A reassessment of the Old-Assyrian trade network in Upper Mesopotamia and Central Anatolia during the Middle Bronze Age, this volume examines exchange networks and economic strategies, continuity and discontinuity of specific trade circuits and routes, and the evolution of political landscapes throughout the Near East.

• Cover
• Title Page
• Copyright Information Page
• Contents Page
• List of Figures
  • List of Tables
  • Acknowledgements
• Chapter 1
  • Introduction
    • 1.1 Overview
    • 1.2 Chronological and geographical setting
    • 1.3 Research Questions
    • 1.4 Aims and Objectives
    • 1.5 Choice of Data and Methodology
    • 1.6 Book Outline
• Chapter 2
  • Theoretical Approaches to Landscape, Political Geography and Trade
    • 2.1 Introduction
    • 2.2 Defining an archaeological landscape
    • 2.3 Cities, States and City-States
      • 2.3.1 Definition and Origin
    • 2.4 Structural characteristics of pre-industrial complex economies
      • 2.4.1 Theoretical frameworks
      • 2.4.2 Property and Land Management
      • 2.4.3 Craft production
    • 2.5 Economic policy and interregional interaction
    • 2.6 Summary
• FIGURE 2.1. A SCHEMATIC, HIGHLY STYLISED MODEL OF CITY-STATE.
  • FIGURE 2.2. A SCHEMATIC MODEL OF EARLY PRE-INDUSTRIAL ECONOMIES IN THE NEAR EAST.
  • FIGURE 3.1. SOUTH-EASTERN ANATOLIA AND UPPER MESOPOTAMIA IN THE EARLY SECOND MILLENNIUM BC.
  • FIGURE 3.2. SCHEMATIC PLAN OF AŠŠUR IN THE OLD ASSYRIAN PERIOD.
  • FIGURE 3.3. KÜLTEPE’S MAIN MOUND (HÖYÜK) AND LOWER TOWN.
  • FIGURE 3.4. THE OLD PALACE (LEVEL 8) AND THE WARŠAMA’S PALACE (LEVEL 7) ON KÜLTEPE’S MAIN MOUND.
  • FIGURE 3.5. THE NEAR EAST IN THE 18TH CENTURY BC.
  • FIGURE 3.6. DISTRIBUTION OF OLD ASSYRIAN COMMERCIAL SETTLEMENTS DURING KÜLTEPE’S LOWER TOWN LEVEL II (C. 1970-1835 BC).
  • FIGURE 3.7. DISTRIBUTION OF OLD ASSYRIAN COMMERCIAL SETTLEMENTS DURING KÜLTEPE’S LOWER TOWN LEVEL IB (C. 1835-1700 BC).
  • FIGURE 3.8. OLD ASSYRIAN TRADE SCHEMATIC MODEL.
  • FIGURE 4.1. ALABASTRON TYPE SYRIAN BOTTLES FROM ESKIYAPAR (1; ÖZGÜÇ 1986: FIGURE 3:9), KÜLTEPE (2; ÖZGÜÇ 1986: FIGURE 3.3), TELL BI’A (3; STROMMENGER AND KOHLMEYER 1998: PLATE 177), AND TELL BRAK (4; OATES ET AL. 2001: FIGURE 190). DRAWING BY AUTHOR.
  • FIGURE 4.2. DIFFERENT TYPOLOGIES OF SYRIAN BOTTLES: OVOID-EGG SHAPE (1A-C), GLOBULAR SHAPE (2A-B), CYLINDRICAL SHAPE (3A-B), AND PIRIFORM SHAPE (4A). FROM KÜLTEPE LEVEL IA (1a, 1b, 2a, 3a; EMRE 1999: PLATE I: 1-4), KÜLTEPE LEVEL IB (4a; EMRE 1999: PLATE I
  • FIGURE 4.3. DISTRIBUTION OF SYRIAN BOTTLES IN THE THIRD MILLENNIUM BC.
  • FIGURE 4.4. DISTRIBUTION OF SYRIAN BOTTLES IN THE EARLY SECOND MILLENNIUM BC (CA. 2000-1700 BC).
