Cuneiform Digital Library Preprints <http://cdli.ucla.edu/?q=cuneiform-digital-library-preprints> Hosted by the Cuneiform Digital Library Initiative (<http://cdli.ucla.edu>) Editor: Bertrand Lafont (CNRS, Nanterre) Number 12 Title: Sargonic Names in the Diyala Region and Beyond Author: Paolo Gentili Posted to web: 6 February 2018 (date of compilation: 2008) Sargonic Names in the Diyala Region and Beyond Paolo Gentili §0. Introduction1 terms of personal names and chronology.4 §0.1. In this study we should approach two main research questions. First, it is intended to provide a general frame- §0.2. All the above-mentioned cities have been, to a work for the Old Akkadian onomasticon. Secondly, it greater or lesser extent, involved in the shaping of Meso- is necessary to inquire about a number of specifi c issues, potamian history. Some (especially Tell Asmar/Ešnunna) as, for example, the geographical scope of the Diyāla re- gained important roles in the socio-political framework gion. What exactly is meant by the region of the “Diyāla of the region. Th e Old Akkadian Onomatology Database river”? From the point of view of this study the Diyāla is based on the texts found in these cities during archaeo- region can be perceived in a wider scope. Starting from logical work, or on texts that can be assigned to them, but modern Baghdad at the convergence of the Tigris river, lack any provenience. the Diyāla region extended towards the East, and North- East, to Sulaimanija, along the ancient Durul (the present §0.3. A further issue entails the chronology of the Diyāla Diyāla) river. Strictly speaking, that is not part of Meso- region. Th e Old Akkadian period as defi ned by the us- potamia anymore, if considered in its literal meaning age of Old Akkadian writing, can widely be defi ned as “between the rivers”; nonetheless, in terms of its cultural running from the earliest period of Mesopotamian his- scope it fully belonged to it. Among the cities known tory down to the end of the Ur III dynasty; in the middle from the Old Akkadian period are Tell Harmal (ancient chronology that would encompass the second half of the Šaduppûm), Ishchali (Nērebtum), Khafajah (Tutub), Tell third millennium to the very beginning of the second. Dhiba’i (Zaralulu), Tell Asmar (Ešnunna), and Tell Es- However, from both a linguistic and an epigraphic point Sib/Haddad (Mê-Turān). To these cities one should add of view, it should be divided into three distinct periods: another site, Tell Suleimah,2 whose ruins lie not far from Pre-Sargonic (until Lugalzagesi), classical Sargonic (in- Tell Asmar (no more than 50 km north-east), but which cluding the beginnings of the Akkadian Dynasty under belongs to a diff erent geographical region, the Himrin.3 Sargon), and fi nally the Ur III period.5 Nevertheless, judging from the database of names the lat- ter showed clear affi nity to the settlements of the Diyala §0.4. Since many of the texts quoted in this study are region. Th is addition may provide a structural compari- unprovenanced, they cannot easily be exploited in terms son of the two areas in question and allow for a northeast- of geography or chronology. In such cases these texts are ern perspective that is still in need of more clarifi cation in attributed based on epigraphic and linguistic criteria; further studies will enrich our understanding of Old Ak- kadian epigraphy and linguistics. A majority of the texts, 1 Th e data for this study derives from the author’s Old Ak- kadian Onomatology Database. 4 From an archaeological point of view, a link between 2 Th ere is no agreement on the ancient name of Tell Sulei- these two areas has been proposed by McGuire Gibson; mah (Awal, Batir or GA.BA/Dūrum?). For a discussion see Gibson 1981 and further studies quoted below. see a forthcoming study by the author. In the meantime 5 I follow here Gelb 1952: 1. For a general dating of the pe- note, in particular, Visicato 1999; Rasheed 1981a and riod to 2300-2150 B.C. see Foster 1982: 299; see further Rasheed 1981b. Hilgert 2003: 1ff . and note McMahon 2006: 4 for a more 3 See Gentili 2002: 145, note 39, with previous literature. general defi nition of the period. page 2 however, may be assigned with some confi dence to the _ A bowl inscription of the Akkadian king Narām-Sîn16 classical Sargonic stage of the Old Akkadian period.6 found in the Akkadian levels of the Oval Temple.17 Th erefore, all the texts under consideration