Hubbry Logo
Tell BrakTell BrakMain
Open search
Tell Brak
Community hub
Tell Brak
logo
8 pages, 0 posts
0 subscribers
Be the first to start a discussion here.
Be the first to start a discussion here.
Tell Brak
Tell Brak
from Wikipedia

Tell Brak (Nagar, Nawar) was an ancient city in Syria; it is one the earliest known cities in the world.[3] Its remains constitute a tell located in the Upper Khabur region, near the modern village of Tell Brak, 50 kilometers north-east of Al-Hasaka city, Al-Hasakah Governorate. The city's original name is unknown. During the second half of the third millennium BC, the city was known as Nagar and later on, Nawar.

Key Information

Starting as a small settlement in the seventh millennium BC, Tell Brak's urbanization began in the late 5th millennium BCE and evolved during the fourth millennium BC into one of the biggest cities in Upper Mesopotamia, and interacted with the cultures of southern Mesopotamia.[4][5] The city shrank in size at the beginning of the third millennium BC with the end of Uruk period, before expanding again around 2600 BC, when it became known as Nagar, and was the capital of a regional kingdom that controlled the Khabur river valley. Nagar was destroyed around 2300 BC, and came under the rule of the Akkadian Empire, followed by a period of independence as a Hurrian city-state, before contracting at the beginning of the second millennium BC. Nagar prospered again by the 19th century BC, and came under the rule of different regional powers. In c. 1500 BC, Tell Brak was a center of Mitanni before being destroyed by Assyria around 1300 BC. The city never regained its former importance, remaining as a small settlement, and abandoned at some points of its history, until disappearing from records during the early Abbasid era.

Different peoples inhabited the city, including the Halafians, Semites and the Hurrians. Tell Brak was a religious center from its earliest periods; its famous Eye Temple is unique in the Fertile Crescent, and its main deity, Belet Nagar, was revered in the entire Khabur region, making the city a pilgrimage site. The culture of Tell Brak was defined by the different civilizations that inhabited it, and it was famous for its glyptic style, equids and glass. When independent, the city was ruled by a local assembly or by a monarch. Tell Brak was a trade center due to its location between Anatolia, the Levant and southern Mesopotamia. It was excavated by Max Mallowan in 1937, then regularly by different teams between 1979 and 2011, when the work stopped due to the Syrian Civil War.

Name

[edit]
General view of Tell Brak

The original name of the city is unknown;[6] Tell Brak is the current name of the tell.[7] East of the mound lies a dried lake named "Khatuniah" which was recorded as "Lacus Beberaci" (the lake of Brak) in the Roman map Tabula Peutingeriana.[8] The lake was probably named after Tell Brak which was the nearest camp in the area.[9] The name "Brak" might therefore be an echo of the most ancient name.[8]

Map of the Khabur Basin during the Bronze Age showing the location of Tell Brak and Urkesh (Tell Mosan)

During the third millennium BC, the city was known as "Nagar", which might be of Semitic origin and mean a "cultivated place".[10] The name "Nagar" ceased occurring following the Old Babylonian period,[11][12] however, the city continued to exist as Nawar, under the control of Hurrian state of Mitanni.[13][14] Hurrian kings of Urkesh took the title "King of Urkesh and Nawar" in the third millennium BC.

Alternative theories

[edit]

Although there is general view that the third millennium BC Nawar is identical with Nagar,[15] some scholars, such as Jesper Eidem, doubt this.[16] Those scholars opt for a city closer to Urkesh which was also called Nawala/Nabula as the intended Nawar.[16]

History

[edit]
Dates (BC) Brak period Period designation in northern Mesopotamia
6500–5900 A Proto-Hassuna/Pre-Halaf (Samarra-related)
5900–5200 B Halaf
5200–4400 C Northern Ubaid
4400–4200 D Terminal Ubaid/Late Chalcolithic 1/LC1
4200–3900 E Northern Early Uruk/Late Chalcolithic 2/LC2
3900–3600 F Northern Middle Uruk/Late Chalcolithic 3/LC3
3600–3200 Northern Middle Uruk/Late Chalcolithic 4/LC4
3200–3000 G Northern Middle Uruk/Late Chalcolithic 5/LC5
3000–2900 H Post-Uruk
2900–2600 J Ninevite 5
2600–2400 K
2400–2300 L Post-Ninevite 5
2300–2100 M Akkadian
2100–2000 N Post-Akkadian
2000–1850 Middle Bronze I
1850–1500 P Middle Bronze II/Khabur
1500–1275 Q Mitanni
1275–900 R Middle Assyrian
 
900–600 S Neo-Assyrian/Iron II
600–330 Post-Assyrian
320–150 Seleuicid/Hellenistic
150–224 T Parthian/Roman

Early settlement

[edit]

In Brak Period A (c. 6500–5900 BC), the earliest small settlement is dated to the proto Halaf culture c. 6500 BC.[17] Many objects dated to that period were discovered including the Halaf pottery.[18]

In Brak Period B (c. 5900–5200 BC), the Halaf Culture [19] Halaf culture transformed into Period C (c. 5200–4400 BC) Northern Ubaid,[20] and many Ubaid materials were found in Tell Brak.[21] Excavations and surface survey of the site and its surroundings, unearthed a large platform of patzen bricks that dates to late Ubaid,[note 1][21] and revealed that Tell Brak developed as an urban center slightly earlier than better known cities of southern Mesopotamia, such as Uruk.[23][24]

Late Chalcolithic

[edit]

The first city

[edit]
Eye figurines from the Eye Temple.

In southern Mesopotamia, the original Ubaid culture evolved into the Uruk period.[25] The people of the southern Uruk period used military and commercial means to expand the civilization.[26] In Northern Mesopotamia, the post Ubaid period is designated Late Chalcolithic / Northern Uruk period,[27] during which, Tell Brak started to expand.[21]

Brak Period E

[edit]

Tell Brak Period E (c. 4200–3900 BC; Late Chalcolithic 2; Northern Early Uruk Period) witnessed the building of the City's Walls,[28] and expansion beyond the mound to form a Lower Town,[21] becoming a proto-urban city with a size of c. 55 hectares.[29]

Comparison can be made with Hamoukar in LC1-2 period, where the early urban settlement has been described as "a vast low or flat scatter of pottery and obsidian".[30] The population density at both settlements was very low at that stage, so they appeared more like a scattering of various small sites in the same area: "... new indicators of social complexity appeared simultaneously with dramatic settlement expansion at Brak and Khirbat al-Fakhar [Hamoukar], although not in the form known from later periods of northern Mesopotamian history. Both were extensive "proto-urban" settlements of low or variable density, with few other parallels elsewhere in the Near East."[30] Another example is, Khirbat al-Fakhar already reached a massive size of 300 ha, or larger than the contemporary Uruk, itself.[30]

Area TW of the tell (Archaeologists divided Tell Brak into areas designated with Alphabetic letters.[31] See the map for Tell Brak's areas) revealed the remains of a monumental building with two meters thick walls and a basalt threshold.[32] In front of the building, a sherd paved street was discovered, leading to the northern entrance of the city.[32] Area TW covered an area of nearly 600 square meters up to a depth of 10 meters.[33] A number of beveled rim bowls diagnostic of the Uruk period were found in the TW area.[34][35]

Brak Period F

[edit]

Tell Brak Period F can be subdivided into two phases early (c. 3800–3600 BC; Late Chaltolihic 3) and late (c. 3600–3000 BC; Late Chaltolihic 4).

