Chalcolithic The site was first occupied during the Late Chalcolithic IV period (3300–3000 BC). This early settlement was concentrated on the central part of the upper town; its function is unknown and it ended in the late fourth millennium BC.
Early Bronze Early Bronze III After a hiatus of several centuries, the site was reoccupied around 2800 BC during the Early Bronze Age III.
Early Bronze IV The last two centuries of the third millennium BC saw widespread disruption of urban settlements in Syria and the abandonment of many cities; however, Qatna seems to be an exception, as it continued to grow. During the Early Bronze Age IV, Qatna was a circular city which reached a size of ; it included a dense residential quarter and facilities for the storage and processing of grains, especially a large multi-roomed granary similar to the one in
Tell Beydar. The city may have been one of the urban centers of the
Ib'al federation, perhaps the center of a king or prince. The early city occupied the acropolis, and none of its remains were found in the lower city. Most of the small settlements surrounding Qatna, to , appeared during this period; this might have been connected with the emergence of a central institution in the city.
Middle Bronze Kingdom of Qatna In the Middle Bronze, the Kingdom of Qatna was established around 2000 BC. At the beginning of the Middle Bronze Age I, the city expanded and covered an area of . This growth reduced the number of the small settlements as people were drawn into the expanded metropolis. It is probable that the earliest mention of "Qatna" by this name dates to the same period. According to
Thomas Schneider, a city named
Qedem, mentioned in a controversial passage in the
Story of Sinuhe dating to the beginning of the
Twelfth Dynasty of Egypt (early 20th century BC), is most probably to be identified with Qatna. Qedem in the Egyptian text is written "Qdm", and, in Egyptian, Qatna is written as "Qdn". If Schneider's interpretation is correct, then this is the first known written mention of the city. The text also mentions that the title of the ruler was
Mekim (or Mekum), a royal title known from Ebla. The theory of Schneider is debated: in Sinuhe's story, the protagonist turned back to Qedem after reaching
Byblos;
Joachim Friedrich Quack pointed out that the Egyptian verb "
ḥs ̯i" used in the text was known to indicate that a certain expedition had reached its final destination and was now returning to Egypt, indicating that Qedem was south of Byblos, while Qatna is to the north of Byblos.
Zenith The next mention of Qatna after the
Story of Sinuhe comes from Mari in the 18th century BC, during the reign of
Išḫi-Addu of Qatna. However, a tablet found in
Tuttul, dating to the early reign of the Mariote king
Yahdun-Lim in the late 19th century BC, mentions a king named
Amut-pi'el I, who is most probably the father of Išḫi-Addu; this would make him the first known king of Qatna. Also during the reign of Yahdun-Lim, the kingdom of
Yamhad in Aleppo and its king
Sumu-Epuh enter the historical record through the texts of Mari. Early in their history, Qatna and Yamhad had hostile relations; Amut-pi'el I, in alliance with Yahdun-Lim and Ḫammu-Nabiḫ (probably king of Tuttul), attacked the Yamhadite city of
Tuba, which was a personal possession of Aleppo's royal family, and took a large booty. Later, Yahdun-Lim embarked on an expedition to the
Mediterranean Sea that was used for ideological purposes, as it was meant to echo
Gilgamesh's deeds; the journey likely had undeclared political motives as well, when seen in the context of the alliance with Qatna. The Mariote–Qaṭanean alliance, which was probably cemented by dynastic marriage, must have provoked Yamhad, which supported rebellions in Mari to preoccupy Yahdun-Lim with his own problems. Despite the tension and battles, a full-scale war with Yamhad was avoided. Qatna was at its apex during the reign of Išḫi-Addu. Mari was conquered by
Shamshi-Adad I of Assyria, who appointed his son
Yasmah-Adad as its king. Išḫi-Addu was allied with Shamshi-Adad and is attested corresponding with Mari for a period of six years between . At its height, the kingdom extended from the upper valley of the Orontes to
Qadeš in the west, while
Palmyra was Qatna's easternmost city. It was bordered by Yamhad in the north, while the south was dominated by
Hazor, a Qaṭanean vassal. The many kingdoms of
Amurru, which controlled the central Levantine coast between Byblos and
Ugarit, bordered Qatna from the west and were counted among Išhi-Addu's vassals. Also under the rule of Qatna were various cities in the
Beqaa Valley and the cities in the region of Apum, in the modern
Damascus Oasis. The kingdom was sometimes threatened by nomads; a letter sent to Yasmah-Adad informs him that 2000
Suteans conducted a raid against Qatna. Relations with Yamhad worsened during Išḫi-Addu's reign and the conflict evolved into border warfare; Qatna occupied the city of
Parga in the region of
Hamath for a while before Sumu-Epuh retook it. In the south, Išḫi-Addu faced a general rebellion; the alliance with Assyria was cemented by the marriage of Išḫi-Addu's daughter to Yasmah-Adad in . The following year, after petitions by Qatna, Shamshi-Adad sent an army to help Išḫi-Addu deal with the rebellion. The Assyrian troops avoided engaging Yamhad and did not participate in its war with Qatna, while Išḫi-Addu took up residence in Qadeš to oversee the suppression of the rebellion, which apparently was supported by Yamhad. After four years in the service of Qatna, Shamshi-Adad ordered his troops to return; this might have been connected to a peace treaty between Assyria and
Yarim-Lim I, son of Sumu-Epuh. Išḫi-Addu, who in the past had declared that "even if Shamshi-Adad would conclude peace with Sumu-epuh, I will never make peace with Sumu-epuh, as long as I live!", was delivered a heavy blow, but Mari's sources are silent on how the king dealt with the situation, and by the time they resumed mentioning Qatna in , Išḫi-Addu was dead and succeeded by his son
Amut-piʾel II.
