DOCSLIB.ORG

The Berlin Letter, Middle Elamite Chronology and Sutruk-Nahhunte I's

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
The Berlin Letter, Middle Elamite Chronology and Sutruk-Nahhunte I's Iranica Antiqua, vol. XXXIX, 2004 THE BERLIN LETTER, MIDDLE ELAMITE CHRONOLOGY AND SUTRUK-NAHHUNTE I’S GENEALOGY BY Jeremy GOLDBERG The Berlin letter (VAT 17020) appears to be a Neo-Babylonian copy of a 12th century Elamite royal letter to Babylonia1. The editing of this text by van Dijk in 1986 has had a major impact on Elamite chronology by unveiling a series of marriages connecting Middle Elamite kings with 14th-12th century Babylonian rulers2. The start of this series is marked by a broken synchronism between Pahir-issan (the second Igihalkid king, formerly dated to around the end of the 14th century) and a Kurigalzu3. Since a Burnaburias occurs two marriages later and no king Burnaburias is known following Kurigalzu II, Pahir-issan’s contemporary would appear to be clearly identifiable as the early 14th century Kassite Babylonian king Kurigalzu I4. This identification fits very well with Burnaburias II’s appar- ent position as Kurigalzu I’s second successor. However the resulting backdating of the early Igihalkid dynasty by up to a century has had a number of unhappy chronological consequences5: (1) A Haft Tepe text (HT 38) indicates that Tepti-Ahar (apparently the last Kidinuid Elamite king) militarily repulsed Kadasman-dKUR.GAL (“undoubtedly a man of comparable stature”)6. Since dKUR.GAL is attested 1 See J. VAN DIJK, 1986, especially 169-70; cf. F. VALLAT, 2000, 8-10 for the nature of VAT 17020 = BE 13384 = VS 24,91. 2 See in particular for this impact M.-J. STEVE and F. VALLAT, 1989. 3 Cf. concerning the dating of Pahir-issan e.g. M.-J. STEVE, H. GASCHE and L. DE MEYER, 1980, 100-101; E. CARTER and M. STOLPER, 1984, 36. 4 See J.A. BRINKMAN, 1976, 14-21 for the Kassite royal sequence pertinent to this article. 5 Cf. J.-J. GLASSNER, 1991, 125: “révisions déchirantes”. 6 See S.W. COLE and L. DE MEYER, 1999, 44 for this characterization of Tepti-Ahar’s foe. HT 38 has been published as P. HERRERO, 1976, 102-103 no.6. See recently on the Kidinuid sequence F. VALLAT, 2000, 12-15. 34 J. GOLDBERG as referring to Enlil at OB Susa and elsewhere, this ruler can be very nicely identified on philological grounds (as very widely accepted prior to 1986) with one of the known Kassite Babylonian kings named Kadasman-Enlil7. However on the now-usual view even Kadasman-Enlil I (apparently the immediate successor of Kurigalzu I) already falls within the period of the Igihalkid-Kassite alliance. Attempts to accommodate this conflicting evi- dence by a Kidinuid / Igihalkid overlap are hard to square with evidence for early Igihalkid occupation of Susa, less than 15 km. from Haft Tepe8. Very recently, it has been suggested that “it is quite possible” to identify HT 38’s Kadasman-dKUR.GAL with Kadasman-Harbe I (Kurigalzu I’s father), since equations are known linking dKUR.GAL with Enlil and Anum, both of whom are linked to Harbe (a Kassite god) by other equations9. However this identification is uncompellingly roundabout and lacks justification from evi- dence for Kassite influence at Haft Tepe10. (2) No room is left for the challenge issued to a Babylonian king Kurigalzu (at least ostensibly II) by an otherwise unknown and seemingly Hurrian-named (i.e. hardly Igihalkid) Hurpatila ‘king of Elammat’ (Chronicle P iii 10-19)11: If the series of Igihalkid-Kassite intermarriages cited by the Berlin letter indeed started under Kurigalzu I, there would appear to be no political space left for a non-Igihalkid Elamite king to issue such a challenge to Kurigalzu II. And the alternative, identifying Hurpatila’s Babylonian contemporary as Kurigalzu I (pace Chronicle P), is hard to fit timewise with the currently- favored short Babylonian chronology or the now seemingly hard-to-avoid (albeit problematic) Tepti-Ahar / Kadasman-Harbe I synchronism12. 7 See e.g. J.-J. GLASSNER, 1991, 119-120. The OB text in question (part of MDAI 57 no.1) is a bilingual version of an Ur III diplomatic letter that was apparently copied (and translated?) in the late OB period, i.e. not long before Tepti-Ahar. Cf. also on Tepti-Ahar and dKUR.GAL the evidence cited by D. POTTS, 1999, 201-202. 8 See e.g. J.-J. GLASSNER, 1991, 125 for this proposed overlap; contrast later evidence (EKI 48, 48b) for early Igihalkid building activity at Susa (also D. POTTS, 1999, 195, 198 with references for building activity by Tepti-Ahar at Susa). 9 S.W. COLE and L. DE MEYER 1999, 45, followed by e.g. F. VALLAT, 2000, 11-12. 10 Cf. J.-J. GLASSNER, 2000: reading HT 38’s presumable RN as Kadasman-Harbe appears unjustified unless reasons can be adduced for reading Harbe in such PNs attested at Haft Tepe as Ibni-dKUR.GAL and ÌR/Warad-dKUR.GAL. 11 See recently on Hurpatila e.g. M. GASSAN, 1989; M.-J. STEVE and F. VALLAT, 1989, 232 n.31; J.-J. GLASSNER, 1991, 125-126. 