  • FIGURE 4.5. SYRIAN BOTTLES FROM ALALAKH’S PALACE, LEVEL VII (A-B; HEINZ 1992: PLATE 12: 49, 47). PLAN REDRAWN AFTER WOOLLEY 1953: FIGURE 12, WITH SOME MODIFICATIONS.
  • FIGURE 4.6. KHABUR WARE (PHASE I): JARS (1-6), BOWLS (7-9). FROM TELL AL RIMAH (1, 5, 8; OATES 1970: PLATE IX: 2, 1, 3), TELL JIGAN (2; OGUCHI 1997: PLATE II-2: 8), TELL MOZAN (3; BUCCELLATI AND KELLY-BUCCELLATI 1988: FIGURE 26: M1 83), TELL TAYA (4, 7, 9
  • FIGURE 4.7. KHABUR WARE JARS (PHASE II): WIDE MOUTHED (1-2), SHORT/LONG NECKED (3-5), GLOBULAR (6-7). FROM TELL THUWAIJ (1; FUJI ET AL. 1989-1990: FIGURE 7: 12), TELL FISNA (2; NUMOTO 1988: FIGURE 25: 225), CHAGAR BAZAR (5, 6; MALLOWAN 1937: FIGURE 21: 12
  • FIGURE 4.8. KHABUR WARE (PHASE II): BOWLS (1-3), CUPS/BEAKERS (4-7), AND GRAIN MEASURES/KRATERS (8-10). FROM TELL JIGAN (1; OGUCHI 1997 A: PLATE II-16: 8); TELL THUWAIJ (3; FUJI ET AL. 1989-1990: FIGURE 7: 14), KÜLTEPE (6-7; ÖZGÜÇ 1953: FIGURES 25 AND 26)
  • FIGURE 4.9. KHABUR WARE PAINTED DECORATIONS (REDRAWN AND MODIFIED FROM FAIVRE AND NICOLLE 2007: PLATE XVI).
  • FIGURE 4.10. DISTRUBUTION OF KHABUR WARE PERIOD I (C. 2000-1800 BC).
  • FIGURE 4.11. DISTRIBUTION OF KHABUR WARE PERIOD II (C. 1800-1750/30 BC).
  • FIGURE 4.12. THE FREQUENCY DISTRIBUTION OF KHABUR WARE (PHASE I-II, C. 2000-1750/1730 BC).
  • FIGURE 4.13. FREQUENCY OF VESSEL SHAPES IN THE MAIN AND SECONDARY DISTRIBITION ZONES.
  • FIGURE 4.14. FREQUENCY OF VESSELS BY CONTEXT IN THE MAIN AND SECONDARY DISTRIBUTION ZONES.
  • FIGURE 4.15. FREQUENCY AND PERCENTAGE OF VESSEL SHAPES IN EACH CONTEXT.
  • FIGURE 4.16. PRESUMED EXTENT OF ŠAMŠI-ADAD I’S KINGDOM.
  • FIGURE 4.17. TYPOLOGIES OF BALANCE WEIGHTS IN THE ANCIENT NEAR EAST: SPHENDONOID (1-8), DISC-SHAPED (9), SPHERICAL (10-11), CYLINDRICAL (15), DOME-SHAPED (12, 13), ROMBOIDAL (14), AND ZOOMORPHIC (16-18). FROM KÜLTEPE (1, 3, 6-7, 9, 14; ÖZGÜÇ 1986: PLATE 1
  • FIGURE 4.18. SPATIAL DISTRIBUTION OF DEPOSITS OF HEMATITE AND SITES YIELDING BALANCE WEIGHTS IN HEMATITE DURING THE MIDDLE BRONZE AGE (C. 2000-1600 BC).
  • FIGURE 4.19. SPATIAL DISTRIBUTION OF WEIGHT SYSTEMS DURING THE MIDDLE BRONZE AGE (C. 2000-1700 BC).
  • FIGURE 4.20. FREQUENCY AND PERCENTAGE OF BALANCE WEIGHTS ACCORDING TO THE CONTEXT AT TELL MARDIKH (EBLA).