Decline The political and military balance in the region changed dramatically during the reign of Amut-piʾel II; Shamshi-Adad I had died by about 1775 BC, and his empire disintegrated, while Yasmah-Adad was removed from his throne and replaced with
Zimri-Lim. Yarim-Lim I gained the upper hand and turned his kingdom into the supreme power in the Levant; Qatna was forced to respect the borders and interests of Yamhad. In Mari, Zimri-Lim, who was Yarim-Lim's protégé, married Amut-piʾel II's sister and Yasmah-Adad's widow Dam-Ḫuraṣi, and this seemed to satisfy the king of Qatna, as his relations with Mari were never hostile. In 1772 BC, the
Yaminite tribes revolted against Zimri-Lim, who asked Qatna for help; Amut-piʾel II sent his troops to Dūr-Yahdun-Lim (probably modern
Deir ez-Zor) to support Mari, but when he asked for Mariote military support at a later time, Zimri-Lim hesitated as Yarim-Lim I was expressly against such a dispatch. When Qatna tried to establish an alliance with
Eshnunna, Mari, which was at war with Eshnunna, arrested the messengers on the pretext that Zimri-Lim feared for their safety; in reality, the king of Mari was probably acting on behalf of Yamhad to prevent Qatna from establishing such an alliance. The archive of Mari reports a plan between Zimri-Lim, the king of
Carchemish and the king of Eshnunna (who made peace with Mari), to attack Qatna. Such an alliance could not have been realized without the participation of Yamhad, overlord of both Mari and Carchemish; in the end, the plan was not pursued and the tense relations between Qatna and Yamhad eased toward the last years of Yarim-Lim's reign. In a letter written to Zimri-Lim, Yarim-Lim I agreed to establish peace with Qatna if Amut-piʾel II were to come by himself to Aleppo, thus acknowledging the supremacy of Yamhad; no proof can be shown for a meeting taking place between the two kings. Just before his death in 1765 BC, Yarim-Lim called a meeting of his vassals, and Zimri-Lim traveled to Aleppo where he met messengers from Qatna and Hazor, indicating that Amut-piʾel II started recognizing the supremacy of Yarim-Lim, and that Hazor, Qatna's vassal, was now obeying Yamhad. Yarim-Lim's successor
Hammurabi I arranged a peace with Qatna that probably did not require the Qaṭanean king to visit Aleppo personally, but indicated Qatna's acceptance of Yamhad's superiority. This apparent yielding seems a mere formality as Qatna continued its aspirations for power, as became clear in its behavior during the Elamite invasion of Mesopotamia in year ten of Zimri-Lim's reign. An Elamite messenger reached
Emar and sent three of his servants to Qatna; Hammurabi I of Yamhad learned of this and sent troops to intercept them on their return. The servants were captured and questioned, revealing that Amut-piʾel II told them to tell their monarch that "The country is delivered to you, come up to me! if you come up, you will not be taken by surprise." The Qaṭanean king also sent two messengers to Elam, but they were probably captured in Babylon. The hegemony of Yamhad affected Qatna's economy; the trade route connecting Mesopotamia and Mari to Qatna through Palmyra lost its importance, while the trade routes from the Mediterranean to Mesopotamia came under the full control of Aleppo, contributing to Qatna's loss of wealth. Following the destruction of Mari by
Hammurabi of Babylon around 1761 BC, information about Qatna becomes scarce; in the late 17th century BC, Yamhad invaded and defeated Qatna during the reign of
Yarim-Lim III. The political and commercial importance of Qatna declined quickly during the Late Bronze Age (LB I), around 1600 BC, as a result of growing Egyptian and
Mitannian influences. Numerous small states appeared in the region and detached from Qatna.
