CONCLUSION

These three examples of round cities, though dating to different phases of the third millennium, share many similar features and can be considered as belonging to a same tradition. Rather than cities on a Mesopotamian model, with a dense population living in large houses and depending mainly on agriculture, these settlements can be interpreted as places of gathering for semi-mobile populations dealing mainly with animal husbandry, but able also to raise their own crops (and eventually good metallurgists as well).

Even at the time when they are closest to the Mesopotamian image of the town, that is, when there is use of writing65 66 and when a large house/palace is found in them, most of the evidence underlines that their major activity is that of sheep-herders. And even then, these “towns” are almost empty of houses, while most buildings in them consist of temples, of storage areas, and eventually of some large tombs that can be linked to the ancestors of the group.

A similar process of “urbanization” appears also in the Levant during the course of the third millennium. There too, small fortified towns appear and disappear very quickly, depending on the sedentarizing stage of the population of the area and on its participation in interregional trade (Nicolle 1999).

If their pastoralist way of life is now better ascertained, is it possible to say who lived in these round cities? Or to say it otherwise, do we have evidence as to their “ethnos?” This is far more delicate and there is no sure proof for what follows. It is, of course, tempting to relate these settlements to the amorites mentioned in the early texts. We could, for that matter, relate them to the interpretations given by some of the epigraphers about E’annatum of Lagash (see n. 1): even if there is still uncertainty for the explanation of his “Tidnean name,” we do have evidence of relations between northern and southern Mesopotamia at that time, since this king claims that, from the anta-sura of nin-Girsu (or the northern frontier of his realm, according to J.-M. Durand’s personal communication), he repelled mari’s assaults (sollberger and Kupper 1971: 59). Instead of being assaults of an army, could it be attempts of the Mari nomads to enter the area with their flocks, a situation that is better known when later kings were compelled to build a wall against these northern nomads?

Even if antagonistic, these relations could perhaps explain the introduction in northern Mesopotamia of cuneiform writing, of southern-style seals, and of “palaces” for the main local rulers (more probably the previous sheikhs), albeit with many adaptations to the local aspects of life. Unfortunately, if the dates of E’annatum (twenty-fifth century B. C.) seem to fit more or less with the first testimonies of writing in syria, they postpone the introduction of the southern style of seals66 so that this explanation is not totally satisfactory.

We must also admit that we lack information as to a local formation stage for these round settlements. Nothing similar is known during the fourth millennium in northern syria, nor in western Syria, the supposed homeland of the Amorites. However, possibilities for their origin should be searched for “in the North.” As we know, the end of the Uruk expansion in northern Mesopotamia and Anatolia was marked by the intrusion, from Transcaucasia, of a new population linked to the Kura-Araxes culture. This population is characterized both by its semi-mobile herders67 and by its highly qualified metallurgists (Courcier 2007), as shown by the discoveries made in Arslantepe (Frangipane and Palumbi 2007). Traces left by this migration can be followed from Arslantepe to the Levant over a rather long period of time (Greenberg 2007).68

It is usually supposed that newcomers, when entering a territory, push away the local population, especially in the case of mobile groups. This could eventually be an explanation for an eastward movement of the Amorites. But very similar types of tombs and weapons to those of Arslantepe have also been found all along the Euphrates, so that part of these Transcaucasian groups (and other Anatolian populations) probably also settled in the semiarid zone of northern syria.

In the study made by Marchesi (2006: 10), Tid(a)num is related to the semitic word for bison/buffalo. This animal has been considered by some as the totem of the Tidnum tribes,

31 The intrusion of south Mesopotamian style of seals at Beydar is dated to the late Early Jezira Il/early Early Jezira Illa period by E. Rova (2008), before E’annatum’s reign.

BERTILLE LYONNET

And as an eponym for Hammurabi’s ancestors or for the primordial kings of the Assyrian King List, as well as some amorite clans. The term is also often used for amorite personal names. But no such animal ever existed in the semi-arid zone of northern Mesopotamia and it probably could not have lived either in the Levant mountains. On the other hand, it is well known in the piedmont zone of the caucasus.

In conclusion, the population we are dealing with in the semi-arid zone of northern mesopotamia during the third millennium is probably a mixture of different “ethnic” groups coming from different geographical horizons, but all sharing the same mobile way of life. Their skills, religious beliefs, language, and architectural traditions were certainly different originally. It is probably their mixture that made the appearance of these round cities in northern syria possible. The language they ultimately spoke and wrote, and the ancestors they ultimately claim, do not necessarily have to be related to their original ethnos.

Figure 10.1. Satellite image of Syria. The semi-arid zone and most of the “round cities"

Mentioned in this article

Figure 10.2. The modern isohyet curves and the Kranzhugel sites. Note that the 300 mm line was probably higher up toward the northeast during the third millennium because Tell Beydar is the easternmost Kranzhugel

BERTILLE LYONNET

Figure 10.3. Mari, general plan of the actual mound (from Margueron 2004: fig. 23, p. 66)

Figure 10.4. Tell Beydar, general plan (from Lebeau 1997: fig. 5, p. 15)

Figure 10.5. Tell Beydar, buildings in the inner city (from Tell Beydar/Nabada, The Resurrection of a Bronze Age city in the syrian Jezirah, 2006, brochure accessible on the Internet site of Tell Beydar)

Figure 10.6. al-rawda, plan of the excavated houses (from castel et al. 2005: fig. 7, p. 68)

BERTILLE LYONNET