  • FIGURE 4.21. FREQUENCY OF DIFFERENT WEIGHT SYSTEMS ACCORDING TO THE CONTEXT AT TELL MARDIKH (EBLA).
  • FIGURE 4.22. PERCENTAGES OF DIFFERENT WEIGHT SYSTEMS ACCORDING TO THE DISTRIBUTION ZONES.
  • FIGURE 4.23. BOX AND WHISKER PLOT OF MASS (GRAMS) OF STANDARD UNIT (ONE SHEKEL) ACCORDING TO THE WEIGHT SYSTEM.
  • FIGURE 4.24. CUMULATIVE PERCENTAGE OF BALANCE WEIGHTS BY RATIO.
  • FIGURE 4.25. KENDALL STATISTICS GRAPH OF 37 ANATOLIAN WEIGHTS.
  • FIGURE 4.26. KENDALL STATISTICS GRAPH OF 53 LEVANTINE WEIGHTS.
  • FIGURE 4.27. KENDALL STATISTICS GRAPH OF 125 MESOPOTAMIAN WEIGHTS.
  • FIGURE 4.28. KENDALL STATISTICS GRAPH OF 93 SYRIAN WEIGHTS.
  • FIGURE 4.29. KENDALL STATISTICS GRAPH OF 55 AEGEAN WEIGHTS.
  • FIGURE 4.30. KENDALL STATISTICS GRAPH OF 277 WEIGHTS.
  • FIGURE 4.31. DISTRIBUTION OF CYLINDER AND STAMP SEALS IN UPPER MESOPOTAMIA AND CENTRAL/SOUTH-EASTERN ANATOLIA DURING THE MIDDLE BRONZE AGE (C. 2000 – 1600 BC).
  • FIGURE 4.32. DISTRIBUTION OF GLYPTIC REGIONAL STYLES IN IN UPPER MESOPOTAMIA AND CENTRAL/SOUTH-EASTERN ANATOLIA DURING THE MIDDLE BRONZE AGE (C. 2000 – 1600 BC).
  • FIGURE 4.33. FREQUENCY AND PERCENTAGE OF KINDS OF OBJECTS BEARING SEAL IMPRESSIONS IN THE MIDDLE BRONZE AGE I AND II.
  • FIGURE 4.34. FREQUENCY OF DIFFERENT REGIONAL STYLES ACCORDING TO THE CONTEXT AND THE DISTRIBUTION AREA.
  • FIGURE 4.35. PERCENTAGES OF DIFFERENT REGIONAL STYLES ACCORDING TO THE HOUSE.
  • FIGURE 4.36. PERCENTAGES OF DIFFERENT SEALS/IMPRESSIONS STYLES ACCORDING TO THE DISTRIBUTION ZONES.
  • FIGURE 5.1. MAP SHOWING THE TWO CASE STUDIES: KHABUR TRIANGLE (A) AND CENTRAL ANATOLIA (B).
  • FIGURE 5.2. RAINFALL IN THE KHABUR TRIANGLE.
  • FIGURE 5.3. MAP SHOWING ARCHAEOLOGICAL SURVEYS CARRIED OUT IN THE KHABUR TRIANGLE.
  • FIGURE 5.4. SPATIAL DISTRIBUTION AND ESTIMATED SIZES OF MIDDLE BRONZE AGE SITES IN THE KHABUR TRIANGLE.
  • FIGURE 5.5. MAP SHOWING ARCHAEOLOGICAL SURVEYS CARRIED OUT IN CENTRAL ANATOLIA.
  • FIGURE 5.6. SPATIAL DISTRIBUTION AND ESTIMATED SIZES OF MIDDLE BRONZE AGE SITES IN CENTRAL ANATOLIA.
  • FIGURE 5.7. LINEAR REGRESSION MODEL OF SITES DENSITY VS. ARCHAEOLOGICAL SURVEY AREA.
  • FIGURE 5.8. RECOVERY RATES FOR ARCHAEOLOGICAL SURVEYS CARRIED OUT IN THE KHABUR TRIANGLE AND IN CENTRAL ANATOLIA. THE TRIANGLE MARKERS INDICATE THE KHABUR TRIANGLE’S SURVEYS.