Late Bronze Mitanni Period It is not known when Qatna lost its independence. It became a Mitannian vassal in the 16th century BC, but the archive of Qatna proves that even in its final period during the 14th century BC, Qatna maintained a certain degree of autonomy. Early Egyptian military intrusions to the region occurred under
Thutmose I (). The name Qedem appears in an inscription found on a fragmented gateway from
Karnak dated to the reign of Thutmose mentioning a military campaign in the northern Levant. The inscription suggests that the mentioned cities submitted to the king. The geographic sequence given in the inscription is Qedem ("Qdm"),
Tunip ("Twnjp") and "Ḏj
3 wny" (maybe
Siyannu); Qatna (Qdn in Egyptian) would fit better in the geographic sequence and
Alexander Ahrens suggested that the inscription might have meant Qatna. Any oaths of loyalty to Egypt taken by Levantine rulers were forgotten after Thutmose I's death. The Egyptians returned under the leadership of
Thutmose III (), who reached Qatna during his eighth Asiatic campaign, . Thutmose III did not rule directly in Qatna but established vassalage ties and attended an archery contest with the Qaṭanean king. Towards the end of Thutmose III's reign, and under the influence of Mitanni, the Syrian states changed their loyalty, causing Thutmose's successor
Amenhotep II () to march north in his seventh year on the throne, where he fought troops from Qatna near the city. The threat of the
Hittites prompted Mitanni's king to sue for peace:
Artatama I approached Amenhotep II for an alliance and long negotiations started. The talks lasted until after Amenhotep's death, when his successor
Thutmose IV () finally sealed a treaty that divided the Levant between the two powers. Qatna and the states north of it, such as
Nuhašše, fell into the sphere of Mitanni. Despite its reduced status, Qatna still controlled the
Lebanon Mountains away in the 14th century BC.
Possible incorporation into Nuhašše During the reign of
Adad-Nirari of Nuhašše in the 14th century BC, Qatna may have become part of his kingdom. In 1977, Astour considered Qatna a constituent part of the lands of Nuhašše, and identified a king of Qatna named
Adad-Nirari with the Nuhaššite king. Astour was followed by
Thomas Richter in 2002, who considered Qatna to be a secondary city in the domain of the Nuhaššite king. The tablets of Qatna mention a
šakkanakku (military governor) named Lullu, and Richter considered him an official of Nuhašše. The hypothesis of Richter is debated; a number of scholars accept it, for example Pfälzner, who suggested that the Nuhaššite king may have resided in Qatna's royal palace. Richter dated the rule of the Nuhaššite king to the period preceding the Hittite king
Šuppiluliuma I's first Syrian war, during which Adad-Nirari of Nuhašše opposed the Hittites, was defeated, and, according to Richter, had his kingdom split between different Hittite puppets including
Idanda of Qatna. Gernot Wilhelm saw no ground for Richter's assumption concerning the identification of the Nuhaššite monarch with the Qaṭanean king. This identification rests on the theory that Qatna belonged geographically to the region of Nuhašše, but no solid evidence supports this assumption, and the
Shattiwaza treaty between the Hittites and Mitannians clearly mentioned Qatna as a different realm from Nuhašše during the first Syrian war when the Nuhaššite king ruled. If Qatna was part of the Nuhaššite kingdom, its submission to the Hittites would not have been mentioned separately in the treaty. It is a fact that Qatna was ruled by Idanda during the first war and the Hittite documents do not mention a change of rulers in Qatna made by Šuppiluliuma, leaving no reason to suspect that Idanda ascended the throne as a result of the war.
Jacques Freu likewise rejected Richter's hypothesis. Citing different arguments, he concluded that Adad-Nirari of Nuhašše was a contemporary of Idanda, the successor of the Qaṭanean Adad-Nirari.
