Monday 24.06.2019
Total Page：16
File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb
Load more
Recommended publications
-
An In-Depth Study of the Tell Brak Eye Idols in the 4Th Millennium BCE: with a Primary Focus on Function and Meaning
1 The Eyes Have It An In-Depth Study of the Tell Brak Eye Idols in the 4th Millennium BCE: with a primary focus on function and meaning Honours Thesis Department of Archaeology The University of Sydney Arabella Cooper 430145722 Submitted in partial fulfilment of the requirements of the degree of Bachelor of Arts (Honours) in the Department of Archaeology at the University of Sydney, Australia, 2016. 2 “In the present state of our knowledge there are very few archaeological discoveries which can be described as unique, but one class of objects from Brak is unique-the eye-idols or images which turned up in thousands in the grey brick stratum of the earlier Eye-Temple" M.E.L Mallowan, 1947, Excavations at Brak and Chagar Bazar, 33. Cover Image: Figures 1-5. M.E.L Mallowan, 1947, Excavations at Brak and Chagar Bazar, 33. 3 Statement of Authorship The research described in this thesis, except where referenced, is the original work of the author and was a discrete project supervised by Dr Alison Betts. This thesis has not been submitted for the award of any other degree or diploma in any other tertiary institution. No other individual’s work has been used without accurate referencing and acknowledgement in the main text of the thesis. Arabella Cooper, November 2016 4 Acknowledgments As with any major study or work, you do not toil in isolation and the writing of this thesis is no different. I first would like to thank my supervisor Professor Alison Betts, and even more so the wonderful staff at the Nicholson Museum Candace Richards and Karen Alexander for their patience and advise. -
Representations of Plants on the Warka Vase of Early Mesopotamia
University of Pennsylvania ScholarlyCommons University of Pennsylvania Museum of University of Pennsylvania Museum of Archaeology and Anthropology Papers Archaeology and Anthropology 2016 Sign and Image: Representations of Plants on the Warka Vase of Early Mesopotamia Naomi F. Miller University of Pennsylvania, [email protected] Philip Jones University of Pennsylvania Holly Pittman University of Pennsylvania, [email protected] Follow this and additional works at: https://repository.upenn.edu/penn_museum_papers Part of the Ancient, Medieval, Renaissance and Baroque Art and Architecture Commons, Archaeological Anthropology Commons, Botany Commons, Near and Middle Eastern Studies Commons, and the Near Eastern Languages and Societies Commons Recommended Citation (OVERRIDE) Miller, Naomi F., Philip Jones, and Holly Pittman. 2016. Sign and image: representations of plants on the Warka Vase of early Mesopotamia. Origini 39: 53–73. University of Pennsylvania ScholarlyCommons, Philadelphia. http://repository.upenn.edu/penn_museum_papers/2 This paper is posted at ScholarlyCommons. https://repository.upenn.edu/penn_museum_papers/2 For more information, please contact [email protected]. Sign and Image: Representations of Plants on the Warka Vase of Early Mesopotamia Abstract The Warka Vase is an iconic artifact of Mesopotamia. In the absence of rigorous botanical study, the plants depicted on the lowest register are usually thought to be flax and grain. This analysis of the image identified as grain argues that its botanical characteristics, iconographical context and similarity to an archaic sign found in proto-writing demonstrates that it should be identified as a date palm sapling. It confirms the identification of flax. The correct identification of the plants furthers our understanding of possible symbolic continuities spanning the centuries that saw the codification of text as a eprr esentation of natural language. -
A Group of Cylinder Seals from the Diyarbakir Museum