  • FIGURE 5.9. DIFFERENT EXAMPLES OF RANK-SIZE CURVES.
  • FIGURE 5.10. AREAS IN A RANK-SIZE GRAPH USED AS POSITIVE AND NEGATIVE COMPONENTS OF THE COEFFICIENT A.
  • FIGURE 5.11. A-COEFFICIENT FOR LOG-NORMAL (ZIPF’S LAW) (A), CONVEX (B), AND PRIMATE (C) DISTRIBUTIONS. THE LEFT COLUMN SHOWS THE STANDARDISED RANK-SIZE PLOT, THE RIGHT COLUMN SHOWS THE LOCATION OF POSSIBLE SETTLEMENTS WITH SYMBOLS PROPORTIONAL TO THEIR SI
  • FIGURE 5.12. BOX AND WHISKER PLOT OF SIZE (IN HECTARES) OF MIDDLE BRONZE AGE SETTLEMENTS IN THE KHABUR TRIANGLE AND IN CENTRAL ANATOLIA.
  • FIGURE 5.13. SITE SIZE HIERARCHIES, USING A NATURAL LOGARITHMIC SCALE FOR SIZE OF SETTLEMENTS (HA) AND RANK (ORDINAL), IN THE KHABUR TRIANGLE AND CENTRAL ANATOLIA.
  • FIGURE 5.14. RANK-SIZE GRAPH AND HISTOGRAM OF 1000 BOOTSTRAPPED A-COEFFICIENT VALUES OF THE KHABUR TRIANGLE DATASET. THE HISTOGRAMS SHOW THE DISTRIBUTION OF THE SIMULATED A-COEFFICIENT, ALONG WITH THE OBSERVED ONE (RED LINE).
  • FIGURE 5.15. RANK-SIZE GRAPH AND HISTOGRAM OF 1000 BOOTSTRAPPED A-COEFFICIENT VALUES OF THE KHABUR TRIANGLE DATASET. THE HISTOGRAMS SHOW THE DISTRIBUTION OF THE SIMULATED A-COEFFICIENT, ALONG WITH THE OBSERVED ONE (RED LINE).
  • FIGURE 5.16. SITE SIZE HIERARCHIES, USING A NATURAL LOGARITHMIC SCALE FOR SIZE OF SETTLEMENTS (HA) AND RANK (ORDINAL), IN THE WEST AND EAST KHABUR TRIANGLE.
  • FIGURE 5.17. SPATIAL DISTRIBUTION OF RANK-SIZE PATTERNS IN THE KHABUR TRIANGLE AND IN CENTRAL ANATOLIA.
  • FIGURE 5.18. THE VARIABLES OF A SPATIAL INTERACTION MODEL.
  • FIGURE 5.19. HEAT MAP SHOWING PEARSON R2’S CORRELATION IN CENTRAL ANATOLIA (A) AND IN THE KHABUR TRIANGLE (B) UNDER DIFFERENT Α AND Β CONDITIONS. THE GREYSCALE VALUES REPRESENT CORRELATION VALUES, WITH DARK GREY REPRESENTING THE BEST FIT AND LIGHT GREY TH
  • FIGURE 5.20. MAPPED OUTPUT FROM SCENARIO 1 FOR CENTRAL ANATOLIA (A) AND THE KHABUR TRIANGLE (B), WITH PARAMETER SETTINGS AS INDICATED IN THE TABLE 5.8. BLUE INDICATES LARGER RELATIVE SITE SIZE UNDER THE MODEL.
  • FIGURE 5.21. HEAT MAP SHOWING PEARSON AND SPEARMAN’S CORRELATIONS AVERAGED IN CENTRAL ANATOLIA (A) AND IN THE KHABUR TRIANGLE (B) UNDER DIFFERENT Α AND Β CONDITIONS. THE GREYSCALE VALUES REPRESENT CORRELATION VALUES, WITH DARK GREY REPRESENTING THE BEST F
  • FIGURE 5.22. COMPARISON OF SITE SIZE HIERARCHIES ON NORMALISED LOGARITHMIC SCALE (USING POPULATION AND ESTIMATED SIZE) BETWEEN THE MODELLED AND THE OBSERVED DATA IN CENTRAL ANATOLIA.