In the Early Brak Period F (c. 3800–3600 BC; LC3), the early city-state continued to expand and reached the size of 130 hectares.[36] Four mass graves, mainly sub-adults and young adults were discovered in the submound, Tell Majnuna (built entirely of rubbish over two centuries), north of the main tell, and they suggest that the process of urbanization was accompanied by internal social stress, and an increase in the organization of warfare.[37][38] The first half of period F (designated LC3), saw the erection of the Eye Temple,[note 2][36] which was named for the thousands of small alabaster "Eye idols" and "Spectacle-topped idols" figurines discovered in it.[note 3][44] Those idols were also found in area TW.[45]

In Late Brak Period F (c. 3600–3000 BC; LC4) interatction with Southern Mesopotamia increased,[46] and an Urukean colony was established in the city.[47][48] With the end of Uruk culture c 3000 BC, Tell Brak's Urukean colony was abandoned and deliberately leveled by its occupants.[49][50]

Brak Period G & H

[edit]

The Brak Period G (c. 3200–3000 BC; LC5), saw the site contracting during the following periods H and J, and became limited to the mound.[51] In the Brak Period H (c. 3000–2900 BC; Post-Uruk), evidence exists for an interaction with the Mesopotamian south, represented by the existence of materials similar to the ones produced during the southern Jemdet Nasr period.[52]

Early Bronze

[edit]

Brak Period J & K

[edit]

During the Brak Period J (2900–2600 BC) and K (2600–2400 BC) the city remained a small settlement during the Ninevite 5 period, with a small temple and associated sealing activities.[note 4][51]

Kingdom of Nagar

[edit]

Around c. 2600 BC, a large administrative building was built and the city expanded out of the tell again.[51] The revival is connected with the Kish civilization,[57] and the city was named "Nagar".[58] Amongst the important buildings dated to the kingdom, is an administrative building or temple named the "Brak Oval",[59] located in area TC.[60] The building had a curved exterior wall reminiscent of the Khafajah "Oval Temple" in central Mesopotamia.[61] However, aside from the wall, the comparison between the two buildings in terms of architecture is difficult, as each building follows a different plan.[62]

The oldest references to Nagar comes from Mari and tablets discovered at Nabada.[63] However, the most important source on Nagar comes from the archives of Ebla.[64] Most of the texts record the ruler of Nagar using his title "En", without mentioning a name.[63][64] However a text from Ebla mentions Mara-Il, a king of Nagar;[63] thus, he is the only ruler known by name for pre-Akkadian Nagar and ruled a little more than a generation before the kingdom's destruction.[65]

At its height, Nagar encompassed most of the southwestern half of the Khabur Basin,[65] and was a diplomatic and political equal of the Eblaite and Mariote states.[66] The kingdom included at least 17 subordinate cities,[67] such as Hazna,[68] and most importantly Nabada, which was a city-state annexed by Nagar,[69] and served as a provincial capital.[70] Nagar was involved in the wide diplomatic network of Ebla,[57] and the relations between the two kingdoms involved both confrontations and alliances.[64] A text from Ebla mentions a victory of Ebla's king (perhaps Irkab-Damu) over Nagar.[64] However, a few years later, a treaty was concluded, and the relations progressed toward a dynastic marriage between princess Tagrish-Damu of Ebla, and prince Ultum-Huhu, Nagar's monarch's son.[10][64]

Nagar was defeated by Mari in year seven of the Eblaite vizier Ibrium's term, causing the blockage of trade routes between Ebla and southern Mesopotamia via upper Mesopotamia.[71] Later, Ebla's king Isar-Damu concluded an alliance with Nagar and Kish against Mari,[72] and the campaign was headed by the Eblaite vizier Ibbi-Sipish, who led the combined armies to victory in a battle near Terqa.[73] Afterwards, the alliance attacked the rebellious Eblaite vassal city of Armi.[74] Ebla was destroyed approximately three years after Terqa's battle,[75] and soon after, Nagar followed in c. 2300 BC.[76] Large parts of the city were burned, an act attributed either to Mari,[77] or Sargon of Akkad.[78]

Akkadian period

[edit]
Palace of Naram-Sin.

Following its destruction, Nagar was rebuilt by the Akkadian empire, to form a center of the provincial administration.[79] The city included the whole tell and a lower town at the southern edge of the mound.[58] Two public buildings were built during the early Akkadian periods, one complex in area SS,[79] and another in area FS.[80] The building of area FS included its own temple and might have served as a caravanserai, being located near the northern gate of the city.[81] The temple was dedicated to the god Šamagan, god of animals of the steppe.[82] The early Akkadian monarchs were occupied with internal conflicts,[83] and Tell Brak was temporarily abandoned by Akkad at some point preceding the reign of Naram-Sin.[note 5][86] The abandonment might be connected with an environmental event, that caused the desertification of the region.[86]

The destruction of Nagar's kingdom created a power vacuum in the Upper Khabur.[87] The Hurrians, formerly concentrated in Urkesh,[88] took advantage of the situation to control the region as early as Sargon's latter years.[87] Tell Brak was known as "Nawar" for the Hurrians,[89] and kings of Urkesh took the title "King of Urkesh and Nawar", first attested in the seal of Urkesh's king Atal-Shen.[15][90]

The use of the title continued during the reigns of Atal-Shen's successors, Tupkish and Tish-Atal,[88][91] who ruled only in Urkesh.[89] The Akkadians under Naram-Sin incorporated Nagar firmly into their empire.[92] The most important Akkadian building in the city is called the "Palace of Naram-Sin",[note 6][92] which had parts of it built over the original Eye Temple.[93][94] Despite its name, the palace is closer to a fortress,[92] as it was more of a fortified depot for the storage of collected tribute rather than a residential seat.[95][96] The palace was burned during Naram-Sin's reign, perhaps by a Lullubi attack,[78] and the city was burned toward the end of the Akkadian period c. 2193 BC, probably by the Gutians.[78]

Post-Akkadian kingdom

[edit]

In Brak Period N,[97] the Fall of the Akkadian Empire (c. 2154 BC), saw Nagar becoming a center of an independent Hurrian dynasty,[98] evidenced by the discovery of a seal, recording the name of king Talpus-Atili of Nagar,[99] who ruled during or slightly after the reign of Shar-Kali-Sharri (r. 2217–2193 BC).[100]

Ur III Dynasty?

[edit]

The view that Tell Brak came under the control of Ur III is refused,[note 7][102] and evidence exists for a Hurrian rebuilding of Naram-Sin's palace, erroneously attributed by Max Mallowan to Ur-Nammu of Ur.[103] Period N saw a reduction in the city's size, with public buildings being abandoned, and the lower town evacuated.[104] Few short lived houses were built in area CH during period N,[104] and although greatly reduced in size, archaeology provided evidence for continued occupation in the city, instead of abandonment.[note 8][108]

Middle Bronze

[edit]

Mari Period

[edit]
Domination of Khabur area by Mari in the eighteenth century BC. The kingdom of Andarig was also important at that time.

During Brak Period P (c. 1820–1550 BC; MB II), Nagar was densely populated in the northern ridge of the tell.[109] The city came under the rule of Mari,[110] and was the site of a decisive victory won by Yahdun-Lim of Mari over Shamshi-Adad I of Assyria.[111] Nagar lost its importance and came under the rule of Kahat in the 18th century BC.[12]

Late Bronze

[edit]

Mitanni Period

[edit]
The Mitannian palace.

During period Q, Tell Brak was an important trade city in the Mitanni state.[112] A two-story palace was built c. 1500 BC in the northern section of the tell,[109][113] in addition to an associated temple.[114] However, the rest of the tell was not occupied, and a lower town extended to the north but is now all but destroyed through modern agriculture.[115] Two Mitannian legal documents, bearing the names of kings Artashumara and Tushratta (c. 1380–1345 BC), were recovered from the city.[116]

Assyrian period

[edit]

Following the death of king Tushratta, the Mitanni Empire collapsed. In the west the Hittites came and created a vassal buffer state in the region of Hanigalbat, while the Assyrians later took territory from the east. Tell Brak was destroyed between c.1300 and 1275 BC,[115] in two waves, first at the hands of the Assyrian king Adad-Nirari I (r. 1305–1274 BC), then by his successor Shalmaneser I.[117]

Iron Age

[edit]

Little evidence of an occupation on the tell exists following the destruction of the Mitannian city, however, a series of small villages existed in the lower town during the Assyrian periods.[118] The remains of a Hellenistic settlement were discovered on a nearby satellite tell, to the northwestern edge of the main tell.[118] However, excavations recovered no ceramics of the Parthian-Roman or Byzantine-Sasanian periods, although sherds dating to those periods are noted.[118] In the middle of the first millennium AD, a fortified building was erected in the northeastern lower town.[118] The building was dated by Antoine Poidebard to the Justinian era (sixth century AD), on the basis of its architecture.[118] The last occupation period of the site was during the early Abbasid Caliphate's period,[119] when a canal was built to provide the town with water from the nearby Jaghjagh River.[118]

Society

[edit]

People and language

[edit]

The Halafians were the indigenous people of Neolithic northern Syria,[note 9][121] who later adopted the southern Ubaidian culture.[20] Contact with the Mesopotamian south increased during the early and middle Northern Uruk period,[39] and southern people moved to Tell Brak in the late Uruk period,[122] forming a colony, which produced a mixed society.[52] The Urukean colony was abandoned by the colonists toward the end of the fourth millennium BC, leaving the indigenous Tell Brak a much contracted city.[123][124] The pre-Akkadian kingdom's population was Semitic,[125] and spoke its own East Semitic dialect of the Eblaite language used in Ebla and Mari.[126] The Nagarite dialect is closer to the dialect of Mari rather than that of Ebla.[70]