Sosyal Bilimler Enstitüsü Dergisi SUSBID Journal Of Social Sciences Institute 2020: 32 - 56 SAYI: 15 ISSN: 2147-8406 Research Article / Araştırma Makalesi A GROUP OF CYLINDER SEALS FROM THE DİYARBAKIR MUSEUM Çağatay YÜCEL1 Umut PARLITI2 Abstract The geometric cylindrical seals that were brought to the museum through confiscation and acquisition were handled in the works stored in the purchasing depot of the Diyarbakır Archaeological Museum. The period of cylinder seals, their function and the expression scenes on them are examined. As a result of the evaluation of the cylinder seals included in the study, historical and cultural framework was tried to be formed by considering the socio-cultural structure of the age. The origin of the Mesopotamian societies, their life- styles, religions and their relations with each other are also discussed in connection with the cylinder seals chosen as the subject of the study. Parallel to this, the general definition of the seal has been made with respect to the cylinder seals included in the study. As a re- sult of the evaluation of cylinder seals, their contributions to Anatolian Archaeology were examined. The period of cylinder seals, their function and the expression scenes on them are examined. As a result of the evaluation of the cylinder seals included in the study, historical and cultural framework was tried to be formed by considering the socio-cultural structure of the age. Because cylinder seals are the most important works of art that reflect the belief and mythology of ancient societies. They are also the most important tool seals that deter- mine the economic activities of ancient societies. -
Bowdoin College Museum of Art Assyria to America October 24
Bowdoin College Museum of Art Assyria to America October 24, 2019–December 13, 2020 Labels Assyria to America explores the palace complex of the Assyrian king Ashurnasirpal II (883–859 BCE), who constructed a lavish and powerful new capital at Nimrud (ancient Kalhu). This urban center thrived for over two centuries before being destroyed by an alliance of Babylonians and Medes around 612 BCE. Its story continues to evolve today. Largely abandoned for over 2,000 years, the site of Nimrud was rediscovered by Sir Austen Henry Layard, an English explorer, diplomat, and archaeologist who excavated the site from 1845 to 1851. Layard and his successors sent numerous artifacts to the British Museum and other European collections while producing lavishly illustrated publications aimed at the general public. Growing fascination with Assyria coincided with an increased American presence in the region. Dr. Henri Byron Haskell (Bowdoin Medical School Class of 1855), a missionary in the Ottoman province of Mosul, recognized an opportunity and sent five impressive reliefs to the College. Since the nineteenth century, excavations and studies of ancient Assyria have continued. Today, despite serious damage inflicted on the site by the Islamic State (ISIS) in 2015, resolute efforts to better understand the Assyrians are leading to new ways of interpreting the past. 1 Bowdoin College Museum of Art I just returned from Mosul, Assyria where I have some very fine slabs from Nineveh [sic], which I shall be pleased to present to Bowdoin College my Medical School alma mater. Henri Byron Haskell to Professor Parker Cleaveland, July 3, 1857 Generous support for this exhibition comes from the Stevens L. -
Standard Gilgameš Epic, Tablets I and XI
arch 1600. archaeologies of the near east joukowsky institute for archaeology and the ancient world spring 2008 From memory to history: the urban, literate cultures of southern Iraq February 25, 2008 Southern alluvium : the marshes (lately drained by Saddam’s engineers). Section Standard Gilgame š epic, Tablets I and XI Map He had the wall of Uruk built, the sheepfold [Uruk-the-Sheepfold] Of holiest Eanna, the pure treasury [sacred storehouse]. See if its wall is not (as straight) as the (craftsman’s) string [like a strand of wool], Inspect its [...]wall (battlements?), the likes of which noone can equal, Touch the threshold stone [Take the stairway]-it dates from ancient times. Approach the Eanna Temple, the dwelling of Ištar, such as no later king or man will ever equal. Go up on the wall [of Uruk] and walk around, Examine its foundation inspect its brickwork thoroughly Is not its masonry of baked brick, did not the Seven Sages themselves lay out its plans? One square mile city, one square mile palm groves, one square mile is brick-pits, [and] the [open ground?] of Ištar’s temple Three square miles and the [open ground] of Uruk it encloses. Irrigation system and settlement network in Southern Mesopotamia (Postgate ) 1 uruk: urbanization as regional process. uruk: urbanization as regional process. archaeological time 5000-4000 BC Uruk Period in Southern Mesopotamia and beyond (4000-3100 BC) Halaf period in the Northern Mesopotamia Ubaid period in the South • Massive changes in the archaeological landscape: Hierarchization of settlements, at least a Eridu temple sequence (E-abzu) settlement systems of cities, mid-sized towns and villages and hamlets. -