  • FIGURE 5.23. COMPARISON OF SITE SIZE HIERARCHIES ON NORMALISED LOGARITHMIC SCALE (USING POPULATION AND ESTIMATED SIZE) BETWEEN THE MODELLED AND THE OBSERVED DATA IN THE KHABUR TRIANGLE.
  • FIGURE 5.24. MAPPED OUTPUT FROM SCENARIO 1 FOR CENTRAL ANATOLIA (A) AND THE KHABUR TRIANGLE (B), WITH PARAMETER SETTINGS AS INDICATED IN THE TABLE 5.9. BLUE INDICATES LARGER RELATIVE SITE SIZE UNDER THE MODEL.
  • FIGURE 6.1. LOCATIONS OF BRIDGES, FORDS, FERRIES AND CROSSINGS IN ANATOLIA DURING THE OLD ASSYRIAN PERIOD (SOURCE: BARJAMOVIC 2011A: TABLE 2).
  • FIGURE 6.2. LOCATIONS OF INNS IN ANATOLIA DURING THE OLD ASSYRIAN PERIOD (SOURCE: BARJAMOVIC 2011A: TABLE 5).
  • FIGURE 6.3. FLOODED HOLLOW WAYS TO THE NORTH OF TELL BRAK AFTER HEAVY PRECIPITATIONS. (PICTURE TAKEN BY THE AUTHOR ON THE 1ST OF MAY 2011).
  • FIGURE 6.4. NETWORK OF HOLLOW WAYS IN THE KHABUR TRIANGLE (SOURCE: UR 2010B).
  • FIGURE 6.5. SCHEMATIC PLAN OF SETTLEMENT, ROADWAYS, AND LAND-USE ZONES AT TELL BRAK.
  • FIGURE 6.6. TRADE ROUTES IN THE OLD ASSYRIAN PERIOD.
  • FIGURE 6.7. ILLUSTRATION OF THE PROCEDURE FOR GENERATING A CMTC GRID. A – B: CUMULATIVE COST SURFACES FROM POINT A (LEFT) AND POINT B (RIGHT). LIGHTER SHADES INDICATE LOWER CUMULATIVE MOVEMENT COST. C: CORRIDOR CREATED BY ADDING THE TWO GRIDS A AND B. THE
  • FIGURE 6.8. EXAMPLE OF LEAST-COST PATH GENERATED FROM AN ACCUMULATED COST SURFACE MAP.
  • FIGURE 6.9. REPRESENTATION (BLACK PIXELS) OF LINEAR TERRAIN FEATURES (E.G. RIVERS, DEFENSIVE WALLS, TERRITORIAL BOUNDARIES, ETC.) IN A RASTER FRICTION SURFACE.
  • FIGURE 6.10. AN EXAMPLE OF LANDSCAPE REPRESENTED AS BOTH A GRID AND A CIRCUIT. THE LANDSCAPE CONTAINS PATCHES OF 0-RESISTANCE CELLS (OPEN), DISPERSAL HABITAT OF FINITE RESISTANCE (GREY), AND ONE ‘BARRIER’ CELL WITH INFINITE RESISTANCE (BLACK). CELLS WITH
  • FIGURE 6.11. EXAMPLES OF DIRECTED (A) AND UNDIRECTED (B) NETWORK.
  • FIGURE 6.12. EXAMPLES OF DEGREE, CLOSENESS AND BETWEENNESS CENTRALITY FOR THREE UNDIRECTED NETWORK STRUCTURES. NODES SIZE/COLOUR AND LABELS INDICATE CENTRALITY VALUES.