No Hurrian names are recorded in the pre-Akkadian period,[83][127] although the name of prince Ultum-Huhu is difficult to understand as Semitic.[128] During the Akkadian period, both Semitic and Hurrian names were recorded,[80][125] as the Hurrians appear to have taken advantage of the power vacuum caused by the destruction of the pre-Akkadian kingdom, in order to migrate and expand in the region.[87] The post-Akkadian period Tell Brak had a strong Hurrian element,[129] and Hurrian named rulers,[125] although the region was also inhabited by Amorite tribes.[130] A number of the Amorite Yaminite tribes settled the surroundings of Tell Brak during the reign of Zimri-Lim of Mari,[130] and each group used its own language (Hurrian and Amorite languages).[130] Tell Brak was a center of the Hurrian-Mitannian empire,[116] which had Hurrian as its official language.[131] However, Akkadian was the region's international language, evidenced by the post-Akkadian and Mitannian eras tablets,[132][133] discovered at Tell Brak and written in Akkadian.[134]

Religion

[edit]
Tell Brak Eye idols

The findings in the Eye Temple indicate that Tell Brak is among the earliest sites of organized religion in northern Mesopotamia.[135] It is unknown to which deity the Eye Temple was dedicated,[6] and the "Eyes" figurines appears to be votive offerings to that unknown deity.[39] The temple was probably dedicated for the Sumerian Innana or the Semitic Ishtar; Michel Meslin hypothesized that the "Eyes" figurines were a representation of an all-seeing female deity.[136]

During the pre-Akkadian kingdom's era, Hazna, an old cultic center of northern Syria, served as a pilgrimage center for Nagar.[137] The Eye Temple remained in use,[138] but as a small shrine,[139] while the goddess Belet Nagar became the kingdom's paramount deity.[note 10][138] The temple of Belet Nagar is not identified but probably lies beneath the Mitannian palace.[109] The Eblaite deity Kura was also venerated in Nagar,[128] and the monarchs are attested visiting the temple of the Semitic deity Dagon in Tuttul.[64] During the Akkadian period, the temple in area FS was dedicated to the Sumerian god Shakkan, the patron of animals and countrysides.[81][142][143] Tell Brak was an important religious Hurrian center,[144] and the temple of Belet Nagar retained its cultic importance in the entire region until the early second millennium BC.[note 11][10]

Culture

[edit]
Area TW

Northern Mesopotamia evolved independently from the south during the Late Chalcolithic / early and middle Northern Uruk (4000–3500 BC).[47] This period was characterized by a strong emphasis on holy sites,[146] among which, the Eye Temple was the most important in Tell Brak.[147] The building containing "Eyes" idols in area TW was wood paneled, whose main room had been lined with wooden panels.[36] The building also contained the earliest known semi columned facade, which is a character that will be associated with temples in later periods.[36]

By late Northern Uruk and especially after 3200 BC, northern Mesopotamia came under the full cultural dominance of the southern Uruk culture,[47] which affected Tell Brak's architecture and administration.[122] The southern influence is most obvious in the level named the "Latest Jemdet Nasr" of the Eye Temple,[41] which had southern elements such as cone mosaics.[148] The Uruk presence was peaceful as it is first noted in the context of feasting; commercial deals during that period were traditionally ratified through feasting.[note 12][122][149] The excavations in area TW revealed feasting to be an important local habit, as two cooking facilities, large amounts of grains, skeletons of animals, a domed backing oven and barbequing fire pits were discovered.[150] Among the late Uruk materials found at Tell Brak is a standard text for educated scribes (the "Standard Professions" text), part of the standardized education taught in the 3rd millennium BC over a wide area of Syria and Mesopotamia.[151]

A drawing of a seal from Nabada, pre-Akkadian kingdom of Nagar, in "Brak Style"

The pre-Akkadian kingdom was famed for its acrobats, who were in demand in Ebla and trained local Eblaite entertainers.[65] The kingdom also had its own local glyptic style called the "Brak Style",[152] which was distinct from the southern sealing variants, employing soft circled shapes and sharpened edges.[153] The Akkadian administration had little effect on the local administrative traditions and sealing style,[154] and Akkadian seals existed side by side with the local variant.[155] The Hurrians employed the Akkadian style in their seals, and Elamite seals were discovered, indicating an interaction with the western Iranian Plateau.[155]

Tell Brak provided great knowledge on the culture of Mitanni, which produced glass using sophisticated techniques, that resulted in different varieties of multicolored and decorated shapes.[116] Samples of the elaborate Nuzi ware were discovered, in addition to seals that combine distinctive Mitannian elements with the international motifs of that period.[116]

Prior to the Nuzi ware, the predominant ceramic tradition at Brak is known as Khabur ware. Nuzi ware retains some shapes of Khabur ware, as well as some of its surface decorations. The fourth and last phase of Khabur ware (around 1500 BC) is generally contemporaneous with Nuzi ware. Both of them occur in parallel for some time at Brak before the Khabur ware disappears.[156]

Wagons

[edit]

Seals from Tell Brak and Nabada dated to the pre-Akkadian kingdom, revealed the use of four-wheeled wagons and war carriages.[157] Excavation in area FS recovered clay models of equids and wagons dated to the Akkadian and post-Akkadian periods.[157] The models provide information about the types of wagons used during that period (2350–2000 BC),[158] and they include four wheeled vehicles and two types of two wheeled vehicles; the first is a cart with fixed seats and the second is a cart where the driver stands above the axle.[112] The chariots were introduced during the Mitanni era,[112] and none of the pre-Mitanni carriages can be considered chariots, as they are mistakenly described in some sources.[112][158]

Government

[edit]

The first city had the characteristics of large urban centers, such as monumental buildings,[159] and seems to have been ruled by a kinship based assembly, headed by elders.[160] The pre-Akkadian kingdom was decentralized,[161] and the provincial center of Nabada was ruled by a council of elders, next to the king's representative.[162] The Nagarite monarchs had to tour their kingdom regularly in order to assert their political control.[161][163] During the early Akkadian period, Nagar was administrated by local officials.[80] However, central control was tightened and the number of Akkadian officials increased, following the supposed environmental event that preceded the construction of Naram-Sin's palace.[114] The post-Akkadian Nagar was a city-state kingdom,[164] that gradually lost its political importance during the early second millennium BC, as no evidence for a king dating to that period exists.[111]

Rulers of Tell Brak

[edit]
King Reign Notes
Early period, possibly ruled by a local assembly of elders.[160]
Pre-Akkadian kingdom of Nagar (c. 2600–2300 BC)
Mara-Il Fl. late 24th century BC.[65]
Early Akkadian period, early 23rd century BC.[79]
Urkesh dominance, the Urkeshite king Atal-Shen styled himself "King of Urkesh and Nawar",[165] so did his successors who ruled only in Urkesh.[89]
Akkadian control, under the rule of Naram-Sin of Akkad.[92]
Post-Akkadian kingdom of Nagar
Talpus-Atili Fl. end of the third millennium BC.[166] Styled himself "the sun of the country of Nagar".[87]
Various foreign rulers such as Mari,[110] Kahat,[12] Mitanni,[112] and Assyria.[167]

Economy

[edit]

Throughout its history, Tell Brak was an important trade center; it was an entrepot of obsidian trade during the Chalcolithic, as it was situated on the river crossing between Anatolia, the Levant and southern Mesopotamia.[168] The countryside was occupied by smaller towns, villages and hamlets, but the city's surroundings were empty within three kilometers.[46] This was probably due to the intensive cultivation in the immediate hinterland, in order to sustain the population.[46] The city manufactured different objects, including chalices made of obsidian and white marble,[37] faience,[169] flint tools and shell inlays.[170] However, evidence exists for a slight shift in production of goods toward manufacturing objects desired in the south, following the establishment of the Uruk colony.[122]

Trade was also an important economic activity for the pre-Akkadian kingdom of Nagar,[84] which had Ebla and Kish as major partners.[84] The kingdom produced glass,[169] wool,[65] and was famous for breeding and trading in the Kunga,[171][172] a hybrid of a jenny (a female donkey) and a male Syrian wild ass.[173][172] Tell Brak remained an important commercial center during the Akkadian period,[174] and was one of Mitanni's main trade cities.[112] Many objects were manufactured in Mitannian Tell Brak, including furniture made of ivory, wood and bronze, in addition to glass.[116] The city provided evidence for the international commercial contacts of Mitanni, including Egyptian, Hittite and Mycenaean objects, some of which were produced in the region to satisfy the local taste.[116]

Equids

[edit]

The kungas of pre-Akkadian Nagar were used for drawing the carriages of kings before the domestication of the horse,[175] and a royal procession included up to fifty animals.[176] The kungas of Nagar were in great demand in the Eblaite empire;[171] they cost two kilos of silver, fifty times the price of a donkey,[175] and were imported regularly by the monarchs of Ebla to be used as transport animals and gifts for allied cities.[171] The horse was known in the region during the third millennium BC, but was not used as a draught animal before c. 18th century BC.[172]