ANCIENT NEAR EASTERN CHRONOLOGY MESOPOTAMIA (South) MESOPOTAMIA (North) [RAN LEVANT ANATOLIA EGYPT
ANCIENT NEAR EASTERN CHRONOLOGY MESOPOTAMIA (South) MESOPOTAMIA (North) [RAN LEVANT ANATOLIA EGYPT 3500 B.c. Late Uruk period Proto-urban period Chalcolithic period Troy I 3500-3100 Susa II Jemdet Nasr period 3100-2900 Archaic period Early Dynastic period Proto-Elamite period 3000 B.C. c. 3000-2575 2900-2334 Susa III Sumero-Elamite period Early Bronze Age Troy II SUA IV Old Kingdom 2575-2134 Akkadian period Akkadian rule 2334-2154 in Susa Alaca Höyük royal Neo-Sumerian period tombs Gudea of Lagash ca. 2100 First Inrermediate Third Dynasty of Ur period 2112-2004 2134-2040 2000 B.c. Isin-Larsa period Middle Bronze Age Middle Kingdom 2017-176} Old Assyrian period Old Elamite period Assyrian Colony 2040-1640 1920-1750 1900-1500 period 1920-1750 Old Babylonian period 1894- 1595 Old Hirtite period Hammurabi 1650-1400 Second Intermediate period (Hyksos) 1792-1750 1640-1532 Kassite period Mitannian period Late Bronze Age Hittite Empire period New Kingdom 1595-1157 1500-1350 1400-1200 1550-1070 Middle Assyrian Middle Elamire period Second Dynasty of Isin Iron Age Neo-Hirtite and Third Intermediate 1000 B.c. period 1350-1000 period 1070-712 1156-1025 Hasanlu V-IV Kingdoms of Aramaean states Neo-Assyrian period Iron Age I-II Israel and Judah Urartian period 883-612 1500-800 850-600 Phoenician city states Late Dynastic period Neo-Eiamite period Phrygian period 712-332 Neo-Babylonian 775-690 period 625-539 Median period Iron Age III \chaemenid dynasty 550-331 Achaemenid rule Achaemenid rule Achaemenid rule 525-404;343-332 Alexander the Great 331-323 Capture of Tyre by Alexander the Great Capture of Babylon Burning of Persepolis Alexander the Grear crosses rhe Hellespont Alexander the Great by the Greeks 331 331 332 334 Macedonian period Seleucid dynasty Seleucid dynasry Seleucid dynasty 332-304 31 2- 129 B.c. -
THE SUMERIAN PROBLEM Oi.Uchicago.Edu
oi.uchicago.edu THE ORIENTAL INSTITUTE of THE UNIVERSITY OF CHICAGO STUDIES IN ANCIENT ORIENTAL CIVILIZATION Edited by JAMES HENRY BREASTED with the assistance of THOMAS GEORGE ALLEN oi.uchicago.edu oi.uchicago.edu ARCHEOLOGY AND THE SUMERIAN PROBLEM oi.uchicago.edu THE UNIVERSITY OF CHICAGO PRESS CHICAGO, ILLINOIS THE BAKER & TAYLOR COMPANY NEW YORK THE CAMBRIDGE UNIVERSITY PRESS LONDON THE MARUZEN-KABUSHIKI-KAISHA TOKYO, OSAKA, KYOTO, FUKUOKA, 8ENDAI THE COMMERCIAL PRESS, LIMITED SHANGHAI oi.uchicago.edu THE ORIENTAL INSTITUTE of THE UNIVERSITY OF CHICAGO STUDIES IN ANCIENT ORIENTAL CIVILIZATION, NO. 4 ARCHEOLOGY AND THE SUMERIAN PROBLEM By HENRI FRANKFORT THE UNIVERSITY OF CHICAGO PRESS CHICAGO, ILLINOIS oi.uchicago.edu COPYRIGHT 1932 BY THE UNIVERSITY OF CHICAGO ALL RIGHTS RESERVED. PUBLISHED DECEMBER 1932 COMPOSED AND PRINTED BY THE UNIVERSITY OF CHICAGO PRESS CHICAGO, ILLINOIS, U.S.A. oi.uchicago.edu PREFACE The substance of this essay was contained in a paper read at the Eighteenth International Congress of Orientalists, held at Leiden in September, 1931. The purpose of the paper was twofold: to present a survey of the archeological material of pre-Sargonid date, which has increased during the last two or three years with unprecedented rapid ity; and to draw the inference which in the opinion of the author the new material justified, an inference which seemed to provide at least a partial solution to the Sumerian problem. For, though we can ex pect only philology and anthropology jointly to determine to which of the better known groups of humanity the Sumerians were ultimate ly related, archeology seems at least able to define both the region whence, and the relative date at which, the Sumerians descended into the plain of the Two Rivers. -
Uruk Colonies and Anatolian Communities: an Interim Report on the 1992-1993 Excavations at Hacinebi, Turkey Gil J