  • FIGURE 6.13. EXAMPLE OF HIERARCHICAL DIRECTED NYSTUEN-DACEY (N-D) NETWORK. THE NODE A IS THE BIGGEST ONE IN THE NETWORK AND, THEREFORE, IT RECEIVES FLOW FROM ALL SURROUNDING NODES. ON THE CONTRARY, THE NODE E IS THE SMALLEST ONE AND ARCS FROM IT DEPART TO
  • FIGURE 6.14. NYSTUEN-DACEY NETWORK’S CENTRALITY RESULTS FOR CENTRAL ANATOLIA (+1 STANDARD DEVIATION): A) INDEGREE; B) CLOSENESS CENTRALITY; C) BETWEENNESS CENTRALITY; D) MARKOV CLUSTER. THE LINES ARE COLOURED ACCORDING TO THE FLOW, RANGING FROM LIGHT TO D
  • FIGURE 6.15. NYSTUEN-DACEY NETWORK’S CENTRALITY RESULTS FOR THE KHABUR TRIANGLE (+1 STANDARD DEVIATION): A) INDEGREE; B) CLOSENESS CENTRALITY; C) BETWEENNESS CENTRALITY; D) MARKOV CLUSTER. THE LINES ARE COLOURED ACCORDING TO THE FLOW, RANGING FROM LIGHT T
  • FIGURE 6.16. NYSTUEN-DACEY NETWORK’S CENTRALITY RESULTS FOR CENTRAL ANATOLIA (+2 STANDARD DEVIATION): A) INDEGREE; B) CLOSENESS CENTRALITY; C) BETWEENNESS CENTRALITY; D) MARKOV CLUSTER. THE LINES ARE COLOURED ACCORDING TO THE FLOW, RANGING FROM LIGHT TO D
  • FIGURE 6.17. NYSTUEN-DACEY NETWORK’S CENTRALITY RESULTS FOR THE KHABUR TRIANGLE (+2 STANDARD DEVIATION): A) INDEGREE; B) CLOSENESS CENTRALITY; C) BETWEENNESS CENTRALITY; D) MARKOV CLUSTER. THE LINES ARE COLOURED ACCORDING TO THE FLOW, RANGING FROM LIGHT T
  • FIGURE 6.18. SPATIAL DISTRIBUTION OF HOLLOW WAYS IN THE KHABUR TRIANGLE. IN RED, A) THE HOLLOW WAYS LIKELY FORMED DURING THE MIDDLE BRONZE AGE (C. 2000 – 1600 BC). HOLLOW WAYS NETWORK’S CENTRALITY RESULTS: B) INDEGREE; C) CLOSENESS CENTRALITY; D) BETWEENN
  • FIGURE 6.19. CIRCUITSCAPE CALCULATES CURRENT DENSITY BY CONDUCTING CURRENT THROUGH A RESISTANCE SURFACE (FRICTION MAP). STRAIGHT PARALLEL REGIONS ALLOW CURRENT TO FLOW THROUGH THE BEST PATHS FOR THE EAST-WEST DIRECTIONAL RUN (A AND C) AND FOR THE NORTH-SO
  • FIGURE 6.20. OMNIDIRECTIONAL CONNECTIVITY MAP FOR CENTRAL ANATOLIA.
  • FIGURE 6.21. OMNIDIRECTIONAL CONNECTIVITY MAP FOR THE KHABUR TRIANGLE.
  • FIGURE 6.22. LEAST-COST PATHS AND CORRIDORS BETWEEN AŠŠUR AND KANEŠ IN SCENARIO 1(A) AND 2(B). LIGHTER SHADES INDICATE LOWER CUMULATIVE MOVEMENT COST.
  • FIGURE 6.23. CURRENT MAP BETWEEN AŠŠUR AND KANEŠ IN SCENARIO 1(A) AND 2(B). HIGHER CURRENT DENSITIES (LIGHTER SHADES) INDICATE CELLS WITH HIGHER NET PASSAGE PROBABILITIES FOR RANDOM WALKERS.
  • FIGURE 6.24. MAP HIGHLIGHTING ‘PINCH POINTS’ OR CRITICAL HABITAT CONNECTIONS BETWEEN AŠŠUR AND KANEŠ IN SCENARIO 1(A) AND 2(B). HIGHER CURRENT DENSITIES (LIGHTER SHADES) INDICATE CELLS WITH HIGHER NET PASSAGE PROBABILITIES FOR RANDOM WALKERS.
