns again to the north. During a second period NWH to the south of courtyard M had bastions, which established a fortified limit to the courtyard, streets paved with different materials marked the routes crossing M, the portico façades of K and J constituted an open frame to the north. Similar attention to the architectural frames was applied in the layout of the southern court R: the frames limiting it were completely open with pillars sustaining the lintel of the buildings. Within this open and deep boundary, HIII had a special significance: it was higher than the surrounding structures and the façade was covered with carved orthostats bearing a special message of royal celebration. Building P, to the south, fulfilled a boundary function in order to represent an architectural stage effect for the court. The stops along this route are numerous. Starting from the southern town gate, a second stop was located at the first mound gate D and after it the space limited by both mound gates. The main arrival point of this route seems to have been gate Q where the statue was located. Probably only after the removal of this statue the arrival point was relocated in front of building HIII. The search for a stage effect and for clearly marked routes at Tell Tayinat produces less evidence but nevertheless some results. To the east, a street leading to the acropolis passed through two gates (XI and VII). The boundaries of building X and the later paving of the street in front of it clearly show that the main axis was directed to the west, in the direction of the north-western area. The southern area outside building I, before building II was erected, was a passage along this route, which then turned to the north through gate XII. Inside the north-western area, again, the layout of courtyard VIII was clearly marked by the surrounding buildings. During the first period, the axis was probably straight from XII to building XIII. During the later phases, a stone paved street marked the access to the eastern buildings in the area. The axis was no longer straight, and as is the case also at Zincirli and Tell Halaf, the person entering the area could not see the destination of his passage. Here, during the last period, two new terraces enclosed the courtyard, made the eastern section of the courtyard a closed space, and the structures built rose above ground level. The construction of building II along this route seems to have stopped the route, which was created by the older architectural arrangement. The stops along this route seem to have been the area of gate XI, the southern area indicated as Ie, gate VII and the area of the courtyard in front of building I.

855

Cf. VIIG3. It should be noted here that IM also fulfils a containment function. 857 We should not omit the supporting function of these walls. 856

858

The paving of the gate D seemed to continue further to the north.

170

Pucci –Ch. IX. General Analysis

BM 1-4

●

●

SM

●

●

AST ●

●

●

QT

Halaf

SKT ●

●

ST

●

BM4

●

Bld. Ph. III ●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

Muc

●

● ●

XV

●

VII

●

●

III Tayinat

●

Mud

XII

XI

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

X

●

D

●

LG

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

A

●

●

●

BM

●

●

●

B

●

●

●

C

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

Q

●

SM

●

●

Ab1

● ●

●

IM

●

●

E

●

P QM

● ●

●

●

● ●

●

●

●

an essential role in shaping the external space. We can argue that the organisation of space and its modelling predated “group design 860 ” in Greek architecture: single buildings with independent architectural features shaped a spatial harmony in unison with other independent structures. All three sites seem to have had similar axes: a long straight axis from one of the town gates toward the mound gate. This axis turns at all three sites and the entrance of the main building was never visible from this axis. The statues located along this axis were related to the gates and with the main buildings, as they established a connection with them. Similarities with this arrangement at other Syro-Hittite sites are difficult to find, due to the fact that they were not extensively excavated. The area between the King’s gate and the entrance from the great Staircase with the two statues at Karkamish, the south-western gate with the statue at Karatepe, the lion’s gate at Malatya, probably represent similar stops along a planned route. It is difficult to define this axis and stops as being public. According to T. Hölscher [1998: 16] the space, which belongs to the demios, to the inhabitants of the town, is public. In the analysed Syro-Hittite towns there is a space which was possibly accessible to all inhabitants during specific events, but which was strongly related to a passage towards structures related to the rulers and to the identity of the town and did not belong to the inhabitants.

IXC2. The enceintes, the defensive function

●

Ab3

NW H Zincirli

Bld. Ph. II

Bld. Ph. I

Storage

Representation

Production

Religious (rite)

Defence

Reception

Dwelling

Structures limiting and modelling the external space

Admi

Building

Site

Table 108:

●

●

This spatial organisation of the external space inside the acropolis reflected the need to shape this space into a uniform unit. This was undertaken by positioning and constructing independent buildings as parts of a large complex and by unifying the areas through construction of marked axes and routes 859 . The external decoration of the buildings, the porticoes and the bastions also played

Solid city walls (Plates 1, 13 and 25) and bastions surrounded the cities and inner fortifications were built around the acropolis. The towns did not evolve from a small walled acropolis into a large walled town; rather from the outset they were planned as walled lower and upper towns. This feature recurs at all three sites, 861 and it fulfils two main objectives: a defensive (A) and a symbolic (B) function. A) The town had two defensive areas so that it was possible, once the first enceinte was lost, to regroup on the acropolis and resist attackers from inside it. This need for adequate defence influenced 862 the choice of location of the acropolis as regards the lower town, which varied according to the geographical features of the site. At Tell Halaf and at Tayinat (as at Karkamish), which are both on a river, the acropolis was located near the watercourse and could be accessed directly from the river (Watergate at Karkemish and QT and NOP/I-S at Tell Halaf) so that the inhabitants could resist sieges for a long period. The archaeological evidence does not allow us to find a similar opening at Tell Tayinat. At Zincirli the acropolis was located at the centre of the site. Thus, the acropolis occupied the safest location: if there was a river, the acropolis flanked the river and the lower town expanded on the other three sides, otherwise the acropolis was

859

The creation of “open” spaces, accessible by a route punctuated by passages and turns, may also have had a meaning in the social organisation. The distinction between people and rulers, in the sense of kings/deities, was significant and found its physical expression in large internal spaces in the religious structures of the 3rd and 2nd millennium being developed into the closed and inaccessible palaces/temples of the 1st Millennium.

860

S. Giedion 2001: 29. The same feature also recurs at other Syro-Hittite sites: Karatepe, Malatya, Hama, Tell Akhmar, Karkamish. Cf.Table 1: 862 For the effects of warfare on the layout of the towns cf. M. J. Rowlands 1972, P. Lampl 1968. 861

171

Pucci –Ch. IX. General Analysis

completely surrounded by the lower town 863 . The town wall at Halaf was 3m thick and had rectangular 2x4m bastions at intervals of 20m; the town wall at Zincirli had an identical layout with the same distance between bastions. At this site the town wall also had a second internal wall, providing a further defence on the wall. These arrangements, the layout, bastions, distances perfectly fulfil defensive purposes without leaving any blind or sheltered areas in between the bastions. 864 The mound walls again show similar features, bastions and corner towers. At Zincirli the semi-circular form of the bastion on both the mound walls seems to be an alternative type of bastion construction, as they appear as commonly as the rectangular ones. The gates at all sites are chambered or chambered with guard rooms, with bastions protruding outside the line of the wall. Although chambered gates “represent a compromise between military defence and peaceful ready passage and regulation of traffic,” 865 the protruding towers highlight a defensive function. This function was in the construction and planning of the enceintes primarly, showing that the boundary was not only intended as a symbol, rather as a real defence of the town. This element implies that the area of the town was the core of power and that a real risk of attack existed. B) The fortified walls also fulfilled a second connotative function, which was also emphasised in dealing with the religious function. They separated the town from the outside, and the acropolis from the lower town. Scholars have emphasised the first separation (town/outside) and its symbolic function as a border between civilisation and wilderness, between an area where the savage element was domesticated and a superior entity guaranteed peace and safety, and an external undomesticated extent. 866 However, we should also focus attention on a second internal border between the lower town and the acropolis. As mentioned above, this internal division appeared from the beginning of occupation of the sites, and does not reflect a progressive addition of the lower town to a preexisting centre. Firstly, the mound wall may have fulfilled a practical need, to contain the rise of the acropolis and prevent a landslip; secondly it may also have had a symbolic meaning. 867 It actually constituted a separation of the structures of the lower town from those on the acropolis, and of those who inhabited the lower town from those who ruled the city and frequented the mound. Moreover, this symbolic distance was even more emphasised by the construction of a second internal wall

863

The idea that the layout of the town (circular or rectangular) and the location of the mound fulfil symbolic requirements of reproducing the image of the world of a particular culture cannot be argued for these sites, instead it seems more probable that they fulfilled a practical defensive function. Cf. M. Novàk 1999. 864 L. Keeley 2007: 70-71 for the space required between bastions in pre gun powder period. 865 L. Keeley 2007: 67 866 S. Mazzoni 1997; J. Voos 1983; D. Ussishkin 1989 867 The acropolises were not consistently higher than the level of the lower town, so that the mound wall did not fulfil a containment function throughout.

and of a second internal gate (XII at Tayinat, Q at Zincirli and SKT at Tell Halaf): it transformed the entrance to the acropolis into a long marked course towards the mound. The general idea, which appears evident from the layout of the enceintes, shows that the territory under the control of the ruler was mainly the town and that the boundaries of the surrounding territory were not clearly marked.

IXC3. Two Centres on the Citadel Inside the acropolis (Plates 2-4, 14-16, 26-28), the buildings occupied two locations separated from each other on two edges of the mounds. This element recurred at all three sites. In each town, during the first building period, a main independent building occupied one sector, while the other sector on the opposite side of the mound comprised an articulated complex continuously improved over time. Considering that all three sites are new foundations during the Iron Age, the choice of the internal arrangement of the buildings was not determined by preexisting structures, but it was rather the result of a project. Moreover, the area where the isolated building (HI area at Zincirli and the ATP area at Halaf) was constructed was the highest on the mound both at Zincirli and at Tell Halaf. As regards Tell Tayinat, the area of building IX was also an independent raised area inside the mound and may 868 represent a valid comparison with the “isolated” sectors at the other two sites althought the investigations under building IX were few and not extensive. This feature might imply that the builders of the acropolis needed two independent sectors or that they needed a structure, which was isolated from the remaining ones and at the same time clearly visible from the outside.

IXC4. The Graves on the Acropolis The cemeteries of Syro-Hittite centres were probably located outside the towns in surrounding areas. 869 In the final periods in which the towns 870 existed, probably due to Assyrian influence, the lower towns were used as graveyards, for burying people inside the remains of the structures. However, both at Tell Halaf and at Zincirli (Plates 3, 15, 16), graves were found on the acropolis. In particular, at both sites, one grave (G3/south at Tell Halaf and GK at Zincirli) was located in the area of the “isolated building” (HI at Zincirli and ATP area at Tell Halaf), on one side of the mound. Both graves at both sites were underground structures without human remains: at Zincirli the grave was found empty, at Tell Halaf the grave goods were still in place but no human remains were found. Thus we may 868

The original Syro-Hittite isolated building may be still under IX. A few soundings of the area under IX took place and revealed the existence of older structures. Haines interpreted them as domestic structures. There are no drawings of these structures and the pottery found inside them seems to date them at least to the Iron Age period. Cf. VIIF1. 869 As at Karkamish. L. Woolley 1939. 870 It is mainly visible at Tell Halaf, where the lower town was partly excavated. Also at Zincirli, several later burials were found excavated inside the older structures.

172

Pucci –Ch. IX. General Analysis

argue as a hypothesis that in both cases the human remains had been moved to another grave (cf. IVB4). Moreover, at both sites two buildings next to the graves were very similar: they both had a high socle, their layout reproduced the “standard” Hilani, they had similar dimensions and they were in areas isolated from the rest of the acropolis. Both graves were located to the right looking at the façades of the buildings, had similar dimensions and only their tops were visible from the ground. 871 Finally, during the Syro-Hittite period, the cemeteries were outside the towns. The tradition of burying certain persons on the acropolis may refer to a particular cult of ancestors.

IXD. Diachronic Analysis: trends of spatial organisation over time This item points out some architectural features which recur at all three sites as a common development of spatial organisation. In fact, even if the towns were politically and militarily independent from one another, they manifested similar trends, which suggest mutual influences and/or similar needs.

IXD1. The second internal mound wall Formal architectural elements emphasised the main entrance to the acropolis at all sites: during the earliest period, this emphasis was visible in fantasy figures or religious scenes decorating the entrance and marking the passages. Surely, as scholars pointed out, this emphasis supported the symbolic meaning of the gate as a border between civilisation and wilderness 872 , even if at the same time, these gates were not the real border, as the external town wall was in use and represented the real limit of the town. Consequently, with the figures on the gate carrying a religious meaning, and the focus of attention on the architecture of the gate structure, this suggests that the gate to the acropolis had a particular meaning. We may stress that the gate was a crucial point in the celebration of religious rituals, which took place in processions stopping at various points, among which the gate was a focal one. As analysed above, at all sites, a second internal mound wall enclosing an area between two gates was built. The size of the spaces enclosed by the gates varied greatly between Zincirli and Tell Halaf on the one side (3,650m2 at Halaf and 3,550m2 at Zincirli) and Tell Tayinat 873 (15,000m2). Therefore, we can establish a parallel between the two areas at Zincirli and Tell Halaf and point out strong similarities: the axes of the external gates were not exactly in line with the axes of the internal ones; the area was empty and surrounded by limiting walls, their sizes were similar. This trend, which also recurred at

871

GK was 3 m2 and G3/south was 6 m2, HI was 1742 m2 and TP 1538 m2. 872 S. Mazzoni 1997, in general as to the role of the built town as an island in the landscape cf. L. Benevolo et B. Albrecht 2002: 168. 873 The area between gate VII and gate V, which was added later, at Tell Tayinat is taken into consideration here.

Karkamish, 874 may have fulfilled several functions. Firstly, a defensive function: a large area between two mound gates made it easier to trap enemies in a fortified area. However, both at Zincirli 875 and at Tell Halaf, 876 the formal architectural elements and the objects related to these areas also imply a religious function. We can argue that the new enclosed roofless area limited by gates represented a change in the role of the gate during rituals: during a first period, the mound gates had a central role in the celebration of rituals, during a second period the role of this area changed over time, gaining importance and requiring a larger space. In fact, we can interpret these spaces as large gates to the acropolis: they were a passage area, fortified and located on the “border” of the mound. 877 The change in the architecture may be evidence of a change in religious habits; from being a point at which a religious procession stopped, the gate may have become a fixed place where rituals were celebrated. This construction put a symbolic distance between the structures on the acropolis and the lower town, establishing a second frame.

IXD2. Overcoming the mound wall Another trend, which became evident at the sites over time, was the gradual construction of buildings above the mound wall. During a first period, the defensive system enclosed the acropolis, and probably the superstructures of several buildings emerged from the top of the mound walls, but they were not structurally linked with the mound wall itself. During a second period, several structures protruded from the enceinte: some of them had a side wall, standing on the mound wall, visible from the lower town (HIII at Zincirli and NOP2 at Tell Halaf), or whole structures even overcame the limit of the mound wall extending into the lower town (as the LZM at Tell Halaf). This trend appeared evident during the second building period: it did not have a defensive function, but instead a symbolic purpose. The structures overcoming the wall were at the same time supposed to be visible and inaccessible from the lower town. This architectural feature probably satisfied the propaganda aims of the ruling powers and the might of the ruling class: the controlling (acropolis) centre looked like a fortified area, isolated from the town, with massive and grand buildings, visible and imposing in the direction of the lower town. However, this feature did not develop any further, probably because the political situation in the Syro-Hittite centres changed: the presence of Assyrian invaders transformed these centres from independent city-states into Assyrian fortresses in bordering provinces. Thus, the

874

The area between the King’s gate and the entrance to the upper palace. R.D. Barnett et C.L. Woolley 1952: Pl.3, 41a, pg. 192-193. 875 IVB3.Table 23: 876 At Tell Halaf, the rear wall of TP decorated with the small orthostats, which faced only this area, dominated the space: the iconographic motives of the small orthostats suggested a religious and apotropaic (fantastic animals, gods, contest, and music scene) meaning. Cf. VIA4. 877 Cf. D. Bonatz 2000, S. Mazzoni 1997, D. Ussishkin 1989, J. Voos 1985, idem 1988.

173

Pucci –Ch. IX. General Analysis

defence system was required to be stable: it is not clear how resistant the defensive system of the lower town was. At Tell Halaf, the lower town was inhabited during the Assyrian period and abandoned after its fall, while the acropolis continued to be inhabited at least until the end of the neo-Babylonian period. However at Zincirli, during the last phase already, the acropolis probably became a fortress with no external defence. Therefore, the defence of the mound wall again became a priority and the buildings were again positioned inside the mound wall.

IXD3. Elevating the buildings: the terraces A main element which became typical of Syro-Hittite centres was the use of high terraces to elevate buildings. This architectural element was frequently used in a second phase of building activity at the sites, but the need to raise the floor level of some structures was present from the beginning onwards of construction at the sites. To begin with, in order to raise the floor level of some structures (XIII at Tayinat, ATP area at Halaf and HI at Zincirli) the builder constructed a stone socle filled with earth. Another solution was the construction of mud brick terraces on which the structures were built. 878 Mud brick terraces were mainly employed at Tell Halaf and Tell Tayinat, while at Zincirli stone socles remained in use. This difference was probably due to the availability of building materials: while at Zincirli there were several stone quarries in the surrounding areas, 879 at Tell Halaf and Tell Tayinat the stone was a more precious material and its use was limited to the architectural elements, which could not be built with different materials (such as orthostats, foundations and paving). Elevating buildings, together with positioning them above the mound wall, fulfilled the function of giving greater relevance to certain structures. It is interesting that at all sites, during the first building periods, only the Hilani buildings (HI at Zincirli, XIII at Tayinat), isolated from the other structures on the mound, were raised above ground level. 880 Later it became a common feature, when administrative and ruling buildings were also positioned on high terraces (NOP2 and 3, LZM at Tell Halaf, XV at Tell Tayinat).

IXD4. Enclosing open spaces As analysed above, 881 the division of the acropolis into two built-up areas with different functions took place at all three sites. We can point to a similar development in the areas where large complexes of several structures 878

According to R. Naumann 1955: 57, the terraces are divided into two types: ones obtained by containment walls, and others artificially built on an even surface. 879 The nearest quarry was Gerçin, but Yesemek and Sikizlar were also in the vicinity. 880 Naumann [1955: 58] argues that there is possibly a connection between constructing a terrace above a grave, as is also the case at Gâvurkale. At Gâvurkale the terrace did not have any graves inside the town, as is the case at Tell Halaf, rather in an isolated area outside the built environment so that probably the terrace had the function of marking the burial site. 881 Cf. IXC3

were built (the north-western areas at Tell Tayinat and Zincirli and the north-eastern area at Tell Halaf). During the earliest period, some structures surrounded an open space which was then accessible through a gate and gave access to the surrounding buildings. Later, this open space (or square) was divided into two parts by an internal partition (NWH at Zincirli, rooms NOP2/AQ-AV at Tell Halaf and the western platform at Tell Tayinat): a public work area was separated from a more private representative area. It is difficult to understand which new needs appeared to change the architecture of a large complex and cause great efforts to be expended to effect this change. We may argue that as the layout of the Assyrian palaces showed a similar division into two courtyards, a private and a public area, the Assyrians might have influenced Syro-Hittite town planning. However, this did not happen abruptly, rather it came about by a gradual addition of independent structures over a period of time, when the Assyrians did not control the area. Therefore, it may be considered as a further stage in the spatial organisation of the towns, due to better organisation by the ruling centres and broadening of activities related to the palace, rather than to any Assyrian influence.

IXD5. Orthostats and statues as architectural elements Carved orthostats are considered a typical feature of Syro-Hittite centres, mainly in the towns with a large availability of stone materials. The practical use of orthostats, such as stones containing pebbles for filling the foundations or socles is amply testified for the Late Bronze Age. 882 However, their symbolic function as bearers of images and sacred materials with no practical function becomes evident in Syro-Hittite centres. They were always located on the external faces of the buildings: this feature may in part have been inherited from the Hittite use of orthostats; in fact, they were a protective element for the lower part of the walls against rainfall and weather damage, and were consequently positioned on the external faces of the structures. It is possible to identify a development from the plain orthostats, which had a mainly practical function, to those that were carved, 883 which had both practical and formal functions, and finally to those, 884 no longer located at the base of the wall, which only had a formal function. This development, which may have influenced the Assyrians, who moved the orthostats from the outside to the inside of the buildings, was visible at all sites. However, their location on the external sides of the building was probably also related to the essential role which the external areas had as part of the town planning. This blending of architectural elements and images found its highest expression in the caryatides at the entrance of TP in Tell Halaf: supporting architectural elements doubled as statues. Thus, the use of the statues seemed to

882

R. Naumann 1955: 81-82. The carvings on the gate at Alaça Höyük dating to the last phase of the Late Bronze Age were the earliest examples. 884 E.g. the small orthostats on the rear wall of TP at tell Halaf. 883

174

Pucci –Ch. IX. General Analysis

follow an inverted development: they were usually located independently from the buildings, also in open areas with no practical structural function. They later became part of the architecture. The same development was evident for the stone bases with flanking animals: during a first period, the proteome flanked a stone column base and at the end, the base itself was shaped like an animal. The same mixture of formal features and practical architectural functions can be observed in two more installations: containers for libations and offering tables. The stone bowls on the hands of the statues of G1 at Tell Halaf were used as containers for libations and in general they 885 were frequently constructed as fixed installations in reception rooms and inside religious structures. The legs of the same statues in G1 at Halaf were also shaped as a plain and regular surface also used for host offerings. In conclusion, this trend of uniting practical architectural elements with formal iconographic elements found its main development in the Syro-Hittite centres.

IXD6. External Influences on Syro-Hittite Architecture External influences on building activity are related to the apparently swift construction of those buildings, which fulfilled a function with an internal organisation, a layout different from the one usually employed at the site. Both textual and archaeological elements testify to Assyrian presence at the sites. At all sites archaeologists identified structures (G at Zincirli, IX at Tell Tayinat and NOP at Tell Halaf), which they argued as being directly built by the Assyrians, because their layout showed a strong Assyrian influence. The Assyrians conquered the towns at different times and by different methods (destruction at Zincirli, a pact at Tell Halaf, brief destruction at Tell Tayinat), and their influence followed different paths. Zincirli was the town which suffered the most extensive damage and was influenced the least. In building G, several rooms were grouped around an open space; each group of rooms followed the Hilani module and these groups were not structurally connected, but added over time. The internal arrangement showed some Assyrian features: paving with baked bricks, the absence of an imposing gate, the “throne” room with crossed rails for the fireplace may all have been of Assyrian origin. We have stressed the hypothesis that these structures were the seat of the Assyrian governors because the construction of the buildings followed destruction of other structures in a later period on the sites and because this layout does not manifest a development in the towns. It seems evident that the Assyrians left the construction of their seat to local labour, because they were built following patterns slightly different from the Assyrian ones. Consequently these structures were the result of a mixture of the type of spatial organisation required by the

885

Stone vessels were inserted into the floor of the reception room J/2 and K/2 at Zincirli, in the sacred KR in the lower town at Tell Halaf. We can compare them with the stone cups located near the buried lions at Zincirli.

Assyrians, and with local building tradition. Tell Halaf was the site influenced most, because it had continuous contact with the Assyrians and maintained good relations with them. 886 For this reason the inhabitants, or rather the rulers of the town, probably absorbed certain influences peacefully. This influence was not visible in the substantial organisation of space, because even the north-eastern palace (NOP), which was built by the gradual addition of individual elements, lacked a substantial Assyrian feature: the separation of two courtyards by the reception rooms. In actual fact, NOP was divided into several courtyards, which were connected to each other by gates, architectural elements which maintained their important role inside the buildings as well. The reception room was isolated to the north and eventually only accessible from one courtyard. The house AH and the temple STL were apparently complete Assyrian models. The southern house AH had a direct similarity with the layout of an Assyrian dwelling unit organised around a central courtyard. 887 By contrast, the older structures built at the same location (EH) had a completely different layout, and different modules (large rooms, 888 absence of central courtyard) were used here. The structure STL showed the strongest Assyrian influence, without any local element. The Nabu temple at Nimrud and the Nabu temple at Khorsabad show clear and strong similarities to this structure. 889 At Tell Tayinat, the layout of building IX was too badly preserved to establish a clear relationship with the Assyrian Palaces. The articulation into two courtyards again reproduced an Assyrian layout, but here also the two were not connected by the reception room, which only opened onto the northern courtyard. At this site, the Assyrian influence was visible in the style of the carved orthostats found reused in the later floor of gate VII. Assuming that the reliefs were located in the gate, we can say that the style showed an Assyrian influence, but the iconographic motives and the location were again local. In conclusion, we can stress that Assyrian influence on spatial organisation was not as substantial as has generally been argued: local tradition was probably very strong and the conquerors did not bring Assyrian labour to build their residences. 890 Another structure at Tayinat seems to indicate a possibly external influence. Building II, which was clearly identified as fulfilling a religious purpose, had features, which do not appear to have developed at the site during the Iron Age. This building type, a rectangular building with a tripartite long room accessible from the short side and a portico entrance used for religious purposes, appears to be typical of the coastal region of the Levante

886

Cf. VI P. A. Miglus 1999. 888 The same modules are visible in the layout of the houses built in the lower town. Cf. pg. 116 and have some similarities with the layout of the houses in the lower town at Karkamish. Cf. R.D: Barnett et C:L: Woolley 1952. 889 E. Heinrich 1982: 270, Abb. 349 and 355. 890 This does not apply to monuments such as the Esarhaddon stele at Zincirli. 887

175

Pucci –Ch. IX. General Analysis

in the Late Bronze Age and in the Iron Age, a type called Migdol Temples or a Canaanite temple, which was also employed at Ebla in temple D during the Middle Bronze Age (cf. pg. 151 ff.). While Assyrian relationships with the Syro Hittite centres are also manifest from textual evidence, any clues to support the hypothesis of a southern influence in the architecture of Tayinat lack.

IXD7. The Bit Hilani: a building type? O. Puchstein (1892) first identified the Bit Hilani, which was quoted in the Assyrian annals as a building typical of the land of Hatti, with an excavated building at Zincirli. Since then scholars have immediately recognised it as typical of this geographical area and historical period. 891 The architectural features outlined as defining this structure were two large rooms, parallel lenghtwise, one or two towers flanking the entrance, several smaller rooms behind the second large room and an entrance portico. 892 The porch represents the only feature frequently quoted in the Assyrian Annals. The features of the structure were mainly based on the architecture at Zincirli and elaborated on by Koldewey. The philological origins of the Hilani are still under discussion; 893 from an archaeological point of view, we can stress that the architectural elements that later blended to form this structure existed already in Syria during the Late Bronze Age. A lengthwise tripartite structure with two large rooms was evident in domestic architecture of Syria and Mesopotamia as of the third Millennium, and several examples also exist in the Late Bronze Age architecture in Syria both at Tell Mumbaqa and Emar. 894 Also in the Iron Age we find similar layouts in domestic architecture in the lower town at Tell Halaf and at Karkamish. The portico (for the main entrance or for internal use) was employed in the Niqmepa palace at Alalakh, in the royal palace at Ugarit, and eventually at Emar during the Late Bronze Age. 895 We have already argued that the main feature of SyroHittite architecture was the organisation of external space limited by structures whose façades became the frames of these spaces. In order to model these frames, two architectural solutions were adopted: the open faces of the porticoes and the plain wall faces decorated with orthostats. The use of a façade that was completely open and independent from the layout of the building it belonged to was crucial in shaping the external areas. Therefore the common structure used in domestic architecture acquired features which were used in shaping the outer area: porticoes and orthostats, for specific buildings which were used for representative purposes. Only at this point did the layout become a type.

891

R. Koldewey 1898: 183-193, for a complete bibliography cf. V. Fritz 1983b: footnote 1. 892 Cf. V. Fritz 1983b: 43 and footnote 3. J.C. Margueron 1977 provided a more detailed definition of the size and disposition of the internal rooms of Bit Hilani. 893 For an overview of the philological origins cf. E. Singer 1975 894 House B at Mumbaqa, D. Machule et al. 1986, Section 10 at Emar, cf. J. Cl. Margueron 1977 895 Cf. V. Fritz 1983b

In the Assyrian perception of the structure, the prominent feature, the portico with carved column bases, became symbolic of the whole building. Assyrians probably only introduced this feature into their complexes as a result of imitation. 896 They imported only one part of the structure (metonimie), but not its internal spatial organisation because it did not suit their needs. This feature then had a different significance to that of Syro-Hittite centres; in these centres the portico gave an impression of accessibility, of an area in between the interior of the building and the external area, whereas in the Assyrian locations it was an exotic element inside a more articulated structure.

IXE.

The semantics of space

The semantics of space analyses the relationship between the space as a sign and its functions as the objects of this sign. The relationship between the sign and its object, (i.e. the semantics) is typical of an individual culture. It has been stressed above that the Syro-Hittite centres developed common architectural features: i.e. the division of the acropolis into two built areas, the fortifications, the tendency to elevate buildings, the use of orthostats and statues as part of the architecture, the use of the module of the Bit Hilani, the emphasis on the external spaces limited by independent buildings and the construction of processional routes. These similarities are also evident in the distribution of the functions, which followed similar trends at all sites. 897 We have also pointed out 898 that these features developed in the area over time and that they not only imitated features of previous periods and previous cultures. At this point it seems evident that the centres shared the same cultural sphere and that internal development followed similar routes. Logically, several “external” elements appeared in the towns, as evidence of foreign influences. The development of the features typical of the SyroHittite centres was based on local elements which were available in the region of south-eastern Turkey and Syria in the Late Bronze Age. These elements were combined in order to fulfil new needs, which were created by a different social and political structure. The spatial organisation showed no traces of the arrival of new modules imported from other cultures, i.e. a pre-existing Aramean building tradition which was then imported or developed at the sites in contrast or in parallel to a LateHittite one did not exist. Moreover the elements developed during the Early Iron Age at these sites can be only in part “Hittite”, they were more related to the same geographical area that was under the Hittite control during the Late Bronze Age. In conclusion, we can argue that from an architectural point of view the Syro-Hittite centres show a uniformity that implies that the ethnic division 899 into Luwian and 896

P. L. Brusasco 1992 Cf. Above in this Chapter 898 Cf. IXD 899 This division is also emphasised by H. C. Melchert 2003: where the Luwian component is analysed as a separate element identifiable also in Art and Architecture. Cf. also H. Sader 1987, 897

176

Pucci –Ch. IX. General Analysis

Aramaic constituents does not coincide with the existence of different architectural traditions. Consequently, we can affirm that these two components, which are visible in the written sources, combined in the spatial organisation forming Syro-Hittite architectural culture.

P.E. Dion 1997, E. Lipinski 2000

177

Pucci – Bibliography

au milieu du quatrième millenaire, Paris

Biblography:

AURENCHE O. 1990, Habitat de nomades et habitat de sédentaires en Syrie et en Jordanie: étude de cas, Paris

ABOU 'ASSAF 'A. 1990, Der Tempel von 'Ain Dara, Mainz am Rhein ABOU 'ASSAF 'A., P. BORDREUIL AND A.R. MILLARD 1982, La statue de Tell Fekherye et son inscription bilingue assyro-arameènne, Paris

AURENCHE O. 1993, “L'origine de la brique dans le Proche Orient Ancien”, Frangipane M. et al. (eds), Between the Rivers and over the Mountains. Archaeologica Anatolica et Mesopotamica, Alba Palmieri dedicata: 71-85, Rome

AKURGAL E. 1949, Spätethitische Bildkunst, Ankara AKURGAL E. 1966, Orient und Okzident, Baden-Baden

BAHN P.G. (ED) 1996, Cambridge Illustrated History of Archaology, Cambridge

AKURGAL E. 1979, “L'architecture et la sculpture de Tell Halaf”, Florilegium Anatolicum. Mélanges offerts à Emmanuel Laroche: 9-28, Paris

BAHRANI Z. 1989, The administration building at Tell al-Hiba, New York BAHRANI Z. 1995, “Jewelry and Personal Arts in Ancient Western Asia”, J.M. Sasson (ed.), Civilisations of the Ancient Near East 3: 1635-1647, New York

ALAURA S. 2007, “Otto Puchstein und Sendjirli (Zincirli)”, D. Groddek at M. Zorman (eds), Tabularia Hethaeorum, Sivin Košak zum 65. Geburtstag: 13-31, Wiesbaden ALBRECHT B.

BAKER H. 1995, “Neo-Babylonian Burials Revisited”, S. Cambell et A. Green (eds), The Archaeology of Death in the Ancient Near East: 209-220, Oxford

ET BENEVOLO L. 2002, Le origini dell'architettura, Bari Rome

ALBRIGHT W.F 1956A, “Northeast mediterranean dark ages and the early iron age art of Syria”, S. S. Weinberg (ed.), The Aegean and the Near East. Studies presented to H. Goldman, :144-165, New York

BAL M.

ET

BRYSON N. 1991, “Semiotics and Art History”, The Art Bulletin 73 n.2: 174208, New York

BARGATZKY T. 1989, Einführung in die Ethnologie: eine Kultur- und Sozialanthropologie, Hamburg

ALBRIGHT W.F. 1956B, “The date of the Kapara period at Gozan (Tell Halaf)”, AnSt. 6, special in honour of Prof. J. Garstang: 75-85

BARNETT R.D. 1953, “Karatepe, the key to the hittite hieroglyphs”, AnSt. 3: 53-97,

ALBRIGHT W.F. 1975, “Syria, the Philistines and Phoenicia”, CAH 2nd ed., II: 507-536, Cambridge

BARNETT R.D. 1975B, “Phrigia and the peoples of Anatolia in 1st mil. a.C.”, CAH 3rd ed., II-part 2: 417-443, Cambridge

ALGAZE G. 1990, Town and Country in Southeastern Anatolia, Chicago

BARNETT R.D.

ALLARA A. 1987, “Domestic architecture at Dura Europos”, Mesopotamia 22: 67-76,

BARRELET M.TH. 1977, “Le cas hurrite et la pratique archéologique”, M.Th. Barrelet (ed.), Methodologies et Critiques I: Problèmes concernants les Hurrites I: 1-20, Paris

AMIET P. 1966, Elam, Auvers sur Oise ANDRAE W. 1943A, Ausgrabungen in Sendschirlij V. Die Kleinfunde, Berlin

ET WOOLLEY C.L. 1952, Charchemish III, Oxford

ARGAN G. C. 1984, Storia dell'arte come storia della città, Rome

BARRELET M.TH. 1984, “Le decor du bol en or de Hasanlu et les interpretations proposées à son sujet”, M.Th. Barrelet (ed.), Problèmes concernant les Hurrites 2: 13-177, Paris

ASTRÖM L. 1967, Studies on the arts and crafts of the late Cypriote Bronze Age, Lund

BERNBECK R. 1997, Theorien in Archaeologie, Tübingen

AURENCHE O. 1977, Dictionnaire illustré multi-lingue de l'architecture du Proche Orient Ancien, Lyon

BESENVAL R. 1984, Technologie de la voûte dans l'Orient Ancien, Paris

ANDRAE W. 1943B, “Sendschirli”, MDOG 80: 25-40,

BIER C. 1995, “Textile Arts in Ancient Western Asia”, J.M. Sasson (ed.) Civilisations of the Ancient Near East: 1,567-1,588, New

AURENCHE O. 1981, La maison orientale. L'architecture du Proche Orient Ancien des origines

178

Pucci – Bibliography

BRAIDWOOD R. J 1937, Mounds in the Plain of Antioch an Archaeological Survey, Chicago

York BINDING G. 1980, Architektonische Formenlehre, Darmstadt

BRAIDWOOD R. J ET BRAIDWOOD L. S. 1960, Excavations in the Plain of Antioch I, Chicago

BINFORD L. R. 1980, “Willow smoke and Dog's Tails: Hunter Gather Settlement Systems and Archaeological Site Formation”, American Antiquity 45: 4-20,

BRAUN-HOLZINGER E.A. 1991, Mesopotamische Weihgaben der frühdynastischen bis altbabylonischen Zeit, Heidelberg

BISCIONE R. 1979, “The Burnt Building of Period Shahr-i Sokhta IV. An Attempt of Functional Analysis from the Distribution of the Pottery Types”, G. Gnoli et A. V. Rossi (eds.), Iranica: 291-306, Napoli

BREASTED J. H. 1919, “The Oriental Institute of the University of Chicago”, AJSL 35: 196204, BREASTED J. H. 1922, The Oriental Institute of the University of Chicago. A beginning and a Program, Chicago

BISI A.M. 1965, Il Grifone; storia di un motivo iconografico nell'antico Oriente mediterraneo, Rome

BREASTED J. H. 1933, The Oriental Institute, Chicago

BITTEL K. 1977, Gli ittiti, Milan

BRUSASCO P. L. 1992, Architettura e imitazione, Firenze

BLACK J. AND GREEN A. 1992, Gods, Demons and Symbols of Ancient Mesopotamia, London

BUHL M.L.