Donkey burials

[edit]

Burials of a donkey and a dog were found at Tell Brak as early as the Akkadian period (2580–2455 BCE). They were not accompanied by human interment. Six donkey skeletons and one canine skeleton were found; they were buried below a temple courtyard.[177]

Also, later, during the Babylonian period, they were found at Tell Ababra in Iraq.[177] Tell Ababra was located in the Hamrin Basin area of Iraq, which is now covered by Lake Hamrin.[178]

At Tel 'Akko (near Acre, Israel), a donkey was found buried together with a dog, and a part of the upper jawbone of a pig. The burial was dated at the end of the Middle Bronze Age.[177]

Similar sacrifices of donkeys were also found in large numbers at Tell el-Dab'a in the Nile Delta of Egypt dating to the Middle Bronze Age. Also, similar sacrifices were found at Tel Haror.[177][179]

Site

[edit]

Soundings were conducted in 1930 by Antoine Poidebard although little was published.[180][4] After a survey of the area in 1934, Tell Brak was excavated for three seasons by the British archaeologist Sir Max Mallowan, husband of Agatha Christie, in 1937 and 1938.[181] The artifacts from Mallowan's excavations are now preserved in the Ashmolean Museum, National Museum of Aleppo and the British Museum's collection;[182] the latter contain the Tell Brak Head dating to c. 3500–3300 BC.[183][184] Two small cuneiform tablets were found and a half dozen fragments, all in the Akkadian period script.[185]

A team from the Institute of Archaeology of the University of London, led by David and Joan Oates, worked in the tell for 14 seasons between 1976 and 1993.[186][187] Finds included several Uruk Period numerical tablets and a number of cuneiform tablets and inscriptions.[188][189][190] After 1993, excavations were conducted by a number of field directors under the general guidance of David (until 2004) and Joan Oates. Those directors included Roger Matthews (in 1994–1996), for the McDonald Institute for Archaeological Research of the University of Cambridge; Geoff Emberling (in 1998–2002) and Helen McDonald (in 2000–2004), for the British Institute for the Study of Iraq and the Metropolitan Museum of Art. Finds included a large cache of carnelian, gold, silver, and lapis lazuli beads, late 3rd millennium arrowheads, stone maceheads, a range of ceramic wares, and an alabaster statuette of a seated bear.[191][192][193][194][33][195]

Brak akkadian tablet BM 131738

In 2006, Augusta McMahon became field director, also sponsored by the British Institute for the Study of Iraq.[78] A regional archaeological field survey in a 20 km (12 mi) radius around Brak was supervised by Henry T. Wright (in 2002–2005).[196] The survey data was combined with LANDSAT and 1960s era CORONA satellite images as well as historical photographs.[197] Many of the finds from the excavations at Tell Brak are on display in the Deir ez-Zor Museum.[198] A number of Proto-Literate clay tokens were found at the site, mainly in Uruk leveling fill but in one case in a stratified context. Most of the finds were pellets but also cones, discs, and ovioid bullae. In Late Uruk fill a number of large stone spheres and polished teardrops were found.[199]

The most recent excavations took place in the spring of 2011, but archaeological work is currently suspended due to the ongoing Syrian Civil War.[200] According to the Syrian authorities, the camp of archaeologists was looted, along with the tools and ceramics kept in it.[201] The site changed hands between the different combatants, mainly the Kurdish People's Protection Units and the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant.[202] In early 2015, Tell Brak was taken by the Kurdish forces.[203]

See also

[edit]

References

[edit]

Further reading

[edit]
[edit]
Revisions and contributorsEdit on WikipediaRead on Wikipedia
from Grokipedia

Tell Brak, ancient Nagar, is a prominent archaeological site in the Upper Khabur plain of northeastern Syria, recognized as one of the earliest and largest urban centers in northern Mesopotamia.
The mound spans about 40 hectares and rises over 40 meters in height, with continuous occupation from at least 6000 BC during the Neolithic period through the late second millennium BC, encompassing phases of the Halaf, Ubaid, Uruk, and later Akkadian and Mitanni periods.
Urban development accelerated in the late fifth and fourth millennia BC, featuring monumental structures like the Eye Temple—a small building containing thousands of stylized eye idols carved from stone, indicative of ritual practices and social complexity—and evidence of administrative buildings, craft specialization, and a multi-tiered settlement hierarchy suggesting early state formation independent of southern Mesopotamian influences.
Excavations initiated by Max Mallowan in 1937–1938 and resumed in 1976 by David and Joan Oates under the University of Cambridge have uncovered artifacts including seals, tablets, and skeletal remains bearing trauma, highlighting economic integration, technological advancements, and potential inter-community violence in the region's prehistory.

Names and Etymology

Ancient and Historical Names

The site of Tell Brak is identified with the ancient name Nagar, attested in third-millennium BC cuneiform texts from Ebla, where it appears as a major kingdom centered around 2400 BC with a ruler bearing the title En. These Ebla archives document Nagar's diplomatic ties, including royal marriages and exchanges of goods like textiles and metals, positioning it as a key northern Mesopotamian power alongside Ebla and Mari. The precise identification of Tell Brak as Nagar draws from its alignment with descriptions in second-millennium BC Mari texts, which reference a prominent city in the Upper Khabur region matching the site's strategic location and scale. In Hurrian and contexts from the second millennium BC, variant forms such as Nawar emerge, recorded in on-site tablets and linked to rulers claiming dominion over and Nawar, reflecting continuity of the settlement's regional prominence into later phases. Assyrian records similarly evoke Nawar or related toponyms in the Khabur basin, associating the area with post-Akkadian Hurrian polities. The absence of Nagar or Nawar in southern Sumerian sources highlights the site's embeddedness in northern Semitic and later Hurrian textual traditions, distinct from Sumerian administrative corpora focused southward. Etymological interpretations of Nagar as deriving from a implying a "cultivated" or settled locale remain provisional, pending further linguistic corroboration beyond positional attestations.

Modern Designations

Tell Brak designates the using the "tell," signifying a stratified settlement mound, combined with "Brak," the name of the proximate modern village in Syria's . This convention reflects local vernacular usage, as documented during Max Mallowan's initial soundings in 1937–1938, when he shifted from an early "Arbit" reference to the prevailing regional term noted by inhabitants and on maps. The designation's persistence in archaeological practice, unaltered since Mallowan's era, ensures standardized identification amid the Upper Khabur plain's profusion of over 700 surveyed tells, precluding misattribution to adjacent locales like Tell Beydar or Tell Hamoukar. Scholarly adoption prioritizes this empirically grounded label over variant or politicized alternatives emerging from post-20th-century regional dynamics, thereby maintaining referential clarity in interdisciplinary research.

Site Description

Geographical Location

Tell Brak is located at 36°40′02″N 41°03′31″E in the Upper Khabur basin of northeastern , approximately 50 kilometers northeast of city and near the Turkish border. This positioning in the fertile alluvial plains of the Khabur drainage system provided access to seasonal , including the Wadi Jaghjagh roughly 3 kilometers to the north, which contributed to viable dry-farming conditions. Annual rainfall in the Upper Khabur basin ranges from 300 to 400 mm, decreasing southward, which supported early agricultural settlements by enabling rain-fed cultivation on the loamy soils without extensive dependency. The site's topography, amid undulating plains and confluences, positioned it strategically along natural overland corridors toward eastward and southwestward, influencing prehistoric settlement densities based on resource availability and hydrological patterns.

Physical Layout and Key Features

Tell Brak comprises a prominent central tell, exceeding 40 meters in height and spanning approximately 800 by 600 meters at its base, forming of the ancient settlement. This mound is encircled by an outer town and extensive suburbs, which expanded to roughly 130 hectares by the Late 3 phase (c. 3800 BC), as documented through intensive surface surveys documenting sherd densities and anthrosols. The urban footprint evolved via peripheral growth, incorporating rings of smaller mounds 250–400 meters from the central tell, without evidence of massive enclosing walls typical of some southern Mesopotamian centers. Key monumental features include the Eye Temple complex from the Late Chalcolithic, characterized by a structure with a white plaster floor and deposits of eye idols, typically 2–5 cm tall but reaching up to 14.3 cm, often featuring incised eyes and occasionally multiple pairs or additional motifs. Adjacent buildings in the temple area suggest specialized administrative roles, evidenced by their distinct layouts and artifact assemblages distinct from residential zones. In the Early Bronze Age Akkadian phase (c. 2250 BC), the Naram-Sin Palace stands as a significant structure, incorporating glyptic art and seals indicative of imperial administration, though no full platform akin to those in southern has been identified at the site.