The campaigns of Šuppiluliuma I Early in his reign, the Hittite king Šuppiluliuma I () aimed at conquering Mitanni's lands west of the Euphrates. Šuppiluliuma waged several campaigns to achieve his goal: the first Syrian foray, the second Syrian foray, the first Syrian war and the second Syrian war. The events and chronology of the Hittites' subjugation of Qatna are debated. King Idanda was a Hittite vassal; a letter sent by the Hittite general Ḫanutti contains a demand that Idanda fortify the city. Freu believed that Idanda abandoned Mitanni and joined the Hittites as a result of Šuppiluliuma's first Syrian foray. The Mitannian king
Tushratta retaliated by invading Qatna, and burning the royal palace; an event dated to around 1340 BC. Wilhelm, on the other hand, believed that Idanda submitted to the Hittites as a result of the first Syrian war.
Collapse The events leading to the destruction of the royal palace did not cause the destruction of the whole city. The Shattiwaza treaty, which describes the events of the first Syrian war, mentions that Qatna was invaded and destroyed, and its people were deported during the war. However, Idanda's successor,
Akizzi, was ruling in the second half of the Egyptian pharaoh
Akhenaten's reign following the first Syrian war, or shortly before the second Syrian war. This discrepancy can be explained if the treaty did not mention the events in a chronological order; many scholars, such as Wilhelm, believe that the author of the document organized the text according to the principle of association, rather than following the sequence of events. Akizzi contacted Egypt and declared himself a servant to the pharaoh. An anti-Hittite coalition, probably organized by Akizzi, was established. Šuppiluliuma tried diplomatic means to solve the conflict but Akizzi rejected them. Hittite military intervention soon followed and Akizzi asked Egypt for troops, but received none. Šuppiluliuma himself came to Qatna, aided by
Aziru of
Amurru. The Hittite monarch took with him a statue of the sun deity, which had been given to Qatna by an ancestor of Akhenaten. This move symbolized the final capitulation of the kingdom. Akizzi survived the destruction of his city and continued his communication with the pharaoh for some time; in an
Amarna letter (EA 55), the king of Qatna described to Akhenaten the actions of Šuppiluliuma and his plundering of Qatna. Hence, the final sack of Qatna occurred after the royal palace was destroyed in 1340 BC, and before the death of Akhenaten, to whom the letter was addressed, in .
Trevor Bryce suggested that Akizzi might have accepted Hittite overlordship again. In any case, he was the last known king. The city lost its importance following its sacking and never regained its former status.
Post-Hittite destruction The destruction of the royal palace constituted a break in Qatna's history; all other palaces were abandoned and the political system collapsed. A pottery workshop was built in the place of the southern palace, while the lower city palace was replaced by two adjacent courtyards surrounded by walls. Archaeological data suggest a much reduced settlement with no regional role. Following the 13th century BC, no archaeological evidence exists to prove the city was occupied; the toponym Qatna stopped appearing and the next occupation level dates to the late 10th century BC, suggesting it was uninhabited for three centuries.
Iron Age Syro-Hittite and following periods In the late 10th century and early 9th century BC, the site was reoccupied but its name during that time is unknown; three human head sculptures made of basalt were discovered in the site; they probably date to the mid-9th century BC. At this time, the region was probably under the control of
Palistin, with Qatna under the rule of Hamath, which was probably part of Palistin. The basalt heads bear similarities to a statue discovered in Palistin's capital, but there is not enough information to allow a general conclusion over the borders of Palistin and its extent into Qatna. The settlement was a small one; it included large buildings that were used both as residences and manufacturing facilities. By the 8th century, the site saw a revival in settlement; the city expanded and many houses, public buildings, and storage areas were built. The newly expanded settlement was a contrast to the earlier 10th/9th century one; the existence of official buildings and the emergence of many satellite settlements surrounding Qatna suggest that the city was a local center in the kingdom of Hamath. The official buildings were violently destroyed, probably at the hands of the Assyrian king
Sargon II (), who annexed the region in 720 BC. The site continued to be inhabited during the Iron Age III, following the Assyrian destruction, but the settlement shrank considerably, being reduced to a village comprising the central part of the acropolis. It was abandoned in the mid-6th century BC. In the mid-19th century, a modern village (
al-Mishrifeh) was built within the ancient site. Houses were built on top of the royal palace floors, damaging them to a certain degree, but also protecting the underlying ruins. In 1982, the Syrian
Directorate-General of Antiquities and Museums resettled the inhabitants in a new village next to the ancient tell, thus making the site available for modern archaeological research. ==Society==