BOEHMER R. M. 1972, Die Kleinfunde aus Bogazköy, Berlin

RIIS P. J. 1990, Hama, fouilles et Recherches 1931-38, II,2. Les objets de la periode dite syro-hittite, Copenhagen

ET

BÜHNEN S. 2003, “Kultur und Kulturen”, U. Veit et al. (eds), Spuren und Botschaften: Interpretationen materieller Kultur: 491-514, Münster

BOLLWEG J. 1999, Vorderasiatische Wagentypen, Göttingen BONATZ D. 2000, Das syro-hethitische Grabdenkmal, Mainz am Rhein

BUNNENS G. 1996, “Syro-Anatolian Influence on NeoAssyrian Town Planning”, G. Bunnens (ed), Cultural Interaction in the Ancient Near East. Papers Read at a Symposium held at the University of Melbourne: 113-128, Leuven

BONATZ D. 2001, “Mnemohistory in Syro-Hittite Iconography”, Abusch Tzvi et alii (eds) Proceedings of the XLVe Rencontre Assyriologique Internationale: Part I: Historiography in the Cuneiform World.: 65-77, Bethesda

BURKHARDT J.L. 1822, Travels in syria and the Holy Land, London

BONFANTINI M. A. ET AL. 1980, Ch. S. Peirce. Semiotica. Testi scelti dai Collected Papers, Turin

BURNEY CH. 1995, “Urartian Funerary Customs”, S. Cambell et A. Green (eds), The Archaeology of Death in the Ancient Near East: 205-208, Oxford

BÖRKER KLÄHN J. 2000, “Schrift-Bilder”, UF 31: 5173,

BUSINK TH.A. 1970, Der Tempel von Jerusalem, Leiden

BÖRKER-KLÄHN J. 1982, Altvorderasiatische Bildstelen und vergleichbare Felsrelief, Mainz am Rhein

CABLE C. 1981, Semiotics and Architecture, Monticello CALMEYER P. 1975, “Helm. B. Archäologisch”, RlA 4/4: 313-317, Berlin NY

BOSSERT H.TH., CAMBEL H. 1946, Karatepe, a preliminary report on a new hittite Site, Istanbul

ÇAMBEL H. 1948, “Karatepe: an Archaeological Introduction to a Recently Discovered Hittite Site in Southern Anatolia”, Oriens vol.1, No. 2: 147-162,

BOSSERT H.TH., CAMBEL H., ALKIM U.B 1947, Karatepe, Kadirli and its environment; second preliminary Report, Istanbul

ÇAMBEL H. 1999, Corpus of Hyerogliphic Luwian Inscriptions II: Karatepe, Berlin

BOSSERT H.TH., CAMBEL H., ALKIM U.B., ONGUNSU N. 1950, Die Ausgrabungen auf dem Karatepe, Ankara

CARTER CH. W. 1962, Hittite Cult Inventories, Chicago CARTER E. ET PARKER A. 1995, “Pots, People and The Archaeology of Death in Northern Syaria and Southern Anatoliain in the latter half of the Third Millennium

BOWMAN R. 1941, “The Old Aramaic Alphabet at Tell Halaf the Date of the 'Altar' Inscription”, AJSL 58/4: 359-367,

179

Pucci – Bibliography

DION P.E. 1997, Les Aramèens à l'age du Fer: histoire politique et structures sociales, Paris

BC”, Campbell S. and Green A. (eds) The Archaeology of the Death in the Ancient Near East: 96-117, Oxford

DONNER H.

CASTEL C. 1992A, Habitat urbain néo-assyrien et néobabilonien. De l'espace bâti… à l'espace vécu, Paris

ET

RÖLLIG W. 1964, Kanaanaische und Aramaische Inschriften, Wiesbaden

DREYER C. 2003, “155. Semiotische Aspekte der Architekturwissenschaft: Architektursemiotik”, R. Posner, K. Robering, T. A. Sebeok (eds), Semiotik-Semiotics, 3. Teilband vol. 3: 3234-3278, Berlin, NY

CASTEL C. 1992B, “Temples à l'epoque néobabylonienne: une même conception de l'éspace sacré”, Revue d'assyriologie et d'archéologie orientale vol.86/1: 169187, Paris

DU

PLAT TAYLOR J. ET ALII 1950, “Excavations at Sakcegözü”, IRAQ 12: 53-138,

CECCHINI S.M. 2000, “The Textile Industry in Northern Syria during the Iron Age according to the Evidence of the Tell Afis Excavations”, G. Bunnens (ed), Essays on Syria in the Iron Age: 211-234, Leuven

ECO U. 1967, Appunti per una semiologia delle arti visive, Milan

CHAMPOLLION J. F. 1824, Précis hiéroglyphique, Paris

ECO U. 1972, Einführung in die Semiotik, München

du

ECO U. 1968A, La struttura assente, Milan ECO U. 1968B, La definizione dell'arte, Milan

système

ECO U. 1980, “Function and sign: the semiotics of architecture”, Broadbent et al., Signs, symbols and architecture: 11-69, Bath

CHAPMANN M.K. 1948, Great Britain and the Baghdad Railway 1888-1914, Northhampton CHOLIDIS N. 1992, Möbel in Ton, Münster CHOLIDIS N.

EICHMANN

MARTIN L. 2002, Der Tell Halaf und sein Ausgräber Max Freiherr von Oppenheim, Mainz am Rhein

ET

CLEMENTE M.

ELSEN-NOVÀK G. ET NOVÀK M. 1994, “Der Tall Halāf und das Tall Halāf-Museum”, Das Altertum 40: 115-126,

RUBERTIS R. 2001, Percezione e comunicazione visiva dell'architettura, Rome

ET DE

FALES M. 2001, L'impero assiro, Bari

CONTENAU G. 1922, La gliptique syro-hittite, Paris

FALKNER

COURTOIS J. C. 1979, “A propos des tuyaux rituels ou bras de Libation en Anatolie et à Chypre”, E. Laroche, Florilegium Anatolicum mélanges offerts à Emmanuel Laroche: 85-95, Paris

M.

1954-56, “Die Eponymen der spätassyrischen Zeit”, AfO 17: 100120,

FERNIE E. 1995, Art History and his Methods, Singapore FLANNERY K. V. 1976, “Evolution of Complex Settlement Systems”, K. V. Flannery (ed), The Early Mesoamerican Village: 162-173, Toronto

CRÜSEMANN N. 2001, Von Zweistromland zum Kupfergraben., Berlin CURTIS J. E. ET MAXWELL-HYSLOP K. 1971, “The gold jewellery from Nimrud”, IRAQ 33: 101-112, DELACROIX G.

R. 1991, Aspekte Prähistorischer Grundrissgestaltung in Vorderasien, Mainz am Rhein

FOREST J.-D. 1999, Les premiers Mésopotamie, Oxford

ET HUOT J.L. 1972, “Le fours dits 'de poiter' dans l'Orient Ancien”, Syria 49: 35-95,

temples

de

FRIEDRICH J., MEYER G.R., UNGNAD A. ET WEIDNER F. 1940, Die Inschriften vom Tell Halaf, Berlin

DELOUGAZ P., HILL H.D. ET LLOYD S. 1967, Private Houses and Graves in the Diyala Region, Chicago

FRITZ V. 1983A, “Paläste während der Bronze- und Eisenzeit in Palästina”, ZDPV 99: 142,

DESIDERI P ET JASINK A.M. 1990, Cilicia, Turin DEZSÖ T. 2001, Near Eastern Helmets of the Iron Age, Oxford

FRITZ V. 1983B, “Die syrische Bauform des Hilani und die Frage seiner Verbreitung”, Dam. Mitt. 1: 43-58,

DEZZI BARDESCHI C. 1998, Architettura domestica nella Mesopotamia settentrionale nel II millenio a.C., Firenze

FUGMANN E. 1958, Hama, fouilles et Recherches 193138, II,1. L'architecture des périodes préhellénistiques, Copenhagen

DION P.E. 1974, Le Langue de Ya'udi, Waterloo

180

Pucci – Bibliography

HARBISON R. 1991, The Built, the Unbuilt and the Unbuildable, Cambridge

GALLING K. ET RÖSEL H. 1977, “Tür”, K. Galling (ed), Bibliches Reallexikon: 348-349, Tübingen

HARRIS

GARSTANG J. 1908, “Excavations at Sakje-Geuzi in the North-Syria: preliminary Report for 1908”, AAA 1: 17-117,

HARRISON T. P. 2001, “Tell Ta'yinat and the Kingdom of Unqi”, P.M.M. Daviau, J.W. Wevers et M. Weigl (eds) The World of the Aramean II, studies in honour of P.E. Dion: 115-132, Sheffield

GEERTZ C. 1973, Interpretation of cultures, New York GELB I. J. 1939, Hittite Hieroglyphic Monuments, Chicago

HAUSLEITER A. 1999, “Neuassyrische Kunstperiode VI. Keramik”, RlA 9/3-4, :274-277, Berlin NY

GENGE H. 1979, Nordsyrisch-südanatolische Reliefs, Copenhagen

HAWKINS J. D. 1972, “Building Inscriptions of Carchemish: The Long Wall of Sculpture and Great Staircase”, AnSt 22: 87-114,

GIBSON J. C. L. 1975, Textbook of Syrian Semitic Inscriptions. Volume II Aramaic inscriptions, Oxford

HAWKINS J. D. 1982, “The Neo-hittite States in Syria and Anatolia”, CAH 2nd ed., III-part 1: 372-441, Cambridge

GIEDION S. 2001, Lo spazio in architettura. Ital. Trasl. of Giedion 1969, Architektur und das Phänomen des Wandels. Die drei Reumkonzeptionen in der Architektur.Tübingen, Palermo K.

HAWKINS J. D. 1986, “Writing in Anatolia: Imported and Indigenous System”, WA 17, 3: 363-376,

H. 1983, Der Tempel im alten Mesopotamien und seine parallelen in Indien, Leiden

HAWKINS J. D. 1988, “Kuzi-Tesub and the Great Kings of Karkamis”, AnSt 38: 99-108,

GOMBRICH E.H. 1996, The Essential Gombrich. Selected Writings on Art and Culture, London GREEN A.

AT

HAWKINS J. D. 1993, “Melid. A. Historisch”, RlA 8/12: 35-41, Berlin NY HAWKINS J. D. 1995A, “Karkamish and Karatepe: NeoHittite City-States in North Syria”, J.M. Sasson ed., Civilisations of the Ancient Near East 2: 1295-1307, New York

HAUSLEITER A. 2001, “Gottheiten in Til Barsib”, Richter T., Prechel D., Klinger J. (eds), Kulturgeschichten. Altorientalistische Studien für Volkert Haas zum 65. Geburtstag: 145-169, Saarbrücken

GREIMAS A.-J.

1989, Principles of Archaeological Stratigraphy, New York

HARRIS M. 1991, Cultural Anthropology, New York

GARSTANG J. 1913, “Second Interim Report on the Excavations at Sakje-Geuzi in the North-Syria, 1911”, AAA 5: 63-72

GOLZIO

E.

HAWKINS J. D. 2000, Inscriptions of the Iron Age, Berlin-NY HAWKINS J.D. 1974, “Assyrians and Hittites”, IRAQ 36: 67-84,

ET AL.

1970, Sign-Language-Culture, The Hague

HAWKINS J.D. 1995B, “'Great Kings' and "Country Lords” at Malatya and Karkamis", Th. Van den Hout et J. de Roos (eds.), Studio Historiae Ardens: Ancient Near Eastern Studies Presented to Philo H. J. Houwink ten Cate on the Occasion of His 65th Birthday, :73-86, Istanbul

GROUPE 107 1973, Sémiotique de l'espace, Paris GURNEY O.R. 1961, The Hittites, Harmondsworth HÄGG R. (ED) 1987, The Function of the Minoan Palaces, Stockholm HAHN H. P. 2003, “Dinge als Zeichen- eine unscharfe Beziehung”, U. Veit et al. (eds), Spuren und Botschaften: Interpretationen materieller Kultur: 29-51, Münster

HEINRICH E. 1973, “Haus.B. Archäologisch”, RlA 4/23: 176-220, Berlin NY HEINRICH E. 1982, Tempel und Heiligtümer im alten Mesopotamien, Berlin

HAINES R. C. 1971, Excavations in the Plain of Antioch II: the Structural Remains of the Later Phases, Chicago

HEINRICH E. 1984, Die Paläste im alten Mesopotamien, Berlin

HAMMAD M. 2003, Leggere lo spazio, comprendere l'architettura, Rome

HEINRICH E. ET SEIDL U. 1968, “Maß und Übermaß in der Dimensionierung von Bauwerken im alten Zweistromland”, MDOG 99: 5-54,

HANSEN M. H. (ED) 2000, A Comparative Study of Thirty City-State Cultures, Copenhagen

181

Pucci – Bibliography

HEMKER CH. 1993, Altorientalische Kanalisation, Münster

78-90, Copenhagen JENKS CH. 1980, “The Architectural Sign”, Broadbent G. et alii, Signs, Symbols and Architecture: 71-118, Bath

HENRICKSON E.F. 1981, “Residential settlement patterning in the late ED”, Mesopotamia 16: 43-140,

JORMAKKA K. 2003, Geschichte der Architekturtheorie, Wien

HENRICKSON E.F. 1982, “Functional analysis of Elite Residences in the late E.D. of the Diyala region”, Mesopotamia 17: 5-35,

JOUKOWSKY M. S. 1996, Early Turkey Anatolian Archaeology from Prehistory through the Lydian Period, Dubuque

HENRICKSON E.F. ET MCDONALD M.M.A. 1983, “Ceramic form and Function: an Ethnographic Search and an Archeological Application”, American Anthropologist 85/3: 630-643,

KANTOR H.J. 1962, “Oriental Institute Museum Notes No 13: a Bronze Plaque with Relief Decoration from Tell Tainat”, JNES 21: 93-117,

HERRMANN G. 1989, “The Nimrud Ivories, 1: the Flame and Frond School”, IRAQ 51: 85-110,

KEELEY L. H. ET ALII 2007, “Baffles and Bastions: the Universal Features of Fortifications”, Journal of Archaeological Research 15: 55-95,

HODDER I. (ED.) 1989, The Meanings of Things, London

KEMPINSKI A. 1973, “Review.R.C. Haines, the structural remains of the later phases”, IEJ 23: 188-190,

HODDER I. 1986, Reading the Past, Cambridge HODDER I. 1999, The archaeological process, Oxford HOGARTH D.G.

KENT S. (ED) 1990, Domestic Architecture and the Use of Space: An Interdisciplinary CrossCultural Study, Cambridge

WOOLLEY C.L. 1914, Charchemish I, Oxford ET

HÖLSCHER T. 1998, Öffentliche Räume in frühen griechischen Städten, , -, Heidelberg

KESSLER K. 1995, “Iubria, Urartu and Ashshur. Topographical Questions around the Tigris Sources”, M. Liverani (ed), NeoAssyrian Geography: 55-67, Rome

HROUDA B. 1962, Tell Halaf IV: die Kleinfunde aus historischer Zeit, Berlin

KIEPERT H 1867, P.v. Tschihatschaff's Reisen in Kleinasien und Armenien 1847-63, Petermanns Geographische Mitteilungen, Ergänzungsheft 20, , Gotha

HROUDA B. 1972, “Halaf, Tell.”, RlA 4/1: 54-55, Berlin-NY HUMANN K., PUCHSTEIN O. 1890, Reise in Kleinasien und Nordsyrien, Berlin IKEDA Y. 1979, “Royal Cities and Fortified Cities”, IRAQ 41: 75-87,

KILIAN K. 1984, “Pylos- Funktionsanalyse einer Residenz der Späten Palastzeit”, AKorrBl 14: 37-47,

INGHOLT H. 1934, Rapport préliminaire sur la première campagne de fouilles de Hama, Copenhagen

KILIAN K. 1987, “Zur Funktion der mykenischen Residenzen auf dem griechischen Festland”, Hägg R. et Marinatos N. (eds), The Function of the Minoan Palaces, acta instituti atheniensis regni sueciae, series 4, 35: 21-38, Stockholm

INGHOLT H. 1940, Rapport préliminaire sur sept campagnes de fouilles à Hama en Syrie., Copenhagen JACOBY G. 1911, “VIII. Die Architektur der Grabung 1902”, F. von Luschan (eds.) Ausgrabungen in Sendschirli IV., 267324, Berlin

KOENIG G. K. 1970, Architettura e comunicazione, Firenze KOLDEWEY

JANSEN M. 1984, “Theoretical Aspect of Structural analysis for Mohenjo Daro”, M. Jansen and G. Urban (eds), Interim Reports I, Reports on Field Work Carried out at Mohenjo-Daro, Pakistan 1982-83 by Aachen Uni-Mission-IsMEO: 39-62, Aachen

R. 1898, “Die Architektur von Sendschirli”, F. von Luschan (ed.) Ausgrabungen in Sendschirli II Ausgrabung und Architektur, :103-200, Berlin

KRAFELD DAUGHERTY M. 1994, Wohnen im Alten Orien, Münster KRAMPEN M. 1979, “Survey of Current Work on the Semiology of Architecture”, S. Chatman, U. Eco, J-M. Klinkenberg (eds), A Semiotic Landscape/Panorama

JASIM S. A. 1989, “Structure and Function in an 'Ubaid Village”, E. F. Henrickson et I. Thuesen (eds), Upon this Foundation:

182

Pucci – Bibliography

sémiotique- Proceedings of the First Congress of the International Association for Semiotic Studies,: 169194, The Hague, Paris, NY KROEBER A.L.

KLUCKHOHN C. 1952, Culture;a critical review of concepts and definitions, by A. L. Kroeber and Clyde Kluckhohn, with the assistance of Wayne Untereiner and appendices by Alfred G. Meyer., Cambridge

LUSCHAN F.

VON (ED) 1902, Ausgrabungen in Sendschirlij III. Die Thorskulpturen, Berlin

LUSCHAN F.

VON

(ED.) 1911, Ausgrabungen in Sendschirli, Berlin

ET

LUSCHAN F. VON 1898, Ausgrabungen in Sendschirli II. Ausgrabung und Architektur, Berlin MACHULE D.

ET AL.

1986, “Ausgrabungen in Tall Munbaqa 1984”, MDOG 118: 67-146,

KÜHNE H. 2006, “Lochsteine in Dur-Katlimmu”, P. Butterlin et al. (eds), Les espaces syromésopotamiens : dimensions de l'expérience humaine au Proche-Orient ancien : volume d'hommage offert à Jean-Claude Margueron: 512-519, Brepols

MAIGRET DE A. 1979, La cittadella aramaica di Hama: attività, funzioni, comportamento., Rome

L. ROCCI 1960, Dizionario greco-italiano, Milan

MAJOROS F.

LANDSBERGER

MAIER 1992, Von Winckelmann zu SchliemannArchäologie als Eroberungwissenschaft des 19. Jahrhunderts, Opladen

B. 1948, Sam'al. Studien zur Entdeckung der Ruinenstadte Karatepe, Ankara

MARAZZI M. 1990, Il geroglifico anatomico, Problemi di analisi e prospettive di ricerca, Rome MARGUERON J. CL. 1977, “Un 'hilani' à Emar”, AASOR 44: 153-176,

LAPP N. 1976, “Casemate walls in Palestine and the late Iron II casemate at Tell el Fûl”, BASOR 223: 25-42,

MARGUERON J. CL. 1996, “Syrie à l'age du Bronze”, S. Muhesen et al., Syrian-European Archaeology Exhibition - Exposition SyroEuropeenne d'Archeologie: Working Together - Miroir d'un partenariat:, :61-64, Damascus

LEDOUX C. N. 1994, L´Architecture considérée sous le rapport de l´art, des moeurs et de la législation, Repr. D. Ausg. V. 1804-47, Paris

MARGUERON J.CL. 1979, “Existet-il des ateliers dans les palais orientaux de l'age du Bronze?”, Ktema 4: 3-25

LEHMANN G. 1994, “Zu den Zerstörungen in Zincirli während des frühen 7. Jahrhunderts v. Chr.”, MDOG 126: 105-122,

MARGUERON J.CL. 1982, Recherches sur les palais mésopotamiens de l'âge du Bronze, Paris

LEHMANN G. 1996, Untersuchungen zur späten Eisenzeit in Syrien und Libanon, Münster

MARGUERON J.CL. 1985, “Temples de Sirie”, J.Cl. Margueron et al. (ed), Sanctuaires et clergés, Paris

LEICK G. 1988, A Dictionary of Ancient Near Eastern Architecture, London, NY

MARGUERON

LIDZBARSKI M. 1915, Ephemeris für Semitische Epigraphik v. 3, Giessen LIPINSKI E. 2000, The Arameans: their Ancient History, Culture, Religion, Leuven ET

J.CL 1986, “Quelques principes methodologique pour un approche analytique de l'architecture de l'Orient Antique”, CMAO: 261-285, Rome

MARGUERON J.CL. 1993A, “La maison orientale”, Veenhof, K.R. (ed.), Houses and Households in Ancient Mesopotamia, Papers read at the 40th Rencontre Assyriologique Internationale: 17-38, Leiden

C.B. ALTMAN 1938, Khorsabad II: the Citadel abd the Town, Chicago

LUCKENBILL D. D. 1926, Ancient Records of Assyria and Babylonia, vol. I, Chicago LUCKENBILL D. D. 1927, Ancient Records of Assyria and Babylonia, vol. II, Chicago LUSCHAN F.

RILL B. 1994, Das Osmanische Reich, Köln

MANTRAN R. 1989 (ED. IT. 1999), Histoire de l'empire ottoman, Paris

LANGENEGGER F. 1950, “Die Bauten und Schichten des Burghügels”, M.F. von Oppenheim (ed), Tell Halaf II: Die Bauwerke, :3324, Berlin

LOUD G.

ET

MARGUERON J.CL. 1998, “Aménagement du territoire et organisation de l'espace en Syrie du nord à l'âge du bronze: limites et possibilités d'une recherché”, O. Aurenche et M. Fortin (eds), Espace

VON (ED) 1893, Ausgrabungen in Sendschirlij I. Einleitung und Inschriften, Berlin

183

Pucci – Bibliography

naturel, espace habité en Syrie du Nord (10e-2e millénaires av. J.-C.), :167178, Lyon

Chicago”, AJA 41: 8-13, MEISSNER B. 1933, “Die Keilschrifttexte auf den steinernen Orthostaten und Statuen aus dem Tell Halâf”, Aus fünf Jahrtausenden morgenländischer Kultur; Festschrift Max freiherrn von Oppenheim zum 70. Geburtstage Gewidmet von Freunden und Mitarbeitern: 71-79, Berlin

MARTIN J.(ED.) 1982, Sancti Avrelii Avgvstini De doctrina christiana. De vera religione, Turnholti MATTHIAE P. 1992, “Ancora una fabbrica templare nel paese di Unqi”, CMAO 4: 123-140, Rome

MELCHERT H.C. (ED) 2003, The Luwians, Leiden, Boston

MATTHIAE P. 1997, La storia dell'arte dell'oriente antico. I primi imperi e i principati del Ferro, Milan

MIGLUS P. A. 2000, “Die Stelen des Königs Asarhaddon von Assyrien: Siegesdenkmäler oder politisches Vermächtnis?”, BaM 31: 195-211,

MAZZONI S. 1974, “Sui rilievi di Karkemish dall'etá di Sargon II al 605 a.C.”, RSO 47: 177210, MAZZONI S. 1977, “Ricerche sul complesso dei rilievi neoittiti di Karkemish”, RSO 51: 7-38

MIGLUS P.A. 1999, Städtische Wohnarchitektur in Babylonien und in Assyrien, Mainz am Rhein

MAZZONI S. 1984, “Sikizlar: una cava d'età sirohittita”, SMEA 24: 233-243

MILLARD A.R. 1994, The Eponyms of the Assyrian Empire 910-612 BC, Helsinki

MAZZONI S. 1994, “Aramean amd Luwian New Foundations”, S. Mazzoni (ed.), Nuove Fondazioni nel VOA: realtá ed ideologia: 319-339, Pisa

MOFIDI

MAZZONI S. 1995, “Settlement pattern and new urbanization in Syria at the time of the Assyrian conquest”, M. Liverani (ed.), Neo-Assyrian Geography: 181-192, Rome

MOOREY P.R.S. 1982, “The archaeological Evidence for Metallurgy and Technologies in Mesopotamia, c. 5500-2100 B.C.”, IRAQ 44: 13-38

MAZZONI S. 1997, “L'arte siro-ittita nel suo contesto archeologico”, CMAO 7: 287-327, Rome

MOOREY P.R.S. 1985, Materials and Manufacture in Ancient Mesopotamia: the Evidence of Archaeology and Art. Metals and Metalwork, glazed materials and Glass, Oxford

MAZZONI S. 2000, “Syria and the periodisation of the Iron Age. A cross cultural perspective”, G. Bunnens (ed), Essays on Syria in the Iron Age: 289-314, Louvain

MOOREY

MAZZONI S. 2001A, “La Siria e il mondo greco arcaico”, S. Settis (ed), I Greci. I Greci oltre la Grecia. vol. 3: 283-328, Turin

N.

B. 1999, Untersuchungen zu den Bestattungssitten in Mesopotamien in der ersten Hälfte des ersten Jartausends v. Chr., Mainz am Rhein

P.R.S. 1994, Ancient Mesopotamian Materials and Industries: the Archaeological Evidence, Oxford

MORANDI D. 1988, “Stele e statue reali assire: localizzazione, diffusione e implicazioni ideologiche”, Mesopotamia 23: 105-155

MAZZONI S. 2001B, “Syro-Hittite pyxides between major and minor art”, J-W Meyer, M. Novák and A. Pruß (eds.), Beiträge zur Vorderasiatischen Archäologie Winfried Orthmann gewidmet: 292309, Frankfurt am Main

MÜLLER K. 1950, “Das Stadtgebiet”, M.F von Oppenheim (ed), Tell Halaf II:Die Bauwerke: 327-366, Berlin MÜLLER-KARPE A. 1988, Hethitische Töpferei der Oberstadt von Hattusha, Marburg, Lahn

MAZZONI S. 2005A, “Pyxides and Hand-Lion Bowls: a Case of Minor Arts”, Cl. E. Suter et Ch. Uehlinger (eds), Craft and Images in contact: 43-66, Freiburg

MUSCARELLA O. W. 1965, “Lion Bowls from Hasanlu”, Archaeology 18.1: 41-46

MAZZONI S. 2005B, “Narrare il trionfo nell'arte siroittita”, F.Pecchioli Daddi, M.C. Guidotti, Narrare gli eventi: 233-243, Firenze

MUSCHE B. 1992, Vorderasiatisches Schmuck von der Anfängen bis zur Zeit der Achaemeniden, Leiden NAUMANN R. 1950, “Kritische Betrachtung der Architektur. Ihre Stellung in der Baukunst des Alten Oriens”, M.F von

MCEWAN C.W. 1937, “The syrian expedition of the oriental institute of the University of

184

Pucci – Bibliography

OPPENHEIM VON M.F. 1939, Tell Halaf: une civilisation retrouvée en Mésopotamie, Paris

Oppenheim (ed), Tell Halaf II: die Bauwerke, Berlin: 369-403, Leipzig NAUMANN R. 1971, Architektur Kleinasiens, Tübingen

ORRIEUX C. 1984, “Le temple de Salomon”, G. Roux (ed), Temples et Sanctuaires, Séminaire de recherche 1981-1983, TMO 7: 5159, Lyon

NEVE P. 1982, Büyükkale: die Bauwerke, Berlin NIELSEN I. 1994, Hellenistic palaces. Tradition and Renewal, Aarhus

ORTHMANN

NIEHR H. 2006, “Bestattung und Ahnenkult in den Königshäuser von Sama’l and Guzana in Nordsyrien”, ZDPV 122/2: 111-139

W. 1971, Untersuchungen späthethitischen Kunst, Bonn

zur

ORTHMANN W. 2002, Die Aramäisch-assyrische Stadt Guzana, Saarbrücken

NOVÀK M. 1994, “Eine Typologie der Wohnhäuser von Nuzi”, BaM 25: 341-446, Berlin

OSTEN H.

NOVÀK M. 1997, “Die orientalische Residenzstadt Funktion, Entwicklung und Form”, Die Orientalische Stadt.1. Internationales Colloqium der DOG 9-10 Mai 1996: 169-197, Halle

PALMIERI A.M. ET AL. 1993, “From Arslantepe Metalwork to Arsenical Copper Technology in Eastern Archaeology”, M. Frangipane et al.(eds.), Between the Rivers and over the mountains. Alba Palmieri dedicata: 573-600, Rome

NOVÀK M. 1999, Herrschaftsform un Stadtbaukunst, Berlin

PANOFSKY E. 1962, Il significato nelle arti visive, Turin

NOVÀK M. 2004, “Hilani und Lustgarten”, M. Novák, F. Prayon, A.-M. Wittke (eds), Die Außenwirkungdes Späthethitischen Kulturraumes: 335-372, Münster OELMANN

F.

OPPENHEIM

VON

OPPENHEIM

VON

OPPENHEIM

VON

OPPENHEIM

1921, “Zur Baugeschichte Sendschirli”, JDAI 36: 85-98,

PANOFSKY E. 1985, “Zum Problem der Beschreibung und Inhaltsdeutung von werken der bildenden Kunst”, H. Oberer et E. Verheyen (eds.), Aufsätze zu Grundfragen der Kunstwissenschaft / Erwin Panofsky, 1964: 85-97, Berlin

von

PARAYRE D. 1977, “L'attribution de sculptures aux Hurrites: critique méthodologique”, M.Th. Barrelet (ed.), Methodologies et Critiques I: Problèmes concernants les Hurrites I: 115-208, Paris

M. F. (ED) 1950, Tell Halaf II: die Bauwerke, bearbeitet und ergänzt von R. Naumann, Berlin

M. F. (ED) 1943, Tell Halaf I: die Prähistorischen Funde, Berlin

PEDDE F. 2000, Vorderasiatische Fiebeln, Saarbrücken

M. F. 1943, “Einleitung”, M.F von Oppenheim (ed), Tell Halaf I: Die Prähistorischen Funde: 3-21, Berlin

PELTENBURG E.J. 1968, “Assyrian clay Fists”, OrAn 7: 57-62,

VON

PEVSNER N. 1997, A History of Building Types, Princeton

M.F. (ED) 1955, Tell Halaf III: die Bildwerke. bearbeitet und ergänzt von A. Moortgat., Berlin

PFÄLZNER P. 1996, “Activity areas and the social organisation of third millennium b.C. households”, Veenhof, K.R. (ed.), Houses and Households in Ancient Mesopotamia, Papers read at the 40th Rencontre Assyriologique Internationale, :117-127, Leiden

M.F. 1911, “Die zweite Forschungsreise in der asiatischen Türkei”, Petermanns Geographische Mitteilungen 57, :81,

OPPENHEIM

VON

OPPENHEIM

VON

OPPENHEIM

M.F. 1901, “Bericht über eine im Jahre 1899 ausgeführte Forschungsreise in der Asiatischen Türkei”, Zeitschrift der Gesellschaft für Erdkunde zu Berlin 36: 69-99, Berlin

PFÄLZNER P. 1997, “Die Erklärung städischen Wandels”, CDOG 1: 73-84, PFÄLZNER P. 2001, Haus und Haushalt, Mainz am Rhein

M.F. 1908, Der Tell Halaf und die Verschleierte Göttin, Leipzig

VON

PIOTROVSKIJ B. B. 1966, Il Regno di Van. Urartu, Rome

OPPENHEIM VON M.F. 1931, Der Tell Halaf : eine neue Kultur im ältesten Mesopotamien, Leipzig OPPENHEIM

1928, Explorations in central Anatolia (season 1926), Chicago

VON DER

PORTER B. N. 2001, “The importance of Place: Esarhaddon's Stelae at Til Barsip and Sam'al”, Abusch Tzvi et alii (eds) Proceedings of the XLVe Rencontre Assyriologique Internationale: Part I:

M.F. 1934, Führer durch das Tell Halaf-Museum, Berlin

VON

185

Pucci – Bibliography

Leipsig

Historiography in the Cuneiform World.: 373-390, Bethesda POSTGATE

SACHAU E. 1893, IV. “Die Inschrift des Königs Panammû von Sam/al.”, F. von Luschan (ed..) Ausgrabungen in Sendschirli. Einleitungen und Inscriften.: 55-84, Berlin

J.N. 1972, “The Temple in the Mesopotamian Secular Community”, P.J.Ucko, R.Tringham and G.W.Dimbleby (eds.), Man, settlement and urbanism: 811-825, London

SADER H. 1987, Les ètats araméens de Sirie depuis leur fondation jusq'à leur transformation en provinces assyriennes, Beirut

PREUCEL R. W. 2006, Archaeological Semiotics, Malden, MA PREUSSER C. 1954, Die Wohnhäuser in Assur, Berlin

SALLES J.F. 1995, “Rituel Mortuaire et Rituel Sociel a Ras Shamra / Ougarit”, S. Cambell et A. Green (eds), The Archaeology of Death in the Ancient Near East: 171184, Oxford

PREUSSER C. 1955, Die Paläste in Assur, Berlin PREZIOSI D. 1979, Architecture, Language Meaning, Paris, New York

and

SALONEN A. 1963, Die Möbel des alten Mesopotamien, Helsinki

PREZIOSI D. 1983, “The Network of Architectonic Signs”, Borbé T. (ed.), Semiotics Unfolding. Proceedings of the Second Congress of the International Assiociation for Semiotics Studies, Teil 3: 1343-1350, Berlin et al.

SASS B. 1997, “Jewelry”, E. M. Meyers (ed), Oxford Encyclopedia of Archaeology vol. 3: 238-246, Oxford, NY SCHEEL H. 1950, “Vorwort”, M. F. von Oppenheim (ed), Tell Halaf II: die Bauwerke, IIIIV, Berlin

PUCHSTEIN O. 1892, “Die Säule in der Assyrischen Architectur”, JDAI 7: 1-24, Berlin PUCHSTEIN O. 1912, Boghasköi. Die Bauwerke, Berlin

SCHICHHARDT C. ET WIEGAND T. (EDS) 1931, Der Entdecker von Pergamon Carl Humann. Ein Lebensbild, Berlin

PÜTT K. 2005, Zelte, Kuppeln und Hallenhäuser, Petersberg

SCHMID H. 1999, “Vorderasiatische Archäologie und Bauforschung”, H. Kühne, R. Bernbeck und K. Bartl (eds), Fluchtpunkt Uruk, Schriften für Hans Jörg Nissen: 184190, Rahden/Westf.

RADNER K. (ED.) 1998, The Prosopography of the NeoAssyrian Empire. Part I: A, Helsinki RADNER K. (ED.) 1999, The Prosopography of the NeoAssyrian Empyre.vol.I part II: B-G, Helsinki

SCHNAPP A. 1997, Le chasseur et la cité: chasse et erotique dans la Gréce ancienne, Paris

RAPOPORT A. 1982, The meaning of the Built Environment, Beverly Hills et al. RICHTER J.S. 1997, Die Orientreise Kaiser Wilhelms II 1898. Eine Studie zur deutschen Außenpoilik an der Wende zum 20. Jahrhundert, Hamburg

SCHRADER E. 1893, “Inschrift Asarhaddon's, König von Assyrien”, F. von Luschan (ed.) Ausgrabungen in Sendschirli. Einleitungen und Inscriften.: 30-43, Berlin

ROAF M. 1989, “Social Organisation and Social Activities at Tell Madhur”, E. F. Henrickson et I. Thuesen (eds), Upon this Foundation: 91-146, Copenhagen

SCHUCHHARDT C. ET T.WIEGAND (EDS.) 1931, Der Entecker von Pergamon Carl Humann ein Lebensbild, Berlin SCHWEIZER B. 2003, “Zur Interpretation sozialen Raums: Die Fürsengräber von Pontecagnano 926 und 928”, U. Veit et al. (eds), Spuren und Botschaften: Interpretationen materieller Kultur: 319-345, Münster

ROWLANDS M. J. 1972, “Defence: a factor in the organisation of settlements”, P.J.Ucko, R.Tringham and G.W.Dimbleby (eds.), Man, settlement and urbanism: 447462, London RUDOFSKY B.1964, Architecture without architects, New York

SHILOH Y., 1980 “Solomon's gate at Megiddo as recorded by its excavator, R. Lamon, Chicago", Levant 12: 69-76,

RUSSELL J.M. 1981, Sennacherib's Palace without Rival at Nineveh, Chicago

SINGER E. 1975, “Hittite Hilammar and hyerogliphisch Luwian *Hilana”, ZA 65: 69-103,

RUSSELL J.M. 1999, The Writing on the Wall, Winona Lake

STEIN D. 1994, “Mittan(n)i. B. Bildkunst und Architektur”, RlA 8/3-4: 296-299, Berlin NY

SACHAU E. 1883, Reise in Syrien und Mesopotamien,

186

Pucci – Bibliography

STONE C.E. 1981, “Text, architecture and ethnographic analogy: patterns of residence in oldbabylonian Nippur”, IRAQ 63: 19-34

den Beständen des Vorderasiatischen Museums Berlin”, AoF 12: 65-86, Berlin

STONE C.E. 1987, Nippur Neighborhoods, Chicago

VOOS J. 1988, “Studien zur Rolle von Statuen und Reliefs im syrohethitischen Totenkult während der frühen Eisenzeit”, EAZ 29: 347-362, Berlin

STRONACH D. 1958, “Metal Objects from 1957 excavations at Nimrud”, IRAQ 20: 169-181

WACHTSMUTH F. 1923-24, “Die Baugeschichte von Sendschirli (Shamal)”, JDAI 38-39: 158-169,

SWIFT G. 1958, The battery of the Amuq Phases K-O. Historical Relations, Chicago SYMINGTON

D. 1996, “Hittite and neo-Hittite Furniture”, G. Herrmann (ed), The Furniture of Western Asia. Ancient and Traditional: 111-138, Mainz am Rhein

WACHTSMUTH F. 1929, Der Raum, Marburg WALLACH

TAYLOR E. 1871 [ed. 1958], Primitive Culture, New York

1976, Anatomie Dusseldorf

einer

Militärhilfe,

WATSON P.J. 1980, “The theory and Practice of Ethnoarchaeology with special reference to the Near East”, Paléorient 6: 55-64

THUESEN I. 2000, “The city state in Ancient Western Asia”, M. H. Hansen (ed), A Comparative Study of Thirty City-State Cultures: 55-66, Copenhagen

WERNER P. 1994, Die Entwicklung der Sakral Architektur in Nordsyrien und süd ost Kleinasien, München, Wien

THUREAU-DANGIN F. ET ALII, Arslan Tash, Paris

WILSON K.