Environmental Context and Preservation Challenges

Tell Brak occupies a semi-arid environment in northeastern , classified within the southern dry-steppe zone where annual rainfall averages 200–350 mm, rendering it marginal for reliable dry farming without irrigation. The site's location near the Jaghjagh exposes it to seasonal flooding risks, as demonstrated by observations of inundated hollow ways north of the tell following heavy events, such as those recorded on May 1, 2011. These episodic floods have historically influenced settlement patterns by providing sporadic while posing threats to structural through erosion of unconsolidated mound materials. Preservation efforts at Tell Brak face compounded challenges from natural degradation and human interference, particularly intensified since the onset of the in 2011. activities have been documented at the site through field investigations, resulting in illicit excavations that compromise stratigraphic layers and artifact contexts. High-resolution analyses of Syrian archaeological sites, including those in the Khabur region, reveal widespread pits and structural damage, though the elevated core mounds of Tell Brak have sustained less severe impacts compared to peripheral areas. from and occasional flash floods further exacerbates exposure of buried remains in this arid setting, where low vegetation cover limits natural stabilization of surfaces. Proxy data from regional cores and other paleoenvironmental records indicate climatic variability over millennia, with shifts toward documented around key periods like the 5.2 ka event, yet these fluctuations correlate with societal adaptations at Tell Brak rather than direct causation of occupational discontinuities. Modern monitoring underscores the need for empirical assessment of ongoing environmental stressors, such as reduced and increased deposition, which could accelerate mound degradation without targeted conservation measures. Satellite-based evaluations confirm that while peripheral zones show detectable changes, the primary tell's integrity persists, allowing potential for future archaeological recovery.

Chronological History

Neolithic and Chalcolithic Foundations (c. 6000–4500 BC)

Occupation at Tell Brak began by c. 6000 BC, marking the foundations with small farming communities exploiting the fertile Upper Khabur plain near the 250 mm annual rainfall isohyet, enabling reliance on rainfall . Archaeological evidence includes (PPNB) chipped stone tools such as Levallois flakes, indicating early without monumental . These initial phases reflect gradual settlement continuity rather than abrupt colonization. By c. 5500 BC, during the , the site featured mudbrick structures and characteristic Ubaid pottery, signaling established agricultural communities with domestic architecture suited to permanent habitation. Halafian ceramics have also been recovered, bridging and phases and attesting to local ceramic traditions. Transitions to larger enclosures occurred organically, without evidence of sudden imports or influences from southern , supporting models of indigenous northern development over diffusionist interpretations. Burial practices from this era reveal limited elite markers, such as simple interments lacking or differentiation, pointing to egalitarian social baselines amid emerging . This proto-urban trajectory laid groundwork for later expansions, rooted in local environmental and subsistence strategies.

Late Chalcolithic Urban Expansion (c. 4500–3500 BC)

During the Late 3–5 phases (c. 4500–3500 BC), Tell Brak underwent significant urban expansion, growing to approximately 130 hectares in size by LC 3–4 (c. 3900–3600 BC), marking it as one of the largest settlements in northern at the time. This growth is evidenced by empirical indicators such as increased settlement density, mass-produced , and substantial imports of tools sourced from Anatolian volcanic deposits, reflecting enhanced trade networks and craft specialization. Archaeological surveys and excavations reveal a shift toward centralized production, with and workshops indicating organized labor beyond household-scale activities. The construction of the Eye Temple around 3900–3600 BC served as a key ritual and administrative complex, featuring multiple renovation phases and the deposition of thousands of eye-idol figurines made from stone, bone, and clay, primarily characterized by exaggerated ocular motifs. These artifacts, numbering over 1,000 recovered from temple contexts, suggest a focal point for communal rituals possibly linked to oversight or protection themes, underscoring the site's emerging ideological infrastructure. In Brak Periods E–H, corresponding to LC 4–5, evidence points to increasing social segmentation and defensive architecture, including fortified enclosures and partitioned urban zones that imply . A 2022 biological distance analysis using dental morphology from skeletal remains demonstrates statistically significant variations among LC population groups, indicating endogamous subgroups and within the urban populace rather than uniform integration. Around 3800 BC, several mass graves containing at least 34 individuals, predominantly young males, were interred on the site's periphery, with perimortem trauma on skeletal elements such as parry fractures and cranial injuries suggesting interpersonal . Accompanying deposits of broken ceramics and animal bones indicate post-event feasting rituals, while the graves' location and lack of layers point to localized conflict, potentially internal disputes, rather than large-scale or endemic warfare across the settlement.

Early Bronze Age Developments (c. 3500–2000 BC)

The Kingdom of Nagar emerged around 2600 BC, with Tell Brak serving as its capital and administrative center controlling the Khabur River valley. Large-scale public buildings, including palace structures, indicate centralized authority during this Early Bronze Age phase. Cylinder seal impressions on administrative sealings and pottery, featuring local Syrian motifs, attest to bureaucratic practices and trade connections. Akkadian forces under Naram-Sin conquered Nagar circa 2250 BC, integrating it into the empire as a key northern outpost. Inscriptions and stamped bricks bearing Naram-Sin's name confirm imperial construction, notably the fortified "Palace of Naram-Sin," a massive administrative and storage complex at the site's southern edge. Archaeological evidence includes destruction layers with burning and abandonment in Akkadian-period structures, signaling the conquest's violent impact. Following the Akkadian collapse, Tell Brak experienced partial recovery, though Ur III influence remains debated, with initial interpretations of southern-style artifacts refuted in favor of local or Hurrian continuity. Elite contexts feature equid burials, such as onager skeletons in monumental buildings, interpreted as closure rituals or sacrifices linked to high-status and symbolic prestige via wagon-pulling animals. By circa 2000 BC, the site underwent decline marked by abandonment of peripheral areas and reduced settlement size, correlating with paleoclimatic proxies indicating increased aridity and precipitation minima in the region. This contraction reflects broader disruptions in northern Mesopotamian urban systems amid environmental stress.

Middle to Late Bronze Age Transitions (c. 2000–1200 BC)

During the Middle Bronze Age, Tell Brak, identified as the ancient city of Nagar in texts from Mari dating to circa 1800 BC, engaged in diplomatic alliances and regional politics as documented in the Mari archives. These references portray Nagar as a significant local power in the Upper Khabur region, interacting with neighboring states like Mari without clear evidence of formal vassalage, though military conflicts and trade blockages occurred earlier in the Ebla-Mari rivalry. Archaeological evidence from this period shows continuity in settlement, with no major disruptions noted in the stratigraphic record. By the Late Bronze Age, around 1500 BC, Tell Brak came under the influence of the kingdom, marked by the construction of a substantial and temple complex on the site's highest point. tablets from the palace reference kings such as Tusratta, Artassumara, and Saustatar, alongside a Hurrian-language letter fragment, indicating administrative control by Hurrian elites using Babylonian as a scribal language. Hurrian cultural elements are evident in , including styles akin to Nuzi ware, reflecting integration rather than abrupt replacement of local traditions, with limited destruction layers suggesting stable overlordship. The Mitanni phase ended circa 1300 BC, coinciding with Assyrian military expansion into northern , as inferred from the destruction of and lack of immediate rebuilding, aligning with broader regional conquests documented in Assyrian records. Post-destruction layers contain Middle Assyrian artifacts, such as ornaments, pointing to extraction and imposed Assyrian authority focused on resource control rather than full resettlement. Despite political transitions, exhibited resilience, with ongoing local in the palace workshops yielding ivory carvings, vessels, items, and evidence, sustaining economic activities amid imperial taxation and oversight. This continuity underscores Tell Brak's role as a peripheral center adapting to successive empires through specialized rather than wholesale cultural upheaval.

Iron Age and Hellenistic Phases (c. 1200 BC–AD 300)

Following the collapse of major powers around 1200 BC, Tell Brak transitioned to diminished settlement, with urbanism waning significantly by the start of the . Stratigraphic evidence from the main mound indicates occupation persisted into the Middle Assyrian period (c. 1400–1050 BC) but likely ceased thereafter, marking a period of abandonment or sharp decline before the Neo-Assyrian era (c. 900–600 BC). This hiatus aligns with broader regional patterns of site depopulation in the Upper Khabur, where major centers like Tell Brak gave way to smaller, more dispersed activities. Surface surveys of the Tell Brak complex reveal limited (Neo-Assyrian) presence, primarily as scatters of pottery sherds concentrated at peripheral locations such as Tell Majnuna on the northern edge, suggesting episodic use for outposts or military purposes rather than sustained urban habitation. These finds, including potential indicators of conflict like iron arrowheads in analogous regional contexts, point to Tell Brak's role as a site under Assyrian control, but without evidence of monumental construction or dense population. Post-Assyrian phases, encompassing Achaemenid (c. 550–330 BC) and Seleucid (c. 312–63 BC) rule, yield even sparser traces—minimal sherd scatters indicative of ruralization and reduced centrality, as the site's strategic trade position diminished amid shifting regional networks. Parthian (c. 247 BC–AD 224) and Roman (c. AD 63–300) occupations are attested solely through scattered and surface artifacts, lacking stratified layers or major architectural remains that would denote reurbanization. These ephemeral traces from surveys underscore Tell Brak's peripheral status in Hellenistic and early imperial economies, with abandonment by AD 300 attributable to long-term erosion of its role in overland trade routes favoring southern corridors, rather than acute destruction or environmental catastrophe. The overall thus reflects a from urban prominence to marginal villagization, informed by systematic surface collection rather than deep excavation due to the thinness of these horizons.

