“Waššukanni, Urkiš, Šubat-Enlil. Ein Beitrag zur historischen Geographie des nördlichen Zweistromlandes,”
MDOG 90, pp. 22-35.
See full text
The author reports firstly in this paper the history of the excavations undertaken mostly at Tell Halaf, Chagar Bazar, Tell Brak, Tell Sheik Hamad, Abu Bekr, Tell Fekheriye, Tell Khuera and Tell Ailun (other surveys are also reported on p. 24, including Tell Qabr-el-Kebir, Qabr-es-Seghir, Abu Rasain, cAin-elcAbd, Segar Tahtani, Segar Foqani, Nabhane, Chass and Tell Ailun). The main textual sources (including trade lists of toponyms) are recalled, stressing the importance of these texts for a reconstruction of the actual geographical situation of the Khabur area.
The pottery found in the area is then briefly described (p. 26) and the most relevant uncovered structures are described. Among the other important Mittanian city, the author recalls how the capital city, Waššukanni, is still only textually attested, but no archaeologically investigated, so far; therefore, a possible, alleged location is advanced, basing on both textual data and archaeological evidence (mostly, ceramics).
Urkesh is specifically taken into account from p. 28 onwards, where the author quotes it as one of the cities mentioned in Old Babylonian itineraries (for which see mostly Parrot and Nougayrol 1948, Gelb 1956 and Hallo 1964).
The city is then described, according to its major finds (the two lion-shaped pegs of Tish-atal, the inscription of Arisen and later mythological texts), as a Hurrian important town, stressing the link with the city centre with the cult of god Kumarbi.
Afterwards, the author moves to discuss the topic of Hurrian art and the identity of local craftsmen, stressing the peculiar location of Urkesh among the landscape described in the Old Babylonian itineraries.
All the second half of the paper (pp. 29-35) represents an effort to reconstruct the actual geographical milieu of the Khabur area between the third and the second millennium BC; at the end, the importance of Urkesh is reassumed: “Dazu ist folgendes zu sagen: Urkiš war, stimmt man den hier Dargelegten Ausführungen zu, ein bedeutender churrischer Mittelpunkt, der Hauptkultor des Gottes Kumarbi” (p. 34).
[It is noteworthy to remember that this paper, and many others on the same topic, have been presented before the first consistent archaeological excavations at Urkesh, in 1984. Therefore, all the assumptions and suggestions here, and elsewhere, presented have to be regarded as theoretical speculations, mostly based on textual analysis. Luckily, many of these speculations turned to be verified after proper archaeological excavations].
Back to top: Barthel Hrouda 1958