TROPPER J. 1993, Die Inschriften von Zincirli, Münster TURNER G. 1970, “The State Apartments of Late Assyrian Palaces”, IRAQ 32:2: 177213

ET AL.

1989, The Oriental Institute Museum. Highlights from the Collection, Chicago

WINTER I. J. 1973, North Syria in the early First Millennium B.C., with Special Reference to Ivory Carving, New York

UCKO P.J., TRINGHAM R. ET DIMBLEBY G. W. (EDS) 1972, Man, Settlement and Urbanism, Hertfordshire

WINTER I. J. 1976, “Phoenician and North Syrian Ivory Carving in ist Historical Context: questions of style and distribution”, IRAQ 38: 4-22,

USSISHKIN D. 1966, “Building IV in Hamath and the temples of Salomon and Tell Tayanat”, IEJ 16: 104-110,

WINTER I. J. 1982, “Art as Evidence of Interaction: Relations between the Assyrian Empire and North Syria”, H.J. Nissen et J. Renger (eds), Mesopotamien un seine Nachbarn: 355-382, Berlin

USSISHKIN D. 1969, “The Date of the Neo-Hittite Enclosure in Karatepe”, AnSt 19: 121137, USSISHKIN D. 1975, “Hollows, cup-marks, and hittite stone Monuments”, AnSt 25: 85-103, London

WINTER I. J. 1988, “North Syria as a Bronzeworking Centre in the Early First Millennium BC: Luxury Commodities at Home and Abroad”, J. Curtis (ed): Bronzeworking Centres of Western Asia c. 1000-539 B.C.: 193-225, London

USSISHKIN D. 1989, “The Erection of royal Monuments in City-Gates”, Mellink et Özguc (eds.), Anatolia and the Ancient Near East, studies in honour of t. Özgüc.: 485-496, Ankara

WINTER I. J. 1993, “Seat of kingship/a wonder to behold: the Palace as Construct in Ancient Near East”, AOR 23: 25-55,

VIEYRA M. 1955, Hittite Art, London VIOLLET-LE-DUC E. E. 1854-1868, Dictionnaire raisonné de l'architecture francaise du Xie au XVIe S., Paris

WINTER I.J. 1989, “North Syrian Ivories and the Tell Halaf Reliefs. The impact of luxury goods Upon Major Arts”, A. Leonard et B. B. Williams (eds), Studies in Ancient Civilization Presented to H. J. Kantor: 321-337, Chicago

VOOS J. 1983, “Zur kultischen Funktion von Toranlagen nach hethitischen und arämaischen Quellen”, Brentjes (ed.), Probleme der Architektur des Orients. Wissenschaftliche Beiträge/21, :149157, Halle

WINTHROP R. 1991, Dictionary of Concepts in Cultural Anthropology, Westport, CT WOOLLEY L. 1921, Charchemish II, Oxford

VOOS J. 1985, “Zu einegen späthethitischen Reliefs aus

187

Pucci – Bibliography

WOOLLEY L. 1939, “The Iron Age Graves of Carchemish”, AAA 26: 11-37, WOOLLEY L. 1952, Carchemish III, London WRIGHT G.R.H. 1985, Ancient Building in South Syria and Palestine, Leiden, Köln YEHOSHUA B.A. 1983, The Rediscovery of the Holy Land in the Nineteenth Century, Jerusalem ZACCAGNINI C. 1993, “Notes on the Pazarcik Stela”, SAAB 7:1: 53-72, ZEVI B. 1973, Il linguaggio moderno dell'architettura, Turin ZEVI B. 1997A, Saper vedere l'architettura, Turin ZEVI B. 1997B, Saper vedere la città, Turin

188

Pucci-List of Tables, Diagrams and Plates

features 75 Table 50: North West area: buildings ................ 76 Table 51: Courtyard M+R: ................................ 77 Table 52: Functions of the buildings during the first building period ................................................... 78 Table 53: Buildings at Tell Halaf ....................... 82 Table 54: Floor relationships............................. 86 Table 55: Floors elevations in structures G2 ..... 93 Table 56: Floor Levels in the Southern Area. .... 95 Table 57: Periods of Use of Buildings at Tell Halaf 102 Table 58: Buildings in use during the third building period......................................................... 103 Table 59: Rooms in the southern G2 complex.. 104 Table 60: Rooms in ST ..................................... 104 Table 61: LZM.................................................. 105 Table 62: The rooms in TP and SKT ................ 106 Table 63: Objects found in TP.......................... 109 Table 64: The northern building....................... 109 Table 65: Rooms in NOP.................................. 112 Table 66: The rooms in the “Assyrian House” 115 Table 67: The temple in the lower town: STL... 116 Table 68: Rooms in “Kultraum” ...................... 116 Table 69: Objects found in KR ......................... 116 Table 70: Functions of the buildings during the third building period ................................................ 118 Table 71: Structures in use during the second building period......................................................... 118 Table 72: Objects from G1 ............................... 119 Table 73: The “Long Building” ....................... 120 Table 74: Rooms in EH3 .................................. 121 Table 75: The Functions of the buildings in the second building period............................................. 121 Table 76: Buildings during the first period ...... 121 Table 77: The older entrance to the acropolis . 122 Table 78: Functions during the first building period 124 Table 79: Buildings Numbers at Tayinat.......... 128 Table 80: Floors elevations in building I ......... 130 Table 81: Inscribed Fragments in north-western Area 132 Table 82: Floors level in courtyard VIII .......... 134 Table 83: Levels of area V, gate XII and the eastern structures..................................................... 137 Table 84: Building phases ................................ 142 Table 85: Structures in use during the third building period......................................................... 143 Table 86: Gates VII and XI rooms and sizes .... 144 Table 87: Objects in gate VII ........................... 144 Table 88: Gate III, objects................................ 145 Table 89: Rooms in building IX........................ 146 Table 90: Objects in IX..................................... 147 Table 91: Rooms in building I, 1 ...................... 148 Table 92: Objects found on the first floor in building I 148 Table 93: Objects in IV,1.................................. 149 Table 94: Objects from the courtyard VIII ....... 151 Table 95: Objects in building II........................ 152 Table 96: Distribution of the functions during the third Building Period ............................................... 153 Table 97: Structures of the second Building Period 153 Table 98: Rooms in buildings I, 2+3 and VI .... 155

List of Tables Table 1: Excavations and Publication of the SyroHittite sites:.................................................................. 4 Table 2: The Functions of a space ........................ 12 Table 3: Buildings and Areas in Zincirli............... 16 Table 4: Building periods in the south eastern area 24 Table 5: The north-eastern area, use of buildings 29 Table 6: Floors levels in courtyard M: ................. 35 Table 7: Periods of the North Western area ......... 38 Table 8: Periods of use of the Buildings at Zincirli: 40 Table 9: Building period III .................................. 42 Table 10: The Defensive System of the Mound .. 42 Table 11: Objects related to gate D ................... 43 Table 12: : Rooms in building G and G1 ........... 44 Table 13: Objects in building G ......................... 46 Table 14: Rooms in F: size and accesses ........... 48 Table 15: Objects found in the area to the South of G 48 Table 16: HII, rooms and size............................ 49 Table 17: HII, Objects and Installations............ 50 Table 18: Functions of the buildings during the third building period.................................................. 51 Table 19: Buildings during period II: ................ 52 Table 20: Size and elevations of the external area 52 Table 21: Represented scenes in room A/3 ........ 54 Table 22: Carved scenes in room D/a................ 55 Table 23: Objects in LG ..................................... 56 Table 24: Installations in LG ............................. 57 Table 25: Architectural features of Ab2............. 58 Table 26: Objects in Ab2.................................... 58 Table 27: Architectural features of the structures in the north-western area........................................... 59 Table 28: The rooms in L ................................... 60 Table 29: Objects in building L.......................... 60 Table 30: Rooms in building J ........................... 61 Table 31: Objects in rooms J/1-3 ....................... 61 Table 32: Objects in J/7 ..................................... 64 Table 33: Room J/9 objects and Installations .... 64 Table 34: Installation in J/11 ............................. 65 Table 35: Installations in J/13-14 ...................... 65 Table 36: Rooms in building K .......................... 65 Table 37: Small finds in building K.................... 66 Table 38: Small finds from the so-called Northern Palace: JKL 67 Table 39: Rooms in NWH and NÖH .................. 68 Table 40: Carved orthostats in NÖH ................. 69 Table 41: Objects found in NÖH and NWH....... 69 Table 42: Rooms in building P........................... 70 Table 43: Rooms in HIII..................................... 71 Table 44: Installations of HIII ........................... 71 Table 45: Objects in HIII ................................... 72 Table 46: Objects found in courtyard R............. 73 Table 47: Distribution of the functions in the second building period .............................................. 74 Table 48: Structures of the first building phase at Zincirli 75 Table 49: Eastern area: HI and IM architectural

189

Pucci-List of Tables, Diagrams and Plates

Table 99: Table 100: Table 101:

Objects in building I and VI............. 155 Rooms in building IV, 2 ................... 158 Function in the second Building Period 159 Table 102: The buildings of the first period....... 160 Table 103: Rooms in building XIII..................... 160 Table 104: The structures fulfilling ritual function 165 Table 105: Representative and Reception areas 167 Table 106: Size of the reception rooms .............. 168 Table 107: Work areas....................................... 169 Table 108: Structures limiting and modelling the external space 171

List of Plates: All plates are based on the published plans of the structures. The original drawings have been scanned, and digitized. Solid hatch is used for preserved walls, except when is specified in the title, dash lines are used for reconstructed wall faces. Plate 1. Plate 2. Plate 3. Plate 4.

List of Diagrams:

Plate 5. Plate 6.

Diagram 1. Structure of the Database .................. 14 Diagram 2. The External Area.............................. 18 Diagram 3. The Mound Gate ................................ 20 Diagram 4. The Area between the gates ............... 22 Diagram 5. The so-called casemate area.............. 23 Diagram 6. General relationships in the South eastern area 24 Diagram 7. The older structures ........................... 26 Diagram 8. The later structures:........................... 27 Diagram 9. The north-eastern area ...................... 29 Diagram 10. The structures surrounding R to the west, east and south ................................................... 33 Diagram 11. The southern part of the northwestern Area 34 Diagram 12. Northern part of the North-western area 35 Diagram 13. The northern part .......................... 37 Diagram 14. Overview ....................................... 38 Diagram 15. General view of the building activity at the site 41 Diagram 16. The sections of the mound wall ..... 83 Diagram 17. The foundations of NOP................ 84 Diagram 18. Construction phases of the northeastern building 87 Diagram 19. QT ................................................. 87 Diagram 20. The area on the north-east ............ 88 Diagram 21. The relationships between the mound wall, the houses to the east, and the north-eastern palace. 89 Diagram 22. The south-eastern Area ................. 90 Diagram 23. The platforms ................................ 93 Diagram 24. The Platforms, gates and mound walls to the south 94 Diagram 25. The western area........................... 98 Diagram 26. Building Activity at Tell Halaf .... 102 Diagram 27. The southern limit of Courtyard VIII 131 Diagram 28. Platform XV and building VI....... 134 Diagram 29. Courtyard VIII and its superstructures 135 Diagram 30. Buildings IV and XIII .................. 137 Diagram 31. Area V and gate XII .................... 138 Diagram 32. General relationships between buildings in North-western Area.............................. 139 Diagram 33. Structures VII and X.................... 140

Plate 7. Plate 8. Plate 9. Plate 10. Plate 11. Plate 12. Plate 13. Plate 14. Plate 15. Plate 16. Plate 17. Plate 18. Plate 19. Plate 20. Plate 21. Plate 22. Plate 23. Plate 24. Plate 25.

190

Zincirli: Buildings on the mound, position and abbreviations Zincirli: Buildings in use during the first building period Zincirli: Buildings in use during the second building period Zincirli: Buildings in use during the third building period Zincirli: Building G and G1 Zincirli: Building F, D and E during the third building period Zincirli: The External Gates Zincirli: The Southern Area during the First and Second Building Periods. Structures D, E, LG, QM. Zincirli: The North-Eastern Area during the First and Second Building Periods. Structures HI, IM, Ab2 Zincirli: North western Area during the Third building period Zincirli: The North-Western Area during the Second Building Period Zincirli: The North-Western Area during the First Building Period Tell Halaf: Buildings at the Site, Position and Abbreviations Tell Halaf: The Acropolis during the First Building Period Tell Halaf: The Acropolis during the Second Building Period Tell Halaf: The Acropolis during the Third Building Period Tell Halaf: The Southern Area during the three Building Periods Tell Halaf: The North-western Area during the Third Building Period Tell Halaf: The North-eastern area (northern section) during the Third Building Period Tell Halaf: The South-eastern Area during the Third Building Period Tell Halaf: The Main Buildings in the Lower Town during the Third Building Period Tell Halaf: The South-eastern Area during the Second and First Building Periods Tell Halaf: The North-eastern Area during the Second and First Building Periods Tell Halaf: The North-western Area during the Second and First Building Periods Tell Tayinat: Excavated Structures and Reconstruction of the Mound Wall.

Pucci-List of Tables, Diagrams and Plates

Plate 26. Plate 27. Plate 28. Plate 29. Plate 30. Plate 31. Plate 32. Plate 33.

Tell Tayinat: Structures on the Acropolis during the First Building Period Tell Tayinat: Structures on the Acropolis during the Second Building Period Tell Tayinat: Structures on the Acropolis during the Third Building Period Tell Tayinat: The eastern gates XI and VII. Tell Tayinat: The Southern Area during the Third Building Period: building IX and III Tell Tayinat: The North-western Area during the Third Building Period: I-1, II, IV-1, V, XV Tell Tayinat: The North-western Area during the Second Building Period: V, IV-2, VI, I- 2+3 Tell Tayinat: The North-western Area during the First Building Period: XIII and XIV

191

Pucci-Catalogue

Catalogue First Section: list of architectural features of buildings. Architectural Features at Zincirli 193 Architectural Features at Tell Halaf 207 Architectural Features at Tell Tayinat 222 Second section: list of objects according to each building. Objects found at Tell Halaf and Zincirli 232 Objects found at Tell Tayinat 242 The objects found at Halaf and Zincirli were published in the reports, the objects found at Tell Tayinat will be published by Tim Harrison and Heather Snow. The T number identifies the field number and not the museum inventory number (Antioch or Chicago). The buildings are always listed in alphabetic order.

192

Pucci-Catalogue of Architectural Features at Zincirli

Building Extent Room

1512 BldgPh I

A/1 Side

Room

Stone packing

Stone masonry

Stone packing

Stone masonry

Room Extent Foundations

110 Socle

Accessibility Superstructure

Accessibility Superstructure

2

South

Stone packing

Stone masonry

1

West

Stone packing

Stone masonry

2

368 Socle

Accessibility Superstructure

North

Stone packing

Stone masonry

South

Stone packing

Stone masonry

2

West

Stone packing

Stone masonry

2

East

Stone packing

Floor

Pebble

North

Stone masonry

2 Preserved

Small pebble

2

127 Socle

orthostats

Accessibility Superstructure

1E

Accesses Wall surface

2

2 Preserved

Stone masonry

2

Stone packing

Stone masonry

2

South

Stone packing

Stone masonry

2

West

Stone packing

Stone masonry

2

393 BldgPh I

Ab1/a

Ab1

95 Socle

Quality Visibility Medium Elevation of the main floor 7.8

Accessibility Superstructure

1C

Accesses Wall surface

0 Preserved

East

Stone packing

1

South

Stone packing

1

West

Stone packing

Room Extent Ab1/b Side Foundations

Accessibility Superstructure

1A

Accesses Wall surface

1 Preserved

Stone packing

0

West

Stone packing

1

Room Extent Foundations

21 Socle

Accessibility Superstructure

1C

Accesses Wall surface

0 Preserved

central

Stone packing

1

North

Stone packing

1

South

Stone packing

1

West

Stone packing

1

77 BldgPh I

Ab2/a Side East

Stone packing

Floor

clay ?

North

19 Socle

Accessibility Superstructure

G

Accesses Wall surface

0 Preserved 2

Stone packing

Stone masonry

2

South

Stone packing

Stone masonry

2

West

Stone packing

Stone masonry

2

Side

Room Extent Foundations

Covered Timber Frame

Covered Timber Frame

Quality high Visibility low Elevation of the main floor 16.5 (f)

Stone masonry

Ab2/b

Covered Timber Frame

Ab2

Location north east Bldg Ph II Bldg Ph III

Room Extent Foundations

high

1

25 Socle

North

Ab1/c

Covered Timber Frame

1

Location south east Bldg Ph II Bldg Ph III

Room Extent Foundations

Covered Timber Frame

1

Building

Room

Accesses Wall surface

Stone packing

Side

Room

1E

East

Room Extent Foundations

Covered Timber Frame

1

Floor

A/4

Extent

Accesses Wall surface

2 Preserved

Stone masonry

Room Extent Foundations

Covered Timber Frame

1

1C

Small pebble

Side

Room

2 Preserved

High

1

Building

Room

Accesses Wall surface

Stone packing ?

Side

Room

1A

Floor

A/3

Extent

Quality Visibility very high Elevation of the main floor 0

North

Side

Room

26 Socle

West

Side

Room

Room Extent Foundations

North

A/2

A

Location external Bldg Ph II Bldg Ph III

Covered Timber Frame

0

Socle

Accessibility Superstructure

Accesses Wall surface

0 Preserved

Floor

clay ?

North

Stone packing

Stone masonry

2

0

South

Stone packing

Stone masonry

2

West

Stone packing

Stone masonry

2

Building

Ab3 193

Covered Timber Frame

Pucci-Catalogue of Architectural Features at Zincirli

Extent Room

65x15 BldgPh I

Ab3 Side

Location north west Bldg Ph II Bldg Ph III

Room Extent Foundations Stone packing

65x15 Socle

Quality Visibility Medium Elevation of the main floor 9.6

Room

787 BldgPh I

B/1 Side

Room

Accessibility Superstructure

Stone masonry

2

Stone masonry

2

Room Extent Foundations

163 Socle

East

Stone packing

Stone masonry

South

Stone packing ?

Stone masonry

104 Socle

Accessibility Superstructure

2 2

South

Stone packing

Stone masonry

2

West

Stone packing

Stone masonry

2

Socle

C/1

Stone masonry

40 Socle

mud brick

Accessibility Superstructure

Accesses Wall surface

2 Preserved

Stone masonry

2

Stone packing ?

Stone masonry ?

2

180 Socle

Accessibility Superstructure

1C

Accesses Wall surface

2 Preserved

East

Stone packing ?

Stone masonry

2

West

Stone packing

Stone masonry

2

558 BldgPh I

D/a

D/c

1A

Stone packing ?

Room Extent Foundations

58,3 Socle

Quality Visibility high Elevation of the main floor 4.8

Accessibility Superstructure

1A

Stone masonry

Accesses Wall surface

East

Stone packing

Floor

Pebble

North

Stone packing

Stone masonry

orthostats

West

Stone packing

Stone masonry

orthostats

Room Extent Side Foundations

orthostats

2 Preserved

Covered Timber Frame

Covered Timber Frame

high Covered Timber Frame

2 3

55 Socle

Accessibility Superstructure

1C

Stone masonry

Accesses Wall surface orthostats

2 2

2 Preserved

East

Stone packing

Floor

Stones

North

Stone packing

Stone masonry

orthostats

2

South

Stone packing

Stone masonry

orthostats

2

West

Stone packing

Stone masonry

orthostats

Room Extent Side Foundations

high

D

Location south east Bldg Ph II Bldg Ph III

Room Extent Foundations

Covered Timber Frame

C Quality Visibility high Elevation of the main floor 1.7

West

Side

Room

0 Preserved 0

Building

D/b

Accesses Wall surface

South

C/2

Covered Timber Frame

Quality Medium Visibility High Elevation of the main floor various

Accessibility Superstructure

Location external Bldg Ph II Bldg Ph III

Room Extent Foundations

Covered Timber Frame

BM

Location all Bldg Ph II Bldg Ph III

Stones

800 BldgPh I

Side

Room

Accesses Wall surface

2 Preserved

Stone masonry

Side

Room

1E

Stone masonry

Room Extent Foundations

Covered Timber Frame

2

Accessibility Superstructure

Stone packing

800 BldgPh I

high

2

Building

Extent

2 Preserved

Stone packing

all

Room

Accesses Wall surface

East

Side

Room

1C

North

BM1

Extent

2 Preserved

Stone packing ?

Building Room

Accesses Wall surface

Stone packing ?

Room Extent B/3 Side Foundations

Extent

1A

East

B/2

Covered Timber Frame

B Quality Visibility high Elevation of the main floor 1.9

South

Side

Room

41 Socle

0 Preserved 1

Location external Bldg Ph II Bldg Ph III

Room Extent Foundations

Accesses Wall surface

Stones

Building Extent

3

Accessibility Superstructure

Medium

Covered Timber Frame

2 1

10 Socle

Accessibility Superstructure

Stone masonry

2A

Accesses Wall surface orthostats

2

2 Preserved

East

Stone packing

Floor

Pebble

2

South

Stone packing

Stone masonry

orthostats

2

West

Stone packing

Stone masonry

orthostats

2

2

194

Covered Timber Frame

Pucci-Catalogue of Architectural Features at Zincirli

Building Extent Room

495 BldgPh I

E/a Side

Room Extent Foundations Stones

East

E

Location south east Bldg Ph II Bldg Ph III 40 Socle

Quality Visibility Medium Elevation of the main floor 8

Accessibility Superstructure

2A

Accesses Wall surface

Stones

E/b

2

North

Stones

Stones

West

Stones

Stones

Room Extent Side Foundations

65 Socle

2 2

Accessibility Superstructure

Room

Room

Room

Room

F/p

F/q

F/r

Stones

Stones

1

Stones

1

South

Stones

Stones

1

2450 BldgPh I

Room Extent Foundations

50 Socle

Quality Medium Visibility High Elevation of the main floor 8.86, jar 5

Accessibility Superstructure

Room

0 Preserved

Stone packing clay ?

0

North

Stone packing

2

West

Stone packing

2

50 Socle

Accessibility Superstructure

4B

Accesses Wall surface

0 Preserved

East

Stone packing clay ?

0

North

Stone packing

2

South

Stone packing

West

Stone packing

Room Extent Side Foundations

Stone masonry

2 2

36 Socle

4

Accessibility Superstructure

Accesses Wall surface

0 Preserved

East

Stone packing

2

Stone packing

2

South

Stone packing

3

West

Stone packing

Accessibility Superstructure

4B

Accesses Wall surface

0 Preserved

East

Stone packing

1

Stone packing

1

South

Stone packing

2

West

Stone packing

Accessibility Superstructure

4B

Accesses Wall surface

0 Preserved

East

Stone packing

2

Baked bricks

1

North

Stone packing

1

South

Stone packing

West

Stone packing

2

G

58 Socle

Quality Visibility Very High Elevation of the main floor 17

Accessibility Superstructure

3F

mud bricks

Accesses Wall surface Plaster

3 Preserved

East

stone packing

Floor

clay?

0

North

stone packing

1

South

stone packing

West

stone packing

Room Extent Side Foundations

Covered Timber Frame

1 Stone masonry

Location north east Bldg Ph II Bldg Ph III

Room Extent Foundations

Covered Timber Frame

2

465 Socle

Floor

1671 BldgPh I

Covered Timber Frame

2

327 Socle

North

Room Extent Side Foundations

Covered Timber Frame

2

North

Room Extent Side Foundations

Covered Timber Frame

2

Floor

G/a

G/b

Accesses Wall surface

East

Side

Room

4B

Floor

Room Extent Side Foundations

Covered Timber Frame

F

Location north east Bldg Ph II Bldg Ph III

Building Extent

0 Preserved

Stones

F/i

F/m

Accesses Wall surface

East

Side

Room

2C

North

Building Extent

Covered Timber Frame

0

Floor

Room

2 Preserved

High

mud bricks

Plaster

Very hig Covered Timber Frame

3

3 1

16 Socle

Accessibility Superstructure

G

Accesses Wall surface

0 Preserved

East

stone packing

2

Floor

clay?

0

195

Covered Timber Frame

Pucci-Catalogue of Architectural Features at Zincirli

Room

North

stone packing

South

stone packing

West

stone packing

G/c Side

Room

Room

Room

G/d

G/e

Room

3

2

105 Socle

Accessibility Superstructure

3F

stone packing

mud bricks

Lime plaster

3

stone packing

mud bricks

Lime plaster

3

West

stone packing

mud bricks

Lime plaster

East

Stone packing

Floor

stone with lime

North

Stone packing

South West

Lime plaster

3 Preserved

South

Room Extent Side Foundations

mud bricks

Accesses Wall surface

North

3

21 Socle

Accessibility Superstructure

3F

Accesses Wall surface

3

1 Preserved

Plaster

3

mud bricks

stones

3

Stone packing

mud bricks

Plaster

3

Stone packing

mud bricks

stones

12 Socle

Accessibility Superstructure

3F

Accesses Wall surface

mud bricks

3

3 Preserved

East

Stone packing clay ?

0

North

Stone packing

2

South

Stone packing

West

Stone packing

2 mud bricks

23 Socle

Accessibility Superstructure

3

3F

clay ?

0

North

Stone packing

1

South

Stone packing

mud bricks

West

Stone packing

mud bricks

East

Stone packing clay

North

Stone packing

South

Stone packing

West

Stone packing

G/h

Room Extent Foundations

East

stone packing

Floor

Pebble

North

19 Socle

Accessibility Superstructure

Plaster

2 Preserved

Stone packing

Floor

mud bricks

Accesses Wall surface

East

Room Extent Foundations

2 Plaster

3F

Accesses Wall surface

3

0 Preserved

mud bricks

3

mud bricks

3

mud bricks

3

1

50 Socle

Accessibility Superstructure

3E

Accesses Wall surface

2 Preserved 3

stone packing

mud bricks

Plaster

3

South

stone packing

mud bricks

Plaster

3

West

stone packing

mud bricks

Plaster

333 Socle

Accessibility Superstructure

3C

mud bricks

Accesses Wall surface Plaster

3

5 Preserved

East

stone packing Baked briks

Floor 2

Baked bricks

North

stone packing

mud bricks

Plaster

3

South

stone packing

mud bricks

Plaster

3

West

stone packing

4 2

2

49 Socle

Accessibility Superstructure

3E

Accesses Wall surface

1 Preserved

East

Stone packing Clay ?

North

Stone packing

mud bricks

Plaster

3

South

Stone packing

mud bricks

Plaster

3

West

Stone packing

Side

Room Extent Foundations

Covered Timber Frame

3

Floor

G/k

Covered Timber Frame

2

Floor 1

Room Extent Foundations

Covered Timber Frame

0

Plaster

G/i

Covered Timber Frame

3

mud bricks

Room Extent Side Foundations

Covered Timber Frame

3

Floor

G/g

Covered Timber Frame

5

Floor

Room Extent Foundations

Covered Timber Frame

4

mud bricks

Room Extent Side Foundations

Side

Room

Plaster

Clay

G/f

G/h1

mud bricks

stone packing

Side

Room

3

East

Side

Room

Plaster

Floor

Side

Room

Room Extent Foundations

mud bricks

Covered Timber Frame

2 0

2

13.5 Socle

Accessibility Superstructure

3F

Accesses Wall surface

1 Preserved

East

Stone packing

2

Floor

clay?

0

North

Stone packing

196

2

Covered Timber Frame

Pucci-Catalogue of Architectural Features at Zincirli

Room

Room

G/l

South

Stone packing

West

Stone packing

Room Extent Side Foundations

Room

Room

Room

Room

Room

G/n1

G/o

G/p

G/q

G/st

Accessibility Superstructure

3

North

Stone packing

2

South

Stone packing

mud bricks

West

Stone packing

mud bricks

43 Socle

Room

Plaster

1 Preserved

Baked bricks

Room Extent Foundations

mud bricks

Accesses Wall surface

Stone packing

3

3D

Accesses Wall surface mud bricks

3

1 Preserved

East

Stone packing

Floor

clay ?

0

North

Stone packing

2

South

Stone packing

2

West

Stone packing

Room Extent Side Foundations

2

17 Socle

Accessibility Superstructure

3F

Accesses Wall surface

1 Preserved

East

Stone packing clay ?

0

North

Stone packing

1

South

Stone packing

1

West

Stone packing

1

27 Socle

Accessibility Superstructure

3D

Accesses Wall surface

1 Preserved

East

Stone packing

1

Baked bricks

1

North

Stone packing

1

South

Stone packing

0

West

Stone packing

East

Stone packing

Floor

clay

North

Accessibility Superstructure

3D

Accesses Wall surface

1 Preserved

Plaster

2

Stone packing

Mud bricks

Plaster

2

South

Stone packing

Mud bricks

Plaster

2

West

Stone packing

mud bricks

Plaster

East

Stone Packing

Floor

clay ?

North

60 Socle

Accessibility Superstructure

3B

Accesses Wall surface

2

2 Preserved

mud bricks

Plaster

3

Stone Packing

mud bricks

Plaster

3

South

Stone Packing

mud bricks

Plaster

3

West

Stone Packing

2

20 Socle

Accessibility Superstructure

G

Accesses Wall surface

0 Preserved

East

stone packing

3

Floor

clay

0

North

stone packing

South

stone packing

West

stone packing

Room Extent Side Foundations

mud bricks

1 1

37 Socle

Accessibility Superstructure

3F

Accesses Wall surface

2 Preserved

East

Stone packing Reuse of the older

0

North

Stone packing

2

South

Stone packing

West

Stone packing

Covered Timber Frame

2

mud bricks

3 2

G1

Location north east Bldg Ph II Bldg Ph III

Room Extent Foundations

Covered Timber Frame

3

Floor

East

Covered Timber Frame

0

Room Extent Side Foundations

Side

Covered Timber Frame

0

Room Extent Side Foundations

G/aa

Covered Timber Frame

1

37.8 Socle

mud bricks

924 BldgPh I

Covered Timber Frame

1

Floor

Room Extent Side Foundations

Covered Timber Frame

3

Floor

Room Extent Side Foundations

Covered Timber Frame

2 Plaster

Accessibility Superstructure

Building Extent

3F

East

G/m

G/n

2

12 Socle

Floor

Side

Room

2

43 Socle

Quality Very hig Visibility High Elevation of the main floor 16.2-16.7

Accessibility Superstructure

Stone packing

3

Accesses Wall surface

2 Preserved 1

197

Covered Timber Frame

Pucci-Catalogue of Architectural Features at Zincirli

Room

Room

Room

Room

Room

Room

Room

Room

Room

G/h2

G/r

G/s

G/t

G/u

G/v

G/x

G/y

G/z

Floor

Pebble

5

North

Stone packing

1

South

Stone packing

1

West

Stone packing

Room Extent Side Foundations

1

372 Socle

Accessibility Superstructure

3A

Accesses Wall surface

4 Preserved

East

Stone packing

Floor

Baked briks

2

North

Stone packing

1

West

Stone packing

Room Extent Side Foundations

1

1

17 Socle

Accessibility Superstructure

3D

Accesses Wall surface

0 Preserved

East

Stone packing

Floor

clay ?

0

North

Stone packing

1

South

Stone packing

1

West

Stone packing

Room Extent Side Foundations

1

68 Socle

Accessibility Superstructure

3D

Accesses Wall surface

1 Preserved

East

Stone packing clay ?

0

North

Stone packing

1

South

Stone packing

0

West

Stone packing

1

17 Socle

Accessibility Superstructure

3D

Accesses Wall surface

0 Preserved

East

Stone packing clay ?

0

North

Stone packing

0

South

Stone packing

1

West

Stone packing

1

7 Socle

Accessibility Superstructure

3F

Accesses Wall surface

0 Preserved

East

Stone packing clay ?

0

North

Stone packing

1

South

Stone packing

1

West

Stone packing

1

25 Socle

Accessibility Superstructure

3F

Accesses Wall surface

0 Preserved

East

Stone packing

1

clay?

0

North

Stone packing

1

South

Stone packing

1

West

Stone packing

Socle

Accessibility Superstructure

3F

Accesses Wall surface

0 Preserved

East

Stone packing

1

clay?

0

North

Stone packing

1

South

Stone packing

Covered Timber Frame

1

45 Socle

Accessibility Superstructure

3F

Accesses Wall surface

0 Preserved

East

Stone packing

1

Floor

clay?

0

North

Stone packing

1

South

Stone packing

1

West

Stone packing

Room Extent Side Foundations

Covered Timber Frame

1

8

Floor

Room Extent Side Foundations

Covered Timber Frame

1

Floor

Room Extent Side Foundations

Covered Timber Frame

1

Floor

Room Extent Side Foundations

Covered Timber Frame

1

Floor

Room Extent Side Foundations

Covered Timber Frame

1

Floor

Room Extent Side Foundations

Covered Timber Frame

Covered Timber Frame

1

11 Socle

Accessibility Superstructure

3F

Accesses Wall surface

0 Preserved

Floor

clay?

0

North

Stone packing

1

South

Stone packing

1

West

Stone packing

1

198

Covered Timber Frame

Pucci-Catalogue of Architectural Features at Zincirli

Building Extent

3 BldgPh I

Room

GK Side

GK

Location north east Bldg Ph II Bldg Ph III

Room Extent Foundations

3 Socle

Quality Visibility Medium Elevation of the main floor

Accessibility Superstructure

Squared slabs

Bitumen

5

Squared slabs

Bitumen

5

North

Squared slabs

Bitumen

5

cilindric stones Squared slabs

Bitumen

5

West

Squared slabs

Bitumen

5

1742 BldgPh I

HI/A

114 Socle

Accessibility Superstructure

Stone masonry

2

Stone masonry

2

South

Stone packing

Stone masonry

2

West

Stone packing

Stone masonry

2

Room Extent Foundations

176 Socle

Accessibility Superstructure

Stone packing

Stone masonry

2

Stone masonry

2

South

Stone packing

Stone masonry

2

West

Stone packing

Stone masonry

2

Room Extent Foundations

40 Socle

Accessibility Superstructure

Room

Accesses Wall surface

0 Preserved

East

Stone packing

Stone masonry

2

Stone packing

Stone masonry

2

1295 BldgPh I

Room Extent Foundations

East

Stone packing Clay ?

