Just like in Upper Mesopotamia, the second urbanisation peaked in Syria around the mid-third millennium bc. This period saw the rise of cities and villages across the entire semi-arid plain, as well as in the few irrigated areas and on the coast. This urban growth was already known through some excavations (from Amuq in the north, to Hama in the south, and the coastal centres of Ugarit and Byblos) and the discovery of several necropolises. However, the ‘caliciform’ ware found there led to the assumption of the existence of standardised palace workshops producing valuable pottery.
In this regard, excavations at Ebla have provided a more detailed picture of the culture and development of the area (Figure 7.3). The archaeological data from third millennium Ebla is quite limited (especially compared to the Middle Bronze Age data), but crucial. This is because the evidence mainly comes from a part of the royal palace (G) that had an Audience Court and administrative quarter (Figure 7.4). Among the many finds, the most important ones are the large archive storing several thousands of tablets, as well as the Rock Temple in the lower city. Despite the lack of private households, the texts and other finds from the palace provide a detailed picture of the cultural, political and economic (in particular, commercial) features of a Syrian state in the Early Dynastic period.
At the peak of its development, Ebla extended over more than 50 hectares (as did Mari and Ashur). The archival material reveals the sheer size and administrative complexity of the city, which must have developed over a relatively long period of time (in fact, under Palace G there are the remains of an earlier palace). Traces of the first urbanisation are not very visible in the area west of the Euphrates. This is because Proto-Syrian culture only took shape later, with a relatively modest Mesopotamian influence (writing aside) and entirely unique features. As shown by the thousands of personal names (not just from Ebla, but from a variety of other localities) found in the administrative texts, the local population was almost entirely Semitic. Both at Ebla and the majority of cities in contact with it, namely, central and western Syria and western Upper Mesopotamia, the population seems to have been relatively homogeneous. In fact, all the names attested are in the same language as the one used in the Eblaite sources.
This homogeneity was not due to Ebla’s supremacy, but to the diffusion of this linguistic stratum, namely, ‘Eblaite’ (whose name is due to its attestation in the Ebla archives). The latter became the main spoken, administrative, and epistolary language of the Syrian and Upper Mesopotamian areas. The Eblaite linguistic stratum was also closely related to Hurrian along the foothills and to Old Akkadian in Central Mesopotamia. Internally, Syria experienced the rise of the Martu, a group bearing strong pastoral connotations, which would have a significant impact in the area in the following period.
Figure 7.3 Aerial view of Tell Mardikh, ancient Ebla (Courtesy: the Italian Archaeological Mission in Syria, Ebla).
Figure 7.4 Ebla: axonometric view of palace G, ca. 2400 bc.
The kingdom of Ebla extended over a wide area, embracing a large section of northern Syria. The city was able to rely on the fields concentrated in the Matkh Valley and the lands in the surrounding plateau and hills, more suitable for farming, a limited amount of agriculture, and the cultivation of trees. In terms of demography, the data recovered from archival material is incompatible with the archaeological data. Ebla probably had around 15,000 or 20,000 inhabitants at most. The kingdom as a whole (with about a hundred villages with their own administrative functions) probably barely reached 100,000 people. However, the texts attest 11,700 employees working for the central administration, as well as a population of seasonal workers (presumably under corvee). The latter were divided into 16 ‘gates’ (that is, districts), with 2,000 ‘houses’ each, amounting to a total ofbetween 130,000 and 150,000 people. Considering the fact that even the number of animals and metals recorded seem extremely high, it may be necessary to examine the way in which the administration determined these numbers.
The kingdom did not reach the Mediterranean coast, ruled by several independent kingdoms such as Byblos, which must have been the most influential one. Similarly, the Eblaite kingdom did not control the Euphrates Valley, where there were several autonomous states, from Carchemish to Emar, Tuttul and Mari. In the south, Ebla did not extend beyond Hama, and bordered with the kingdom of Ibal (near Qatna). Even in the north, the kingdom did not extend beyond Aleppo, where there were other independent states.
Therefore, the kingdom of Ebla was more a large state than a regional one. However, its territory was larger than the one of contemporary Mesopotamian states and with a population of a similar size. However, the lower density of population effectively compensated for the larger size of the Eblaite kingdom. Ebla was a hegemonic centre in the area, and it controlled several of the surrounding states, both politically and economically. Nevertheless, the supremacy of Ebla in the area experienced several fluctuations. At the peak of its expansion, Ebla controlled the Euphrates Valley (from Carchemish to Emar), the Balikh Valley (with the Harran and Irrite kingdoms), and the Taurus foothills (with the Urshum and Hashshum kingdoms, near Gaziantep). The wider commercial network controlled by Ebla will be considered later on, but it reached far beyond the direct political control of the kingdom.
The political structure of the kingdom was also different from the Mesopotamian model, due to the kin-based structure of its society. In fact, since that first urbanisation centred on the rise of temple complexes did not leave a strong mark in Syria, temples did not have the influential political and economic role they had in Mesopotamia (nor would they ever have such a role throughout the Bronze Age or later on). Even the role of cities as promoters of agricultural colonisation, which in Mesopotamia was linked to irrigation and the centralised accumulation of harvests, never appeared in Syria. Consequently, political control seems to have been less centralised, promoting the development of many centres, as well as an agro-pastoral kind of society with a strong kin-based structure (though different from the Mesopotamian one). These aspects would characterise the area for at least two millennia.
Naturally, there was a king, whose title was written with the Sumerogram for ‘lord’, en, read in Eblaite as malikum (‘king’ in Western Semitic), and a queen (maliktum). The latter kept her role (as mother of the king) even after her husband’s death, and had an important cultic role. After their death, kings were celebrated in funerary cults, and their images and descendancy were preserved. Kings were supported by a group of elders (abba), clearly representing the most powerful families in the city. The elders resided in the palace as important guests of the king, and were allotted rations and provisions. Their role was strictly political, but they acted more like an assembly, rather than a set of functionaries supervising certain tasks or administrative sectors.
Alongside the king and the elders, there was another institution, fully administrative in character, headed by a vizier. The latter probably held the title of ‘head of the administration’ (lugal sa-za). The vizier had a very important role, so much so that in the earliest studies on Ebla these men were thought to have been kings (the actual kings rarely appear in the administrative texts). The viziers were in charge of the kingdom’s administration, trade, and the army in case of war. The supervisors and governors of smaller cities all held the title of lugal, placing them at the same level as the elders and the representatives of the Eblaite kingdom in distant commercial centres or in other kingdoms. These governors were all under the vizier’s rule (there were 14 districts, 12 in the kingdom and two at Ebla).
Based on the redistribution of food, the king (as well as the queen), the vizier and the elders seem to have resided in the palace. Therefore, the palace became the home of a series of assembly-type groups. This fact was a reflection of the former decentralisation of power in Syria, as well as its structure as a conglomeration of different settlements. The latter were united under a main city, which was still central, but had to constantly take into account this composite structure. Consequently, the nature of the relation between the elders, the districts and the kin-based structure of the kingdom remains difficult to define. The term ‘elders’ itself, however, indicates a social structure still centred on the supremacy of powerful families.
World History