  • FIGURE 6.25. OMNIDIRECTIONAL CONNECTIVITY MAP AND SPATIAL DISTRIBUTION OF OLD ASSYRIAN COLONIES.
  • FIGURE 6.26. LOCATIONS OF MOUNTAIN PASSES AND OLD ASSYRIAN COMMERCIAL SETTLEMENTS.
  • FIGURE 6.27. CUMULATIVE PATHWAY ANALYSIS TO SITE B FROM SITES A (1) AND C (2). WHERE THE TWO PATHS OVERLAP THE CORRESPONDING PIXELS ARE GIVEN A VALUE OF 2, SHOWN HERE AS A DARKER CELL (3).
  • FIGURE 6.28. CUMULATIVE LEAST COST PATHS (LCP) FOR EACH PAIR OF OLD ASSYRIAN COMMERCIAL SETTLEMENTS. DARKER VALUES (RED) INDICATE CELLS WITH THE HIGHEST NUMBER OF OVERLAPPING PATHS. BARJAMOVIC’S MODEL (A) VS. FORLANINI’S MODEL (B) FOR KÜLTEPE’S LOWER TOWN
  • FIGURE 6.29. CUMULATIVE LEAST COST PATHS (LCP) FOR EACH PAIR OF OLD ASSYRIAN COMMERCIAL SETTLEMENTS. DARKER VALUES (RED) INDICATE CELLS WITH THE HIGHEST NUMBER OF OVERLAPPING PATHS. BARJAMOVIC’S MODEL (A) VS. FORLANINI’S MODEL (B) FOR KÜLTEPE’S LOWER TOWN
  • FIGURE 6.30. CURRENT FLOW BEETWEENNESS CENTRALITY (CFBC) OF OLD ASSYRIAN COMMERCIAL SETTLEMENTS. BARJAMOVIC’S MODEL VS. FORLANINI’S MODEL FOR KÜLTEPE’S LOWER TOWN LEVEL II PERIOD (C. 1970-1835 BC).
  • FIGURE 6.31. CURRENT FLOW BEETWEENNESS CENTRALITY (CFBC) OF OLD ASSYRIAN COMMERCIAL SETTLEMENTS. BARJAMOVIC’S MODEL VS. FORLANINI’S MODEL FOR KÜLTEPE’S LOWER TOWN LEVEL IB PERIOD (C. 1835-1700 BC).
  • FIGURE 7.1. AREAS OF INTERACTION IN UPPER MESOPOTAMIA, ANATOLIA AND NORTHERN LEVANT IN THE EARLY SECOND MILLENNIUM BC.
• Chapter 3
  • Upper Mesopotamia and Central Anatolia in the Old Assyrian Colony Period. A Review of the Documentary Historical Evidence
    • 3.2.1 Assyria during the first centuries of the 2nd millennium BC.
  • 3.3 A tale from two cities: Aššur and Kaneš
    • 3.3.1 The origins of Aššur and its urban organization
      • 3.3.1.1 The City Hall of Aššur
    • 3.3.2 The city of Kaneš
      • 3.3.2.1 The kārum of Kaneš
  • 3.4 Political Geography in Middle Bronze Age Mesopotamia and Central Anatolia.
    • 3.4.1 The Middle Bronze Age I
    • 3.4.2 The Middle Bronze Age II
  • 3.5 The History and Organization of the Old Assyrian Trade System
    • 3.5.1 Origin and definition
    • 3.5.2 The structure of the trade
    • 3.5.3. Geographical reconstruction of trade
    • 3.5.4 Goods and production
    • 3.5.5 Logistics and trade routes
  • 3.6 Summary
• Chapter 4
  • Perspectives on Material Culture: Intra and Inter-Regional Dynamics
    • 4.1.1 Research Questions
      • 4.1.2 Methodology
    • 4.2 Syrian Bottles
      • 4.2.1 General characteristics and definition of shapes
      • 4.2.2 Limits of the dataset
      • 4.2.3 Diachronic and spatial distribution
      • 4.2.4 Intra-site contexts
      • 4.2.5 Discussion
    • 4.3. Khabur Ware
      • 4.3.1 General characteristics of Khabur Ware
        • 4.3.1.1 Origins
        • 4.3.1.2 Classification and vessels shapes description
        • 4.3.1.3 Decoration
        • 4.3.1.4 Periodization
      • 4.3.2 The dataset and its limits
      • 4.3.3. Diachronic and spatial distribution.