North

120 Socle

Quality Visibility High Elevation of the main floor 13

Accessibility Superstructure

3A

Accesses Wall surface

2 Preserved

Stone masonry

2

Stone packing

Stone masonry

2

South

Stone packing

Stone masonry

2

West

Stone packing

Stone masonry

2

Room Extent Foundations

22 Socle

Accessibility Superstructure

3F

Accesses Wall surface

1 Preserved

East

Stone packing

Stone masonry

2

Stone packing

Stone masonry

2

South

Stone packing

Stone masonry

2

West

Stone packing

Stone masonry

248 Socle

3E

Accesses Wall surface

0 Preserved

East

Stone packing

Stone masonry

2

Stone packing

Stone masonry

2

South

Stone packing

Stone masonry

West

Stone packing

Stone masonry

26 Socle

mud bricks

Covered Timber Frame

High Covered Timber Frame

3F

Accesses Wall surface

0 Preserved

Stone packing

Stone masonry

2

Stone packing

Stone masonry

2

South

Stone packing

Stone masonry

2

West

Stone packing

Stone masonry

Socle

Covered Timber Frame

2

Accessibility Superstructure

East

8

Covered Timber Frame

3

North

Room Extent Side Foundations

Covered Timber Frame

2

Accessibility Superstructure

North

Room Extent Side Foundations

Covered Timber Frame

0

North

Room Extent Side Foundations

High

HII

Location north west Bldg Ph II Bldg Ph III

Floor

HII/c

HII/f

3F

South

HII/a

HII/e

0 Preserved

Stone packing

Side

Room

Accesses Wall surface

East

HI/C

HII/d

3C

North

Side

Room

0 Preserved

Stone packing

Building

Room

Accesses Wall surface

Stone packing

Side

Room

3A

East

HI/B

Extent

Quality Visibility Very high Elevation of the main floor 16

North

Side

Room

HI

Location north east Bldg Ph II Bldg Ph III

Room Extent Foundations

Covered Timber Frame

4

South

Side

Room

0 Preserved

East

Building Room

Accesses Wall surface

Floor

roof

Extent

G

Very hig

Covered Timber Frame

2

Accessibility Superstructure

3F

Accesses Wall surface

0 Preserved

East

Stone packing

Stone masonry

1

North

Stone packing

Stone masonry

1

South

Stone packing

Stone masonry

199

2

Covered Timber Frame

Pucci-Catalogue of Architectural Features at Zincirli West

Room

Room

HII/g

Stone packing

Room Extent Side Foundations

Stone masonry

50 Socle

2

Accessibility Superstructure

Stone packing

Stone masonry

2

Stone packing

Stone masonry

1

South

Stone packing

Stone masonry

2

West

Stone packing

Stone masonry

21 Socle

Room

Room

HIII/d

Stone masonry

2

Stone masonry

2

South

Stone packing

Stone masonry

2

West

Stone packing

Stone masonry

2

East

Stone packing Stone packing

South

Stone packing

West

Stone packing

Room Extent Side Foundations

Accessibility Superstructure

4A

Accesses Wall surface

1 Preserved

1 1

21 Socle

Accessibility Superstructure

4D

Accesses Wall surface

0 Preserved

Stone packing

1 1

South

Stone packing

2

West

Stone packing

Accessibility Superstructure

4C

Accesses Wall surface

0 Preserved

East

Stone packing Stone packing

South

Stone packing

2

West

Stone packing

2

Room Extent Foundations

East

Stone packing

Floor

Clay

North

48 Socle

Accessibility Superstructure

3

4F

Accesses Wall surface

0 Preserved

Plaster

3

Stone packing

mud bricks

Plaster

3

South

Stone packing

mud bricks

West

Stone packing

mud bricks

Room Extent Foundations

15 Socle

Accessibility Superstructure

2 2

4F

Accesses Wall surface

0 Preserved

East

Stone packing

mud bricks

2

Stone packing

mud bricks

3

South

Stone packing

2

West

Stone packing

2

Room Extent Foundations

25 Socle

Accessibility Superstructure

4F

Accesses Wall surface

0 Preserved

East

Stone packing

2

Floor

Clay

1

North

Stone packing

2

South

Stone packing

2

West

Stone packing

2

HIII/h

Room Extent Foundations

6 Socle

Accessibility Superstructure

4F

Accesses Wall surface

0 Preserved

East

Stone packing

2

North

Stone packing

2

South

Stone packing

2

West

Stone packing

2

HIII/i Side

Room Extent Foundations

Covered Timber Frame

3

North

HIII/g

Covered Timber Frame

1 mud bricks

mud bricks

HIII/f

Covered Timber Frame

2

168 Socle

North

HIII/e

Covered Timber Frame

3

Stone packing

Room Extent Side Foundations

Very hig

1 mud bricks

East

Side

Room

83 Socle

Quality Visibility Medium Elevation of the main floor 10.5

North

Side

Room

Room Extent Foundations

Covered Timber Frame

HIII

Location north west Bldg Ph II Bldg Ph III

North

Side

Room

0 Preserved

Stone packing

Side

Room

Accesses Wall surface

Stone packing

HIII/a

HIII/c

3F

East

842 BldgPh I

Covered Timber Frame

2

Accessibility Superstructure

North

Side

Room

0 Preserved

East

Building Room

Accesses Wall surface

North

Room Extent HII/h Side Foundations

Extent

3F

6 Socle

Accessibility Superstructure

4F

Accesses Wall surface

0 Preserved

East

Stone packing

2

North

Stone packing

2

200

Covered Timber Frame

Covered Timber Frame

Covered Timber Frame

Covered Timber Frame

Pucci-Catalogue of Architectural Features at Zincirli

Room

HIII/k

South

Stone packing

West

Stone packing

Room Extent Side Foundations

1 2

11 Socle

Accessibility Superstructure

Room

Stone packing

2

Stone packing

1

South

Stone packing

West

Stone packing

36 (l) BldgPh I Side

mud bricks

Room Extent Foundations

3

IM

36 Socle

Quality High Visibility Low Elevation of the main floor 9.4 (TF)

Accessibility Superstructure

J/1 Side

Room

Room

J/11

East

Stone packing

Floor

clay

North

Room

Room

Room

J/14

J/15

J/2

4A

Accesses Wall surface

2 Preserved 3

Stone packing

mud bricks

Plaster

3

South

Stone packing

mud bricks

Plaster

3

West

threshold

East

Stone packing

Floor

clay ?

North

Stone packing

South

Stone packing

West

Stone packing

J/12

J/13

Accessibility Superstructure

Plaster

Room Extent Side Foundations

Room Extent Foundations

Accessibility Superstructure

23 Socle

Accessibility Superstructure

Stone packing

mud bricks

West

Stone packing

West

Stone packing

Room Extent Side Foundations East

Stone packing

Floor

clay ?

North

3

3

4F

Accessibility Superstructure

1 Preserved

Plaster

3

Plaster

3

Plaster

4F

Accesses Wall surface

3

2 Preserved

mud bricks

Plaster

3

mud bricks

Plaster

3

mud bricks

90 Socle

Accessibility Superstructure

Plaster

4F

Accesses Wall surface

3

1 Preserved 3

Stone packing

mud bricks

Plaster

3

South

Stone packing

mud bricks

Plaster

3

West

Stone packing

mud bricks

Plaster

East

Stone packing Stones and clay

North

90 Socle

Accessibility Superstructure

4B

Accesses Wall surface

3

3 Preserved

Plaster

3

Stone packing

mud bricks

Plaster

3

South

Stone packing

mud bricks

Plaster

3

West

Stone packing

mud bricks

Plaster

East

threshold

Floor

Stones, bricks

Floor 1

Plaster

North

Stone packing

Covered Timber Frame

3

mud bricks

Room Extent Side Foundations

Covered Timber Frame

3

Plaster

Floor

Covered Timber Frame

3

mud bricks

85 Socle

Accesses Wall surface

mud bricks

Room Extent Side Foundations

Covered Timber Frame

3

South

Stone packing

Plaster

mud bricks

mud bricks

North

1 Preserved 3

mud bricks

clay

Accesses Wall surface

3

mud bricks

Stone packing

Stone packing

4F

mud bricks

Stone packing

East

Covered Timber Frame

3

23 Socle

East

Floor

Very hig

3

North

Room Extent Side Foundations

Covered Timber Frame

J Quality Visibility Low Elevation of the main floor 9.8

mud bricks

Side

Room

76 Socle

0 Preserved 2

Location north west Bldg Ph II Bldg Ph III

Room Extent Foundations

Accesses Wall surface

Stone masonry

Building 1557 BldgPh I

Covered Timber Frame

2

Location north east Bldg Ph II Bldg Ph III

Stone packing

Room

0 Preserved

East

IM

Extent

Accesses Wall surface

North

Building Extent

4F

Covered Timber Frame

1

64 Socle

Accessibility Superstructure

4D

Accesses Wall surface

3

2 Preserved 3

bitumen

3 3

mud bricks

201

Plaster, orthostats

3

Covered Timber Frame

Pucci-Catalogue of Architectural Features at Zincirli

Room

Room

Room

Room

Room

Room

Room

J/3

J/4

J/5

J/6

J/7

J/8

South

Stone packing

mud bricks

Plaster, orthostats

West

Stone packing

mud bricks

Plaster, orthostats

Room Extent Side Foundations East

Stone packing

Floor

clay

North

216 Socle

Accessibility Superstructure

3

Stone packing

mud bricks

Plaster

3

South

Stone packing

mud bricks

Plaster

3

West

threshold

North

Stone packing

South

Stone packing

West

Stone packing

Room Extent Side Foundations East

Stone packing

Floor

clay ?

North

3

83 Socle

Accessibility Superstructure

4F

Accesses Wall surface

1 Preserved

Plaster

mud bricks

48 Socle

Plaster

Accessibility Superstructure

4F

Accesses Wall surface

1 3

1 Preserved

Plaster

3

Stone packing

Stones

Plaster

3

South

Stone packing

mud bricks

Plaster

3

West

Stone packing

mud bricks

Plaster

East

Stone packing

Floor

aked bricks with bitume

North

81 Socle

Accessibility Superstructure

4F

Accesses Wall surface

3

1 Preserved

mud bricks

Plaster

3

Stone packing

mud bricks

Plaster

3

South

Stone packing

mud bricks

Plaster

3

West

Stone packing

mud bricks

Plaster

Room Extent Side Foundations East

Stone packing

Floor

iks and bitumen and ba

North

50 Socle

Accessibility Superstructure

4F

Accesses Wall surface

3

1 Preserved

Plaster

3

Stone packing

mud bricks

Plaster

3

South

Stone packing

mud bricks

Plaster

3

West

Stone packing

mud bricks

Plaster

Room Extent Side Foundations

18 Socle

Accessibility Superstructure

4F

Accesses Wall surface

3

2 Preserved

East

Stone packing

mud bricks

Plaster

3

Stone packing

mud bricks

Plaster

3

South

Stone packing

mud bricks

Plaster

3

West

Stone packing

mud bricks

Plaster

East

Stone packing clay ?

North

50 Socle

Accessibility Superstructure

4F

Accesses Wall surface

Covered Timber Frame

3

1 Preserved

mud bricks

Plaster

3

Stone packing

mud bricks

Plaster

3

South

Stone packing

mud bricks

Plaster

3

West

Stone packing

mud bricks

Plaster

3

Covered Timber Frame

3

K

Location north west Bldg Ph II Bldg Ph III

Room Extent Foundations

East

Stone packing

Floor

clay

North

Stone packing

South

stone slabs

West

Stone packing

Side

Covered Timber Frame

3

North

Floor

Covered Timber Frame

1

mud bricks

K/2

Covered Timber Frame

3

Room Extent Side Foundations

K/1

Covered Timber Frame

1 mud bricks

mud bricks

603 BldgPh I

Covered Timber Frame

3

Room Extent Side Foundations

Side

Room

3

2 Preserved

Plaster and paintings

Building Room

Accesses Wall surface

mud bricks

Room Extent J/9 Side Foundations

Extent

4F

3

Room Extent Foundations

97 Socle

Quality Visibility Low Elevation of the main floor 10

Accessibility Superstructure

4A

mud bricks

Accesses Wall surface wood

2 Preserved

High Covered Timber Frame

3 3

mud bricks Coloumn bases

3

wood

3

2

mud bricks

190 Socle

wood

coloumns

Accessibility Superstructure mud bricks

4C

Accesses Wall surface Wood

3 Preserved

East

Stone packing

Floor

clay

3

North

Stone packing

mud bricks

wood

3

South

Stone packing

mud bricks

wood

3

3

202

Covered Timber Frame

Pucci-Catalogue of Architectural Features at Zincirli West

Room

Room

K/3

K/5

Stone packing

Room Extent Side Foundations East

Stone packing

Floor

clay

North

mud bricks

38 Socle

wood

Accessibility Superstructure

Room

Stone packing

mud bricks

3

South

Stone packing

mud bricks

2

West

Stone packing

mud bricks

15 Socle

3

Room

Stone packing

mud bricks

3

mud bricks

3

South

Stone packing

mud bricks

2

West

Stone packing

mud bricks

1

Accessibility Superstructure

4

Accesses Wall surface

0 Preserved

Stones

mud bricks

3

Stones

mud bricks

2

South

Stones

Room Extent Side Foundations

mud bricks

16 Socle

Accessibility Superstructure

Accesses Wall surface

0 Preserved

East

Stones

mud bricks

2

Stones

mud bricks

2

South

Stones

mud bricks

3

L/3

Room Extent Foundations

23 Socle

Accessibility Superstructure

4F

Accesses Wall surface

1 Preserved

East

Stones

mud bricks

Lime plaster

3

North

Stones

mud bricks

Lime plaster

3

South

Stones

mud bricks

Lime plaster

3

West

Stones

L/4

Room Extent Foundations

East

Stones

Floor

clay ?

North South

L/5

44 Socle

Accessibility Superstructure

4F

Accesses Wall surface

3

Stones

mud bricks

Lime plaster

3

Stones

mud bricks

Lime plaster

3

31 Socle

Accessibility Superstructure

4F

mud bricks

Accesses Wall surface

Stones clay

North

Stones

mud bricks

Lime plaster

South

Stones

mud bricks

Lime plaster

West

Stones

mud bricks

Room Extent Foundations

Lime plaster

36 Socle

Accessibility Superstructure

4F

mud bricks

Accesses Wall surface

Stones Baked bricks

North

Stones

mud bricks

Lime plaster

South

Stones

mud bricks

Lime plaster

West

Stones

mud bricks

3 Preserved

3 3

Lime plaster

2 Preserved 3

69 Socle

Accessibility Superstructure

3 3 3

4

Accesses Wall surface

1 Preserved

Stones

mud bricks

Lime plaster external

3

Stones

mud bricks

Lime plaster

3

South

Stones

mud bricks

1

West

Stones

mud bricks

3

82 Socle

Accessibility Superstructure

4

Accesses Wall surface

0 Preserved

East

mud bricks

2

North

mud bricks

1

mud bricks

1

West

Covered Timber Frame

3

East

Room Extent Foundations

Covered Timber Frame

3

North

Side

Covered Timber Frame

3

East

L/8

Covered Timber Frame

1

Floor

Room Extent Foundations

Covered Timber Frame

0

East

L/7

2 Preserved

Lime plaster

Floor

L/6

Covered Timber Frame

1

mud bricks

Room Extent Foundations

Low

2

4

North

Side

Room

15 Socle

Quality Visibility Low Elevation of the main floor 9

East

Side

Room

Room Extent Foundations

Covered Timber Frame

L

Location north west Bldg Ph II Bldg Ph III

North

Side

Room

0 Preserved

Stone packing

Side

Room

Accesses Wall surface

East

Side

Room

4

Accessibility Superstructure

North

414 BldgPh I

Covered Timber Frame

3

Room Extent Side Foundations

L/1

L/2

3

1 Preserved 3

Side

Room

Accesses Wall surface

mud bricks

Building Extent

4E

203

Covered Timber Frame

Covered Timber Frame

Pucci-Catalogue of Architectural Features at Zincirli

Building Extent Room

750 BldgPh I

LG 1 Side

LG

Location south east Bldg Ph II Bldg Ph III

Room Extent Foundations

750 Socle

Quality Visibility Medium Elevation of the main floor 4-5.5

Accessibility Superstructure

Room

ashes Stones

stones

1

South

stone packing

Stone masonry

2

1818 BldgPh I Side

M

Location north west Bldg Ph II Bldg Ph III

Room Extent Foundations

1818 Socle

Accessibility Superstructure Mud bricks

Room

Room

Floor 2

Baked mud bricks

North

Stone packing

Mud bricks

Plaster

South

Stone packing

Mud bricks

Plaster

2

West

Stones

Mud bricks

Plaster

3

East

Stone packing Stone pebble

North

Stone packing

South

Stone Packing

West

Stones

400 BldgPh I

2655 Socle

3

M+R Quality Visibility Low Elevation of the main floor 9.5

Accessibility Superstructure

4B

Accesses Wall surface

4 Preserved

Mud bricks

Plaster

3

Mud bricks

Plaster

3

Mud bricks

Plaster

3

NÖH

54 Socle

Quality Visibility Low Elevation of the main floor 10.5

Accessibility Superstructure

3A

Accesses Wall surface

1 Preserved

Stone packing

mud bricks

Plaster

3

Stone packing

mud bricks

Plaster

3

South

Stone packing

mud bricks

orthostats

3

West

Stone packing

mud bricks

Plaster

3

120 Socle

Accessibility Superstructure

3C

Accesses Wall surface

0 Preserved

East

Stone packing

1

Floor

clay

3

North

Stone packing

South

Stone packing

West

Stone packing

High Covered Timber Frame

Covered Timber Frame

2 mud bricks

orthostat

3 2

47 Socle

Accessibility Superstructure

3E

Accesses Wall surface

0 Preserved

East

Stone packing

2

Floor

clay

3

North

Stones

1

South

Stone packing

2

West

Stone packing

2

130 Socle

Covered Timber Frame

NWH

Location north west Bldg Ph II Bldg Ph III

Room Extent NWH/1 Side Foundations

Covered Timber Frame

1

East

360 BldgPh I

High

2

Building Room

3

North

Room Extent NÖH/3 Side Foundations

Covered Timber Frame

2

Location north west Bldg Ph II Bldg Ph III

Room Extent NÖH/2 Side Foundations

High

2

Location north west Bldg Ph II Bldg Ph III

Floor 1

Plaster

5 Preserved

Stone pebble

Room Extent NÖH/1 Side Foundations

Extent

Accesses Wall surface

Stone packing

Building Room

4B

East

Room Extent M+R/1 Side Foundations

Extent

Quality Visibility Low Elevation of the main floor 9.5

Floor 1

2655 BldgPh I

Covered Timber Frame

4

Building Room

2 Preserved

Floor

M/1

Extent

Accesses Wall surface

North

Building Extent

2A

Quality Visibility Low Elevation of the main floor 10.1

Accessibility Superstructure

3A

Accesses Wall surface

2 Preserved

East

Stone packing

Stone masonry

mud bricks

3

North

Stone packing

Stone masonry

mud bricks

3

South

Stone packing

Stone masonry

West

Stone packing

Stone masonry

2 2

204

High Covered Timber Frame

Pucci-Catalogue of Architectural Features at Zincirli Room

Room

Room

Room Extent NWH/2 Side Foundations

16 Socle

Accessibility Superstructure

Stone packing

Stone masonry

2

Stone packing

Stone masonry

2

South

Stone packing

Stone masonry

2

West

Stone packing

Stone masonry

2

5 Socle

Accessibility Superstructure

Room

Room

Room

Room

Room

P/3

P/4

P/5

P/6

0 Preserved

Stone packing

Stone masonry

2

Stone packing

Stone masonry

2

South

Stone packing

Stone masonry

2

West

Stone packing

Stone masonry

2

4 Socle

Accessibility Superstructure

3D

Accesses Wall surface

0 Preserved

East

Stone packing

Stone masonry

2

North

Stone packing

Stone masonry

2

South

Stone packing

Stone masonry

2

West

Stone packing

Stone masonry

2

965 BldgPh I

P/1

P/2

Accesses Wall surface

East

Room Extent NWH/4 Side Foundations

P/10

3D

North

Side

Room

0 Preserved

East

Building Room

Accesses Wall surface

North

Room Extent NWH/3 Side Foundations

Extent

3D

East

Stones

Floor

Clay

North

Stones

South West

120 Socle

Accessibility Superstructure

4F

Accesses Wall surface

0 Preserved

Plaster

3

Mud Bricks

Plaster

2

Stones

mud bricks

Plaster

3

Stones

Mud bricks

East

Stones

Floor

Clay ?

North

Stones

South

Stones

West

Stones

Room Extent Side Foundations

96 Socle

Accessibility Superstructure

Mud Bricks

Stones

mud bricks

West

Stones

South West

Stones

Accessibility Superstructure

Stones

Stones

Plaster

Mud bricks

14 Socle

South

North

3 3

4F

Accesses Wall surface

Mud Bricks

1 Preserved 3

2 Plaster

Mud bricks

168 Socle

Accessibility Superstructure

Plaster

4F

Accesses Wall surface

3 3

2 Preserved

Plaster

3

Mud Bricks

Plaster

2

Stones

mud bricks

Plaster

3

Stones

Mud bricks

29 Socle

Accessibility Superstructure

3

3B

Mud Bricks

Accesses Wall surface Plaster

2 Preserved

East

Stones Clay

North

Stones

Mud Bricks

Plaster

2

South

Stones

mud bricks

Plaster

3

West

Stones

Covered Timber Frame

3 31

Mud bricks

26 Socle Stones

Accessibility Superstructure

East

Stones

North

Stones

Mud Bricks

South

Stones

mud bricks

West

Stones

Room Extent Side Foundations

Covered Timber Frame

1

Floor

Room Extent Side Foundations

Covered Timber Frame

1

Mud Bricks

Room Extent Side Foundations

Covered Timber Frame

3

mud bricks

North

Stones

0 Preserved 3

Mud Bricks

Clay

Plaster

Accesses Wall surface

1 Stones

Stones

East

3

4F

Mud Bricks

East

Floor

Covered Timber Frame

1

Floor

Room Extent Side Foundations

Covered Timber Frame

Quality Medium Visibility High Elevation of the main floor 9.2-10.1

Mud Bricks

Room Extent Side Foundations

Stones

Covered Timber Frame

P

Location north west Bldg Ph II Bldg Ph III

Room Extent Foundations

Covered Timber Frame

Plaster

3B

Mud Bricks

Accesses Wall surface Plaster

3

Plaster

3

Accessibility Superstructure

205

Covered Timber Frame

1

Mud bricks

34 Socle

3

1 Preserved

3

4F

Accesses Wall surface

0 Preserved

Covered Timber Frame

Pucci-Catalogue of Architectural Features at Zincirli

Room

Room

P/7

East

Stones

Mud Bricks

West

Stones

Mud bricks

Room Extent Side Foundations

2

Accessibility Superstructure

Room

Mud Bricks

Plaster

3

Mud Bricks

Plaster

3

South

Stones

mud bricks

Plaster

3

West

Stones

Mud bricks

Plaster

3

Room Extent Foundations

31 Socle

Accessibility Superstructure

East

Stones

Floor

Clay

North

Stones

Mud Bricks

South

Stones

mud bricks

West

Stones

2 Lime plaster

1

16 Socle

Accessibility Superstructure

4F

Accesses Wall surface

0 Preserved

Stones

Mud Bricks

3

Mud Bricks

2

South

Stones

1

West

Stones

2

Room Extent Foundations

65 Socle

Quality Visibility low Elevation of the main floor 10.1

Accessibility Superstructure

3A

Accesses Wall surface

2 Preserved

East

Stones

1

Floor

Squared slabs

2

North

Stones

1

West

Stones

1

80 BldgPh I

Socle

Quality Visibility medium Elevation of the main floor 8.8

Accessibility Superstructure

R/1 Side East

Stones

North

Stone packing

South

Stones

West

Stone packing

2295 Socle Stones

Stones

North

Stone packing

South

Stone packing

3548 Socle

Quality Visibility Low Elevation of the main floor 9.8-10

Accessibility Superstructure

4F

Accesses Wall surface

5 Preserved

mud bricks

Plaster

2

mud bricks

Pillars and orthostats

3

Pillars and orthostats

1

Orthostats

3

mud bricks

Covered Timber Frame

Medium Covered Timber Frame

SM zinci

Location external Bldg Ph II Bldg Ph III

Room Extent SM/gap Side Foundations

0 Preserved

high

R

Building 720 (d) BldgPh I

Covered Timber Frame

2

Location north west Bldg Ph II Bldg Ph III

Room Extent Foundations

Accesses Wall surface

Stone masonry

Building 2295 BldgPh I

High

QM

Location south east Bldg Ph II Bldg Ph III

Room Extent Foundations

Covered Timber Frame

Q

Location north west Bldg Ph II Bldg Ph III

Stone packing

Room

3

Stones

70 BldgPh I

Covered Timber Frame

3

East

QM

Extent

1 Preserved

North

Side

Room

Accesses Wall surface

Mud Bricks

Building

Extent

4F

Covered Timber Frame

1

Room Extent Side Foundations

Side

Room

2 Preserved

Stones

Q/1

Extent

Accesses Wall surface

Stones

Building Extent

4F

East

P/8

P/9

3

North

Side

Room

20 Socle

Plaster

Quality Visibility very high Elevation of the main floor

Accessibility Superstructure

1F

Accesses Wall surface

6 Preserved 1

Stone masonry

2

206

high Covered Timber Frame

Pucci-Catalogue of Architectural Features at Tell Halaf

AH

Building 613

Extent

Bldg Ph I Room

Room

AH/1 Side East

Mud bricks

Floor

Baked bricks

Room

Room

Room

Room

Room

Socle

Accessibility 2B Superstructure Mud bricks

lime and coloured plaster

3

Mud bricks

Mud bricks

lime and coloured plaster

3

Mud bricks

Mud bricks

lime and coloured plaster

3

West

Mud bricks

Mud bricks

lime and coloured plaster

3

AH/2 Side

Room Extent 70.8 Foundations

Floor

Baked bricks

South

Mud bricks

AH/3 Side

Socle

Accessibility 2D Superstructure

East

Mud bricks

Floor

Clay and Baked bricks

2 Accesses Wall surface Preserved

Socle

Mud bricks

lime and coloured plaster

3

Mud bricks

lime and coloured plaster

2

Accessibility 2F Superstructure Mud bricks

4 Accesses Wall surface Preserved lime and coloured plaster

3

Mud bricks

Mud bricks

lime and coloured plaster

3

South

Mud bricks

Mud bricks

lime and coloured plaster

3

West

Mud bricks

Mud bricks

lime and coloured plaster

3

Room Extent 67 Foundations

East

Mud bricks

Floor

clay

Socle

Accessibility 2F Superstructure Mud bricks

1 Accesses Wall surface Preserved lime and coloured plaster

3

Mud bricks

Mud bricks

lime and coloured plaster

3

South

Mud bricks

Mud bricks

lime and coloured plaster

3

West

Mud bricks

Mud bricks

lime and coloured plaster

3

Room Extent 13 Foundations

East

Mud bricks

Floor

Baked bricks

Socle

Accessibility 2F Superstructure

Baked bricks

Mud bricks

1 Accesses Wall surface Preserved Waterproof plaster

3

Waterproof plaster

4

North

Mud bricks

Baked bricks

Mud bricks

Waterproof plaster

3

South

Mud bricks

Baked bricks

Mud bricks

Waterproof plaster

3

West

Mud bricks

Baked bricks

Mud bricks

Waterproof plaster

3

AH/6 Side

Room Extent 34 Foundations

East

Mud bricks

Floor

clay

Socle

Accessibility 2F Superstructure Mud bricks

2 Accesses Wall surface Preserved lime and coloured plaster

Mud bricks

Mud bricks

lime and coloured plaster

3

Mud bricks

Mud bricks

lime and coloured plaster

3

West

Mud bricks

Mud bricks

lime and coloured plaster

3

East

Mud bricks

Floor

Baked bricks

Socle

Accessibility 2F Superstructure

Baked bricks

Mud bricks

1 Accesses Wall surface Preserved Waterproof plaster

3

Waterproof plaster

4

North

Mud bricks

Baked bricks

Mud bricks

Waterproof plaster

3

South

Mud bricks

Baked bricks

Mud bricks

Waterproof plaster

3

West

Mud bricks

Baked bricks

Mud bricks

Waterproof plaster

3

AH/8 Side

Room Extent 9.2 Foundations

East

Mud bricks

Floor

Baked bricks

Socle

Accessibility 2A Superstructure Mud bricks

AST/a1 Side

Room Extent 33 Foundations

1 Accesses Wall surface Preserved Plaster

AST

South Very high Location Visibility Quality high Bldg Ph III Elevation of the main floor 10.7 Bldg Ph II Socle

Accessibility 1A Superstructure

2 Accesses Wall surface Preserved 2

Mud bricks

Mud bricks

1

South

Mud bricks

Mud bricks

2

West

Mud bricks

Mud bricks

2

Mud bricks Stones

North

Covered Timber Frame

3

Mud bricks

East Floor

Covered Timber Frame

1

Building 1173 Bldg Ph I

Covered Timber Frame

3

South

Room Extent 13 Foundations

Covered Timber Frame

2

North

AH/7 Side

Covered Timber Frame

2

North

AH/5 Side

Covered Timber Frame

3

North

AH/4 Side

Covered Timber Frame

1

Mud bricks

Room Extent 153 Foundations

Covered Timber Frame

2

South

Extent Room

3 Accesses Wall surface Preserved

North

West

Room

Room Extent 27 Foundations

South east High Location Visibility Quality High Bldg Ph III Elevation of the main floor 15.3-15.6 Bldg Ph II

1

207

Covered Timber Frame

Pucci-Catalogue of Architectural Features at Tell Halaf Room

Room

Room

Room

Room

AST/a2 Side

Room

Room

Room

Room

Accessibility 1C Superstructure

2 Accesses Wall surface Preserved

East

Mud bricks

Mud bricks

2

Mud bricks

Mud bricks

2

South

Mud bricks

Mud bricks

2

West

Mud bricks

Mud bricks

AST/a3 Side

Room Extent 36 Foundations

Socle

Accessibility 1E Superstructure

East

Mud bricks

Mud bricks

1

Mud bricks

Mud bricks

2

South

Mud bricks

Mud bricks

2

West

Mud bricks

Mud bricks

2

AST/a4 Side

Room Extent 24 Foundations

Socle

Accessibility 2A Superstructure

4 Accesses Wall surface Preserved

Mud bricks

2

Mud bricks

Mud bricks

2

South

Mud bricks

Mud bricks

2

West

Mud bricks

Mud bricks

East

Mud bricks

Floor

pebbles

North

AST/b Side

Room Extent 5 Foundations

Socle

Accessibility 1F Superstructure

Mud bricks

Mud bricks

2

Mud bricks

Mud bricks

1

South

Mud bricks

Mud bricks

2

West

Mud bricks

Mud bricks

2

Socle

Accessibility 1F Superstructure

3 Accesses Wall surface Preserved

East

Mud bricks

Mud bricks

2

North

Mud bricks

Mud bricks

1

AST/d Side

Mud bricks

Mud bricks

Room Extent 16 Foundations

Socle

Accessibility 1F Superstructure

East

Mud bricks

Mud bricks

2

Bitumen

lime plaster

4

North

Mud bricks

Mud bricks

2

South

Mud bricks

Mud bricks

Room Extent 22 Foundations

Socle

Accessibility 1F Superstructure

East

Mud bricks

Mud bricks

Plaster

2

Mud bricks

Mud bricks

Plaster

1

South

Mud bricks

Mud bricks

Plaster

2

West

Mud bricks

Mud bricks

Plaster

2

Room Extent 36 Foundations

East

Mud bricks

Floor

clay ?

North

Mud bricks

AST/g Side

Socle

2 Accesses Wall surface Preserved

Mud bricks

2

Mud bricks

2

Mud bricks

Socle

Accessibility 2B Superstructure

2

Mud bricks

Mud bricks

1

South

Mud bricks

Mud bricks

2

West

Mud bricks

Mud bricks

Mud bricks clay ?

North

AST/h Side

Room Extent 18 Foundations

Socle

Accessibility 2C Superstructure

Mud bricks

Mud bricks

2

Mud bricks

Mud bricks

2

South

Mud bricks

Mud bricks

2

West

Mud bricks

Mud bricks

East

Mud bricks

Floor

Stones

North

Mud bricks

South

Mud bricks

Covered Timber Frame

2

1 Accesses Wall surface Preserved

East

Room Extent 18 Foundations

Covered Timber Frame

1

North

AST/i Side

Covered Timber Frame

2

1 Accesses Wall surface Preserved

Mud bricks

East Floor

Covered Timber Frame

0

Mud bricks

Room Extent 17 Foundations

Accessibility 1F Superstructure

Covered Timber Frame

2

2 Accesses Wall surface Preserved

North

AST/f Side

Covered Timber Frame

2

2 Accesses Wall surface Preserved

Floor

AST/e Side

Covered Timber Frame

2

1 Accesses Wall surface Preserved

East

Room Extent 20 Foundations

Covered Timber Frame

1

North

AST/c Side

Covered Timber Frame

2

2 Accesses Wall surface Preserved

North

South

Room

Socle

North

South

Room

Room Extent 6 Foundations

Socle

Accessibility 2B Superstructure

2

1 Accesses Wall surface Preserved

Mud bricks

2

Mud bricks

1

Mud bricks

2

1

208

Covered Timber Frame

Covered Timber Frame

Pucci-Catalogue of Architectural Features at Tell Halaf Room

AST/k Side

Room Extent 16 Foundations

East

Mud bricks

Floor

clay ?

North

Mud bricks

South

Room

Room

Room

Room

AST/l Side

Socle

Accessibility 2B Superstructure Mud bricks

2

Mud bricks

2

Mud bricks

Mud bricks

Room Extent 7 Foundations

Socle

Accessibility 1G Superstructure

Mud bricks

Mud bricks

2

Mud bricks

Mud bricks

2

South

Mud bricks

Mud bricks

2

West

Mud bricks

Mud bricks

1

Room Extent 5 Foundations

Socle

Accessibility 1G Superstructure

2

Mud bricks

Mud bricks

2

South

Mud bricks

Mud bricks

2

West

Mud bricks

Mud bricks

Mud bricks clay ?

North

AST/n Side East

Mud bricks

Floor

clay

AST/o Side

Socle

East

Mud bricks clay ?

Accessibility 1G Superstructure

340

BM 1 Side

Socle

Accessibility 1G Superstructure

Accessibility Superstructure

Socle

Accessibility Superstructure

Bldg Ph I BM 4 Side

Room Extent Foundations

all

Mud bricks

Socle

Accessibility Superstructure

Bldg Ph I Room

G1,1 Side

Room Extent 97 Foundations

Socle

Accessibility Superstructure Mud bricks

Bldg Ph I G1,2 Side

Room Extent 5 Foundations

Socle

Mud bricks

2

Covered Timber Frame

2

G1,2

South Low Location Visibility Quality Medium Bldg Ph III Elevation of the main floor 11.2 Bldg Ph II Socle

Accessibility Superstructure Mud bricks and stones

Bldg Ph I

0 Accesses Wall surface Preserved 2

0 Accesses Wall surface Preserved

Covered Timber Frame

1 1

Clay ?