here will be Th e text just mentions the king’s name. referred to as ‘Sargonic’. §1.3. Tell Asmar §1.1. Historical data Th e ancient city of Ešnunna yielded the following text In terms of historical facts, very little is known about the fi nds: Diyala region during the Sargonic period. We owe that _ A doubtful date formula of king Šarkališarri (MAD I fact to the preponderance of administrative records. In 305).18 order to proceed with an investigation of the socio-his- _ A seal impression of an unknown offi cial dating to the torical documentation the fi rst step will be to determine last Akkadian ruler Šū-Durul.19 the provenience of the documents. Th is is easily done _ A text from the antiquities market mentioning a ruler when stratigraphic information is available, less so with of Ešnunna that can be attributed to the Akkadian texts acquired on the antiquities market. dynasty. Th orkild Jacobsen20 read the ruler’s name ‘Enbiq-Îaniš, išakku of Ešnunna’21 (in contrast to §1.2. Khafajah Lutz22). We have stratigraphic information about the subsequent _ A school text23 with a copy of a legend that was attrib- text fi nds from Khafajah: uted to the Akkadian king Narām-Sîn by by Gelb and _ Two royal inscriptions of Rîmuš either on a vase or Kienast.24 Th e text mentions IpÌur-Kiš and his rise to fragments.7 Th ey were found not far from the Sîn kingship, the king of Ur Lugal-ane, as well as a speci- temple and date to the (early?)8 Akkadian levels of the fi ed ‘Urukean.’25 Oval Temple.9 Th e texts mention the conquest and the booty of Elam and Parāšum.10 §1.4. Tell Suleimah _ Fragment of an inscription of the same king found on Th e administrative texts of Tell Suleimah mention 11 a calcite vase fragment. Its fi nd spot belongs to the an ENSI2 without providing a clear chronological same level as the other Rîmuš inscriptions.12 framework:26 _ A seal mentioning king Šarkališarri possibly on a 16 mace-head that belong to an unknown offi cial.13 Kh II 79 = Frayne 1997: E2.1.4.40 (bibliography). _ An inscription of an unknown king14 from a vase 17 K 45, Oval III. 15 found in the Akkadian levels of the Oval Temple. 18 A 7844 = Gelb 1961: 204, 2b; Th is text is not included in Th e inscription presumably mentions the city Akkad. the present list, because the reading off ered by Gelb is not complete. Another date formula of this king is attestation in a document from Tell Agrab: MAD 1 268. 6 Th e database off ers the fi eld “Notes,” which on the one hand informs about date and provenance of a given text 19 As 31:627 (TA 701) = Frayne 1997: E2.1.11.2002 (bib- and provide bibliographical information on the other. In liography). See Gibson 1982: 533: House IVa, Akkadian the case of Tell Suleimah it should be noted that the tex- level. tual record originates from level IV, which reaches deep 20 into the Old Akkadian layer. For a superfi cial dating of Jacobsen 1934: 2, 2° and note 3 and Lutz 1928: note 83 the economic texts see Gelb 1952: 7, note 4. rev.iii 42-46 (quoted in Gelb 1961: 10 d). 21 En-bí-iq-d3a-ni-iš . For the correct spelling of Ešnunna in 7 Kh II 94 and Kh I 381, edited as E2.1.2.15 in Frayne 4 1997, with bibliography (but corrected to Kh I 381). this inscription see also Jacobsen 1934: 1. 22 8 As discussed below, “early” does seem inappropriate based EN NE.GÁL d3a-ni-gè. on the modifi cations done to Gibson’s chronological table. 23 TA 1931,729 (from house XIX Sect. H/J of Stratum 9 K 45-2 (top layer) and K 45, Oval III. IVb): Frayne 1997: E2.1.4.7, with bibliography. 24 10 For the chronological attribution of the fi nds see Frank- Gelb and Kienast 1990: 272-3, Narāmsîn C 15. fort 1934: 68. 25 For a fi rst chronological framework see Frankfort 1934: 11 Kh II 104 = Frayne 1997: E2.1.2.20, ex.4 (bibliography). 2ff . (included in Gibson’s article). 26 12 J 45-2, Oval III. Evidence may be found on a local level for the Old Baby- lonian period, for which relations are attested to cities 13 A 7162, unpublished. quoted in the lists from Tell Suleimah and other local sites, as Mê-Turān (see my work about Tell Suleimah 14 Kh II 162 = Frayne 1997: E2.0.0.1008 (bibliography). mentioned in note 1). McMahon 2006, 3, note 3 states: 15 K 45, Oval III. “…excavations at ….. Tell Sleima ….. have produced mate- page 3 _ Belili is mentioned in the total of an account of fi eld some workers and offi cials from an uncertain place in quantities as ENSI2 of an unknown locality; the text the Diyala area.