Society and Culture

Population Dynamics and Ethnicity

During the Late Chalcolithic period (c. 4500–3500 BC), Tell Brak expanded into a major urban center, with demographic estimates derived from site area (approximately 45–55 hectares in LC2) and inferred house densities yielding a peak of 13,000–24,000 individuals. This growth reflects intensified settlement and resource exploitation, though climatic fluctuations around 5.2 kBP may have influenced without evidence of abrupt depopulation. Bioarchaeological evidence from skeletal remains underscores population segmentation rather than uniformity. Non-metric dental morphology analysis of Late interments reveals statistically significant biological distances between subgroups, consistent with endogamous mating patterns and distinct social units within the urban fabric. Subadult-dominated assemblages from mass graves further highlight variances in treatment, potentially tied to conflict or , but strontium data (87Sr/86Sr) indicate residential mobility patterns without widespread external migration driving core population turnover. Post-2000 BC, during the Middle Bronze Age transition, onomastic evidence from Akkadian-period tablets documents admixture of Semitic and Hurrian elements, with personal names reflecting both linguistic traditions amid site reoccupation as Nagar. This diversity aligns with regional shifts, including Hurrian influxes following Akkadian decline, yet and osteological continuities suggest incremental integration over mass replacement, prioritizing localized empirical markers like cranial and dental traits over speculative ethnic narratives.

Religion and Ritual Practices

The Eye Temple at Tell Brak, constructed around 3800 BC during the Late period, represents one of the earliest monumental religious structures in northern , characterized by the deposition of hundreds of small stone idols featuring exaggerated, staring eyes. These eye idols, often arranged in rows within temple rooms, are interpreted as apotropaic objects intended to avert malevolent forces, reflecting a ritual emphasis on visual symbolism and protection rather than narrative . Their mass production and clustering suggest communal rituals involving votive offerings, possibly linked to or oversight by entities, though theological specifics remain speculative due to the absence of textual records. In later periods, particularly under influence around 1500–1300 BC, temple complexes at Tell Brak incorporated altars, terracotta s, and cultic installations that exhibit continuity with Hurrian religious traditions, including depictions of deities associated with regional pantheons such as Belet Nagar, the local goddess of the land. These artifacts, recovered from stratified temple layers, indicate ongoing ritual practices involving libations and dedications, potentially invoking protection for urban elites and agricultural cycles, as evidenced by associated votive and burners. Animal sacrifices formed a key component of rituals, as seen in donkey burials beneath building foundations or during closure events, where equids were interred whole or disarticulated, symbolizing transitions in sacred spaces and linking to status displays among ruling groups. Such practices, documented in Early contexts but persisting in form, underscore the materiality of in securing divine favor for architectural endeavors, with no evidence of domesticated species beyond equids in these deposits. Archaeological data from Tell Brak reveals no indicators of a centralized priesthood, such as specialized administrative seals, priestly attire, or dedicated residential quarters adjacent to temples, challenging models positing temple institutions as primary drivers of early . Instead, evidence points to decentralized, elite-managed practices integrated with political , where temples served as focal points for communal gatherings without dominating economic redistribution.

Material Culture and Technology

In the Late Chalcolithic period (c. 4500–3500 BC), Tell Brak's assemblages included fine ware , accounting for nearly 15% of sherds in stratified contexts, with fabrics indicating local production techniques influenced by styles such as drooping spouts and specific vessel forms. These typologies trace gradual adoption of wheel-thrown elements and finer firing, marking technological refinement over coarse utilitarian wares. Stamp seals emerged as key administrative artifacts during this phase, with gouged designs on animal-shaped examples impressed on clay sealings from jars and baskets, evidencing early property marking and tiered economic oversight predating widespread cylinder seal use. Their distribution in domestic and institutional contexts at Tell Brak suggests rapid adoption for sealing practices by the LC 3 subphase (c. 4000–3700 BC). Post-2500 BC in the Early , tools and implements appeared in northern Mesopotamian assemblages, including at Tell Brak, with alloys (up to 5% content) dominating early production before a shift to tin bronzes around 2300 BC; regional and furnace remains indicate localized capabilities. This transition reflects typological evolution from cast to wrought alloys, enhancing tool durability for cutting and shaping. Wheeled vehicle technology is attested through seals and clay models depicting four-wheeled wagons drawn by equid teams (likely kunga hybrids), recovered from Early Bronze Age contexts at Tell Brak, with iconography showing solid wheels and draft harnesses integrated into local equid management by the mid-3rd millennium BC. These artifacts predate some southern Mesopotamian textual records of equid-pulled wagons in administrative use, highlighting northern innovation in vehicle scaling for transport. A 2023 archaeobotanical of mid-3rd millennium BC (c. 2600–2400 BC) residues from Tell Brak's administrative structures identified charred cereal grains ( and ) alongside weed taxa indicative of and processes, with stable data (δ¹³C values) confirming rain-fed cultivation integrated into urban settings. These findings trace adoption of crop processing technologies, such as sieve-based cleaning, enabling surplus storage in monumental buildings without reliance on distant imports.

Social Organization and Daily Life

Archaeological investigations at Tell Brak during the Late Chalcolithic (c. 4500–3500 BC) reveal social segmentation characterized by distinct and commoner zones, with monumental architecture and larger compounds on the central mound contrasting against dispersed suburban settlements in the outer town. This spatial differentiation, evidenced by the concentration of public buildings like the Eye Temple in the core versus domestic clusters peripherally, indicates an emerging where a controlling managed resources and rituals separately from the broader populace. Suburban areas featured multi-room houses constructed of or pisé, likely accommodating units engaged in routine domestic activities such as food preparation and storage, as inferred from associated hearths, storage jars, and grinding equipment. Craft specialization is apparent in workshop clusters within these suburbs, including facilities for Canaanean production and other lithic work, reflecting a division of labor that supplemented agricultural subsistence and supported urban economic . Daily life exhibited resilience to environmental variability, particularly around the 5.2 ka BP climatic shift (c. 3800–3600 BC), through diversified subsistence practices that integrated dry-farming of , , and with and localized resource exploitation, enabling the society to tolerate arid episodes without collapse. Mass graves from this period, containing commingled remains of up to 200 individuals with minimal , suggest social stresses including amid rapid , yet the persistence of settlement indicates adaptive social structures.

Economy and Subsistence

Agricultural Systems and Irrigation

Archaeobotanical remains from Late Chalcolithic (c. 4500–3500 BC) contexts at Tell Brak indicate that dry-farming dominated agricultural practices, with emmer wheat (Triticum dicoccum) and two-row hulled (Hordeum distichon) comprising the primary cereals, supplemented by (Linum usitatissimum) and lentils (Lens culinaris). These crops were adapted to the region's winter rainfall regime, averaging 250–300 mm annually, which fell within the marginal threshold for rain-fed agriculture in the dry-steppe zone of northern . Seasonal flooding from nearby wadis, including the Wadi Jaghjagh, provided additional moisture without necessitating extensive artificial systems, as evidenced by the absence of widespread silt deposits indicative of major perennial . Soil profiles around Tell Brak, characterized by fertile calcic xerosols, supported sufficient yields to sustain urban-scale populations during expansion phases, with no requirement for large canal networks akin to southern Mesopotamian hydraulic works. Mid-third millennium BC (c. 2500 BC) evidence from peripheral urban deposits reveals intensive cropping on margins, including household plots for varieties tolerant of arid stress, which diversified production and buffered against rainfall variability. Remote sensing surveys have detected faint traces of small-scale canals dating to later periods, but Bronze Age irrigation at Tell Brak remained localized and opportunistic, drawing from wadi diversions rather than state-orchestrated infrastructure. Empirical correlations between proxy climate data and settlement patterns link arid episodes, such as the c. 3200–3170 BC dry phase, to increased crop failure risks and minor urban contractions, including reduced peripheral occupation, though core activities persisted through adaptive farming resilience.