University of Pennsylvania ScholarlyCommons University of Pennsylvania Museum of Archaeology University of Pennsylvania Museum of Archaeology and Anthropology Papers and Anthropology 4-1996 Uruk Colonies and Anatolian Communities: An Interim Report on the 1992-1993 Excavations at Hacinebi, Turkey Gil J. Stein Reinhard Bernbeck Cheryl Coursey Augusta McMahon Naomi F. Miller University of Pennsylvania, [email protected] See next page for additional authors Follow this and additional works at: http://repository.upenn.edu/penn_museum_papers Recommended Citation Stein, G. J., Bernbeck, R., Coursey, C., McMahon, A., Miller, N. F., Misir, A., Nicola, J., Pittman, H., Pollock, S., & Wright, H. (1996). Uruk Colonies and Anatolian Communities: An Interim Report on the 1992-1993 Excavations at Hacinebi, Turkey. American Journal of Archaeology, 100 (2), 205-260. http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/506903 This paper is posted at ScholarlyCommons. http://repository.upenn.edu/penn_museum_papers/35 For more information, please contact [email protected]. Uruk Colonies and Anatolian Communities: An Interim Report on the 1992-1993 Excavations at Hacinebi, Turkey Abstract The first Mesopotamian city-states in the Uruk period (ca. 3800-3100 B. C.) pursued a strategy of commercial expansion into neighboring areas of the Zagros Mountains, Syria, and southeastern Anatolia. Recent research in these areas has located several Uruk outposts, in what is apparently the world's earliest-known colonial system. Although some Uruk "colonies" have been excavated, virtually nothing is known about either the operation of this system or its role in the development of local polities in Anatolia. Excavations at the site of Hacinebi, on the Euphrates River trade route, investigate the effects of the "Uruk Expansion" on the social, economic, and political organization of southeastern Anatolia during the fourth millennium B. -
Copyrighted Material
Contents List of Illustrations xii List of Tables xiv List of Maps xvi Preface xvii List of Abbreviations xix Author’s Note xx 1 Introductory Concerns 1 1.1 Assyriology and the Writing of History 3 1.1.1 Cuneiform Texts as Historical Sources 4 1.2 Historical Science and the Handling of Sources 17 1.3 Chronology 20 2 The Sumero‐Akkadian Background 24 2.1 Babylonia as Geographic Unit 24 2.2 The Natural Environment 25 2.3 The Neolithic Revolution 28 2.4 The UbaidCOPYRIGHTED Period (6500–4000) MATERIAL 29 2.5 The Uruk Period (4000–3100) 30 2.6 The Jemdet Nasr Period (3100–2900) 31 2.7 The Early Dynastic Period (2900–2350) 34 2.7.1 The State of Lagash 38 2.7.2 Babylon in the Early Dynastic Period 40 2.8 The Sargonic (Old Akkadian) and Gutian Periods (ca. 2334–2113) 41 2.8.1 Akkadian and Sumerian Linguistic Areas 42 2.8.2 The Early Sargonic Period (ca. 2334–2255) 44 0003319927.INDD 7 11/15/2017 4:19:51 PM viii CONTENTS 2.8.3 The Classical Sargonic Period (ca. 2254–2193) 46 2.8.4 Babylon in the Sargonic Period 50 2.8.5 The Late Sargonic (ca. 2193–2154) and Gutian Periods (ca. 2153–2113) 51 2.9 The Third Dynasty of Ur (2112–2004) 52 2.9.1 King of Sumer and Akkad 53 2.9.2 Shulgi’s Babylonia 54 2.9.3 Failure of the Ur III State 56 2.9.4 Babylon during the Ur III Period 57 3 The Rise of Babylon 60 3.1 The First Dynasty of Isin (2017–1794) 62 3.2 The Amorites 64 3.2.1 Amorite Genealogies and Histories 66 3.3 Date Lists and King Lists of Babylon I 68 3.4 Elusive Beginnings 69 3.5 Sumu‐la‐el (1880–1845) 70 3.5.1 The Letter of Anam and the Babylon‐Uruk -
Children in Institutional Households of Late Uruk Period Mesopotamia
Zeitschrift für Assyriologie 2015; 105(2): 131–138 Abhandlung Vitali Bartash* Children in Institutional Households of Late Uruk Period Mesopotamia DOI 10.1515/za-2015-0012 Abstract: The article discusses references to children in cuneiform records from Southern Mesopotamia dating to the Uruk III/Jemdet Nasr period (ca. 3000 B. C.). They confirm the presence of infants and children among the personnel of institutional households. Documents offer two patterns of classifying humans. The first describes individuals as male or female and then distinguishes between adults, children and babies. The second disregards gender but offers six age groups instead, four of which refer to children. The article summarizes and interprets the information these early eco- nomic records provide on the gender and age groups of children. It shows how officials of institutional households in ancient Sumer defined the childhood of their dependents. 