343

3

Mud bricks

G2 (1-3)

Building Extent

white plaster

Covered Timber Frame

G1,1

Accessibility Superstructure

East Floor

0 Accesses Wall surface Preserved

South Low Location Visibility Quality Medium Bldg Ph III Elevation of the main floor 11.2 Bldg Ph II

Building Room

3

BM 4

Gypsum plaster

5

Covered Timber Frame

South west Medium Location Visibility Quality High Bldg Ph III Elevation of the main floor Bldg Ph II

North

Extent

Covered Timber Frame

4

0 Accesses Wall surface Preserved

Mud bricks

East Floor

Covered Timber Frame

3

0 Accesses Wall surface Preserved

Mud bricks

Building 82

Extent

0 Accesses Wall surface Preserved

Mud bricks

Building Room

2

BM 1-4

Socle

Mud bricks

20

Extent

Covered Timber Frame

all High Location Visibility Quality High Bldg Ph III Elevation of the main floor Bldg Ph II

Mud bricks

all

0 Accesses Wall surface Preserved 0

Stones

Room Extent 20 (L) Foundations

1

Mud bricks

Room Extent 240 (L) Foundations

all

BM 3 Side

Covered Timber Frame

0

Room Extent 240 (L) Foundations

all

BM 2 Side

Covered Timber Frame

2

0 Accesses Wall surface Preserved

Mud bricks

Room Extent 4 Foundations

Floor

Covered Timber Frame

0

Room Extent 7 Foundations

Bldg Ph I

Room

0 Accesses Wall surface Preserved

Mud bricks

East Floor

Building

Room

2

0 Accesses Wall surface Preserved

East

AST/m Side

Covered Timber Frame

0

North

Extent Room

1 Accesses Wall surface Preserved

South Medium Location Visibility Quality High Bldg Ph III Elevation of the main floor 11 Bldg Ph II

209

Pucci-Catalogue of Architectural Features at Tell Halaf Room

Room

Room

Room

Room

Room

Room

G2/1a Side

Room Extent 7 Foundations

Socle

Accessibility 1F Superstructure Mud bricks

3

Rocks

Mud bricks

3

South

Rocks

Mud bricks

3

West

Rocks

Mud bricks

East

Rocks

Floor

Lime plaster*

North

G2/1b Side

Room Extent 35 Foundations

Socle

Accessibility 1 Superstructure

Rocks

Mud bricks

3

South

Rocks

Mud bricks

3

West

Rocks

Mud bricks

North

G2/2a Side

Room Extent 31 Foundations

Socle

Accessibility 1 Superstructure

3

1 Accesses Wall surface Preserved

Mud bricks

3

Rocks

Mud bricks

3

South

Rocks

Mud bricks

2

West

Rocks

Mud bricks

3

East

Rocks

Floor

Pebble and clay

North

G2/2b Side

Room Extent 5 Foundations

Socle

Accessibility 1F Superstructure

2 Accesses Wall surface Preserved 3

Rocks

Mud bricks

3

South

Rocks

Mud bricks

3

West

Rocks

Mud bricks

Rocks Rocks

North

G2/2c Side

Room Extent 5 Foundations

Socle

Accessibility 1F Superstructure

3

2 Accesses Wall surface Preserved 3

Rocks

Mud bricks

3

South

Rocks

Mud bricks

3

West

Rocks

Mud bricks

Rocks Rocks

North

G2/3a Side

Room Extent 23 Foundations

Socle

Accessibility 1B Superstructure

3

3 Accesses Wall surface Preserved 3

Rocks

Mud bricks

3

South

Rocks

Mud bricks

3

West

Rocks

Mud bricks

3

Rocks Plaster*

North

G2/3b Side

Room Extent 69 Foundations

Socle

Accessibility 1C Superstructure

2 Accesses Wall surface Preserved 3

Rocks

Mud bricks

3

South

Rocks

Mud bricks

3

West

Rocks

Mud bricks

3

Rocks Plaster

North

66 Bldg Ph I

G3n/1 Side

Room Extent 16 Foundations

G3 north

South Medium Location Visibility Quality Medium Bldg Ph III Elevation of the main floor 16.4 Bldg Ph II Socle

Accessibility 3 Superstructure

1 Accesses Wall surface Preserved

East

Mud bricks

Mud bricks

Plaster

3

Mud bricks

Mud bricks

Plaster

3

South

Mud bricks

Mud bricks

Plaster

3

West

Mud bricks

Mud bricks

Plaster

3

Room Extent 10 Foundations

Covered Timber Frame

2

North

G3n/2 Side

Covered Timber Frame

2

Mud bricks

East Floor

Covered Timber Frame

4

Mud bricks

East Floor

Covered Timber Frame

4

Mud bricks

East Floor

Covered Timber Frame

3

Mud bricks

East Floor

Covered Timber Frame

0

Building

Room

3

1 Accesses Wall surface Preserved 3

Rocks Lime plaster

Covered Timber Frame

0

Mud bricks

East Floor

Extent Room

2 Accesses Wall surface Preserved

Socle

Accessibility 3 Superstructure

1 Accesses Wall surface Preserved

East

Mud bricks

Mud bricks

Plaster

3

North

Mud bricks

Mud bricks

Plaster

3

South

Mud bricks

Mud bricks

Plaster

3

West

Mud bricks

Mud bricks

Plaster

3

G3 south

Building 210

Covered Timber Frame

Covered Timber Frame

Pucci-Catalogue of Architectural Features at Tell Halaf

39

Extent

Bldg Ph I Room

G3 south/ Room Extent 6 Foundations Side

South Low Location Visibility Quality High Elevation of the main floor Bldg Ph III 13.2 Bldg Ph II Socle

Accessibility G Superstructure Mud bricks

Plaster

4

North

Mud bricks

Plaster

4

South

Mud bricks

Plaster

4

West

Mud bricks

Plaster

4

East Floor

KR

Building Bldg Ph I

Room

Room

KR/1 Side

Room Extent 5 Foundations

Lower town Low Location Visibility Quality High Bldg Ph III Elevation of the main floor 16.7 Bldg Ph II Socle

Accessibility 1B Superstructure

Gypsum plaster

3

Mud bricks

Mud bricks

Gypsum plaster

3

South

Mud bricks

Mud bricks

Gypsum plaster

3

West

Mud bricks

Mud bricks

Mud bricks Baked bricks

North

KR/2 Side

Room Extent 48 Foundations

Socle

Accessibility 1C Superstructure

3

Mud bricks

Mud bricks

Gypsum plaster

3

South

Mud bricks

Mud bricks

Gypsum plaster

3

West

Mud bricks

Mud bricks

North

KR/3 Side

Room Extent 17 Foundations

Socle

Accessibility 1F Superstructure

Room

1 Accesses Wall surface Preserved 3

Mud bricks

Mud bricks

3

South

Mud bricks

Mud bricks

3

West

Mud bricks

Mud bricks

3

Mud bricks Baked bricks

North

276 Bldg Ph I

Room

3

Mud bricks

East Floor

LSG/1 Side

Room Extent 25 Foundations

LSG

South east Medium Location Visibility Quality Medium Bldg Ph III Elevation of the main floor 13.3 Bldg Ph II Socle

Accessibility 2B Superstructure

1 Accesses Wall surface Preserved 3

Mud bricks

Mud bricks

3

South

Mud bricks

Mud bricks

3

West

Mud bricks

Mud bricks

Mud bricks Clay

North

LSG/2 Side

Room Extent 21 Foundations

Socle

Accessibility 2B Superstructure

3

1 Accesses Wall surface Preserved 3

Mud bricks

Mud bricks

3

South

Mud bricks

Mud bricks

3

West

Mud bricks

Mud bricks

Mud bricks Clay

North

LSG/3 Side

Room Extent (6) Foundations

Socle

Accessibility 2G Superstructure

3

0 Accesses Wall surface Preserved 3

Mud bricks

Mud bricks

3

South

Mud bricks

Mud bricks

3

West

Mud bricks

Mud bricks

3

Mud bricks Clay

North

LSG/4 Side

Room Extent 25 Foundations

Socle

Accessibility 2G Superstructure

0 Accesses Wall surface Preserved 3

Mud bricks

Mud bricks

3

South

Mud bricks

Mud bricks

3

West

Mud bricks

Mud bricks

3

Mud bricks Tamped earth

North

Covered Timber Frame

4

Mud bricks

East Floor

Covered Timber Frame

4

Mud bricks

East Floor

Covered Timber Frame

4

Mud bricks

East Floor

Covered Timber Frame

3

Mud bricks

East Floor

Covered Timber Frame

3

Building

Room

3

2 Accesses Wall surface Preserved Gypsum plaster

Mud bricks Baked bricks

Covered Timber Frame

3

Mud bricks

East Floor

Extent Room

2 Accesses Wall surface Preserved

Mud bricks

East Floor

Covered Timber Frame

3

Plaster

154

Extent Room

0 Accesses Wall surface Preserved

4

211

Covered Timber Frame

Pucci-Catalogue of Architectural Features at Tell Halaf Room

LSG/5 Side

Room Extent 30 Foundations

Socle

Accessibility 2G Superstructure Mud bricks

3

Mud bricks

Mud bricks

3

South

Mud bricks

Mud bricks

3

West

Mud bricks

Mud bricks

3

East

Mud bricks

Floor

Tamped earth

North

Mub Side

Room Extent 694* Foundations

Floor

LZM Mub

South High Location Visibility Quality High Bldg Ph III Elevation of the main floor 16.8* Bldg Ph II Socle

Accessibility 2C Superstructure

Bldg Ph I Mug Side

Room Extent 144 Foundations

LZM Mug

South Low Location Visibility Quality High Bldg Ph III Elevation of the main floor Bldg Ph II Socle

Accessibility 2B Superstructure

East

Mud bricks

Mud bricks

3

Mud bricks

Mud bricks

3

790 Bldg Ph I

Room

Room

Room

Room

NB/1 Side

Room Extent 46 Foundations

South High Location Visibility Quality Medium Bldg Ph III Elevation of the main floor 17.7 Bldg Ph II Socle

Accessibility 3F Superstructure

3

Mud bricks

Mud bricks

3

South

Mud bricks

Mud bricks

3

West

Mud bricks

Mud bricks

Mud bricks Tamped earth

North

NB/2 Side

Room Extent 41 Foundations

Socle

Accessibility 3D Superstructure

3

3 Accesses Wall surface Preserved 3

Mud bricks

Mud bricks

3

South

Mud bricks

Mud bricks

3

West

Mud bricks

Mud bricks

3

Mud bricks Baked bricks and clay

North

NB/3 Side

Room Extent 101 Foundations

Socle

Accessibility 3B Superstructure

4 Accesses Wall surface Preserved 3

Mud bricks

Mud bricks

3

South

Mud bricks

Mud bricks

3

West

Mud bricks

Mud bricks

Mud bricks ement plastering and lim

North

NB/4 Side

Room Extent 29 Foundations

Socle

Accessibility 3D Superstructure

3

1 Accesses Wall surface Preserved 3

Mud bricks

Mud bricks

3

South

Mud bricks

Mud bricks

3

West

Mud bricks

Mud bricks

3

Mud bricks Foundations

North

NB/5 Side

Room Extent 10 Foundations

Socle

Accessibility 3F Superstructure

1 Accesses Wall surface Preserved 3

Mud bricks

Mud bricks

3

South

Mud bricks

Mud bricks

3

West

Mud bricks

Mud bricks

3

Mud bricks Baked bricks and clay

North

NOP1/ad Side East

Room Extent 7* Foundations Mud bricks

Covered Timber Frame

3

NOP1

Building 1439 Bldg Ph I

Covered Timber Frame

3

Mud bricks

East Floor

Covered Timber Frame

3

Mud bricks

East Floor

Covered Timber Frame

3

Mud bricks

East Floor

Covered Timber Frame

3

Mud bricks

East Floor

Extent Room

1 Accesses Wall surface Preserved

Mud bricks

East Floor

Covered Timber Frame

NB

Building Room

1 Accesses Wall surface Preserved

West

Extent

Covered Timber Frame

2

Building Room

1 Accesses Wall surface Preserved

Baked bricks

144

Extent

Covered Timber Frame

4

Building 694* Bldg Ph I

Extent Room

0 Accesses Wall surface Preserved

North east High Location Visibility Quality Very hi Elevation of the main floor Bldg Ph III 13.6-13.9 Bldg Ph II Socle

Accessibility 2F Superstructure Mud bricks

212

2 Accesses Wall surface Preserved 3

Covered Timber Frame

Pucci-Catalogue of Architectural Features at Tell Halaf

Room

Room

Room

Room

Room

Room

Room

Room

0

Floor 1

clay*

Floor 2

clay*

North

Mud bricks

Mud bricks

3

South

Mud bricks

Mud bricks

3

West

Mud bricks

Mud bricks

3

NOP1/af Side

Room Extent 14 Foundations

0

Socle

Accessibility 2F Superstructure Mud bricks

1 Accesses Wall surface Preserved 3

East

Mud bricks

Floor 1

Baked bricks ?

Floor 2

Baked bricks

North

Mud bricks

Mud bricks

3

South

Mud bricks

Mud bricks

3

West

Mud bricks

Mud bricks

3

NOP1/ag Side

Room Extent 9 Foundations

2 0

Socle

Accessibility 2F Superstructure Mud bricks

0 Accesses Wall surface Preserved

Mud bricks Baked bricks with lime

Floor 2

Baked bricks with lime

North

Mud bricks

Mud bricks

3

South

Mud bricks

Mud bricks

3

West

Mud bricks

Mud bricks

Room Extent 26 Foundations

2 0

Socle

Accessibility 2F Superstructure Mud bricks

3

1 Accesses Wall surface Preserved

Mud bricks Pebble

Floor 2

Baked bricks

North

Mud bricks

Mud bricks

2

South

Mud bricks

Mud bricks

3

West

Mud bricks

Mud bricks

Room Extent 12 Foundations

1 2

Socle

Accessibility 2F Superstructure Mud bricks

3

0 Accesses Wall surface Preserved

Mud bricks Pebble

Floor 2

Baked bricks witk lime

North

Mud bricks

Mud bricks

3

South

Mud bricks

Mud bricks

3

West

Mud bricks

Mud bricks

Room Extent 9 Foundations

0 0

Socle

Accessibility 2F Superstructure Mud bricks

3

0 Accesses Wall surface Preserved

Mud bricks Pebble

Floor 2

Baked bricks with lime

North

Mud bricks

Mud bricks

3

South

Mud bricks

Mud bricks

3

West

Mud bricks

Mud bricks

Room Extent 21.5 Foundations

0 0

Socle

Accessibility 2F Superstructure

3

2 Accesses Wall surface Preserved

Mud bricks

3

Mud bricks

Mud bricks

3

South

Mud bricks

Mud bricks

3

West

Mud bricks

Mud bricks

East

Mud bricks

Floor

Pebble

North

NOP1/bb Side

Room Extent (10) Foundations

Socle

Accessibility 2F Superstructure

3

2 Accesses Wall surface Preserved 3

Mud bricks

Mud bricks

3

South

Mud bricks

Mud bricks

3

West

Mud bricks

Mud bricks

Mud bricks Pebble

North

NOP1/ct Side

Room Extent 16 Foundations

Socle

Accessibility 2F Superstructure

3

1 Accesses Wall surface Preserved 3

Mud bricks

Mud bricks

3

South

Mud bricks

Mud bricks

3

West

Mud bricks

Mud bricks

3

Mud bricks ked* bricks with bitum

North

Covered Timber Frame

2

Mud bricks

East Floor

Covered Timber Frame

0

Mud bricks

East Floor

Covered Timber Frame

3

East Floor 1

NOP1/ba Side

Covered Timber Frame

3

East Floor 1

NOP1/al Side

Covered Timber Frame

3

East Floor 1

NOP1/ai Side

Covered Timber Frame

3

East Floor 1

NOP1/ah Side

Covered Timber Frame

1

213

Covered Timber Frame

Pucci-Catalogue of Architectural Features at Tell Halaf Room

NOP1/cu Side

Room Extent 12.5 Foundations

Socle

Accessibility 2F Superstructure Mud bricks

3

Mud bricks

Mud bricks

3

South

Mud bricks

Mud bricks

3

West

Mud bricks

Mud bricks

3

East

Mud bricks

Floor

aked bricks with bitume

North

NOP2

Room

Room

Room

Room

Room

Room

Room

North east High Location Visibility Quality Very hi Bldg Ph III Elevation of the main floor 13.7-14.4 Bldg Ph II

NOP2/am Room Extent 8 Foundations Side

Socle

Accessibility 2D Superstructure

1 Accesses Wall surface Preserved

Mud bricks

3

Mud bricks

Mud bricks

3

South

Mud bricks

Mud bricks

3

West

Mud bricks

Mud bricks

3

East

Mud bricks

Floor

clay ?

North

NOP2/an Side

Room Extent 15 Foundations

Socle

Accessibility 2F Superstructure

East

Mud bricks

Mud bricks

Baked bricks

Plaster

Floor 2

Limestone slabs

1 Accesses Wall surface Preserved 3 1

Mud bricks

Mud bricks

3

South

Mud bricks

Mud bricks

3

West

Mud bricks

Mud bricks

3

Socle

Accessibility 2B Superstructure

1 Accesses Wall surface Preserved

Mud bricks

3

Mud bricks

Mud bricks

3

South

Mud bricks

Mud bricks

3

West

Mud bricks

Mud bricks

East

Mud bricks

Floor

Gypsum plaster

North

NOP2/ap Side

Room Extent 14.6x1.4 Foundations

Socle

Accessibility 2B Superstructure

3

1 Accesses Wall surface Preserved

East

Mud bricks

Mud bricks

3

Mud bricks

Mud bricks

3

South

Mud bricks

Mud bricks

3

West

Mud bricks

Mud bricks

3

Room Extent 15 Foundations

Socle

Accessibility 2 Superstructure Mud bricks

1 Accesses Wall surface Preserved

Mud bricks Pebble

Floor 2

Baked* bricks

North

Mud bricks

Mud bricks

3

South

Mud bricks

Mud bricks

3

West

Mud bricks

Mud bricks

Room Extent 15 Foundations

0

Socle

Accessibility 2F Superstructure

3

1 Accesses Wall surface Preserved 3

Mud bricks

Mud bricks

3

South

Mud bricks

Mud bricks

3

West

Mud bricks

Mud bricks

Mud bricks Baked* bricks

North

NOP2/as Side

Room Extent 24 Foundations

Socle

Accessibility 2 Superstructure

3

0 Accesses Wall surface Preserved 3

Mud bricks

Mud bricks

3

South

Mud bricks

Mud bricks

3

West

Mud bricks

Mud bricks

3

Mud bricks Baked* bricks

North

NOP2/at Side

Room Extent 64 Foundations

East

Mud bricks

Floor

Baked bricks

North

Mud bricks

South

Mud bricks

Covered Timber Frame

4

Mud bricks

East Floor

Covered Timber Frame

0

Mud bricks

East Floor

Covered Timber Frame

3

East Floor 1

NOP2/ar Side

Covered Timber Frame

1

North

NOP2/aq Side

Covered Timber Frame

3

North

Room Extent 31 Foundations

Covered Timber Frame

0

Floor 1

NOP2/ao Side

Covered Timber Frame

2

Building 2732 Bldg Ph I

Extent Room

0 Accesses Wall surface Preserved

Covered Timber Frame

1

Socle

Accessibility 2C Superstructure

2 Accesses Wall surface Preserved

Mud bricks

3

Mud bricks

3

Mud bricks

3

2

214

Covered Timber Frame

Pucci-Catalogue of Architectural Features at Tell Halaf West

Room

NOP2/av Side

Mud bricks

Mud bricks

Room Extent 11 Foundations

Socle

Accessibility 2B Superstructure Mud bricks

3

Mud bricks

Mud bricks

3

South

Mud bricks

Mud bricks

3

West

Mud bricks

Mud bricks

3

East

Mud bricks

Floor

Baked* bricks

North

Room

Room

Room

NOP3/a Side

NOP3

Room

Room

Room

Room

North east High Location Visibility Quality Very hi Bldg Ph III Elevation of the main floor 14.70-15.2 Bldg Ph II Socle

Accessibility G Superstructure

0 Accesses Wall surface Preserved

Mud bricks

3

w and older substructur

Mud bricks

2

South

w and older substructur

Mud bricks

3

West

w and older substructur

East

w and older substructur

Floor

clay ?

North

NOP3/aa Side

Room Extent 65 Foundations

1

Socle

Accessibility 2F Superstructure

1 Accesses Wall surface Preserved

clay ? ud brick Brick floor an

Mud bricks

2

South

rick floor and older wal

Mud bricks

1

West

rick floor and older wal

Mud bricks

Room Extent 32 Foundations

Socle

Accessibility 2F Superstructure

3

0 Accesses Wall surface Preserved

Mud bricks

3

rick floor and older wal

Mud bricks

1

South

rick floor and older wal

Mud bricks

3

West

rick floor and older wal

Mud bricks

East

rick floor and older wal

Floor

clay ?

North

NOP3/b Side

Room Extent 18 Foundations

East

T3, mud bricks

Floor

clay ?

South

T3, mud bricks

NOP3/bh Side

Socle

Accessibility 2F Superstructure

3

1 Accesses Wall surface Preserved

Mud bricks

1

Mud bricks

3

Mud bricks

Socle

Accessibility 2F Superstructure

3

1 Accesses Wall surface Preserved 3

older structures

Mud bricks

3

South

older structures

Mud bricks

3

West

older structures

Mud bricks

T3, mud bricks Stone pebble

North

NOP3/bi Side

Room Extent 16 Foundations

Socle

Accessibility 2F Superstructure

3

1 Accesses Wall surface Preserved 3

older structures

Mud bricks

3

South

older structures

Mud bricks

3

West

older structures

Mud bricks

3

older structures clay (?)

North

NOP3/bl Side

Room Extent 21 Foundations

Socle

Accessibility 2F Superstructure

1 Accesses Wall surface Preserved

clay older structures

Mud bricks

3

South

older structures

Mud bricks

3

West

older structures

Mud bricks

Socle

Accessibility 2F Superstructure

3

2 Accesses Wall surface Preserved

Mud bricks

3

T3, mud bricks

Mud bricks

3

South

T3, mud bricks

Mud bricks

3

West

T3, mud bricks

Mud bricks

3

East

T3, mud bricks

Floor

cks with clay and gypsu

North

NOP3/d Side

Room Extent 25 Foundations

Covered Timber Frame

2

Floor

Room Extent 48 Foundations

Covered Timber Frame

0

North

NOP3/c Side

Covered Timber Frame

2

Mud bricks

East Floor

Covered Timber Frame

0

Mud bricks

East Floor

Covered Timber Frame

0

T3, mud bricks

Room Extent Foundations

Covered Timber Frame

0

Floor

NOP3/ab Side

Covered Timber Frame

0

North

West

Room

Room Extent 64 Foundations

Covered Timber Frame

4

Building 5031 Bldg Ph I

Extent Room

3

1 Accesses Wall surface Preserved

Covered Timber Frame

4

Socle

Accessibility 2 Superstructure

215

1 Accesses Wall surface Preserved

Covered Timber Frame

Pucci-Catalogue of Architectural Features at Tell Halaf

Room

Room

Room

Room

Room

Room

Room

Room

Room

Mud bricks

3

T3, mud bricks

Mud bricks

3

South

T3, mud bricks

Mud bricks

3

West

T3, mud bricks

Mud bricks

3

East

T3, mud bricks

Floor

Plaster

North

NOP3/e Side

Room Extent 120 Foundations

2

Socle

Accessibility 2 Superstructure Mud bricks

3 Accesses Wall surface Preserved 3

East

T3, mud bricks

Floor

Baked bricks

1

North

Stones

1

South

T3, mud bricks

Mud bricks

West

T3, mud bricks

Mud bricks

NOP3/f Side

Room Extent 20 Foundations

Socle

Accessibility 2F Superstructure

3 3

1 Accesses Wall surface Preserved

Mud bricks

3

T3, mud bricks

Mud bricks

2

South

T3, mud bricks

Mud bricks

3

West

T3, mud bricks

East

T3, mud bricks

Floor

Baked briks

North

NOP3/g Side

Room Extent 27 Foundations

3

Socle

Accessibility 2F Superstructure

4 Accesses Wall surface Preserved 3

T3, mud bricks

Mud bricks

3

South

T3, mud bricks

Mud bricks

3

West

T3, mud bricks

Mud bricks

3

T3, mud bricks Baked bricks

North

NOP3/h Side

Room Extent 63 Foundations

Socle

Accessibility 1D Superstructure

3 Accesses Wall surface Preserved 3

T3, mud bricks

Mud bricks

3

South

T3, mud bricks

Mud bricks

3

West

T3, mud bricks

Mud bricks

T3, mud bricks Baked bricks

North

NOP3/i Side

Room Extent 45 Foundations

Socle

Accessibility 2B Superstructure

3

2 Accesses Wall surface Preserved 3

T3, mud bricks

Mud bricks

2

South

T3, mud bricks

Mud bricks

3

West

T3, mud bricks

T3, mud bricks Plaster

North

NOP3/l Side

Room Extent 37 Foundations

1

Socle

Accessibility 2F Superstructure

0 Accesses Wall surface Preserved 3

w and older substructur

Mud bricks

3

South

w and older substructur

Mud bricks

3

West

w and older substructur

Mud bricks

3

w and older substructur clay ?

North

NOP3/m Side

Room Extent 9 Foundations

Socle

Accessibility 2F Superstructure

0 Accesses Wall surface Preserved 3

w and older substructur

Mud bricks

3

South

w and older substructur

Mud bricks

3

West

w and older substructur

w and older substructur clay ?

North

NOP3/n Side

Room Extent 40 Foundations

3

Socle

Accessibility 2F Superstructure

1 Accesses Wall surface Preserved 3

w and older substructur

Mud bricks

3

South

w and older substructur

Mud bricks

3

West

w and older substructur

Mud bricks

3

w and older substructur clay ?

North

NOP3/o Side

Room Extent 14 Foundations

East

w and older substructur

Floor

clay ?

North

w and older substructur

South

w and older substructur

Covered Timber Frame

0

Mud bricks

East Floor

Covered Timber Frame

0

Mud bricks

East Floor

Covered Timber Frame

2

Mud bricks

East Floor

Covered Timber Frame

0

Mud bricks

East Floor

Covered Timber Frame

3

Mud bricks

East Floor

Covered Timber Frame

4

Mud bricks

East Floor

Covered Timber Frame

Covered Timber Frame

0

Socle

Accessibility 2F Superstructure

0 Accesses Wall surface Preserved

Mud bricks

3

Mud bricks

3

Mud bricks

3

0

216

Covered Timber Frame

Pucci-Catalogue of Architectural Features at Tell Halaf West

Room

Room

Room

Room

Room

Room

Room

Room

NOP3/p Side

Mud bricks

w and older substructur

Room Extent 26 Foundations

Socle

Accessibility 2F Superstructure Mud bricks

3

w and older substructur

Mud bricks

3

South

w and older substructur

Mud bricks

3

West

w and older substructur

Mud bricks

3

East

w and older substructur

Floor

clay ?

North

NOP3/q Side

Room Extent 23 Foundations

Socle

Accessibility 2F Superstructure Mud bricks

2 Accesses Wall surface Preserved Plaster and red paint

w and older substructur Clay plaster

North

w and older substructur

Mud bricks

Plaster and red paint

3

South

w and older substructur

Mud bricks

Plaster and red paint

3

West

w and older substructur

Mud bricks

Plaster and red paint

3

0

Room Extent 10 Foundations

Socle

Accessibility 2F Superstructure Mud bricks

2 Accesses Wall surface Preserved Plaster and yellow paint

w and older substructur cks with clay plaster an

North

w and older substructur

Mud bricks

Plaster and yellow paint

3

South

w and older substructur

Mud bricks

Plaster and yellow paint

3

West

w and older substructur

Mud bricks

Plaster and yellow paint

3

3

Room Extent 18 Foundations

Socle

Accessibility 2F Superstructure

2 Accesses Wall surface Preserved

Mud bricks

3

T3, mud bricks

Mud bricks

3

South

T3, mud bricks

Mud bricks

3

West

T3, mud bricks

Mud bricks

3

East

T3, mud bricks

Floor

Plaster

North

NOP3/t Side

Socle

Accessibility 2F Superstructure

1 Accesses Wall surface Preserved

Mud bricks

3

T3, mud bricks

Mud bricks

3

South

T3, mud bricks

Mud bricks

3

West

T3, mud bricks

Mud bricks

East

T3, mud bricks Plaster

North

NOP3/u Side

Room Extent 10 Foundations

Socle

Accessibility 2F Superstructure

3

1 Accesses Wall surface Preserved Plaster

3

T3, mud bricks

Mud bricks

Plaster

3

South

T3, mud bricks

Mud bricks

Plaster

3

West

T3, mud bricks

Mud bricks

Plaster

3

T3, mud bricks Gypsum plaster

North

NOP3/v Side

Room Extent 108 Foundations

Socle

Accessibility 2 Superstructure

0 Accesses Wall surface Preserved 3

rick floor and older wal

Mud bricks

3

South

rick floor and older wal

Mud bricks

3

West

rick floor and older wal

Mud bricks

rick floor and older wal Baked bricks

North

NOP3/z Side

Room Extent 30 Foundations

East

T3, mud bricks

Floor

T3, mud bricks

Socle

Accessibility 2F Superstructure

Mud bricks

Mud bricks

3

1 Accesses Wall surface Preserved 3

T3, mud bricks

Mud bricks

Mud bricks

2

T3, mud bricks

Mud bricks

Mud bricks

3

West

T3, mud bricks

Mud bricks

Mud bricks

3

QT

Building Bldg Ph I Room Extent 14 Foundations

East

Mud bricks

Floor

Pebble*

North

Mud bricks

South

Mud bricks

Covered Timber Frame

0

South

QT/1 Side

Covered Timber Frame

2

North

103

Covered Timber Frame

3

Mud bricks

East Floor

Covered Timber Frame

0

Mud bricks

East Floor

Covered Timber Frame

2

Room Extent 8.6 x1.5 Foundations

Floor

Covered Timber Frame

3

East Floor

NOP3/s Side

Covered Timber Frame

3

East

NOP3/r Side

Covered Timber Frame

0

Floor

Extent Room

3

0 Accesses Wall surface Preserved

North east Low Location Visibility Quality High Bldg Ph III Elevation of the main floor 13.5 Bldg Ph II Socle

Accessibility 1 Superstructure

0 Accesses Wall surface Preserved

Mud bricks

3

Mud bricks

3

Mud bricks

3

3

217

Covered Timber Frame

Pucci-Catalogue of Architectural Features at Tell Halaf West

Room

QT/2 Side

Mud bricks

Mud bricks

Room Extent 16 Foundations

Socle

Accessibility 1C Superstructure Mud bricks

3

Mud bricks

Mud bricks

3

South

Mud bricks

Mud bricks

3

West

Mud bricks

Mud bricks

3

East

Mud bricks

Floor

Pebble*

North

Bldg Ph I

Room

Room

Room

Room

SKT/1 Side

Room Extent 37 Foundations

SKT

South High Location Visibility Quality Very hi Bldg Ph III Elevation of the main floor 15.5-16.6 Bldg Ph II Socle

Accessibility 2A Superstructure

Plaster

3

Mud bricks

Mud bricks

Plaster

3

South

Mud bricks

Mud bricks

Plaster

3

West

Mud bricks

Mud bricks

Plaster

3

Mud bricks Stones

North

SKT/2 Side

Room Extent 29 Foundations

Socle

Accessibility 2C Superstructure

3

Mud bricks

Mud bricks

Plaster

3

South

Mud bricks

Mud bricks

Plaster

3

West

Mud bricks

Mud bricks

Plaster

3

Stones

North

SKT/3 Side

Room Extent 158 Foundations

Socle

Accessibility 2 Superstructure

Plaster

3

Mud bricks

Mud bricks

Plaster

3

South

Mud bricks

Mud bricks

Plaster

3

West

Mud bricks

Mud bricks

Plaster

3

Mud bricks Lime plaster

North

SKT/4 Side

Room Extent 17 Foundations

Socle

Accessibility 2B Superstructure

2 Accesses Wall surface Preserved Plaster

3

Mud bricks

Mud bricks

Plaster

3

South

Mud bricks

Mud bricks

Plaster

3

West

Mud bricks

Mud bricks

Plaster

3

Mud bricks clay

North

SKT/5 Side

Room Extent 272 Foundations

Socle

Accessibility 3A Superstructure

1 Accesses Wall surface Preserved

d bricks fragments, sto Mud bricks

Mud bricks

3

West

Mud bricks

Mud bricks

3

Room Extent 70 Foundations

East

Mud bricks

Floor

Pebble

North

Rocks, AST

West

ST/2 Side

ST

South Very High Location Visibility Quality High Bldg Ph III Elevation of the main floor 10.7 Bldg Ph II Socle

East

Mud bricks

Floor

Gypsum plaster

Accessibility 1A Superstructure

2 Accesses Wall surface Preserved

Mud bricks

3

Plaster

Mud bricks

Socle

Accessibility 1C Superstructure Mud bricks

3 3

2 Accesses Wall surface Preserved Plaster and paint

2

Mud bricks

Mud bricks

Plaster and paint

1

South

Mud bricks

Mud bricks

Plaster and paint

2

West

Mud bricks

Mud bricks

Plaster and paint

2

Room Extent 98 Foundations

East

Mud bricks

Floor

Gypsum plaster

North

Mud bricks

Covered Timber Frame

4

North

ST/3 Side

Covered Timber Frame

2 Mud bricks

Mud bricks

Room Extent 98 Foundations

Covered Timber Frame

3

Floor

ST/1 Side

Covered Timber Frame

3

South

524

Covered Timber Frame

3

Mud bricks

East Floor

Bldg Ph I

Room

1 Accesses Wall surface Preserved

Mud bricks

East Floor

Covered Timber Frame

3

Building

Room

2 Accesses Wall surface Preserved Plaster

Mud bricks

Covered Timber Frame

3

Mud bricks

East Floor

Extent Room

2 Accesses Wall surface Preserved

Mud bricks

East Floor

Covered Timber Frame

3

Building 513

Extent Room

3

1 Accesses Wall surface Preserved

Socle

Accessibility 2C Superstructure

2 Accesses Wall surface Preserved

Mud bricks

3

Mud bricks

3

4

218

Covered Timber Frame

Pucci-Catalogue of Architectural Features at Tell Halaf

Room

South

Mud bricks

Mud bricks

West

Mud bricks

Mud bricks

ST/4 Side

Room Extent 711 Foundations

Socle

Accessibility 2A Superstructure

Mud bricks Gypsum plaster

North

Mud bricks

Mud bricks

South

Mud bricks

Mud bricks

Room

Room

Room

Room

Room

Room

Room

Room

STL/1 Side

Room Extent 24 Foundations

2

Plaster

3 2

STL

Lower town Medium Location Visibility Quality High Bldg Ph III Elevation of the main floor 12 Bldg Ph II Socle

Accessibility 1B Superstructure

East

Mud bricks

Mud bricks

Floor

*

Mud bricks

North

Mud bricks

South West

STL/2 Side

2 Accesses Wall surface Preserved Plaster with gypsum

3

Mud bricks

Plaster with gypsum

3

Mud bricks

Mud bricks

Plaster with gypsum

3

Mud bricks

Mud bricks

Plaster with gypsum

3

Room Extent 19 Foundations

Socle

Accessibility 1E Superstructure

2 Accesses Wall surface Preserved Plaster with gypsum

3

Mud bricks

Mud bricks

Plaster with gypsum

3

South

Mud bricks

Mud bricks

Plaster with gypsum

3

West

Mud bricks

Mud bricks

Plaster with gypsum

3

Mud bricks Limestone slabs*

North

STL/3 Side

Room Extent 42 Foundations

Socle

Accessibility 1F Superstructure

East

Mud bricks

Mud bricks

*

Mud bricks

North

Mud bricks

South West

1 Accesses Wall surface Preserved Plaster with gypsum

3

Mud bricks

Plaster with gypsum

3

Mud bricks

Mud bricks

Plaster with gypsum

3

Mud bricks

Mud bricks

Plaster with gypsum

3

Room Extent 467 Foundations

Socle

Accessibility 1C Superstructure

6 Accesses Wall surface Preserved Plaster with gypsum

3

Mud bricks

Mud bricks

Plaster with gypsum

3

South

Mud bricks

Mud bricks

Plaster with gypsum

3

West

Mud bricks

Mud bricks

Plaster with gypsum

3

Mud bricks Pebble and slabs

North

STL/5 Side

Room Extent 21 Foundations

Socle

Accessibility 1F Superstructure

East

Mud bricks

Mud bricks

*

Mud bricks

North

Mud bricks

South West

3

Mud bricks

Plaster with gypsum

3

Mud bricks

Mud bricks

Plaster with gypsum

3

Mud bricks

Mud bricks

Plaster with gypsum

3

Socle

Accessibility 1F Superstructure

East

Mud bricks

Mud bricks

Floor

*

Mud bricks

North

Mud bricks

South West

STL/7 Side

2 Accesses Wall surface Preserved 3

Mud bricks

Plaster with gypsum

3

Mud bricks

Mud bricks

Plaster with gypsum

3

Mud bricks

Mud bricks

Plaster with gypsum

3

Room Extent 15 Foundations

Socle

Accessibility 1F Superstructure

East

Mud bricks

Mud bricks

*

Mud bricks

North

Mud bricks

South West

2 Accesses Wall surface Preserved 3

Mud bricks

Plaster with gypsum

3

Mud bricks

Mud bricks

Plaster with gypsum

3

Mud bricks

Mud bricks

Plaster with gypsum

3

Socle

Accessibility 1F Superstructure

East

Mud bricks

Mud bricks

Floor

*

Mud bricks

North

Mud bricks

South

Mud bricks

Covered Timber Frame

0

1 Accesses Wall surface Preserved Plaster with gypsum

3

Mud bricks

Plaster with gypsum

3

Mud bricks

Plaster with gypsum

3

219

Covered Timber Frame

0

Plaster with gypsum

Room Extent 67 Foundations

Covered Timber Frame

0

Plaster with gypsum

Floor

STL/8 Side

4 Accesses Wall surface Preserved Plaster with gypsum

Room Extent 74 Foundations

Covered Timber Frame

3

Floor

STL/6 Side

Covered Timber Frame

0

Mud bricks

East Floor

Covered Timber Frame

0

Floor

STL/4 Side

Covered Timber Frame

0

Mud bricks

East Floor

Covered Timber Frame

4

Building 2350 Bldg Ph I

3

3 Accesses Wall surface Preserved

Mud bricks

East Floor

Extent

3

0

Covered Timber Frame

Pucci-Catalogue of Architectural Features at Tell Halaf West

Mud bricks

Mud bricks

Room

TP/1 Side East

Mud bricks

Floor

Limestone slabs

South

Mud bricks

West

Room

Room

Room

Room

Room

Room

Room

Room

Room Extent 111 Foundations

TP/2 Side

South Very high Location Visibility Quality Very hi Bldg Ph III Elevation of the main floor 19.9 Bldg Ph II Socle

Accessibility 3C Superstructure

2 Accesses Wall surface Preserved

Mud bricks

Orthostats

3

Mud bricks

Orthostats

3

Mud bricks

Orthostats

3

Socle

Accessibility 3C Superstructure

2 Accesses Wall surface Preserved

Mud bricks

Lime plaster

3

Mud bricks

Mud bricks

Lime plaster

3

South

Mud bricks

Mud bricks

Lime plaster

3

West

Mud bricks

Mud bricks

Lime plaster

3

East

Mud bricks

Floor

Limestone slabs

North

TP/3 Side

Room Extent 292 Foundations

Socle

Accessibility 3E Superstructure

3 Accesses Wall surface Preserved Lime plaster

3

Mud bricks

Mud bricks

Lime plaster

3

South

Mud bricks

Mud bricks

Lime plaster

3

West

Mud bricks

Mud bricks

Lime plaster

3

Mud bricks Limestone slabs

North

TP/4 Side

Room Extent 35 Foundations

Socle

Accessibility 3F Superstructure

0 Accesses Wall surface Preserved

East

Mud bricks

1

clay ?

2

North

Mud bricks

1

South

Mud bricks

1

West

Mud bricks

Room Extent 35 Foundations

Socle

1 Accesses Wall surface Preserved

East

Mud bricks

1

clay ?

2

North

Mud bricks

1

South

Mud bricks

1

West

Mud bricks

1

Room Extent 35 Foundations

Socle

Accessibility 3 Superstructure

0 Accesses Wall surface Preserved

East

Mud bricks

1

Floor

clay ?