      • 4.3.4 Intra-site contexts
      • 4.3.5 Quantitative analysis: shapes, contexts and distribution areas
      • 4.3.6 Discussion
    • 4.4 Scales and weighing systems
      • 4.4.1 General characteristics of balance weights
      • 4.4.2 The dataset and its limits
      • 4.4.3 Diachronic and spatial distribution of different weight systems
      • 4.4.4 Intra-site contexts
      • 4.4.5 Quantitative analysis: materials, shapes, contexts and weight systems
      • 4.4.6 Discussion
    • 4.5 Seals and sealing
      • 4.5.1 General characteristics of sealing technology and regional styles
      • 4.5.2 The dataset and its limits
      • 4.5.3 Diachronic and spatial distribution of glyptic styles
      • 4.5.4 Intra-site contexts
      • 4.5.5 Quantitative analysis: materials, sealing practices, contexts and styles
      • 4.5.6 Discussion
    • 4.6 Summary
• Chapter 5
  • Models of Settlement Hierarchy
    • 5.1 Introduction
    • 5.2 Natural and human landscapes
      • 5.2.1 Case studies
        • 5.2.1.1 The Khabur Triangle
        • 5.2.1.2 Central Anatolia
      • 5.2.2 The properties and limitations of archaeological survey data
    • 5.3 Settlement Rank-Size Distributions
      • 5.3.1 Methodology
      • 5.3.2 Results
        • 5.3.2.1 The Khabur Triangle versus central Anatolia
        • 5.3.2.2 The Khabur Triangle
        • 5.3.2.3 Central Anatolia
      • 5.3.3 Discussion
    • 5.4 Spatial Interaction Models
      • 5.4.1 Methodology
      • 5.4.2 Model Structure
      • 5.4.3 Results
        • 5.4.3.1 Scenario 1: The Benefit of Geographic Location
        • 5.4.3.2 Scenario 2: Reproducing Settlement Hierarchies
      • 5.4.4. Discussion
    • 5.5 Summary
• Chapter 6
  • Landscape-scale Models of Movement and Interaction
    • 6.2 Natural and Human-Modified Landscapes of Movement
      • 6.2.1 Case studies
      • 6.2.2 Geographical features and landscape constraints to movement
      • 6.2.3 Archaeological features
        • 6.2.3.1 Hollow ways in Upper Mesopotamia
      • 6.2.4 Textual evidence and inter-regional trade routes
    • 6.3 Computational methods
      • 6.3.1 Least Cost Surfaces, Paths and Corridors
      • 6.3.2 Electric Circuit Theory
      • 6.3.3 Network Analysis
      • 6.3.4 Spatial Interaction Model and Areas of Interaction
    • 6.4 Connectivity and Interaction at the Regional Scale
      • 6.4.1 Network Centrality and Clustering
        • 6.4.1.1 Hollow ways and connectivity in the Khabur Triangle
      • 6.4.2 Landscape terrestrial connectivity
      • 6.4.3 Discussion
    • 6.5 Long-distance trade routes across Upper Mesopotamia and Anatolia
      • 6.5.1 Discussion
    • 6.6 Colonies and Connectivity in the Assyrian Commercial Landscape
      • 6.6.1 Proximity to geographical features
      • 6.6.2 Connectivity
      • 6.6.3. Centrality
      • 6.6.4 Discussion
    • 6.7 Summary
• Chapter 7
  • Discussion: Landscapes of Interaction in Upper Mesopotamia and Anatolia
    • 7.3 Commercial landscapes of long-distance contacts
    • 7.4 Bridging Upper Mesopotamia and Anatolia
• Chapter 8
  • Conclusions
    • 8.2 Directions for Future Research
  • Bibliography