Animal Management and Domestication

Faunal analyses of remains from Tell Brak indicate that sheep and goats constituted the primary domestic animals, comprising over 90% of identifiable bones during the fourth millennium BC, reflecting a economy focused on production and . Cattle and pigs were present in smaller proportions, typically under 10%, with exploitation patterns suggesting secondary roles in and traction rather than primary subsistence. Equids, particularly donkeys, played a significant role beyond food provision, evidenced by multiple burials dated to circa 2300 BC in administrative or contexts, such as Building 2 on the citadel mound, where donkeys were interred with harness fittings and bit wear on mandibular remains, indicating use in and signaling high status. These finds predate widespread horse domestication in the region, aligning with broader Near Eastern patterns where donkeys were harnessed for by the late fourth millennium BC, as confirmed by morphological and contextual evidence distinguishing them from wild onagers. Wild game bones, including and deer, represent less than 5% of assemblages across excavated levels, underscoring minimal reliance on and a strategy centered on herd management rather than opportunistic . Age-at-death profiles from sheep and mandibles show selective of juveniles and adults, consistent with sustainable that maintained breeding stock without evidence of overgrazing-induced collapse, as herd sizes appear stable through the Early based on consistent representation in stratified deposits.

Trade Networks and Craft Production

Tell Brak's position in the Upper Khabur basin positioned it as a conduit for long-distance exchanges during the Late (c. 4000–3000 BC), with artifacts recovered from excavated levels tracing provenance to central n sources such as Göllü Dağ in , over 500 km distant. These imports, used for tools and possibly prestige items, reflect organized procurement networks linking northern to volcanic outcrops in , as confirmed by geochemical analyses of blades and flakes from the site's Eye Temple and surrounding areas. , sourced from Badakhshan deposits in northeastern approximately 2,000 km away, appears in unworked fragments, beads, and inlays from fourth-millennium contexts, evidencing raw material transport via overland routes through eastern , likely bundled with other exotics like tin. As the city of Nagar, Tell Brak functioned as a Khabur regional node integrating Anatolian-Levantine and Mesopotamian circuits, with artifacts like cylinder seals and administrative tablets implying oversight of commodity flows, though archaeological yields indicate lesser throughput compared to southern hubs like , where denser textual and volumetric evidence dominates. evidence underscores localized production of Uruk-style vessels amid , with petrographic studies revealing non-standardized fabrication using regional clays, suggestive of idea exchange or labor mobility rather than bulk ceramic . Craft production concentrated in peripheral zones, where loom weights from domestic structures point to warp-weighted textile weaving, a staple for surplus generation in rain-fed agrarian economies. Metallurgical activities, inferred from traces in third-millennium suburbs, involved copper-base processing, aligning with broader North Mesopotamian specialization but scaled modestly relative to elite functions. These operations supported internal consumption and selective export, with standardization limited to functional forms like beveled-rim bowls tied to influences.

Government and Rulers

Known Rulers and Inscriptions

The rulers of ancient Nagar (Tell Brak) are known only through scattered references in external archives and local artifacts, without any continuous king lists or dynastic sequences preserved. Attestations derive primarily from for the pre-Akkadian phase and seals or stamps for later periods, cross-verified with regional synchronisms from sites like Mari and . This fragmentary record precludes definitive chronologies or assumptions of linear succession, emphasizing isolated mentions over anachronistic dynastic reconstructions. In the pre-Akkadian era, circa 2400–2300 BC, Mara-Il is the sole named king of Nagar, documented in archives as a contemporary of Iblul-Il of Mari and Igrish-Halab of . Ebla texts record his diplomatic activities, including the dedication of a to Ishtar linked to Mari's ruler. These references position Nagar as an independent polity in the Upper Khabur, engaging in alliances and tribute exchanges with southern powers. Akkadian imperial expansion incorporated Nagar around 2250 BC, with Naram-Sin (r. circa 2254–2218 BC) claiming conquest via bricks stamped with his dedicatory inscription unearthed in the site's monumental structures. These artifacts confirm direct Akkadian oversight but identify no indigenous rulers under their administration. Post-Akkadian recovery, in the late third millennium BC, yields Talpus-atili as an attested local leader, named on a seal impression proclaiming him "the sun of the country of Nagar." This glyptic evidence, stylistically dated to the period's end, suggests reassertion of autonomy amid regional fragmentation. Mari correspondence from the early second millennium BC alludes to tributaries from the Khabur basin, potentially including Nagar, but yields no further named sovereigns, underscoring the sparsity of direct epigraphic testimony.

Administrative and Political Structures

In the Late Chalcolithic period (ca. 4200–3600 BC), administrative functions at Tell Brak are indicated by stamp-impressed clay sealings recovered from structures in Area TW, suggesting a tiered for managing containers and resources without dominance by a centralized . These sealings, numbering over 90 from Levels 18–21, feature imagery of leopards and lions, pointing to localized control mechanisms rather than state-wide bureaucratic oversight. Monumental buildings, such as the Level 20 structure with basalt thresholds, further attest to organized activity but lack evidence of overarching royal administration. Regional surveys around Tell Brak, including data from , reveal that early developed through bottom-up processes driven by local elites and settlement , rejecting models of top-down by a singular political . This decentralized pattern aligns with the absence of fortified central palaces and the presence of multiple administrative zones, implying via distributed elite networks rather than monolithic state structures. Such evidence challenges traditional views of urban origins tied to centralized power, highlighting instead from socio-economic complexity. During the Early Bronze Age, as the kingdom of Nagar (ca. 2600–2300 BC), Tell Brak's political organization emphasized religious prestige over extensive territorial control, with textual references from and Mari indicating alliances and diplomatic ties rather than direct . Administrative buildings, including those with sealings, suggest operational bureaucracy for local affairs, but the polity's influence appears loose, focused on confederative relations in the Khabur Basin without integrated provincial systems. In later periods, such as the Assyrian era (ca. 1300–600 BC), evidence points to military garrisons oriented toward tribute extraction from the region's resources, prioritizing economic yields over deep administrative integration or . This extractive approach underscores a peripheral role for Tell Brak within imperial frameworks, with limited local autonomy under oversight rather than full incorporation into core Assyrian governance.

Archaeological Excavations

Early Explorations and Surveys

The first documented exploration of Tell Brak occurred in the 1920s through aerial reconnaissance conducted by French Jesuit priest and aviator Antoine Poidebard, who pioneered the use of biplane photography for archaeological survey in the Near East. In 1928, Poidebard's flights over northern Mesopotamia identified the prominent mound of Tell Brak amid the Upper Khabur plain, noting its size and potential significance while primarily mapping Roman-era fortifications and irrigation networks in the region. He conducted ground soundings at a Roman castellum on the northeastern edge of the site's Outer Town, revealing surface-level Roman remains but not probing deeper prehistoric strata due to the expedition's focus on later periods. Systematic ground investigations began in 1937–1938 under British archaeologist , who selected Tell Brak for excavation following a regional survey of the Upper Khabur that identified it alongside sites like Chagar Bazar and Tell Arbid as key mounds warranting attention. Mallowan's team uncovered the Eye Temple on the main tell, a structure from the late fourth millennium BCE filled with deposits of hundreds of small eye idols—figurines with prominent incised eyes, likely ritual objects—indicating early temple architecture and symbolic practices. Further soundings exposed deep stratigraphic sequences reaching Late Chalcolithic layers but remained small-scale, concentrating on the citadel rather than the expansive suburbs. Mallowan's work also yielded the Naram-Sin fragment in a late third-millennium BCE palace context, attesting to Akkadian imperial influence at the site, though excavations were limited by time and resources, leaving much of the Outer Town and peripheral areas unexamined. These early efforts provided foundational insights into Brak's multi-period occupation and monumental remains but highlighted gaps in comprehensive mapping and deep sounding across the 40-hectare site, particularly its sprawling suburbs, which subsequent surveys would address.