2

North

Mud bricks

1

South

Mud bricks

1

West

Mud bricks

TP/7 Side

Room Extent 58 Foundations

Socle

1 Accesses Wall surface Preserved

East

Mud bricks

1

clay

4

North

Mud bricks

Mud bricks

Lime plaster

3

South

Mud bricks

Mud bricks

Lime plaster

3

West

Mud bricks

Mud bricks

Lime plaster

3

Room Extent 52 Foundations

Socle

Accessibility 3A Superstructure

2 Accesses Wall surface Preserved

Mud bricks

3

Mud bricks

Mud bricks

3

South

Mud bricks

Mud bricks

3

West

Mud bricks

Mud bricks

East

Mud bricks

Floor

Limestone slabs

North

TP/t1 Side

Room Extent 123 Foundations

Socle

Accessibility 3D Superstructure

Mud bricks

Mud bricks

3

Mud bricks

Mud bricks

3

North South

Covered Timber Frame

Covered Timber Frame

3

1 Accesses Wall surface Preserved 3

Mud bricks Limestone slabs

Covered Timber Frame

4

Mud bricks

East Floor

Covered Timber Frame

1

Accessibility 3F Superstructure

Floor

TP/a Side

Covered Timber Frame

1

Accessibility 3F Superstructure

Floor

TP/6 Side

Covered Timber Frame

4

Floor

TP/5 Side

Covered Timber Frame

4

Mud bricks

East Floor

Covered Timber Frame

4

Mud bricks

Room Extent 187 Foundations

3

TP

Building 1538 Bldg Ph I

Extent

Plaster with gypsum

2

220

Covered Timber Frame

Pucci-Catalogue of Architectural Features at Tell Halaf Room

TP/t2 Side

Room Extent 104 Foundations

Socle

Accessibility 3D Superstructure

1 Accesses Wall surface Preserved

Mud bricks

3

Mud bricks

Mud bricks

3

South

Mud bricks

Mud bricks

3

West

Mud bricks

Mud bricks

3

East

Mud bricks

Floor

Limestone slabs ?

North

0

221

Covered Timber Frame

Pucci-Catalogue of Archtectural Features at Tell Tayinat

Building Extent Room I,1/e Side

1775 Bldg Ph I

Room Extent 101 Foundations

East

Older walls

Floor

Tamped earth

I, 1

Very high Location NW Visibility High Quality Bldg Ph III Elevation of the main floor 98.85-99.0 Bldg Ph II Socle

Accessibility 3A Superstructure Mud bricks

Accesses Wall surface Mud plaster

7 Covered Preserved Timber Frame 3 2

North

mud bricks

Mud bricks

Mud plaster

3

South

Older walls

Mud bricks

Mud plaster

3

Mud bricks

Mud plaster

West

Room I,1/f Side

Older walls

Room Extent 31 Foundations

East

Older walls

Floor

Tamped earth

Socle

Accessibility 3D Superstructure Mud bricks

Accesses Wall surface Mud plaster

3

4 Covered Preserved Timber Frame 3 2

North

Older walls

Mud bricks

Mud plaster

3

South

Older walls

Mud bricks

Mud plaster

3

West

older walls

Mud bricks

Mud plaster

3

Room I,1/g Side

Room Extent 75 Foundations

East

Older walls

Floor

Tamped earth

Socle

Accessibility 3F Superstructure Mud bricks

Accesses Wall surface Mud plaster

1 Covered Preserved Timber Frame 3 3

North

Older walls

Mud bricks

Mud plaster

South

Older walls

Mud bricks

Mud plaster

3

West

Older walls

Mud bricks

Mud plaster

3

Room I,1/j Side

Room Extent 172 Foundations

East

Older walls

Floor

Tamped earth

Socle

Accessibility 3C Superstructure Mud bricks

Accesses Wall surface Mud plaster

3

6 Covered Preserved Timber Frame 3 3

North

Older walls

Mud bricks

Mud plaster

South

Older walls

Mud bricks

Mud plaster

3

West

Older walls

Mud bricks

Mud plaster

3

Room I,1/k Side

Room Extent 128 Foundations

East

Older walls

Floor

Tamped earth

Socle

Accessibility 3F Superstructure Mud bricks

Accesses Wall surface Mud plaster

3

4 Covered Preserved Timber Frame 3 3

North

Older walls

Mud bricks

Mud plaster

South

Older walls

Mud bricks

Mud plaster

3

West

Older walls

Mud bricks

Mud plaster

3

Room I,1/l Side

Room Extent 29 Foundations

East

Older walls

Floor

Tamped earth

Socle

Accessibility 3E Superstructure Mud bricks

Accesses Wall surface Mud plaster

3

1 Covered Preserved Timber Frame 3 3

North

Older walls

Mud bricks

Mud plaster

South

Older walls

Mud bricks

Mud plaster

3

West

Older walls

Mud bricks

Mud plaster

3

Room I,1/m Side

Room Extent 28 Foundations

East

Older walls

Floor

Tamped earth

Socle

Accessibility 3E Superstructure Mud bricks

Accesses Wall surface Mud plaster

3

1 Covered Preserved Timber Frame 3 3

North

Older walls

Mud bricks

Mud plaster

South

Older walls

Mud bricks

Mud plaster

3

West

Older walls

Mud bricks

Mud plaster

3

Room I,1/n Side

Room Extent 29 Foundations

East

Older walls

Floor

Tamped earth

Socle

Accessibility 3E Superstructure Mud bricks

Accesses Wall surface Mud plaster

3

1 Covered Preserved Timber Frame 3 3

North

Older walls

Mud bricks

Mud plaster

South

Older walls

Mud bricks

Mud plaster

3

West

Older walls

Mud bricks

Mud plaster

3

222

3

Pucci-Catalogue of Archtectural Features at Tell Tayinat Room I,1/p Side

Room Extent 33 Foundations

East

Older walls

Floor

Tamped earth

Socle

Accessibility 3F Superstructure

Accesses Wall surface

Mud bricks

Mud plaster

1 Covered Preserved Timber Frame 3 3

North

Older walls

Mud bricks

Mud plaster

South

Older walls

Mud bricks

Mud plaster

3

West

Older walls

Mud bricks

Mud plaster

3

Room I,1/q Side

Room Extent 34 Foundations

Socle

Accessibility 3F Superstructure

Accesses Wall surface

3

1 Covered Preserved Timber Frame

North

Older walls

Mud bricks

Mud plaster

3

West

Older walls

Mud bricks

Mud plaster

3

Building Extent Room I, 2+3/a-d Side

1775 Bldg Ph I

I, 2+3

Very Hig Location NW Visibility High Quality Bldg Ph III Elevation of the main floor 97.12-98.0 Bldg Ph II

Room Extent 38 Foundations

Socle

Accessibility 3D Superstructure

Accesses Wall surface

2 Covered Preserved Timber Frame

East

Stones

Mud bricks

Floor

Mud bricks

Earth

North

Stones

Mud bricks

South

Mud bricks

Mud bricks

Mud plaster

3

West

Stones

Mud bricks

Mud plaster

3

Room I, 2+3/e2 Side

Room Extent 101 Foundations

East

Mud bricks

Floor

clay fill

Socle

Accessibility 3B Superstructure Mud bricks

Mud plaster

3

Mud plaster

3

3

Accesses Wall surface Mud plaster

0 Covered Preserved Timber Frame 3 4

North

Stones

Mud bricks

South

Mud bricks

Mud bricks

Mud plaster

3

West

Mud bricks

Mud bricks

Mud plaster

3

Room I, 2+3/e3 Side

Room Extent 101 Foundations

East

Mud bricks

Floor

Pebble

Socle

Accessibility 3A Superstructure Mud bricks

2

Accesses Wall surface Mud plaster

3 Covered Preserved Timber Frame 3 4

South

Mud bricks

Mud bricks

Mud plaster

3

West

Mud bricks

Mud bricks

Mud plaster

3

Room I, 2+3/f Side

Room Extent 31 Foundations

East

Mud bricks

Floor

Tamped earth

Socle

Accessibility 3F Superstructure Mud bricks

Accesses Wall surface Mud plaster

2 Covered Preserved Timber Frame 3 4

North

Stones

Mud bricks

Mud plaster

South

Mud bricks

Mud bricks

Mud plaster

3

West

Mud bricks

Mud bricks

Mud plaster

3

Room I, 2+3/g Side

Room Extent 75 Foundations

East

Stones

Floor

Tamped earth

Socle

Accessibility 3 Superstructure Mud bricks

Accesses Wall surface Mud plaster

3

2 Covered Preserved Timber Frame 3 4

North

Mud bricks

Mud bricks

Mud plaster

South

Mud bricks

Mud bricks

Mud plaster

3

West

Mud bricks

Mud bricks

Mud plaster

3

Room I, 2+3/h Side

Room Extent 56 Foundations

East

Mud bricks

Floor

Tamped earth

Socle

Accessibility 3 Superstructure Mud bricks

Accesses Wall surface Mud plaster

3

1 Covered Preserved Timber Frame 3 4

North

Mud bricks

Mud bricks

Mud plaster

South

Mud bricks

Mud bricks

Mud plaster

3

West

Stones

Mud bricks

Mud plaster

3

Room I, 2+3/j Side

Room Extent 189 Foundations

East

Mud bricks

Floor

Tamped earth

North

Mud bricks

Socle

Accessibility 3C Superstructure Mud bricks

Accesses Wall surface Mud plaster

3

6 Covered Preserved Timber Frame 3 4

Mud bricks

223

Mud plaster

3

Pucci-Catalogue of Archtectural Features at Tell Tayinat South

Mud bricks

Mud bricks

Mud plaster

3

West

Mud bricks

Mud bricks

Mud plaster

3

Room I, 2+3/k Side

Room Extent 128 Foundations

East

Stones

Floor

Tamped earth

Socle

Accessibility 3F Superstructure Mud bricks

Accesses Wall surface Mud plaster

4 Covered Preserved Timber Frame 3 4

North

Mud bricks

Mud bricks

Mud plaster

South

Mud bricks

Mud bricks

Mud plaster

3

West

Mud bricks

Mud bricks

Mud plaster

3

Room I, 2+3/l Side

Room Extent 29 Foundations

Socle

Accessibility 3E Superstructure

East

Mud bricks Tamped earth

North

Mud bricks

Mud bricks

Mud plaster

3

South

Stones

Mud bricks

Mud plaster

3

Mud bricks

Mud plaster

West

Mud plaster

1 Covered Preserved Timber Frame

Floor

Room I, 2+3/m Side

Mud bricks

Accesses Wall surface

3

3 4

Mud bricks

Room Extent 28 Foundations

Socle

Accessibility 3E Superstructure

Mud plaster

3

1 Covered Preserved Timber Frame

East

Mud bricks

Floor

Tamped earth

North

Mud bricks

Mud bricks

Mud plaster

3

South

Stones

Mud bricks

Mud plaster

3

West

Mud bricks

Mud bricks

Mud plaster

3

Room I, 2+3/n Side

Mud bricks

Accesses Wall surface

3 4

Room Extent 29 Foundations

Socle

Accessibility 3E Superstructure

Mud plaster

1 Covered Preserved Timber Frame

East

Mud bricks

Floor

Tamped earth

North

Mud bricks

Mud bricks

Mud plaster

3

South

Stones

Mud bricks

Mud plaster

3

West

Mud bricks

Mud bricks

Mud plaster

3

Room I, 2+3/p Side

Mud bricks

Accesses Wall surface

3 4

Room Extent 33 Foundations

Socle

Accessibility 3F Superstructure

East

Mud bricks Tamped earth

North

Mud bricks

Mud bricks

Mud plaster

3

South

Stones

Mud bricks

Mud plaster

3

Mud bricks

Mud plaster

West

Mud plaster

1 Covered Preserved Timber Frame

Floor

Room I, 2+3/q Side

Mud bricks

Accesses Wall surface

3 4

Mud bricks

Room Extent 34 Foundations

Socle

Accessibility 3F Superstructure Mud bricks

Accesses Wall surface

East

Mud bricks

Floor

Tamped earth

North

Mud bricks

Mud bricks

Mud plaster

3

South

Stones

Mud bricks

Mud plaster

3

West

Mud bricks

Mud bricks

Mud plaster

3

Room II/b Side

304 Bldg Ph I

3 4

Building Extent

Mud plaster

3

1 Covered Preserved Timber Frame

II

Very high Location NW Visibility High Quality Bldg Ph III Elevation of the main floor 95.90-96.2 Bldg Ph II

Room Extent 49 Foundations

Socle

Accessibility 2A Superstructure

Accesses Wall surface

2 Covered Preserved Timber Frame

Floor

Sandstone

North

Mud bricks

Mud bricks

Mud plaster

3

West

Mud bricks

Mud bricks

Mud plaster

3

Room II/c Side

Room Extent 75 Foundations

Floor

cobblestones

North

Mud brick

4

Socle

Side Floor

Room Extent 24 Foundations

Accesses Wall surface

2 Covered Preserved Timber Frame 4

West

Room II/d

Accessibility 2C Superstructure

Socle

Mud brick

Mud plaster

3

Mud bricks

Mud white plaster

3

Accessibility 2E Superstructure

bblestone and mud bric

Accesses Wall surface

1 Covered Preserved Timber Frame 4

224

Pucci-Catalogue of Archtectural Features at Tell Tayinat North

Mud bricks

Mud bricks

Mud white plaster

3

West

Mud bricks

Mud bricks

Mud white plaster

3

Building Extent Bldg Ph I Room III/a Side Floor

III

Location S Visibility Medium Quality Bldg Ph III Elevation of the main floor 85.05 Bldg Ph II

Room Extent 14 Foundations

Socle

Accessibility 2A Superstructure

tone paving blocks in m

Room Extent Foundations

Floor

Socle

Room IV,1/A Side

lt base stones with triple rece

1

Accesses Wall surface

Preserved

Accessibility 2 Superstructure

Pebble

1295 Bldg Ph I

IV, 1

Location NW Visibility High Quality Bldg Ph III Elevation of the main floor 98.70 Bldg Ph II

Room Extent 182 Foundations

Socle

Accessibility 3F Superstructure

Accesses Wall surface

East

Stone packing

1

Rubble

4

North

Stone packing

1

Building Room IV,2/a Side

1450 Bldg Ph I

IV, 2

Location NW Visibility Quality Bldg Ph III Elevation of the main floor 98.10 Bldg Ph II

Room Extent 21 Foundations

Socle

Accessibility 3 Superstructure

Accesses Wall surface

0 Covered Preserved Timber Frame

East

se of rubble stones and

1

North

se of rubble stones and

1

South

se of rubble stones and

1

West

se of rubble stones and

Room IV,2/b Side

Room Extent 15 Foundations

1

Socle

Accessibility 3 Superstructure

Accesses Wall surface

0 Covered Preserved Timber Frame

East

se of rubble stones and

1

North

se of rubble stones and

1

South

se of rubble stones and

1

West

se of rubble stones and

1

Room IV,2/c Side

Room Extent 130 Foundations

Socle

Accessibility 3 Superstructure

Accesses Wall surface

1 Covered Preserved Timber Frame

East

se of rubble stones and

Floor

Stones and baked bricks

2

North

se of rubble stones and

1

South

se of rubble stones and

1

West

se of rubble stones and

1

Room IV,2/d Side

Room Extent 11 Foundations

1

Socle

Accessibility 3 Superstructure

Accesses Wall surface

0 Covered Preserved Timber Frame

East

se of rubble stones and

1

North

se of rubble stones and

1

South

se of rubble stones and

1

West

se of rubble stones and

Room IV,2/e Side

Room Extent 303 Foundations

1

Socle

Accessibility 3 Superstructure

Accesses Wall surface

0 Covered Preserved Timber Frame

East

se of rubble stones and

1

North

se of rubble stones and

1

South

se of rubble stones and

1

West

se of rubble stones and

1

Room IV,2/f Side

High

6 Covered Preserved Timber Frame

Floor

Extent

Covered Timber Frame

3

Building Extent

2 Covered Preserved Timber Frame 4

South

Room III/b Side

Accesses Wall surface

Very high

Room Extent 25 Foundations

Socle

Accessibility 3 Superstructure

Accesses Wall surface

0 Covered Preserved Timber Frame

East

se of rubble stones and

1

North

se of rubble stones and

1

South

se of rubble stones and

1

225

Pucci-Catalogue of Archtectural Features at Tell Tayinat West

Room IV,2/g Side

se of rubble stones and

Room Extent Foundations

1

27 Socle

Accessibility 3 Superstructure

Accesses Wall surface

0 Covered Preserved Timber Frame

East

se of rubble stones and

1

Floor

Baked Bricks

2

North

se of rubble stones and

1

South

se of rubble stones and

1

West

se of rubble stones and

1

Room IV,2/h Side

Room Extent 30 Foundations

Socle

Accessibility 3 Superstructure

Accesses Wall surface

0 Covered Preserved Timber Frame

East

se of rubble stones and

1

North

se of rubble stones and

1

South

se of rubble stones and

1

West

se of rubble stones and

Room IV,2/j Side

Room Extent 28 Foundations

1

Socle

Accessibility 3 Superstructure

Accesses Wall surface

0 Covered Preserved Timber Frame

East

se of rubble stones and

1

North

se of rubble stones and

1

South

se of rubble stones and

1

West

se of rubble stones and

1

Room IV,2/k Side

Room Extent 23 Foundations

Socle

Accessibility 3 Superstructure

Accesses Wall surface

0 Covered Preserved Timber Frame

East

se of rubble stones and

1

North

se of rubble stones and

1

South

se of rubble stones and

1

West

se of rubble stones and

1

Room IV,2/l Side

Room Extent 25 Foundations

Socle

Accessibility 3 Superstructure

Accesses Wall surface

0 Covered Preserved Timber Frame

East

se of rubble stones and

1

North

se of rubble stones and

1

South

se of rubble stones and

1

West

se of rubble stones and

Room IV,2/m Side

Room Extent 24 Foundations

1

Socle

Accessibility 3 Superstructure

Accesses Wall surface

0 Covered Preserved Timber Frame

East

se of rubble stones and

1

North

se of rubble stones and

1

South

se of rubble stones and

1

West

se of rubble stones and

1

Room IV,2/n Side

Room Extent 19 Foundations

Socle

Accessibility 3 Superstructure

Accesses Wall surface

0 Covered Preserved Timber Frame

East

se of rubble stones and

1

North

se of rubble stones and

1

South

se of rubble stones and

1

West

se of rubble stones and

1

Building Extent Room IX/a Side

3485 Bldg Ph I

IX

High Location S Visibility High Quality Bldg Ph III Elevation of the main floor 95.70-96.8 Bldg Ph II

Room Extent 681 Foundations

Socle

Accessibility 2 Superstructure

Floor

Tamped earth

Baked bricks

South

Mud bricks

Mud bricks

Room IX/b Side

Room Extent 80 Foundations

Socle

Accessibility 2 Superstructure

Accesses Wall surface

5 Covered Preserved Timber Frame 4

Baked bricks

Accesses Wall surface

3

3 Covered Preserved Timber Frame

Floor

Tamped earth

Baked bricks

4

South

Mud bricks

Mud bricks

2

West

Room IX/c Side

Mud bricks

Room Extent 89+ Foundations

East

Mud bricks

Floor

Tamped earth

Mud bricks

Socle

Accessibility 2 Superstructure Mud bricks

Baked bricks

Accesses Wall surface

3

1 Covered Preserved Timber Frame 3 3

226

Pucci-Catalogue of Archtectural Features at Tell Tayinat North

Mud bricks

Mud bricks

South

Mud bricks

Mud bricks

Room IX/d Side

Room Extent Foundations

226 Socle

3 3

Accessibility 2 Superstructure

Accesses Wall surface

East

Mud bricks

Floor

Pebble

North

Mud bricks

Mud bricks

2

South

Mud bricks

Mud bricks

2

Room IX/e Side Floor

Room IX/f Side Floor

Room IX/g Side Floor

Room IX/h Side Floor

Mud bricks

1 Covered Preserved Timber Frame 2 4

Room Extent 208+ Foundations

Socle

Accessibility 2 Superstructure

Accesses Wall surface

4 Covered Preserved Timber Frame

Socle

Accessibility 2 Superstructure

Accesses Wall surface

3 Covered Preserved Timber Frame

Baked bricks

4

Room Extent 12 Foundations Baked bricks

4

Room Extent 34 Foundations

Socle

Accessibility 2 Superstructure

aked bricks and bitume

Room Extent 47+ Foundations

Socle

Accessibility 2 Superstructure

Room V/a Side East

Mud bricks Stones ?

Side

2 Covered Preserved Timber Frame 3

V

Location NW Visibility Low Quality Bldg Ph III Elevation of the main floor 94.10 Bldg Ph II

Room Extent 96 Foundations

Floor

Room V/b

Accesses Wall surface

Baked bricks

298 Bldg Ph I

1 Covered Preserved Timber Frame 4

Building Extent

Accesses Wall surface

Socle

Accessibility Superstructure

Accesses Wall surface

Mud bricks

1 Covered Preserved Timber Frame 2 0

Room Extent 15 Foundations

Socle

Accessibility Superstructure

Accesses Wall surface

East

Mud bricks mped earth with lime pla

North

Mud bricks

Mud bricks

South

Mud bricks

Mud bricks

2

West

Mud bricks

Mud bricks

2

Side

Mud bricks

0 Covered Preserved Timber Frame

Floor

Room V/c

Room Extent 32 Foundations

2 2

Socle

2

Accessibility Superstructure

Accesses Wall surface

0 Covered Preserved Timber Frame

East

Mud bricks

Mud bricks

2

North

Mud bricks

Mud bricks

2

South

Mud bricks

Mud bricks

2

West

Mud bricks

Mud bricks

2

Room V/d Side

Room Extent 27 Foundations

Socle

Accessibility Superstructure

Accesses Wall surface

East

Mud bricks mped earth with lime pla

North

Mud bricks

Mud bricks

South

Mud bricks

Mud bricks

2

West

Mud bricks

Mud bricks

2

Side

Mud bricks

0 Covered Preserved Timber Frame

Floor

Room V/e

Room Extent 28 Foundations

2 2

Socle

2

Accessibility Superstructure

Accesses Wall surface

Mud bricks

0 Covered Preserved Timber Frame

East

Mud bricks

Floor

mped earth with lime pla

North

Mud bricks

Mud bricks

South

Mud bricks

Mud bricks

2

West

Mud bricks

Mud bricks

2

Room VI/a Side

744 Bldg Ph I

2 2

Building Extent

Medium

2

VI

High Location NW Visibility High Quality Bldg Ph III Elevation of the main floor 97.40-97.8 Bldg Ph II

Room Extent 23 Foundations

Socle

Accessibility 3G Superstructure

227

Accesses Wall surface

0 Covered Preserved Timber Frame

Pucci-Catalogue of Archtectural Features at Tell Tayinat East

Mud bricks

Floor

Tamped earth

Mud bricks

Mud plaster

3 3

North

Mud bricks

Mud bricks

Mud plaster

South

Mud bricks

Mud bricks

Mud plaster

3

West

Mud bricks

Mud bricks

Mud plaster

3

Room VI/b Side

Room Extent 22 Foundations

East

Mud bricks

Floor

Tamped earth

Socle

Accessibility 3F Superstructure

Accesses Wall surface

Mud bricks

Mud plaster

3

1 Covered Preserved Timber Frame 3 3

North

Mud bricks

Mud bricks

Mud plaster

South

Mud bricks

Mud bricks

Mud plaster

3

West

Mud bricks

Mud bricks

Mud plaster

3

Room VI/c Side

Room Extent 47 Foundations

East

Mud bricks

Floor

Tamped earth

Socle

Accessibility 3F Superstructure

Accesses Wall surface

Mud bricks

Mud plaster

3

2 Covered Preserved Timber Frame 3 3

North

Mud bricks

Mud bricks

Mud plaster

South

Mud bricks

Mud bricks

Mud plaster

3

West

Mud bricks

Mud bricks

Mud plaster

3

Room VI/d Side

Room Extent 88 Foundations

East

Mud bricks

Floor

Tamped earth

Socle

Accessibility 3F Superstructure

Accesses Wall surface

Mud bricks

Mud plaster

3

1 Covered Preserved Timber Frame 3 3

North

Mud bricks

Mud bricks

Mud plaster

South

Mud bricks

Mud bricks

Mud plaster

3

West

Mud bricks

Mud bricks

Mud plaster

3

Room VI/e Side

Room Extent 75 Foundations

East

Mud bricks

Floor

Tamped earth

Socle

Accessibility 3F Superstructure

Accesses Wall surface

Mud bricks

Mud plaster

3

2 Covered Preserved Timber Frame 3 3

North

Mud bricks

Mud bricks

Mud plaster

3

South

Mud bricks

Mud bricks

Mud plaster

3

Room VI/f Side

Room Extent 19 Foundations

East

Mud bricks

Floor

Tamped earth

Socle

Accessibility 3F Superstructure

Accesses Wall surface

Mud bricks

Mud plaster

1 Covered Preserved Timber Frame 3 3

North

Mud bricks

Mud bricks

Mud plaster

3

South

Mud bricks

Mud bricks

Mud plaster

3

Building Extent Room VII/a Side

255 Bldg Ph I

VII

Very Hig Location E Visibility High Quality Bldg Ph III Elevation of the main floor 88.78-90.1 Bldg Ph II

Room Extent Foundations

Socle

Accessibility 1A Superstructure

Accesses Wall surface

Preserved

Floor 2

Pebble

Floor 3

Pebble

North

ingle course rubble ston

Mud bricks

ostats on dressed blocks of s

3

South

ingle course rubble ston

Mud bricks

ostats on dressed blocks of s

3

West

ingle course rubble ston

Mud bricks

ostats on dressed blocks of s

Room VII/b Side

3 1

Room Extent 16 Foundations

Socle

Accessibility 1B Superstructure

Accesses Wall surface

Floor 2

Pebble

North

ingle course rubble ston

Mud bricks

ostats on dressed blocks of s

West

ingle course rubble ston

Mud bricks

ostats on dressed blocks of s

Room VII/c Side

Room Extent Foundations

Covered Timber Frame

3

2 Covered Preserved Timber Frame 3

42 Socle

Accessibility 1C Superstructure Mud bricks

Accesses Wall surface ostats on dressed blocks of s

3 3

2 Covered Preserved Timber Frame

East

ingle course rubble ston

Floor 1

Pebble

3

Floor 2

Pebble

North

ingle course rubble ston

Mud bricks

ostats on dressed blocks of s

3

South

ingle course rubble ston

Mud bricks

ostats on dressed blocks of s

3

2 3

228

Pucci-Catalogue of Archtectural Features at Tell Tayinat

Building Extent Room VIII Side

4022 Bldg Ph I

VIII

High Location NW Visibility Low Quality Bldg Ph III Elevation of the main floor 94.4-97.5 Bldg Ph II

Room Extent Foundations

Socle

Accessibility Superstructure

Accesses Wall surface

5 Covered Preserved Timber Frame

Floor 1

Small Pebble

Floor 2

Pebble

1 3

Floor lv

Pebble

3

South

Stones

Mud bricks

ostats limiting the rise of pav

South

Mud bricks

Mud bricks

ts: face stones alternated with

Room VIII/street Side Floor

Room Extent 280x 6 Foundations

Socle

Accessibility 2 Superstructure

mestone and Basalt bloc

Room XI/a Side

571 Bldg Ph I

Floor

Stone masonry Stone masonry

South West

Room XI/b Side

XI

Very Hig Location E Visibility High Quality Bldg Ph III Elevation of the main floor 83.90-84.7 Bldg Ph II

Room Extent 50 Foundations

North

3

3 Covered Preserved Timber Frame 2

Building Extent

Accesses Wall surface

3

Socle

Accessibility 1A Superstructure

Accesses Wall surface

2 Covered Preserved Timber Frame 4

Basalt orthostats

3

Stone masonry

Basalt orthostats

3

Stone masonry

Basalt orthostats

Room Extent 135 Foundations

Socle

Accessibility 1C Superstructure

Accesses Wall surface

3

2 Covered Preserved Timber Frame

Floor

Stone masonry

4

North

Stone masonry

3

South

Stone masonry

3

West

Stone masonry

3

Room XI/c Side

Room Extent 50 Foundations

East

Stone masonry

Floor

Stone masonry

Socle

Accessibility 1A Superstructure

Accesses Wall surface Basalt orthostats

2 Covered Preserved Timber Frame 3 4

North

Stone masonry

Basalt orthostats

3

South

Stone masonry

Basalt orthostats

3

Building Extent Room XII/a Side

38 Bldg Ph I

XII

Location NW Visibility Quality Bldg Ph III Elevation of the main floor 89.75-90.0 Bldg Ph II

Room Extent 38 Foundations

Socle

Accessibility 1A Superstructure

East Floor

Room XIII/a Side

1

Basalt jamb

1

3

Building 1214 Bldg Ph I

2 Covered Preserved Timber Frame

Basalt jamb Stones

West

Extent

Accesses Wall surface

XIII

Location NW Visibility Quality Bldg Ph III Elevation of the main floor 97.05 Bldg Ph II

Room Extent 37 Foundations

Socle

Accessibility 2 Superstructure

Accesses Wall surface

1 Covered Preserved Timber Frame

East

Mud bricks

1

North

Mud bricks

1

South

Mud bricks

1

West

Mud bricks

1

Room XIII/b Side

Room Extent 13 Foundations

Socle

Accessibility 2 Superstructure

Accesses Wall surface

0 Covered Preserved Timber Frame

East

Mud bricks

1

North

Mud bricks

1

South

Mud bricks

1

West

Mud bricks

Room XIII/c Side

Room Extent 11 Foundations

1

Socle

Accessibility 2 Superstructure

229

Accesses Wall surface

0 Covered Preserved Timber Frame

Pucci-Catalogue of Archtectural Features at Tell Tayinat East

Mud bricks

1

North

Mud bricks

1

South

Mud bricks

1

West

Mud bricks

Room XIII/d Side

1

Room Extent Foundations

54 Socle

Accessibility 2 Superstructure

Accesses Wall surface

0 Covered Preserved Timber Frame

East

Mud bricks

1

North

Mud bricks

1

South

Mud bricks

1

West

Mud bricks

1

Room XIII/e Side

Room Extent 9 Foundations

Socle

Accessibility 2 Superstructure

Accesses Wall surface

0 Covered Preserved Timber Frame

East

Mud bricks

1

Floor

Clay ?

1

North

Mud bricks

1

South

Mud bricks

1

West

Mud bricks

Room XIII/f Side

1

Room Extent 156 Foundations

Socle

Accessibility 2 Superstructure

Accesses Wall surface

0 Covered Preserved Timber Frame

East

Mud bricks

Mud bricks

North

Mud bricks

Mud bricks

South

Mud bricks

1

West

Mud bricks

1

Room XIII/g Side

Room Extent 22 Foundations

Socle

3 3

Accessibility 2 Superstructure

Accesses Wall surface

0 Covered Preserved Timber Frame

East

Mud bricks

1

North

Mud bricks

1

South

Mud bricks

1

West

Mud bricks

1

Room XIII/h Side

Room Extent 26 Foundations

Socle

Accessibility 2 Superstructure

Accesses Wall surface

0 Covered Preserved Timber Frame

East

Mud bricks

1

North

Mud bricks

1

South

Mud bricks

1

West

Mud bricks

Room XIII/j Side

1

Room Extent 27 Foundations

Socle

Accessibility 2 Superstructure

Accesses Wall surface

0 Covered Preserved Timber Frame

East

Mud bricks

1

North

Mud bricks

1

South

Mud bricks

1

West

Mud bricks

1

Room XIII/k Side

Room Extent 7 Foundations

Socle

Accessibility 2 Superstructure

Accesses Wall surface

0 Covered Preserved Timber Frame

East

Mud bricks

1

North

Mud bricks

1

South

Mud bricks

1

West

Mud bricks

1

Building Extent Room XIV Side South

4600 Bldg Ph I

XIV

Location NW Visibility Quality Bldg Ph III Elevation of the main floor 95.00 ? Bldg Ph II

Room Extent Foundations

Socle

Accessibility 2 Superstructure

course of stone and mud

Room XV Side East

3880 Bldg Ph I

XV

Location NW Visibility Very high Quality Bldg Ph III Elevation of the main floor 98.90 Bldg Ph II

Room Extent 3880 Foundations Stones

0 Covered Preserved Timber Frame 2

Building Extent

Accesses Wall surface

Socle

Accessibility 3B Superstructure Mud brick platform

230

Accesses Wall surface

High

1 Covered Preserved Timber Frame 3

Pucci-Catalogue of Archtectural Features at Tell Tayinat Floor 1

Baked bricks

Floor 2

Baked bricks

North

Stones

South West

Room XV/a Side

1 1 Mud brick platform

3

Stones

Mud brick platform

3

Stones

Mud brick platform

Room Extent Foundations

22 Socle

East Stones

South

Stones

Accesses Wall surface

Room Extent 40 Foundations

East Stones

South

Stones

3

Socle

Mud bricks

3

Mud bricks

3

Accessibility 3 Superstructure Mud bricks

Floor

1 Covered Preserved Timber Frame 2

West

West

3

Mud bricks

Floor

Room XV/b Side

Accessibility 3 Superstructure

Accesses Wall surface

0 Covered Preserved Timber Frame 3 2

Mud bricks

3

Mud bricks

3

231

Pucci-Catalogue of Objects at Tell Halaf and Zincirli

Room

Figure T 56 T 72 T 57 T 72 T 56 T 56

Room

Figure T 14

Room

G1,2

Room

Figure T2 T56 T 6,7 T 63 T 49 T 57 T 33 T 33 T 57 T 56

Figure T 11 T9 T 57 T 49 T9 T9 T 10 T 10 T 33 T9

Room G2/1 G2/1 G2/1a

Room

Figure T 56 T 63 Opp. T 55,

Figure T1 T1 T 11 T1 T1 T 33 T 48 T1 T 63 T 63 T 34 (Opp T1 T1 T 43, 50 T 48-49 T 47 T1 T 30

Inventory K 25 KH 66 K 22 KH 89 K 23 K 24

Description

Polished grey brown clay Yellow brown clay with black paint Red clay Grey polished clay Red clay with green slip Red polished clay

Inventory C. 113

Inventory K9 M9 K8 S. 42 K7 P. 12 – 13 K5 J. 64 – 67 J 50 K6 K 10

Inventory I. 70 – 75 I. 49 – 58 K 11 P. 14-15 I. 46 I. 47 I. 59 I. 60 – 69 J. 51 I. 48

Inventory K 13 K 12 K 14

Inventory M7 M8 I . 76 M4 K 3-4 M3 J. 61 – 63 P. 1 M5 K2 K1 J. 70 – 85 M1 M6 A. 271 P. 3 – 11 P. 2 M2 J. 20 – 24

Clay

Description

Description

Polished yellow red clay with red stripes Gold Polished yellow red clay with red stripes Limestone tripodi with carvings on the ri Grey red polished clay pilgrim flask Bronze bowl Polished clay jug Gold earrings Gold and onyx ring Red polished clay jug Yellow clay with red stripes bowl

Description

Fragments of ivory relief Fragments of ivory relief Clay jug Bronze glass Ivory and gold figure Fragment of ivory relief Fragments of ivory relief Fragments of ivory relief Gold and silver ring Fragment of ivory relief

Description

Red polished clay Red clay grey black clay with black stripes

Description

Gold carved sheet Gold with enamel Ivory Gold carved sheet Red clay Gold carved sheet Gold ear ring with three pendents Silver Gold carved sheet Gray clay bowl with foot Red clay tripod Gold Gold and enamel Gold carved sheet Ivory Bronze glass Bronze bowl Gold carved sheet Gold beads

232

Building Location II

AH

higher debris Middle debris

Building Location II

BM 1-4

Eastern external wall

Building Location II

G1,1

In the pit under the big sitting wo Under the big sitting woman In the pit under the big sitting wo Under the big sitting woman In the pit under the big sitting wo Under the big sitting woman In the pit under the big sitting wo Under the big sitting woman Under the big sitting woman In the pit under the big sitting wo In the ash layer near the statue of

Building Location II

G1,2

Building Location II

G2 (1-3)

Under the small sitting woman Under the small sitting woman In the pit under the small sitting Under the small sitting woman Under the small sitting woman Under the small sitting woman Under the small sitting woman Under the small sitting woman Under the small sitting room Under the small sitting woman

In front of arch 3 In front of the arch 3 Corner of the anti chamber

Building Location II Older grave

Older grave

G3 south

Pucci-Catalogue of Objects at Tell Halaf and Zincirli

Room

Figure T 63 T4 British M T 52 T 56 T 21 T 52 T 46 Opp T2 T 30 BM Opp. T46,

Pergamon T 30 T 63 T2 T2 T2 T 13 T 59 T 56

KR/2 KR/2 KR/2 KR/2 KR/2

Room

T2 T4 -T 52 T4

Figure T 58

Room

Figure T63

Room

Figure T 56 T 56 T 56 T 71 T 56 T 70 et 74 T 72 T 46 T 73 T 56 T 72

Room

Figure T 85

Room

Figure T 62 T 61

Inventory S 22 S 27 K 18 S 21 S 26 SP 98 S 25 K 19 S 24 C. 197 SP 99 S 19 M12 J. 17 S 33 S 34 S 29 S 32 S 28 J. 18 K 20 M13 M11 M10 C. 103 K 115 K 21 S 30 M14 S 31 S 18 SP 78 S 20 S 23

Inventory K 59

Inventory K 31

Inventory K 27 K 26 K 28 KH 45 K 29 KH 9 – 26 KH 88 L. 14 KP 19 K 30 KH 73

Inventory KP 12

Inventory K 171 K 166

Description

Basalt statuette Basalt statuette Green light grey clay pokal Basalt statuette of a woman with hairdres Basalt statuette Basalt pokal with high foot Basalt statuette clay bowl Basalt statuette Clay statuette (fragment) Basalt pokal with high foot Basalt statuette Bronze statuette Quartz beads forming a necklace Basalt Basalt Basalt statuette Basalt Basalt statuette Bronze half moon Yellow clay, with red stripes bowl Bronze statuette Bronze statuette (fragment) Bronze statuette Clay statuette Green polished clay jug Polished grey brown clay dish Basalt statuette Bronze statuette Basalt statuette (hands in front of the che Basalt statuette Basalt bowl Basalt statuette of a woman (hands in fro Basalt statuette

Description

Yellowish clay

Description

Red yellow

Description

Polished brown grey clay Polished grey green clay Polished yellow clay Grey polished clay Yellow clay with red stripes Grey clay, red paint Clay Yellow grey clay with glasur Red clay Grey red clay, red paint

Building Location II

KR

On the north of KR

At the feet of the double statue Near the double statue Middle of the main room At the feet of the double statue Near the double statue

Building Location II

LSG

Nearby

Building Location II

LZM Mub

Above

Building Location II

NOP3

High debris

Middle debris Wine cellar Middle collapse Middle debris Middle debris

Building Location II

QT

Description

Building Location II

SKT

Description

Yellow brown polished clay Red clay with grey slip

233

On the north east of the Skorpion On the north east of the Skorpion

Pucci-Catalogue of Objects at Tell Halaf and Zincirli

Room

Figure T 52 T 60 T 58 T 59 T 62 T 62 T 58 T 62 T3 T 58 T 61 T 62 T 59 T 59 T 73 T 61 T 73 T 17 T 72 T 13 T 60 T 59 T 72 T 60 T 59 T 60 T 61 T3

Room

Figure T 51

Room

TP/7 TP/7

Room A/1

Room

Figure T 71 T 73 T 55 T 48 T 72 T56 -T 81 T 71 T 73 T5 T 72 T58 T 34 T 44

Figure T27,d

Figure T6,g T25,q T17,ab T25,r T19,a T8,d T28,h

Inventory SP 101 K 120 K 69 K 85 K 174 K 175 K 34 K 180 S 17 K 73 K 147 K 177 K 107 K 90 KH 116 K 148 KH 97 C. 136 KH 78 C. 95 K 127 K 103 KH 50 K 139 K 86 K 136 K 125 K 146 S 16.