1 Introduction few references to children in Uruk IV period, they become frequent in the Uruk III period (ca. 3100–3000 B. C.). Vajman first identified notations for children in Uruk Children already appear in written sources from Mesopo- IV texts.² Scribes recorded children as well as juvenile tamia in the earliest logographically written texts dating animals with the sign (n ) whereas (n ) was re- to the Uruk IV period (ca. 3200–3100 B. C.).¹ They record 8 1 served for adults.³ Accordingly, there were no logographic minors among the personnel and dependents of Mesopo- writings for children in that period. Its introduction into tamian larger urban households, the best known from that the script together with a developed system of terminol- period being the Eanna from Uruk. -
Sumer (From Akkadian Šumeru; Sumerian Ki-En-Ĝir15
Sumer Sumer (from Akkadian Šumeru; Sumerian ��� ki-en-ĝir15, approximately "land of the civilized kings" or "native land"[note 1])[1] was an ancient civilization and historical region in southern Mesopotamia, modern Iraq, during the Chalcolithic and Early Bronze Age. Although the earliest historical records in the region do not go back much fur- ther than ca. 2900 BC, modern historians have asserted that Sumer was first settled between ca. 4500 and 4000 BC by a non-Semitic people who may or may not have spoken the Sumerian language (pointing to the names of cities, rivers, basic occupations, etc. as evidence).[2] These conjectured, prehistoric people are now called "proto- Euphrateans" or "Ubaidians",[3] and are theorized to have evolved from the Samarra culture of northern Mesopotamia (Assyria).[4][5][6][7] The Ubaidians were the first civilizing force in Sumer, draining the marshes for agriculture, developing trade, and establishing industries, including weaving, leatherwork, metalwork, masonry, and pottery.[3] However, some scholars such as Piotr Michalowski and Gerd Steiner, contest the idea of a Proto- Euphratean language or one substrate language. Sumerian civilization took form in the Uruk period (4th millennium BC), continuing into the Jemdat Nasr and Early Dy- nastic periods. During the third millennium BC, a close cultural symbiosis developed between the Sumerians (who spoke a Language Isolate) and the Semitic Akkadian speakers, which included widespreadbilingualism.[8] The influ- ence of Sumerian on Akkadian (and vice versa) is evident in all areas, from lexical borrowing on a massive scale, to syntactic, morphological, and phonological convergence.[8] This has prompted scholars to refer to Sumerian and Akkadian in the third millennium as a sprachbund.[8] Sumer was conquered by the Semitic-speaking kings of the Akkadian Empire around 2270 BC (short chronology), but Sumerian continued as a sacred language. -
Ancient Mesopotamia the Eden That Never Was
Ancient Mesopotamia The Eden that Never Was Susan Pollock The Pitt Building, Trumpington Street, Cambridge CB2 1RP, United Kingdom The Edinburgh Building, Cambridge CB2 2RU, UK http://www.cup.cam.ac.uk 40 West 20th Street, New York,NY 10011–4211, USA http://www.cup.org 10 Stamford Road, Oakleigh, Melbourne 3166, Australia © Susan Pollock 1999 This book is in copyright. Subject to statutory exception and to the provisions of relevant collective licensing agreements, no reproduction of any part may take place without the written permission of Cambridge University Press. First published 1999 Printed in the United Kingdom at the University Press, Cambridge Typeset in Plantin 10/12 pt in QuarkXPress™ [] A catalogue record for this book is available from the British Library Library of Congress Cataloguing in Publication data ISBN 0 521 57334 3 hardback ISBN 0 521 57568 0 paperback Contents List of figures page vii List of tables x Acknowledgments xii 1 Introduction 1 An overview 3 Archaeological work in Mesopotamia 10 Theoretical framework 22 Discussion 25 2 Geographic setting and environment 28 Landforms and climate 29 The changing environment 34 Neighboring regions and resource disparities 39 Summary 44 3 Settlement patterns 45 Cities 46 Villages 51 Mounds and settlement patterns 52 Summary 75 4 Making a living: tributary economies of the fifth and fourth millennia 78 The tributary economy 79 Ubaid economy 81 Fourth-millennium economy 93 Summary 115 5 A changing way of life: the oikos-based economy of the third millennium 117 The