20th-Century Systematic Digs

Systematic excavations at Tell Brak resumed in 1976 under the joint direction of David Oates and Joan Oates, with the primary aim of developing a detailed stratigraphic sequence and chronological framework spanning the site's occupation history. These campaigns, conducted annually through the late 20th century, employed deep soundings and horizontal exposures to clarify occupational layers, moving beyond earlier soundings to integrate ceramic typologies with emerging radiocarbon data for precise phasing. Initial efforts focused on later periods, such as the Mitanni and Old Babylonian levels on the site's citadel, revealing administrative structures including cuneiform tablets and seals indicative of centralized control. In the third millennium BC strata, excavations during the uncovered extensive remains of the Nagar palace complex, including monumental walls, well-preserved staircases leading to upper-story living quarters, and adjacent facilities possibly linked to equid stabling or processing. These structures, associated with Akkadian-period occupation around 2300 BC, featured thresholds and storage areas yielding bullae with numerical notations, suggesting bureaucratic functions in and . Complementary discoveries included equid burials from closure rituals in the early , with at least four animals interred in a stone platform adjacent to tombs dated 2500–2200 BC, underscoring the economic value of bred hybrids in regional exchange networks. Late investigations in the 1990s targeted the site's northern slopes, exposing mass graves containing disarticulated remains of 20–45-year-old individuals, dated circa 3800–3600 BC via associated ceramics and . These four dense bone layers, located at the urban periphery during a phase of rapid settlement expansion, evidenced interpersonal potentially tied to in emerging urban hierarchies. Further work refined understanding of the Eye Temple's platform, a 6-meter-deep foundation with multiple rebuilding phases, where deposits of incised stone eye idols—numbering in the hundreds—highlighted specialized ritual deposition practices. Throughout these efforts, the Oates team incorporated radiocarbon-14 dating, including early assays on short-lived samples from secure contexts, to calibrate relative chronologies against absolute scales, particularly for Late Chalcolithic transitions around 4200–3600 BC and third-millennium disruptions. This methodological integration resolved ambiguities in traditional pottery-based sequences, confirming Tell Brak's role as an independent urban center predating southern Mesopotamian parallels.

Recent Research and Methodological Advances

Since the Syrian Civil War restricted on-site excavations after 2010, research at Tell Brak has increasingly relied on non-invasive remote sensing and archival analyses of prior collections. Jason Ur's Tell Brak Suburban Survey (2003–2006) employed declassified CORONA satellite imagery from the 1960s–1970s to map ancient road networks and settlement extents, revealing hollow ways indicative of intensive agricultural fields and confirming a Late Chalcolithic urban footprint exceeding 130 hectares, including low-density suburbs around the central mound. This methodology extended to GIS integration for modeling landscape features, enhancing understanding of pre-urban connectivity without ground disturbance. Analytical advances in have utilized existing skeletal remains to probe . A 2022 study applied biological distance metrics to non-metric dental morphology from Late individuals, identifying intra-site heterogeneity in traits like and Carabelli cusps, suggesting population segmentation by origin or groups within the early urban polity, though avoiding direct genetic inferences due to limited sample sizes. Complementary strontium on enamel confirmed mobility patterns, with non-local signatures in up to 20% of samples indicating migration from southern regions, analyzed via archival data to infer residential clustering without new fieldwork. Recent archaeobotanical re-examinations of mid-third millennium BCE assemblages have employed refined flotation techniques and isotopic assays on stored grains from prior digs, providing evidence for intra-urban horticulture. A 2024 analysis of emmer and barley remains from peripheral structures demonstrated reliance on marginal cropping—such as intercropping and fallow management—to supplement rain-fed systems, with weed profiles suggesting small-plot cultivation within city limits amid aridity stresses. Similarly, a 2025 ceramic petrography study of Late Chalcolithic to Uruk-period sherds used thin-section microscopy and trace-element analysis (e.g., via XRF) to track paste recipe continuity versus shaping innovations, revealing localized production shifts tied to urban density, with bevel-rim bowls showing standardized firing but variable tempers reflecting resource segmentation. These methods prioritize quantitative fabric analysis over typology, yielding robust data on craft specialization from museum-held artifacts.

Interpretations and Debates

Origins and Nature of Early Urbanism

Urbanization at Tell Brak commenced in the late fifth millennium BCE, with the settlement expanding from an initial core to encompass suburbs, reaching approximately 55 hectares by around 4000 BCE and growing to 130 hectares by 3800 BCE during the Late 3 period (ca. 3900–3600 BCE). This expansion predated the development of monumental architecture in the central mound, as evidenced by systematic surface surveys that documented dispersed settlement clusters proliferating outward from peripheral areas before inward consolidation toward the tell. Such patterns contradict models positing top-down imposition by centralized elites, instead supporting a bottom-up driven by local , economic specialization, and incremental agglomeration of smaller communities without reliance on a singular authoritative core. Ceramic evidence further underscores indigenous development over external . In the Late 5 (LC5) phase, associated with Late influences, shifts in vessel production—particularly for -style forms—reflected adaptations in local manufacturing techniques and sourcing rather than wholesale importation from southern Mesopotamian centers. Archaeometric analyses of fabrics confirm that these changes arose from endogenous innovations in firing and paste composition at Tell Brak, with only marginal stylistic borrowing from traditions, challenging interpretations of Brak as a peripheral dependent on southern administrative oversight. This local agency aligns with the site's pre-LC5 trajectory of independent complexity, where urban scale emerged prior to any documented expansion northward. The absence of palaces or comparable elite monumental structures in early phases reinforces that urban thresholds at Tell Brak hinged on areal extent, demographic , and functional diversity rather than architectural proxies for statehood. Sites exceeding 50–100 s, like Brak's 55–130 footprint, demonstrate sufficient integration for —evidenced by craft workshops, storage facilities, and multi-room residences—without necessitating despotic hierarchies. In the Khabur basin's rain-fed , agricultural surpluses viable for supporting such populations obviated large-scale networks, empirically undermining hydraulic theories that link urban origins to coerced labor under centralized control for , as southern Mesopotamia's aridity-driven systems do not apply here.

Evidence of Conflict and Violence

Excavations in Tell Brak's Outer Town have revealed four mass graves dating to the Late Chalcolithic period (ca. 3800–3600 BC), each comprising dense layers of disarticulated human bones from primarily young adults aged 20–45 years, with a total of at least 200 individuals represented across the burials. Osteological analysis of a sample of approximately 30 individuals identified perimortem trauma, including blunt force injuries to skulls and one case of , consistent with interpersonal violence preceding or coinciding with death. The limited sample size and disarticulated nature of the remains constrain interpretations, as not all bones could be assessed for trauma, and post-mortem processing may have obscured some evidence of . Excavators interpret these graves as outcomes of organized conflict, potentially internal strife amid rapid urban expansion, rather than isolated incidents. However, contemporaneous settlement layouts at Tell Brak show no defensive fortifications or walled enclosures, featuring open, sprawling suburbs that suggest vulnerability was not architecturally mitigated and that emerged as a byproduct of and resource competition rather than a foundational urban imperative. In the third millennium BC, ancient texts reference clashes between Nagar (Tell Brak's contemporary name) and the , including campaigns by rulers like Naram-Sin, aligning with archaeological evidence of destruction layers and abrupt site contraction around 2300 BC. These layers, marked by burned structures and abandonment in parts of the citadel, indicate episodic raids or punitive actions rather than evidence of sustained s, as no siege works or mass weapon deposits have been identified. Such violence is contextualized in studies of societal segmentation, where urban scaling fostered internal divisions and inter-polity rivalries, manifesting sporadically without implying chronic warfare as the norm.

Climate Impacts and Societal Resilience

Archaeological evidence from Tell Brak indicates a correlation between the 4.2 kiloyear aridification event, dated around 2200 BC, and contractions in settlement extent and density during the late Early Dynastic or early Akkadian phases, manifested in reduced architectural investment and possible depopulation of peripheral areas. This event, evidenced by multi-proxy paleoclimate records including diminished Tigris-Euphrates discharge and regional indicators, contributed to broader disruptions in northern Mesopotamian urban systems. However, Tell Brak exhibited resilience, with sustained core occupation and subsequent recovery in the post-Akkadian period, including reoccupation of structures and continuity in administrative functions, rather than total collapse. Subsistence strategies at Tell Brak demonstrated to variability, as seen in the Late Chalcolithic (ca. 4000–3000 BC) phases preceding the 4.2 ka event. A 2010 analysis of archaeobotanical remains revealed crop diversification, including emmer , , and , alongside evidence of large-scale storage facilities, which likely mitigated risks from erratic rainfall and enabled tolerance of uncertain conditions without . Similar mechanisms may have persisted into the , buffering against arid pulses, as stable studies from contemporaneous northern Mesopotamian sites show no significant shifts in dietary reliance on C3 versus C4 plants or heightened stress signals in faunal remains during the 4.2 ka interval. Claims of climate-driven migration causing depopulation at Tell Brak lack support, with typologies exhibiting local continuity from pre- to post-event phases, indicating endogenous population persistence over exogenous replacement. This continuity aligns with regional patterns where sites like Tell Brak maintained habitation amid , underscoring societal agency in rather than deterministic . Paleoclimate proxies, such as spectra, cores, and δ¹⁸O values, offer valuable but limited resolution for attributing societal changes directly to at Tell Brak, with temporal uncertainties often spanning decades to centuries that preclude precise causal linkages to archaeological phases. Such highlight correlations but cannot isolate from intertwined factors like political fragmentation or , emphasizing the need for integrated socio-environmental models over monocausal narratives.

References

Add your contribution
Related Hubs
User Avatar
No comments yet.