Description

Basalt Red brown clay with red slip Grey yellow clay Yellow grey clay, polished Brown polished clay Brown polished clay Grey clay with white stripes Yellow brown polished clay Basalt Gray clay Grey red polished clay Yellow polished clay Yellow clay with glazed Red clay, polished (palace ware) Yellow clay with red firnis Grey red polished clay Grey brown polished clay Clay Red clay, red paint Clay Yellow brown polished clay Grey polished clay Grey clay black paint Grey polished clay Red polished clay Yellow polished clay with drain Brown clay with red slip Grey polished clay Basalt

Inventory SP 7

Inventory KH 49 KP 16 SP 211 P. 16 KH 82 K 15 K 16 – 17 KH 102 KH 59 KH 96 S 39 KH 83 K 33 A. 1 A. 279

Inventory 1130

Inventory 1999 3150b 2062a 2062b 380 3523 3540 295

Basalt

Description

Description

Red clay, red paint rim sherd Limestone installation (fragment) Bronze bowl Grey clay with red paint, dish Red polished clay Yellow grey clay with red stripes fragment of bowl with dark slip and flow cup handle, grey clay with red and black Grey polished clay, sherd Limestone painted with ochre Grey clay, black paint, dish Black, grey clay, jar Bronze half moon with dowel Ivory spoon

Description

Description

basalt tripod rim sherd fragment of painted jar clay bowl small bottle Stone mould (fragment) sherd

234

Building Location II

SM

Sounding Eastern part Sounding 6 South eastern SM

Soundings 3, 1.8 tief Near excavation house

1.8 tief North western North eastern side Under the top soil

East Sounding South eastern corner Eastern SM, middle debris Sounding 7

Near excavation house

Building Location II

STL

Western structure of the Assirian

Building Location II

TP

Southern debris On the north, at the level of the fl In front of the statues Above At the higher level of the older w At the higher level of the older w Near TP, upper debris On the east middle debris On the north, upper debris 15 meters to the north of TP, at th Above On the north-east of TP 1.5 tief In the collapse of eastern room On the east in the middle rubble

Building Location II

A

Building Location II

Ab2

Outside the gate. 1m deep

To the south inside the old house Spread to the south Houses south if G To the south collapse on the top of the mound 1m deep under the top In the deep thrench south of G

Pucci-Catalogue of Objects at Tell Halaf and Zincirli

Room

T27,g,h,i,l T25,o T33,f T6,l T26,k T32,n T25,s T32,a T24,g T28,d T28,m T25,u T24,f T25,k T36,h T25,p T36,d

274 287 273 2 302 384 1342 275 376 3150c 487 404 379 296 286 405 504 279 3150a 111

Figure

Inventory

T37,m T13,cd T43, 10 T 71 T4,h T 80 T18,k T22,m T 71 T4,a T 59 T 59 T2,a T19,g T24,l T 73

Room

D/a D/a D/b,c D/b,c

Room

Figure T25,n T9,i Abb. 167 T6,m T28,l T6,c T16,c T56,h T32,m T36,e T24,e T16,d T56,i T28,k T4,z T25,a T39,b T4,u T32,b T28,g T15,d-ad T37,v T25,m T25,v

Figure T59,e

1963 1997 2535 KH 35 1461 KH 95 1441 2847 KH 33 1255 K 109 K 111 2407 1725 2486 KH 115

Inventory 14 388 53 36a 8 49 151 55 6 106 33 269 54 7 3 1707 1344 16 17 25 v.tav 19 27 2

Inventory 78

jugs with handles rim sherd fragment of a feminine statuette basalt rectangular bowl with bull heads small bottle clay seal (?) rim sherd weights rim sherd rim sherd can handle dish (fragment) rim sherd clay bowl clay bowl rim sherd clay animal statuette

Description

Grey clay with black paint

Yellow brown clay with glass Green clay with green slip Green clay with green slip

Red clay with red firnis

Description

sherd of bowl backed clay, matrix for metal objects stone bowl handle stone bowl fragment Sherd with incised decoration bronze shale clay perle clay statuette (fragment) clay jar Sherd with incised decoration bronze shale handle spindle whirl stone tripod roll seal spindle whirl spindle whirl handle Sherds with incised geometric decoration stamp seal with seated figure and table fragment of clay bowl sherd of a bowl

Description

235

"Scherbenhaufen", 4.5m deep To the south To the south Top 1.5 deep "Scherbenhaufen" To the south Sounding with many similar obje To the south 4.5m deep To the south, 4.5m deep From the deep trench to the south To the south, 4.5m deep To the south, 4.5m deep Spread to the south To the south 4.5m deep To the south To the south, 3m deep

Building Location II

BM

Building Location II

D

West of the gate, 2m deep Near the internal mound wall. we collapse of the inner wall On the eastern external wall collapse of the mound wall South western corner, later phase Extern 3.5m deep, near the semicircular t South eastern corner of the moun Foundations of the mound wall Eastern wall Eastern wall 1.5m inside the moundwall north, near the tower Inside the NW corner, near a sem On the eastern wall

Nearby 1.5deep inside the collapsed mate Beginning of excavations NW corner north, 1-2 m deep Under the foundations ? Topsoil NE corner, 1m deep north 0.75, under the topsoil Under the foundations Beginning of excavations north, 1-2m deep At the foundations level Ash layer collapse behind the building West from D/b north Under the orthostat with the warri Gate courtyard, at the orthostats h north north

Building Location II

E

Pucci-Catalogue of Objects at Tell Halaf and Zincirli

E/a

Room

T1,d T60,p T24,p T33,c T60, af T60,t T60, aa T33,b T36,i T1,b T6,b T60,o T25,x T60,g T25,f T25,c T60, ad, a T60, an T32,e T32,g T7,d T32,d T58 a-s T60, ac T18f T2,n T1,e Abb. 111-

Figure T18,d T59,b T37,s pg. 136 T39,f pg.98 Non rap T59,r T1,r T39,c Abb. 66 = T18,b T37i, T49,o T8,c

Room

G/a G/c G/h1 G/st

Figure T6,n T35,cd T33,i T42,c T42,b T15,c T24,b T28,o T20,c T6,o T23,c T27,c Abb. 169 Abb. 162 pg. 85 T51,f ? Abb. 127 T30,a

97 582 1838 1005b 519b 581 1135 1123 1128 82 2186 886 991 1154 978 69 1362 1403 1679 91 90 1345 89 2611 – 2659 1330 1216 81 98 811 866

Inventory

1388 2368 1529 2359 1387 1406 2367 1909 1369 1161 Uno dei 29 pit 2382 1149 1993 1314

Inventory 70 1828 1797 1771 1772 2354 423 1366 278 1052 360 2373 2338-41 2203 1643 -1672 1545 1762 3712

3m under the topsoil, "beim E" 3m deep, "Beim E" 4m deep "am E" Inside a pot north 3m deep "am E" Ash layer, "beim E" "Beim E" 1.5m deep north Inside the foundations north Inside the foundations north north, 3m deep "Beim E" "Beim E" "Beim E" Hacksilberfund north Near the gate At the same heigh as the lion bas 3m under the topsoil, "Beim E" From the southern room

Description

MOULD of grey stone

Description

pot base halfmond clay object female statuette spearhead spearhead cup fragment sherd ankle sherds pivot stone or stone cup bowl jar bronze decoration Egyptian imported jar 3 Knives, 2 large and 3 small spearheads, furniture decoration in bronze hammer Pithos

236

Building Location II

F

Building Location II

G

Near the stone foundations East In the collapsed material Foundations Western wall, in the collapsed ma Under the stone foundations 2m deep near the casemate 3m deep Topsoil 2m deep Inside one of the rooms 2m deep 3.5m deep from the preserved hei west 3m deep 5m deep, near presso F

To the west, 1m deep To the west To the west To the west, 1m deep In the drainage of the Esarhaddon Under the floor 4.5m deep with several fragments

To the east Inside a pipe, near the old wall (s. East of G Anteroom Main room, with 1547 On the backed bricks paving From the storeroom

Pucci-Catalogue of Objects at Tell Halaf and Zincirli G/st G/st G/st

Room

T28,e T29,d T30,c

Figure T5,d, T6,f T48,v T27,k T13,ef

Room

Figure T3,p T59,o T24,n

Room

Figure T23,f Abb. 159

1730 3711 3717

Inventory 1381 1775 415 1996

Inventory 3104 1942 3101

Inventory 365/6 270a

Room

Figure

HII HII/ash HII/ash HII/ash HII/ash HII/ash HII/ash HII/ash HII/ash

T22,a, T2 T60,k T2,l T17,c T20,a T23,b T27,b T2,k T7,h T23,m+o T42,a T2,h T24,m T18,h T38,g T60, ak T34,de T3,k T3,l T36,n T44,f T3,i

Room

Figure

Inventory

HIII/a HIII/f-k HIII/g HIII/g HIII/g

T24,i T60, ab Pg. 53-54 T28,p T1,f T26,g T53, c-f T29,b T49, v T62,a T28,n Abb. 145 pg.54 T54,a Abb. 186 T52

2494 2581 782 (abc)- etc. 3092 2895 2880 2579 3798/9 2515 2315-2318 2092 3093 3044 2793-2830 2530 -2532

Room

Figure

Inventory

T19,c

Inventory 3031 2584 3120 3115 3656 3055 1329 3020 3040 3019 3018 3005 3033 3016 2497 3011 3047 2986 3067 3068 3152 2987 3024

4235

ankle Pithos Pithos

From a pithos in the storeroom From the storeroom (G/st) From the storeroom

Description

stone with three feet Bronze knife "Scnabelkanne" serpentine "votive" spoon

Description

Description

Building Location II

G1

to the west. 1.5 deep 25m W of G In the wall of the old structure we

Building Location II

GK

In the collapsed material in GK ( 50 cm above the floor Nearby GK

Building Location II

HI

From the foundations, 7m deep Between the HI and BM

HII

Description

Building Location II

Building Location II

HIII

Description

greek vase black burnished bone spatula stone tool sherd painted in white, black and red sherd with goat cup with stand Globular jar stone cube with one holes rounded stone with hole

East, collapse. 1.5m deep collapse collapse collapse to the west, collapse To the east, 1m deep on the top collapse To the east 1.8m deep collapse bronze tutulus with eyelet collapse basalt cube with two opposite drillholes to the east, collapse Cup collapse. (Lehmann 8) upper part of a cypriot ware Near the foundations stamp seal with winged and horned lion, Ash layer in front of the building bone spatula Ash layer in front of the building head of a statuette representig a god Ash layer in front of the building basalt rub stone Ash layer in front of the building basalt rub stone Ash layer in front of the building clay boat model Ash layer in front of the building circular silver pendent with kroned figur Ash layer in front of the building basalt stone with rounded head, tool Ash layer in front of the building

clay bowl bone spatula 75 small bowls fragment of clay bowl Stone tool (Steinbeil) clay jug bronze disks with central knob clay jug Bronze ring fixable in the wall Carved basalt stone with representation o fragment of clay bowl Bronze Ring 55 small bowls Copper sheet with rosettes and lotus deco bronze sheet/fitting

Description

painted jar with two handles

237

2.5 deep. Western palace Western palace From a small burnt room. (Lehma collapse (Lehmann 22) 2m in the collapse (Lehmann 15) Nel Western palace In the collapse nearby (Lehmann four similar objects found togethe collapse. (Lehmann 21) Ash layer behing the double sphy In one small room to the west, ne IS On the floor in a small room, 2 BarRakib palace*, Burnt collapse IS In the burnt collapsed material

Building Location II

J

In the northpalace, possibly in the

Pucci-Catalogue of Objects at Tell Halaf and Zincirli Abb. 173 T43,8 T43,6 T44,d T43, 17 T17,k T19,e T22,c T13,i-k J/14 J/2 J/2 J/2 J/2 J/2 J/2 J/2 J/2 J/2 J/2 J/2 J/2 J/2 J/2 J/2 J/2 J/2 J/2 J/2 J/2 J/2 J/2 J/2 J/2 J/2 J/2 J/2 J/2 J/2 J/2 J/2 J/2 J/2 J/2 J/2 J/2 J/2 J/3 J/7 J/7 J/7 J/7 J/9 J/9 J/9 J/9 J/9 J/9 J/9 J/9 J/Gk J/Gk J/Gk J/gk

T65,d T54,d T44,i Abb 187 T16,m T12,f T49,s T45,h T12,cd T44,w T11,b T54,b T31,a T48,g T49,u T17,,lm T46, i T49,t T69,s T65,c T44,g T69,t T44, ak T70, a-b T38,a T69g T46, h T44,h T46,g T65,i k T73, cd T73,ab T64, a, b T64, a-g T44,k T65,e T56,a T12,g T5,a T44,b T44,e T20,g+h ?? T45,b T45,l T22,b T43,w T45,i T45,m T43,v T45,n T22,k T47,f g T19,d

--3078 3079 3624 3076 4238 4236 3547 3559 10 pithoi 3577 3560 3938 3576 3605 3549/2 5963 3628 3690 3627 3549 3561 3673 3557 3553 4239+ 4240 3626 5964 3575 3888 3936 3581 3672 3580 3565 3578 3629 3937 3625 3891 3892 3566a 3566 3882 3883-86 3939 3890 3813 3542 3693 3692 4050+ 4068 3695? 3700 3705 3701 3698 3696 3699 3697 3704 3974 3708 3545

Astragali bronze fibel bronze fibel silver pendent with sun god above anima bronze fibel painted jar (circle muster) painted globular jar, complete clay cup on pedestal stone fragment of decorated "votive spoo Pithos ivory lion's paw copper bridle decoration, representing a silver pendent with geometric muster clay bowl with incised decoration basalt bull head, weight? iron nail with bronze head gold bracelet Pazuzu head, serpentine gold ring basalt bull head, weight? copper leaf with eyes architectural element, emailed bronze spatula iron nail with bronze head painted globular jar (circle muster) silver pendent with naked goddess bronze nail ivory knob ivory lions head silver pendent with geometric muster ivory knob bronze necklace with Babylonian inscrit ivory carved fragment with feminine hea scaraboid stamp seal ivory lotus flower carved on both sides Silver/gold pendent silver pendent with geometric muster Silver pendent with figure eating ivory paw Assyrian Tablet Assyrian Tablet ivory lion, fragment of furniture ivory fragments representing lion, silver pendent with geometric muster ivory fragment of a lion copper bowl stone small coloumn stone bowl, architectural element silver pendent with religious scene silver pendent with religious scene clay jug with buchranion handles (fragm helm bracelet with gold and stones gold ring with onyx seal with four hittite clay small pottle with two handles silver fibula hold earring with three circles necklace with gold line and stones gold fibula gold pendent with seal reresenting a bull enameled bottle with duck handles gold case with inscription of Kalamu painted jar, complete

238

collapse (parall. Abb174), in one collapse (Pedde 788) collapse (Pedde 180) 1.3m deep in the collapse above t collapse (pedde 358) (Lehmann 12) In the drain pipe. (Lehmann 18) In the burnt collapse on the floor i North rooms Kalamubau Burnt layer Burnt layer Burnt layer Burnt layer Burnt layer Burnt layer Burnt layer Ash layer in front of the southern Collapse above J2 Burnt layer Burnt layer Burnt layer in the Kalamu buildin Burnt layer Burnt layer Inside a niche of the room in nort IS in front of the SW wall with iv Burnt layer Brpal.? Burnt layer Burnt layer Burnt layer Burnt layer Burnt layer, room with niche Found with T 46,g Burnt layer In front of the SW wall of room J Burnt layer Burnt layer Furniture with lion decoration Burnt layer Similar to an object found here Burnt layer, near the western wall IS,on the floor 20cm above the Burnt layer with T44.b Rear room, with i.k? S. Abb.43/V Note 1. Pg.76. helmet with the other objects fron the tra with the other objects fron the tra with the other objects fron the tra Treasure Corridor Gk Above the Korridor (Lehmann) In the burnt collapse behind the d IS Nel vano Gk in the collapse on

Pucci-Catalogue of Objects at Tell Halaf and Zincirli

Room

K/1 K/1 K/2 K/2 K/2 K/2 K/2 K/2 K/2 K/2 K/2 K/2 K/2 K/2 K/2 K/2 K/3

Room

L/5 L/5 L/6 L/6

Room LG 1 LG 1 LG 1 LG 1 LG 1 LG 1 LG 1 LG 1 LG 1 LG/ash LG/ash LG/ash LG/ash LG/ash LG/ash LG/ash LG/ash LG/ash LG/ash LG/ash LG/ash LG/ash LG/ash LG/square LG/square LG/square

Figure T42,g T51,a-k T51, l-p T40,b T46,k T69, b,d-f, T5,b/c T71 y,z,aa T42,i T42,l T42,p T42,o T42,n T68, a-c, 6 T42,m T42,h T5,e T42,k T12,i T40,a

Inventory

3550 5918 5930-31 5932-36 3977 3691 3823-28 3893 3821+3820 3917-23 4018 3552 3551 5923 5926 5924 3824 3865 39 5925 5932 3819 5927 3687 3695

Figure

Inventory

T36,k Abb. 168 T22,h T66, d-f T66, a-c T17,h T65,l-n T23,d T12,e T63 a-g T57,b-d T21

2343 3010 3654 3881 3879 4237 3880 2378 3994 3904 2385 59 3809 5938

Figure

Inventory

T36,g T19,b T43,5 T20,e T60,u T25,g T4,m T59,c, T6 =T2,d T60,r T33,g T33,h pg. 117 T33,a T36,b T33,m T2,c T24,h T33,d T25,w Abb. 34 T25,t T3,a T60, al T60,b T45,p

1129 520 881 694 1133 67 93 884 1191= 1192 1756 1003 1717 1005a 1127 1122 1605 2061 1124 1287 1567 1229 1673 1456c 1360 3961b

Description

bronze bullett, star form ten fragments of bronze furniture coverin five bronze coverings, cylindric bronze pointed helm silver carved plaquette with gold leaves r ivory statuettes fragments basalt cups on pedestal (on with three ha ivory animal heads bronze head of a Streitkeule bronze head of a Streitkeule bronze head of a Streitkeule bronze head of a Streitkeule bronze head of a Streitkeule ivory statuettes fragments bronze head of a Streitkeule bronze bullett, star form basalt cup on pedestal with four handles bronze head of a Streitkeule serpentine statuette of human (fragment) fragment of a bronze incised helm

Description

clay animal statuette clay lamb with holes clay bowl with animal headed handle, gla carved ivory small pillars carved ivory small pillars Painted jug carved ivory small pillars clay cup with six handles Basalt lion statuette ivory fragments of a throne bronze bathtub clay painted statuette of horse with jugs

Description

Clay animal Statuette Jar Fibula Bowl Bone Spatula Dish Spindle wirl Bone Spatula Stone with hole Bone Spatula Clay Statuette Statuette Egyptian jar Clay Feminine Statuette Clay Horse Statuette Clay Head of Statuette Stone with hole Bowl Clay Statuette Bowl Painted jar Bowl with button Carved stone with hole Bone Spatula Bone Spatula Silver

239

Building Location II

K

burnt collapse Burnt layer as a pillar decoration Burnt layer In the Burnt layer with a similar h IS Burnt layer, behind the middle IS. Behind the round fireplace (L Se.133 burnt collapse burnt collapse burnt collapse burnt collapse burnt collapse round the stone installation in the burnt collapse burnt collapse burnt collapse Ash layer burnt collapse

Building Location II

L

IS on the floor In a room between the mound wal In a room between the mound wal

IS. Room near the mound wall With T66.a-f.T67a-i On the mound wall NW (Lehman IS (floor) with the ivory kymatien Together in the room near the bat IS northwest wall Nearby

Building Location II

LG

Near the third lion Near the lions in the lions' pit with S659. 883 Near the lions Under the fifth lion Near the lions throat north of the lion Near the third lion Near the third lion High Ash layer Ash layer, 4m deep "am E" Ash layer "beim E" Ash layer in front of E Ash layer, 4m deep "am E" Near the third lion Ash layer, "beim E" Ash layer "beim E" Ash layer north of the gate Ash layer "am E" 4.5m deep in the ash layer, "am 3m deep, Ash layer, "beim E" 4m deep, Ash layer, "am E" Ash layer, "neben E" Eastern side, 2m deep. As also T6 Near the semicircular tower, 1.5 Hacksilberfund

Pucci-Catalogue of Objects at Tell Halaf and Zincirli LG/square LG/square LG/square LG/square LG/square LG/square

Room

T60,i l-15 T60,h T60, aq T44,x T44,o-ai

Figure T23,n T27,e

Room

Room

T36,m T59,g T4,x Abb. 135 T39,m T59,d, T6 T60,n T7,i pg.94 T4,s T11,d T4,b T10,e T2,i T4,aa T11,a T43,l T4,k T7,k T49,r T38,m T4,i T24,k T59,q pg. 101 Abb. 99 pg.94 T43, 12 T1,q T2,p T9,c pg. 136

2886 2934 2903 2919 2892 2890 2889 2884 2867 /8 2596 2907+3nn 2949 2983+24nn 2939 2941 2912 2951 3080 2909 3015 3013/4 3009 2908 3051 3098 3130 3147 3148 – 49 3077 2894 2917 3604 3039

Figure

Inventory

Figure

Figure T16,o

Room

2928 3030

Inventory

Abb. 104 Abb. 98

Room

Inventory

Figure

Abb. 89 T60,f

Room

1404 ------1455 1452 2602 3941 3975 39

Figure T11,g T60,e T59,f T33,e

Many 2548

Inventory --------

Inventory 4005

Inventory 2490 1806 1450 1799

Bone Spatula Bone Spatula Bone Spatula Rounded leaves of silver Silver

Description

glass ellenistc pottery

Description

clay model of chariot (?) Bollweg 1999: t bone tool spindle whirl iron nail cylindrical seal bone spatula Bone spatula stone pendent nails spindle whirl Stone weight spindle whirl (together with 24 other spi pendent hematit weight spindle whirl bronze weight bronze fibula spindle whirl stone working tool Nail Scarab seal spindle whirl clay bowl Knucklebone bronze button spear head bronze bracelets Bronze Fibula bone spatula basalt tool serpendine pendent with incised decorati glas perle

Description

metal leaves bone spatula

Description

double axe iron arrow head

Near the semicircular tower, 2m Near the QM tower In front of the building, eastern si In front of the eastern side with 11 fragments (428gr) and so "Hacksilberfund": 7.165 kg of Sil

Building Location II

M

Building Location II

NÖH

On the backed bricks paving, cou On the mud bricks paving with la

collapse In the foundations Pal. Bar-Rakib Burnt layer Bar-Rakib palace collapse From the plaster On the plaster as T60,a Old collapse collapse with ashes Bar-Rakib palace collapse of Bar-Rakib palace Near the gate to the courtyard Foundations Collapsed material above the Barr IS (plaster) collapse collapse near the foundations Bar-Rakib palace Old collapse Collapse Bar-Rakib palace From the foundations (older?) Bar-Rakib palace collapse. (Lehmann 3) In one of the three rooms not hea Bar-rakib palace on the plaster Ash layer Ash collaps (s.94) collapse In the Barrakib collapsed palace collapse of Bar Rakib palace collapse above the building Plaster Bar-Rakib palace

Building Location II

NWH

Burnt layer Under the floor level

Building Location II

P

Burnt layer with 2 iron mails

Description

Building Location II

Description

Building Location II

Q

clay small bowl? With incised decoration In the black earth near the statue

QM

2.5m deep On the middle of the eastern side 3m deep inside the southern wall

240

Pucci-Catalogue of Objects at Tell Halaf and Zincirli

Room

Figure T45,c T31,d, e T20,b T20,d T8,a T8,b T49,p T8,f T3,q pg. 105 T59,m T31,f,g T40,d T8,e

Inventory 2989 2302 3658 3657 2551 2552 3653 2923 2926 3042 3066 2257 2314 2925

Description

silver half moon enameled hand shelf with hole fragment of a cup with goat decoration cup with goat decoration Serpentine matrix for metals Serpentine matrix for metals Bronze Lamp Stone mould Stone tool Bronze plaque bone tool enameled ring Bronze stendard for chariot Serpentine matrix for metals

241

Building Location II

R

From the ash layer in front of the In a pit south of the building with collapse above the orthostats, late collapse above the socle, east of t Wartke 80 1.5m deep inside the collapse From the ash layer in front of the In front of Bar-Rakib palace In front of the entrance of the Bar Eastern facade In front of the entrance Near T31.de IS Near the orthostats, 3m deep In front of Bar-Rakib palace

Pucci-Catalogue of Objects from Tell Tayinat

Building Room T-

I, 1 I, 1/b

Description

Location

Ornament, glass, i

# 2, besides stone wall

Description

Location

Pot, small jar, collared with flop shoulders, i

#5 NW

50

Small shallow bowl, buff ware, red glazed

# 5 (debris)

86

Box of brow fragments, I

#5 NW, on high floor

119

Whorl, stone, w

#15 (indoor to #5)

Description

Location

53

Whorl, stone, convex face, decorated, w

#15 NE

54

Whorl, stone, convex face, w

#15 NE

73

Whorl, stone, convex face, w,

#15 NE

74

Bronze hook, w

#15 NW

Description

Location

118

Whorl, stone, circle dec., w

# 16 SE

124

Pottery object, cosmetic box, recon.

#16

190

Pot, pink ware, shallow bowl, recon,

#16,cache “a” level 2

192

Pot, pink ware, doubles angle bowl, recon.

#16[1],cache “a” level 2

193

Whorl, pottery, i

# 16, cache "A", level 2

198

Pot, large handled jar white slipped ware, painted (Cypriote), rec

Cache "a”, level 2, Room #16

T-

Description

Location

8

Potsherd, rim of large storage jar, i

6NW

T-

Description

Location

9

Nail or hook

7SC

22

Bronze, Pierced armour plate

#7 NW

24

Metal object, pierced, i

#7 NW

30

Metal object, head

Outside N#7wall, above high floor

31

Small shallow bowl, red glazed, ring base

OutsideN#7 wall, above high floor

32

Small shallow bowl, red glazed, ring base, frag..

Outside N#7wall, above high floor

52

Stone object, inlay, grey stone, i

#7 NE

170

Box of ebrow fragments, blades, projectile points etc.

Level , 1 Room, on sill of door (high) between #9 + #7

385

Base of pot stand or cup, buff

Floor 1a,I-J

387

Bronze object, bell?

Floor, I-J

389

Bronze drill

Floor, I-J

Description

Location

23

Bronze nail, large head

# 8 NE

37

Stone object, basalt, weight, w

#8 upper floor WC, as bronze plaques

42

Metal object, iron hook or nail, i

#8 NW

46

Metal object, large nail, iron, rounded bead, i

#8, SW

98

Room T35

T-

T-

Room

I, 1/f

Room

I, 1/g

Room

I, 1/h

Room

I, 1/j

Room T-

47

Iron object, hook or nail, i

#8, SW

218

Large plaque, bronze, I

#8 near door

219

Small plaque, bronze, i

#8, floor within door

220

Small plaque, bronze, i

#8, floor within door

Description

Location

Figurine fragment

9SE

Room T10

242

I, 1/e

I, 1/l

I, 1/m

Pucci-Catalogue of Objects from Tell Tayinat

T-

Room

I, 1/p

Room

I, 1/q

Description

Location

43

Metal object, iron hook or nail, i

#11 NE

48

Iron object, long narrow blade, i

#11 NE

Description

Location

Box of bronze fragments, tacks, nails, ivory or bone inlays, i

# 17 N

104

Bead, glass, i

# 17

105

Ornament, bone radial incising, w

# 17

160

Box of bronze fragments

#17NC,over a period of several clays

215

Box of bronze fragments (cup), also matter found with (?)

# 17 E

216

Box of bronze fragments (cup)

# 17 E

T103

Building T-

Description

Location

747

Glazed Assyrian potsherd

Floor, I-E, 2

748

Painted potsherd

Floor, I-E, 2

767

Cylinder seal, bead white frit. Probably originally glazed. Birds a Floor, I-E, 2

T-

Room

I, 2+3/e

Room

I, 2+3/f

Room

I, 2+3/g

Description

Location

Fragment of inscribed tablet

Floor, I-F, 2

Description

Location

700

Sherds of large pot elaborate incised decoration

Floor, I-G, 2

704

Faience scarab blue

Floor, I-G, 2

724

Bronze ferrule

Floor, I-G, 2

739

Duck weight

I-G-2nd

775

Duck weight

Floor, I-G, 2nd

784

Bone stamp seal, pendant, hammer handle, ovoid base, winged li

Floor, I-G, 2nd

787

Stone pendant

Floor, I-G, 2

791

Pot stand

Floor, I-G, 2

797

Pot

Floor, I-G, 2

801

Duck weight, basalt

Floor, I-G, 2nd , found in door

802

Duck weight, basalt

Floor, I-G, 2nd

803

Duck weight, basalt

Floor, I-G, 2nd

804

Duck weight, basalt

Floor, I-G, 2nd

805

Duck weight, basalt

Floor, I-G, 2nd

806

Duck weight, basalt

Floor, I-G, 2nd

807

Duck weight, basalt

Floor, I-G, 2nd

808

Sphinx

Floor, I-G, 2

815

Spindle whorl, stone, decorated

Floor, I-G, 2

816

Gold pendant

Floor, I-G, 2

818

Several scarabs, blue frit

Floor, I-G, 2

819

Rattle

Floor, I-G, 2

832

Head of statue, bearded man, limestone

Floor, I-G, 2

836

Head of figurine

Floor, I-G, 2

837

Bone blade

Floor, I-G, 2

933

Sherd from painted bowl

Floor, I-G, 2

776

T-

994

Bronze object

I-G, below floor of 2

1064

Red bowl with Aramaic inscription

Floor, I-G, 2

1264

Grain(?), debris from within a pot

I-G, 2ndfloor

Description

Location

Room T-

243

I, 2+3

I, 2+3/j

Pucci-Catalogue of Objects from Tell Tayinat 41

Metal object, bronze, door fixture, triangular

#7 SW, level of backed bricks

660

Sherd of blue faience bowl, incised decoration

Floor, I-J.2

661

Sherd of blue faience bowl, incised decoration

Floor, I-J. 2

701

Sherds of large pot elaborate incised decoration

Floor, I-J, 2

711

Fragment of clay boat, painted

Floor, I-J, 2

712

Arrowhead

Floor, I-J, 2

722

6 clay gaming pieces

Floor, I-J, 2

741

Bone plaque, horse jumping one hill

Floor, I-J, 2

759

Bronze boss, perforated edge

Floor, I-J, 2

760

Bronze bell

Floor, I-J, 2

761

Several clay gaming pieces (50)

Floor, I-J, 2

838

Bronze plaque with relief

Floor, door I-J, 2 to I-K, 2

976

Gold earring or pendant

Floor, I-J, 2

Description

Location

Silver fragments, wire or fitting, i

# 12, besides stones

102

Box of bronze fragments, i

# 12 SE

718

Bone containing two bronze needles

Floor, I-K, 2

743

Rectangular bone plaque undecorated

Floor, I-K, 2

744

Head of figurine

Floor, I-K, 2

762

Clay gaming piece

Floor, I-K, 2

763

Two beads

Floor, I-K, 2

764

Clay amulet in shape of human leg

Floor, I-K, 2

765

5 scarabs blue frit + 2, March 29

Floor, I-K, 2

777

Glass Bead. Folded opaque, short regular. Mottled grey and white Floor, I-K, 2

778

2 bone disks, inlay?

Floor, I-K, 2

786

Scaraboid, red jasper, geometric impression

Floor, I-K, 2

799

3 faience beads

Floor, I-K, 2

800

Bronze plaques, mountings?

Floor, I-K, 2

830

Head of lion, black pottery

Floor, I-K, 2

980

4 beads

Floor, I-K, 2

998

Stone eye inlay

I, K-3 west end

1051

Glazed steatite scarab, set in bronze guard, or basket, with loop to I-K below floor of 2

T97

T-

Room

I, 2+3/k

Room

I, 2+3/l

Room

I, 2+3/m

Description

Location

Nail, gold head

Floor, I-L, 2

Description

Location

745

3 gaming pieces

Floor, I-M, 2

971

Tongue shaped bronze object

Floor, I-M, 2

972

Bronze object, with two hooks

Floor, I-M, 2

973

Bronze disk, scalloped edge, hole in center

Floor, I-M, 2

974

Fragment of bronze handle

Floor, I-M, 2

975

Bronze plaque with holes

Floor, I-M, 2

1031

stone eye inlay

I, M below 2nd floor

1033

Bronze boss, perforated edge

I-M, below floor of 2

1034

Scarabs, blue frit

I-M, below floor of 2

Description

Location

702

Bronze mountings with loop handle

Floor, I-N, 2

705

4 small bronze nails

Floor, I-N, 2

932

Small painted pot

Floor, I-N, 2

992

3 bronze mountings, perforated

I-N, below floor of 2

965

T-

Room T-

244

I, 2+3/n

Pucci-Catalogue of Objects from Tell Tayinat 993

Bronze boss perforated edge

I-N, below floor of 2

995

Bronze plaque, hole in the center

I-N, below floor of 2

997

Gaming pieces

I-N below floor of 2

1017

10 scarabs, blue frit

I-N below floor of 2

1018

Bone blade

I-N below floor of 2

1019

Glass bead, fragment

I-N below floor of 2

1020

Eye

I-N below floor of 2

Description

Location

I, 2+3/p

Room T713

Gaming pieces of clay, cylindrical, triangular, and star shaped. 33 Floor, I-P, 2

726

Bronze bass with tabs

Floor, I-P, 2

751

Bronze cup very broken

Floor, I-P, 2

752

Small bronze bowl or cup, perforated edge

Floor, I-P, 2

756

Bone plaque, incised design

Floor, I-P, 2

757

Wing bone with gold and lapis lazuli

Floor, I-P, 2

842

Broken bronze ring

Floor, I-P, 2

983

Gold foil

Floor, I-P, 3

984

Bronze boss, perforated edge

Floor, I-P, 3

985

Bronze boss with tab

Floor, I-P,3

986

Scaraboid seal, serpentine, men with animals (potnia theron), bird I-P, below floor of 2

987

Eye, bluestone as pupil

I-P, below floor of 2

1002

Stone eye inlay

I p-3

T-

Description

Location

226

Wares of C.H III period, supposedly all late. From fragmentary fl Floor, I,Q, 2

779

Bronze cup or casing found with wood

Floor, I-Q, 2

780

4 beads

Floor, I-Q, 2

782

Fragments of bone objects, plaque or box incised, decoration of r Floor, I-Q, 2

843

Fragment of bronze cup

1224

Wares of C.H III period, supposedly all late. From fragmentary fl Floor, I,Q, 2

1225

Wares of C.H III period, supposedly all late. From fragmentary fl Floor, I,Q, 2

1227

Wares of C.H III period, supposedly all late. From fragmentary fl Floor, I,Q, 2

T3270

Room

I, 2+3/q

Room

+3/Southern revetem

Floor, I-Q, 2

Description

Location

Lion boss

A S. room of Hilani I, 3rd floor

Building

Ie

Room T-

Description

Location

Fragment of tablet

South wall of Hilani at bottom of burnt 2 wall

Description

Location

49

Pot small handled painted jar (Cypriote)

# 13 against north wall, 2m west of the corner of #8.

125

Stone fragment, inscribed Hittite hieroglyphs, i, (first fragment)

#13,south side of building (march 21)

846

Fragment of Hittite inscription

Trench E. from Megaron

Description

Location

109

Bead, blue frit, w

#21 C

126

Stone fragment, i

#21 S, under the surface

158

Stone fragment, inscribed, i

# 21 S (outside #17)

199

Stone fragment, inscribed, Hittite Hieroglyphs, i,

#21 S On/In stone filling against wall

200

Stone fragment, inscribed, Hittite Hieroglyphs, i,

#21 S On/In stone filling against wall

201

Stone fragment, inscribed, Hittite Hieroglyphs, i,

#21 S On/In stone filling against wall

202

Stone fragment, inscribed, Hittite Hieroglyphs, i,

#21 S On/In stone filling against wall

1113

Room T-

Room T-

245

R

T

Pucci-Catalogue of Objects from Tell Tayinat Stone fragment, inscribed, Hittite Hieroglyphs, i,

#21 S On/In stone filling against wall

206

Stone fragment, inscribed, i,

#21 S On/In stone filling against wall

207

Stone fragment, part of human foot, toes, i,

#21 S On/In stone filling against wall

208

Stone fragment, human hands and breast, i,

#21 S On/In stone filling against wall

549

Inscription fragments black basalt

I-T.[6]

550

Inscription fragments black basalt

I-T.

551

Inscription fragments black basalt

I-T.

552

Inscription fragments black basalt

I-T.

553

Inscription fragments black basalt

I-T.

554

Inscription fragments black basalt

I-T.

555

Inscription fragments black basalt

I-T.

556

Inscription fragments black basalt

I-T.

557

Inscription fragments black basalt

I-T.

558

Inscription fragments black basalt

I-T.

559

Inscription fragments black basalt

I-T.

577

Inscription fragments black basalt

I-T

578

Inscription fragments black basalt

I-T

579

Inscription fragments black basalt

I-T

598

Inscription fragment, black basalt

I-T

599

Bronze nail

Floor I-T

600

Chariot wheel?, hand moulded pottery

Floor, I-T

623

Inscription fragment. Black basalt

I-T

624

Inscription fragment. Black basalt

I-T

671

Fragments of hieroglyphic inscription

Floor, I-T

673

Clay gaming piece

Floor, I-T

674

Blue frit scarab

Floor, I-T

690

Two fragments of Hittite inscription basalt

Floor, I-T

691

Rectangular basalt bowl, four legs and animal heads at rim

Floor, I-T

692

Fragment of basalt stand

Floor, I-T

693

Fragment of Hittite inscription, basalt

Floor, I-T

699

Pottery bowl, undecorated.

Floor, I-T

703

Scaraboid frit, encrusted

Floor, I-T

714

Stone object, shuttle or spool

Floor, I-T

715

Triangular piece of Agate

Floor, I-T

716

Pierced, rectangular bone plaque

Floor, I-T

796

Pot

Floor, I-T

203

834

Hittite inscription fragments

Trench E of I-T

2610

Basalt fragment, hieroglyphs

I-T, below surface

2611

Basalt fragment, hieroglyphs

I-T, below surface

2623

Basalt fragment with glyphs

I-T, under the surface

2624

Basalt fragment with glyphs

I-T, under the surface

2625

Basalt fragment with glyphs

I-T, under the surface

2626

Basalt fragment with glyphs

I-T, under the surface

2640

Basalt fragment

I-T, below surface, W

2641

Basalt fragment

I-T, below surface, W

2642

Basalt fragment

I-T, below surface, W

2898

Basalt fragment, hieroglyphs

I-T, below surface

2899

Basalt fragment, hieroglyphs

I-T, below surface

Building Room T171

Description

Location

Box of bronze fragments

#22,floor with lions

246

II II/A

Pucci-Catalogue of Objects from Tell Tayinat #22

172

Stone fragment, bowl rim, I

197

Projectile point, iron, i, (plaster or paint attached to surface)

#22,against outer face of wall with column base

1261

Alter, with Hittite glyphs

Floor, right side of porch. II-A, 1

Description

Location

162

scaraboid, red jasper, domed +scarab incised, oval face, w, perf.

#23NC.Seal on floor level of column bases.

189

Box of Ostrich Egg Fragments, i

#23, lion floor

222

Box of bronze fragments

in door between # 23+ #19

398

Inscription fragment black basalt

II-B

3277

(13) Basalt fragments with glyphs

II-B, under 1st floor

Description

Location

300

Inscription fragment, black basalt

II-C

320

Painted kerpich blue and black

Floor, II-C

332

Shell worked

Floor, II-C

662

Group of24 beads of stone, shell, bone, glass and bronze.

Floor, II-C

Description

Location

51

Scarab, blue frit, w

# 18

76

Bronze object, flower or wire (one w, one i)

#18 W, under the surf.

Room T-

T-

T-

99

Loom weight, pottery spherical, w

# 18 C

100

Loom weight, pottery spherical, w

# 18 C

101

Loom weight, pottery cylindrical, pierced, w

# 18 C

668

Several pieces of ostrich shell

Floor, II-E

Room

II/C

Room

II/D

Building T-

Description

Location

260

Bead, fragment. Stone

Floor, III-A

333

Potsherd concentrinc rings incised

Floor, III-A

334

Bead grey stone

Floor, III-A

Description

Location

257

Glass Bead, orange red and white design

Floor,III-B-1

258

Bead, blue frit, fluted

Floor, III-B-I

259

Bead, blue frit, fluted

Floor, III-B-I

270

Stamp seal, stone. Serpentine crude unfinished seal

Floor, III-B-I

271

Whitestone

Floor, III-B-I

272

Bone paint

Floor, III-B-I

1263

Bark or charred wood samples

III-B, 1stfloor

Description

Location

277

Weight, pottery

Floor, III-C-I

278

Weight, pottery

Floor, III-C-I

407

Shell fragment, incised decoration

Floor, III-C

408

Limestone roll seal. Perforate through length, off center. Two wo Floor III-c (card)

T-

T-

III/A

Room

III/B

Room

III/C

Room Description

Location

2618

Basalt fragment, hieroglyphs

XIV, under the surface

2957

Hittite inscription, fragment

XIV, under the surface

Description

Location

820

Fragment of pot incised decoration

Floor, XIV

878

Cylinder seal, dark stone brown jasper (fleck of green)

Floor, XIV, g16

Room T-

247

III

Room

Building T-

II/B

IV, 1 IV, 1

IV, 1/a

Pucci-Catalogue of Objects from Tell Tayinat 2885

Stone duck weight

XIV, under 2m from top soil, on floor

2886

Stone censer fragment, hand

XIV, under 2m from top soil, on floor

2887

Glass eye bead

XIV, under 2m from top soil, on floor

2888

Steatite Stamp seal, dark green, stud, circular base. Quadruped wi XIV, under 2m from top soil, on floor

2889

Stone whorl

XIV, under 2m from top soil, on floor

3266

Stone lion's head

XIV, 1stpaving

Building

IV, 2

Room T-

Description

Location

2000

Steatite object

XIV, under 1st floor

2001

Stone amulet or stamp seal. Double faced with a rosette like and a XIV, under 1st floor

2009

Blue "glass” head or button

XIV, under 1st floor

2010

Faience disk head

XIV, under 1st floor

2011

Oval piece of limestone fashioned into an idol by notching margi XIV, under 1st floor

2012

Bronze pin, helloes head, semicircular in form

XIV, under 1st floor

2021

Blue frit amulet

XIV under1st floor

2022

Bone blade, complete

XIV under1st floor

2023

Bone inlay, rectangular

XIV under1st floor

2267

Iron chisel. Very fine edge, working part of implement is rectang XXIII-W,2nd floor

2268

Iron Narrow chisel or point socketed

XXIII-W,2nd floor

2333

Frit heads, 2

XXIII-E,2nd floor

2334

Hematite weight

XXIII-E,2nd floor

2335

Stone cosmetic box, inc.

XXIII-E,2nd floor

3233

Stone bowl

XXIII E,2 floor

3262

6 pots, simple ring burnished bowl, splayed rim, recon.

XXIII E,2 floor

3267

2 fragments of stone statue, skirt of human figure

XIV, 2ndpavingT2, 1m

3269

Lion orthostat, stone

XIV, 2ndstone paving

Building Room T-

Description

Location

916

Frit bead, incised decoration

Floor, XIII

1065

Duck weight

XIII, first (card)

1066

Duck weight

XIII-1st (card)

2111

Potsherd, Greek fragment. of base

XIII, under 1st floor

2134

Potsherd Greek

XIII, under 1st floor,G-F

2164

Hittite inscription, fragment

IX, between surf. and 1st floor

2166

Bronze pin, head shaped like spring

IX, 1stfloor

2167

Blue frit heads, 2

IX, 1stfloor

2184

Bone seal, rect. 2 sides decorated, indistinguishable design

IX, 1stfloor

2193

Scaraboids, steatite grey green, geometric markings on back, sma IX, 1stfloor

2194

Scaraboids, steatite, illegible

IX, 1stfloor

2195

Steatite, stamp seal, circular base, stalk,

IX, 1stfloor

2206

Glass head

IX, 1stfloor

2210

Basalt duck weight

IX, 1stfloor

2216

Scaraboid, steatite, dark green, geometric markings on back

IX, 1stfloor

2574

Bone object, cylindrical, decorated

IX, 1floor

2715

Iron hook/Staple, has form of cotters pin with ends turned back to IX 1floor

2716

Bone pin

IX 1floor

2980

Perforated cylindrical stone bead

IX 1floor

2981

Silver earring, the bottom is thick in section

IX 1floor

3108

Stone duck weight

IX, under1 floor

3109

Fragment of stone censer, rim

IX, under1 floor

248

IX

Pucci-Catalogue of Objects from Tell Tayinat 3110

Steatite stamp seal, hemispheroid, possibly not a seal

IX, under1 floor

3111

Glass bead decomp

IX, under1 floor

Description

Location

2717

Handle of (roman lamp)

IX 1floor

2718

Painted sherd

IX 1floor

2802

Basalt duck weight

IX 1floor, BM drain

2982

Unfinished stone bead

IX 1floor

Description

Location

T-

T2098

Room

IX

Room

IX, g-f

Pottery figurine fragment. Pinched nose with blob eyes, fin like st XIII, under first floor,G-F

Room T2097

T-

Description

Steatite cylinder seal, with bronze roller wire, two kneeling figure XIII, under 1st floor,G-F

Description

Location

Box of bronze fragments, plaque

Floor, IX-C, 1

Description

Location

773

Stone mould

Floor, XIII-A

774

Torso of figurine

Floor, XIII-A

2165

Bone slip, decorated. Curved implement with pointed end and flat Floor, XIII, 3rd

2159

T-

T2324

T2133

Room

IX/d

Room

IX/e

Room

IX/f

Room

IX/g-f

Description

Location

Glass head

XIII, 1stfloor

Description

Location

Potsherd rim of Greek bowl

XIII, under 1st floor,G-F

Description

Location

Six pots, small simple handle less cups,

IX-N, 1st.Found with the skeleton of an animal under the nor

Room T3275

Building Room T-

Description

Location

Bone awl

VI, 2ndfloor

2272

Hooked knuckle bone

VI, 2ndfloor

2273

Bone pin, decorated head

VI, 2ndfloor

2274

Bone pin, decorated head

VI, 2ndfloor

2275

Bone pin, ornamental head in shape of double bead

VI, 2ndfloor

2276

Lead scaraboids, illegible

VI, 2ndfloor

2277

Blue heads

VI, 2ndfloor

2278

Stone stamp seal

VI, 2ndfloor

2279

stone Censer fragment, lotus fragment.

VI, 2ndfloor

2280

Silver moulded disc, gold leaf

VI, 2ndfloor

2281

Figurine head, animal, buff ware with pointed face and ears

VI, 2ndfloor

2282

Figurine head, anthropomorphic, buff ware, pinched nose and blo VI, 2ndfloor

2283

Bone handle? (fragment.)

VI, 2ndfloor

2284

Bone disc

VI, 2ndfloor

2285

Bone disc

VI, 2ndfloor

2286

Bone pin, decorated head

VI, 2ndfloor

2287

6 beads

VI, 2ndfloor

2288

3 beads

VI, 2ndfloor

2271

IX,g-f

Location

2289

Bronze fibula bow, arch rectangular in cross section. On either si VI, 2ndfloor

2290

Bronze earring

VI, 2ndfloor

249

IX/h

T11

Pucci-Catalogue of Objects from Tell Tayinat 2291

Bronze object, shaped like an eyelet, with the ends curling outwar VI, 2ndfloor

2292

Bronze pendant

VI, 2ndfloor

2293

Bronze pin hooked end

VI, 2ndfloor

2294

Frit figurine, in Egyptian style standing against a pillar with clasp VI, 2ndfloor

2295

Bronze bar flat end and hooked end

2296

Glass scaraboids fragment, blue green, circular tabloid, formal eg VI, 1stfloor

VI, 1stfloor

VI, 2ndfloor

2297

Scarab white, guilloche pattern

2298

Scaraboid, steatite, grey green, geometric marking on back, anim VI, 2ndfloor

2299

Scaraboid, blue frit, illegible

VI, 2ndfloor

2300

Blue frit head, milled

VI, 2ndfloor

2301

Glass head

VI, 2ndfloor

2302

Hematite weight

VI, 2ndfloor

2303

Bronze point, one end tapers off to a very sharp point and tapers

VI, 2ndfloor

2304

Frit ware torso, arms crossed over chest, traces of braids above ha VI, 2ndfloor

2313

Bronze fibula bow. The bow is decorated with three large beads s VI, 2ndfloor

2314

Quartz stamp seal, conoid-oval base-face uncut

VI, 2ndfloor

2315

Beads, 3

VI, 2ndfloor

2316

Frit spacer

VI, 2ndfloor

2317

Pottery figurine head, buff ware, pinched

VI, 2ndfloor

2339

Steatite stamp seal, grey green, stud, 4 sides pyramidal, two anim VI, 2ndfloor

2340

Steatite head

VI, 2ndfloor

2341

Beads, 3

VI, 2ndfloor

3153

Stone object, round, drawn to a point, missile (?)

VI, 1 floor

3154

Stone object, round, drawn to a point, missile (?)

VI, 1floor

3196

Steatite stamp seal, double faced, animals

VI, 1floor

3197

Steatite stamp seal, pyramidal, base quadrilateral, two lions one a VI, 1floor

3198

Bronze bird, duck like bird resting on rectangular base, beak like VI, 1floor

Building Room T-

Description

Location

Lapis spacing bead

XXVII 1floor

3340

Bronze pin with button head

XXVII, 1floor

3418

Pot goblet simple ware, high button base, comp.

XXVII, 1floor

3419

Pot, handmade dish or lamp, simple ware, recon

XXVII, 1floor

3420

Pot, bottle jar simple ware, comp.

XXVII, 1floor

3421

Pot, large bowl, rough handmade, some burnish

XXVII, 2floor

3424

Bowl simple ware, one circumflex handle

XXVII, 2floor

3425

Bowl simple ware, out roll rim

XXVII, 2floor

3426

Krater, simple ware two handles

XXVII, 2floor

3427

Miniature handmade crater or cup, simple ware

XXVII, 2floor

3428

Pitcher simple ware, recon.

XXVII, 2floor

3429

Goblet, simple ware, low pedestal base

XXVII, 2floor

3430

Goblet, simple ware, high button base

XXVII, 2floor

3431

Goblet, simple ware, low pedestal base

XXVII, 2floor

3432

Goblet, simple ware, low pedestal base

XXVII, 2floor

3433

Goblet, simple ware, low pedestal base

XXVII, 2floor

3434

Goblet, simple ware, low pedestal base

XXVII, 2floor

3435

Goblet, black combed bands about rim

XXVII, 2floor

3436

Goblet, black combed and squiggly bands about rim, handle

XXVII, 2floor

3437

Goblet, incised simple ware and squiggly combing about rim

XXVII, 2floor

3438

Small hemispherical cup, simple ware

XXVII, 2floor

3439

Small hemispherical cup, simple ware

XXVII, 2floor

3339

250

T13

Pucci-Catalogue of Objects from Tell Tayinat 3440

Small hemispherical cup, simple ware

XXVII, 2floor

3441

Small hemispherical cup, simple ware

XXVII, 2floor

3442

Cooking pot, handmade, simple ware, some burnish

XXVII, 2floor

3443

Pot, bowl, rough handmade, simple ware, some burnish

XXVII, 2floor

3444

Stone bowl, circular shallow basin

XXVII, 2floor

3445

Stone rectangular rubbing basin

XXVII, 2floor

Building Room T-

Description

Location

3813

Potter, rough handmade small squat pitches, simple ware

T 4, 6floor

3821

4 small faience beads

T 4, 7floor

3822

Pierced shell bead

T 4, 7floor

3823

Bone awl

T 4, 7floor

3824

Flint blade

T 4, 7floor

3830

Red-black ware, pot stand or flue, raised decoration

T 4, 7thfloor

3848

Cananean sickle blade with tang, 67x24mm

T 4, 5floor

Building

T4 g-23

T8

Room T-

Description

Location

3793

Bronze ear spoon, scroll type head

V center,3 floor

3797

Pottery figurine, shoulders and torso female, I

V center3rd floor

3800

Bronze pin with nail type head, perforated stem

V center,3rd floor

3803

EB cooking pot, rough burnished ware, flattened base 1 looped h V center,4 floor

3809

Truncated conical cup, flat base, curved sides

V center,4 floor

3825

Pottery figurine, head and shoulder of sheep

V center,6 floor

Building Room T3393

Description

Location

large group of Iron plate armour section, with different bulk

V- under the surface

Building Room T-

Description

Location

1075

Scaraboid, green felspar, domed back, oval base, perf. Lenghtwa

XV-I

2371

dark green stamp seal, square base, stud, steatite, animal

XXV-2

2396

Steatite stamp seal, dark green stud base, quadrilateral, archer

XXV-2

2412

frit stamp seal, with circular base, rounded head decorated with th XXV-2

2421

Faience fragment, white with black and green painted lines on on XXV 2nd floor

2422

Stone duck weight, small

XXV 2, floor

2423

Stone head

XXV 2, floor

2424

Clay sealing with impression

XXV 2, floor

2440

Basalt duck weight, fragment.

XXV 2floor

2441

Stone censer fragment

XXV 2floor

2442

Steatite, double faced (?) stamp seal, bulla, two figures facing un XXV 2floor

2443

Pottery figurine, ball like mass of buff ware with pinches to indic XXV 2floor

2444

Bronze plate armour section

XXV 2floor

2445

Bronze ring

XXV 2floor

2457

Eye beads

XXV 2floor

2458

Cornelian bead

XXV 2floor

2459

Miniature pot, crude

XXV 2floor

2465

Buff ware, bird shaped rattle with base. Feathers indicated by inci XXV 2floor

2466

Pottery compartment box

XXV 2floor

2467

Quartz bead cylindrical

XXV 2floor

2468

Scaraboids, dark brown,winged sun and crescent (?)

XXV 2floor

251

V V

VI

Pucci-Catalogue of Objects from Tell Tayinat Potsherd with filled triangle

XXV 2floor

2470

Glazed steatite scarab, geometric impression

XXV 2floor

2481

Potsherd painted

XXV 2floor

2482

Potsherd painted

XXV 2floor

2484

Bone ring, polished

XXV 2floor

2485

Stone box, fragment

XXV 2floor

2486

Stone censer, frag., lotus

XXV 2floor

2489

Bronze crescent with one perforation

XXV 2floor

2490

Pottery figurine, horses head with trappings, frag (appliques)

XXV 2floor

2491

Clay sealing with impression

XXV 2floor

2492

Steatite scaraboids, uninscribed, grey green

XXV 2floor

2493

Bronze pin, rolled head

XXV 2floor

2494

Bronze needle, eye is formed by head being bent over and tucked XXV 2floor

2495

Beads, 2

XXV 2floor

2496

Frit scarab, animal impression

XXV 2floor

2578

Beads

XXV 2floor

2579

Frit scarab, animal impression

XXV 2floor

2584

Basalt fragment, with pictographs

W trench over taboucs, XXV below surface

2469

2597

Steatite stamp seal dark green conoid oval base. Figure in belted r XXV-2

2670

Painted rim potsherd

XXV 2floor (plastered bldg)

2723

Sherd with stamp impression

XXV 2floor

2999

Bowl, Red slipped inside and over edge

XXV, 2floor

3162

Double angle bowl

XXV, 2floor

Description

Location

T2431

Stone stamp seal, hawk or eagle handle, inverted lions in unilinea XXV-A, 2nd floor

2432

Stone object cylindrical

XXV-A, 2floor

Description

Location

Bone spindle whorl, incised decoration

Floor, I-U. 2

T658

Room

VI/a

Room

VI/e

Building

VII

Room T-

Description

Location

1003

Bronze button

FloorXVII-2

1004

Scaraboid, serpentine,combat of animals

Floor,XVII-2

1040

Fragment of Hittite inscription

XVII-2

1044

Gold bead

Floor,XVII-2

1135

Pottery gaming piece

Floor, XVII, 2

Description

Location

1006

Scaraboid red stone, seating figure

XVII, Between paving 1 and 2

2321

Steatite stamp seal, dark green stud, trilateral base, notches on ed XVII, 1st (card)

Room T-

Room T-

Description

Location

981

Horse head, fragment of figurine

Floor,XVII-1

2002

Cornelian head

XVII under 1st floor

2003

Bronze needle with eye. Head flattened slightly and slit to form p XVII under 1st floor

2004

Stone object

XVII under 1st floor

2005

Bone disc

XVII under 1st floor

2006

Bone handle, concentric incised circle ornament, perforated

XVII under 1st floor

2007

Head of polished bone pin. Incised decoration with a herring bon XVII under 1st floor

2008

Bluish glass head

XVII under 1st floor

2013

Eye head, incomplete

XVII, under 1st floor

252

VII/A

VII/C

Pucci-Catalogue of Objects from Tell Tayinat 2014

XVII, under 1st floor

Scaraboid, serpentine, illegible

2015

White frit cylinder seal. Drill technique. Single line border, guillo XVII, under 1st floor

2016

2 small blue frit beads

XVII, under 1st floor

2017

Bronze head, pendant

XVII, under 1st floor

2018

Blue frit head, elliptical, decorated

XVII, under 1st floor

2019

Spherical cornelian head

XVII, under 1st floor

2020

Buff ware leg amulet, with perforation

XVII, under 1st floor

2024

Whitestone head (bead)

XVII, under 1st floor

2025

Stone pendant

XVII, under 1st floor

2026

Glass barrel (b/h)ead

XVII, under 1st floor

2027

Bone object, polished, both ends broken off, decorated with four

XVII, under 1st floor

2030

Scaraboid, steatite, animal impression

XVII, under 1st floor

2031

Steatite stamp seal, rectangular with stud handle, unfinished pierc XVII, under 1st floor

2032

Rough bone pin. Uncompleted

XVII, under 1st floor

2041

Stamp seal(?), steatite, pyramidal, one face bock

XVII, under 1st floor

2042

Fibula bow, bronze, i., the middle of the bow is flattened and thic XVII, under 1st floor

2046

Iron, curved blade, hilt broadens and then tapers off to a point..

2047

Stamp seal, light steatite, pyramidal, grey, linear polypedal anima XVII, street under 2nd fortification

2048

Beads, glass and blue frit (9)

XVII, street under 2nd fortification

2049

Scarab, fired steatite, guilloche motif on bottom, w

XVII, street under 2nd fortification

2050

Beads, blue frit, 10 small, w

XVII, street under 2nd fortification

2066

Flat eye bead

XVII, 1stfloor

2067

Blue frit bead, barrel

XVII, 1stfloor

Description

Location

839

Cylinder seal, hematite

XVII 10cm above sculpture paving

XVII, street under 2nd fortification

Room T982

Bronze arrow point

Floor,XVII-1

1253

Limestone orthostat

From innergate E; VII

1254

Limestone orthostat

From innergate E; VII

1255

Limestone orthostat

From innergate E VII

1256

Limestone orthostat

From innergate E VII

1257

Limestone orthostat

From innergate E; VII

1258

Limestone orthostat

From innergate E; VII

1260

Statue fragments of great god, basalt, with inscription

XVII, used in 1st pavement

Description

Location

Room T2033

Gold pendant, circular disk of gold leaf, simple repouseeé design, XVII, 2nd alongside fortification walls

2034

Bead, blue frit, small and grooved

2035

Bronze projectile point, head is lanceolate in shape. End of blade XVII, 2ndalongside fortification walls

VII/E

XVII, 2ndalongside fortification walls

XVII, 2ndalongside fortification walls

2036

Gaming piece?, steatite, small conical, w

2037

Two links fastened together bow-wise. Maybe a chain link, iron t XVII, 2ndalongside fortification walls

2038

Bone point, polished, concentric circle ornament

XVII, 2ndalongside fortification walls

2039

Bead, serpentine long cylinder, w

XVII, 2ndalongside fortification walls

2040

Joggle, steatite w.

XVII, 2ndalongside fortification walls

2051

Anthropomorphic pot, mother goddess type, I

XVII, along 2nd fortification stones

2052

Kohl box, sandstone fire blackened, one hole, w

XVII, along 2nd fortification stones

2053

Pot, bowl, brittle red washed ware of fed. X

XVII, along 2nd fortification stones

Building Room T-

VII/D

Description

Location

894

Cylinder seal; frit, compost, once glazed. Archer and snake

Floor, XVIII

996

Foot of animal, pottery

Floor, XVIII, 1

1016

Fragment of cylinder seal

Floor,XVIII-1

253

VIII

Pucci-Catalogue of Objects from Tell Tayinat 2327

Bronze pin

XXIII, 2ndfloor

2328

Bronze nail head

XXIII, 2ndfloor

2329

Eye head

XXIII 2ndfloor

2330

Basalt duck weight

XXIII 2ndfloor

2722

Bronze sphinx, crouched, perforated

XXIII, under surf.

2978

Bronze 2 pointed object with perforation in the middle where it b XVIII 2floor

2979

Fragment of stone disc with incised decoration

XVIII 2floor

Description

Location

697

Basalt bowl, 3-legged

Floor, T.P., 1

706

3u-shaped iron bands with hooks at ends

Floor, T.P., 1

707

Cylinder seal, yellow frit. Compost once glazed

Floor, T.P., 1

708

Fragment of large pot, elaborated incised decoration

Floor, T.P. 1

709

Seal impression on bulla

Floor, T.P. 1

710

Small painted pot

Floor, T.P. 1

728

Bronze fibula

Floor, T.P.-1

729

Sealing with seal impression

Floor,T.P.-1

731

Fragment of ring

Floor,T.P.-1

736

Seal, black stone, roll seal and stamp seal

Floor,T.P.-1

737

Cylinder seal, agate, with fish goddess with streams. Central grou Floor,T.P.-1

738

Scaraboid, yellow frit, compost once glazed

Floor,T.P.-1

742

Stamp seal, steatite; hourglass shape. Double stamp

Floor,T.P.-1

770

Bone handle, incised decoration

Floor,T.P.-1

771

Glazed Assyrian potsherd

Floor,T.P.-1

792

Pot stand

Floor, T.P. 1

906

Scaraboid, red jasper, birds under a tree

Floor, T.P. 1

1012

Piece of gold foil

Floor, T.P.- 2

1013

Head of figurine

Floor, T.P. – 2

1014

Head of figurine

Floor, T.P. – 2

1032

Animal figurine, fragment

Floor, T.P., 2

1152

Bead large clay

Floor, T.P., 6

T-

Description

Location

stone fragment, carved

#14

115

Bead, amber(?), cylindrical, w

# 14 E

167

Lamp fragment, pierced, i

#14,E,above orthostats

364

Weight black basalt large turtle shape

I-V. in one group.

365

Weight black basalt, duck shape

I-V. in one group.

366

Weight, pottery, douglenut shape

I-V. in one group.

367

Weight, pottery, douglenut shape

I-V. in one group.

368

Weight, pottery, douglenut shape

I-V. in one group.

369

Weight, pottery, douglenut shape

I-V. in one group.

370

Weight, pottery, douglenut shape

I-V. in one group.

371

Weight, pottery, douglenut shape

I-V. in one group.

372

Weight, pottery, douglenut shape

I-V. in one group.

373

Weight, pottery, cone shape, perforated

I-V. in one group.

663

5 loom weights

I-V level of high brick pavement

664

Basalt duck weight

I-V level of high brick pavement

T-

90

Room

VIII/g-18

Room

VIII/V

Building Room T-

Description

Location

3037

White marble (?) censer with lion's head. Head faces inward, rim T2, 1 floor

3038

Bronze nail with head as a large flat disc

T2, 1floor

254

XIII

Pucci-Catalogue of Objects from Tell Tayinat 3039

Bronze nail, head as a flat large disc

T2, 1floor

3040

Bronze nail, head is semicircular, flattened

T2, 1floor

3041

Bronze plate armour with holes

T2, 1floor

3042

White faience disc bead

T2, 1floor

3043

Dark bluegrass eye bead

T2, 1floor

3044

Tan glass eye bead

T2, 1floor

3045

Mottled round white glass bead

T2, 1floor

3046

Hematite long black pendant

T2, 1floor

3047

Stone fragment, perforated, disk like, inscribed (stamp seal, card) T2, 1floor

3048

Bone disc

T2, 1floor

3049

Bronze earring, it forms a small open spiral

T2, 1floor

3050

Bronze fibula bow. The bend is fairly sharp, approaching a right

T2, 1 floor

3063

Buff ware horse painted

T2, 1floor

3064

Red slipped pottery figurine, pinched face, stub arms

T2, 1floor

3065

Bone rectangle

T2, 1floor

3066

Bone inlay, diamond shaped

T2, 1floor

3067

Pottery head of figurine, Jed VII type, with blob decoration, i

T2, 1floor

3068

Scaraboid, steatite, grey green, crude skratches on back, design u T2, 1floor

3069

Steatite stamp seal, head broken off, dark green, man on animal (l T2, 1floor

3070

Whitestone eye inlay

T2, 1floor

3071

Grey glass bead, white spirals

T2, 1floor

3072

Brown glass scrabble bead

T2, 1floor

3073

Bronze implement, awl shape

T2, 1floor

3074

Bronze pin with hooked head

T2, 1floor

3075

Bronze pin with hooked head

T2, 1floor

3076

Rim fragment of stone censer, showing embossed fingers on outsi T2, 1floor

3079

Blue frit scarab, impression with eagle and lotus (?), egyptian

T2, 1stfloor

3089

Stone plaque, incised decoration, perforated

T2, 1floor

3090

Glass horned eye bead, black and white

T2, 1floor

3091

Steatite stamp seal, perforated

T2, 1 floor

3092

Stone toggle

T2, 1floor

3093

Stone Celt, perforated

T2, 1floor

3094

Bronze ring

T2, 1floor

3095

Pottery, head of animal figurine, horse(?)

T2, 1floor

3096

Fragment white stone eye inlay

T2, 1floor

3097

White scaraboids stamp, broken, geometric pattern

T2, 1floor

3098

Bone object, rod cut in half

T2, 1floor

3099

Bone object, rod cut in half

T2, 1floor

3118

Bone awl unperforated

T2, 1floor

3119

Bone awl unperforated

T2, 1floor

3120

Bone inlay, rectangle

T2, 1floor

3121

Clay figurine, appliques, decorated with blobs

T2, 1floor

3122

Clay head of figurine, pinched face

T2, 1floor

3123

Glass fragment bowl

T2, 1floor

3124

Cornelian bead

T2, 1 floor

3125

Blue frit barrel bead, milled

T2, 1floor

3126

Yellow faience bead, cylinder

T2, 1floor

3127

Bone disc

T2, 1floor

3128

Stone object, rectangular, one end partially perforated

T2, 1floor

3132

Stone object, perforated and grooved (tool sharpener?)

T2, 1floor

3133

Stone object, perforated and grooved (tool sharpener?)

T2, 1floor

3134

Cosmetic box, incised decoration

T2, 1floor

255

Pucci-Catalogue of Objects from Tell Tayinat 3135

Stonewall hematite, weight

T2, 1floor

3136

Clay sealing, animal (stamp seal impression)

T2, 1floor

3137

Bone inlay, rectangle

T2, 1floor

3138

Alabaster stamp seal, domed, animals (bock, scorpion)

T2, 1floor

3139

Glass bead, medial white line

T2, 1floor

3140

White frit bead

T2, 1floor

3141

Cornelian button bead, un-perforated

T2, 1floor

3147

Bronze ring

T2, 1floor

3148

Steatite stamp seal, unfinished and broken, illegible

T2, 1floor

3149

Glass bead spot decoration

T2, 1floor

3150

White spherical stone bead

T2, 1floor

3151

Bone awl, point broken off

T2, 1floor

3152

Solid wooden handle, grooved, incised rosette design on end, con T2, 1floor

3176

Bone blade, broken

T2, 1floor

3177

Bone pin

T2, 1floor

3178

Bone handle cylindrical broken

T2, 1floor

3179

Bone head of pin, decorated with 3 incised grooves at right angle T2, 1floor

3180

Re-worked potsherd, perforated

T2, 1floor

3181

Stone bead

T2, 1floor

3182

Stone spindle whorl

T2, 1floor

3183

Stone spindle whorl, double

T2, 1floor

3184

Pottery figurine, broken, pinched face

T2, 1floor

3185

Pottery figurine, quadruped

T2, 1floor

3186

Stone censer fragment

T2, 1floor

3187

Steatite stamp seal, broken, green, stud, four pointed star

T2, 1floor

3188

Red jasper bead

T2, 1floor

3189

Frit bead

T2, 1floor

3190

Bronze pin

T2, 1floor

3199

Cornelian bead

T2, 1floor

3200

Bronze projectile point, head is oblong shape, two winged with a T2, 1floor

3201

Quartz bead

T2, 1floor

3202

Lead object, crescent shape

T2, 1floor

3203

Red jasper bead

T2, 1floor

3204

Green glazed faience bead

T2, 1floor

3205

Bronze pin, head rounded nail-like. Pin is perforated near head en T2, 1floor

3271

Iron helmet

T2, 1m

Building

XIV

Room T-

Description

Location

1055

Taggle, marble or limestone

I- Room W of L. 3

3107

Steatite stamp seal, dark green, stalk, roughly bezelled, quadrilate XXVI N, under 3 floor

3160

Sub Mycenaean cup

XXVI N, 1stfloor

3161

Spouted jug

XXVI N, 1stfloor

3268

Stone eye inlay

XXVI, above 1st pavement

T-

Description

Location

988

T952

Room

XIV/mm

Room

XIVmm

Stamp seal, steatite, stalk perforated. Rectangular base: in single l Floor, I-mm, 2

Description

Location

Stone eye inlay

I, mm-3

Building Room T-

Description

256

Location

XV

Pucci-Catalogue of Objects from Tell Tayinat 717

Pot

Backed brick paving, I-U

2518

Steatite stamp seal, dark green, stud, oval

XXV-2-3

2645

Steatite stamp seal, grey-green, stud, base quadrilateral, seated m XXV-2-3

2905

Steatite stamp seal, grey-green, gabled, quadrilateral base, stag-li XXV-3

2934

Steatite stamp seal, dark green, stalk, circular base, solar or floral XXV-S-2-3M

2935

Olivine stamp seal, scaraboid (lion), oval impression, animal

XXV S, 2-3M

2965

Steatite stamp seal, dark green, high ridged back-poorly made, un XXV-S-2-3

2996

Red slipped platter like bowl

XXV, 3floor

Description

Location

Bronze needle, perforated

XXV 1floor

Room T2381

Building Room T-

Description

Location

2059

Clay stone stamp seal, yellow, stud, in form of fist, circular base

XXI, 1stfloor

2060

Buff ware figurine, anthropomorphic, headless, trace of shield? o XXI, 1stfloor

2061

Simple double angle bowl

XXI, 1stfloor

2091

Buff ware head with painted decoration. Pinched nose, blob eyes, XXI, 1

2102

Bone pin, decorated head with incised grooves so as to set severa XXI, 2ndfloor

2103

Potsherd, Greek geometric

XXI, 2ndfloor

2104

Cosmetic box, 5 holes, one side decorated

XXI, 2ndfloor

257

XV/a?

XXI r-18