12 See point (1) above for this synchronism between Tepti-Ahar and the father of Kuri- galzu I. The short Babylonian chronology provides at most c.70 years (c.1470-1400) for THE BERLIN LETTER 35 The generally accepted resolution of this conundrum (see n.11 above) has been to distinguish between Elam and a minor state Elammat located on the Elamite-Babylonian border. However there is no unambiguous evi- dence in favor of the existence of a distinct state Elammat whereas straightforward evidence does exist (albeit from a late period) for identify- ing this state with Elam13. This solution also seems to complicate matters unnecessarily by distinguishing between Kurigalzu II’s evidently memo- rable conquest of ‘all of Elammat’ (Chronicle P iii 16) and texts of a Kuri- galzu (on this scenario: I) that claim a conquest of Elam reaching as far as Susa and even Marhasi east of Elam14. Another objection to this solution is that demoting Hurpatila doesn’t help explain his ability to challenge Kurigalzu II with an Igihalkid ally of Babylonia behind his back in Elam. (3) An uneconomical distinction must be made between a Kidin-Hutran whom the Berlin letter identifies as a son of Untas-Napirisa (lines 12-14) and the Kidin-Hutran who attacked Babylonia in the wake of Tukulti- Ninurta I’s late 13th century conquest (Chronicle P iv 14-22)15. This dis- tinction is especially undesirable due to a break after Kidin-Hutran in the Berlin letter’s series of Elamite-Babylonian intermarriages — a break that fits perfectly with Chronicle P’s late 13th century rupture in Elamite- Babylonian relations16. the five known Kidinuid rulers (F. VALLAT, 2000, 12-16) Neither factor seems to leave enough time for a post-Kidinuid / pre-Igihalkid Elamite power which was strong enough to mount a challenge to Kurigalzu I (and which seems to have been characterized by much stronger Hurrian political influence than indicated during either the Kidinuid or Igihalkid periods). 13 See n.11 above for the evidence involved. Cf. M. GASSAN, 1989, 229: this distinc- tion “aurait besoin d’être confortée par des attestations nouvelles et pas seulement de source babylonienne”; M.-J. STEVE and F. VALLAT, 1989, 232 n.31: “il importe de souligner que plusiers rédactions récentes désignent l’Elam par KURE-lam-mat”. In spite of this initial caution, the current view (so e.g. F. VALLAT, 2000, 12 n.25) is that Hurpatila “a été éliminé de l’histoire élamite par M. Gassan en 1989”. 14 Contrast J.-J. GLASSNER, 1991, 126 in particular concerning a distinction between these campaigns. See for the pertinent texts of Kurigalzu P. STEINKELLER, 1982, 263 n.99; E. CARTER and M. STOLPER, 1984, 35; J.-J. GLASSNER, 1991, 126 with references. Note that Kurigalzu’s claims appear to be substantiated as far as Susa is concerned by the Berlin letter’s generally accepted implication that its Kurigalzu installed the Igihalkids. 15 A supporting argument for this distinction is that there is no time between Kidin- Hutran and Hallutus-Insusinak for the reign of Napirisa-Untas (M.-J. STEVE and F. VALLAT, 1989, 228). However this argument is very weak since no text is known from the latter two reigns. 16 In spite of the concurrent conflict involving Assyria, Chronicle P’s very negative portrayal of Kidin-Hutran’s Babylonian campaigns (iv 14-22) seems to confirm that these 36 J. GOLDBERG All of the above problems would be avoided if lines 9-10 of the Berlin let- ter actually refer to a marriage-alliance between Pahir-issan and Kurigalzu II (c.1327-1303)17. Thus Tepti-Ahar (taken to be a contemporary of Kadas- man-Enlil I) would predate the Igihalkids, as would Hurpatila, while the above Kidin-Hutran’s would become neatly identifiable with each other (cf. fig.1 below). The only obstacle to this redating appears to be that aris- ing from line 13’s reference to a Burnaburias two marriages after that con- necting Pahir-issan to Kurigalzu: as already noted in this context, no Burnaburias is known following Kurigalzu II. However the Berlin letter’s Burnaburias is not explicitly called king, so this conundrum can theoreti- cally be solved by making him a hitherto unknown Babylonian prince18. Including a prince in this genealogy does not appear to pose any problem per se due to an apparent parallel in line 15: marat-su sá Ix-x-ddun-iá-às (in view of the very extensive dated documentation from contemporary Nippur, hardly referring to the daughter of a hitherto unknown Babylonian king)19.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • The Limits of Middle Babylonian Archives1
    View metadata, citation and similar papers at core.ac.uk brought to you by CORE provided by OpenstarTs The Limits of Middle Babylonian Archives1 susanne paulus Middle Babylonian Archives Archives and archival records are one of the most important sources for the un- derstanding of the Babylonian culture.2 The definition of “archive” used for this article is the one proposed by Pedersén: «The term “archive” here, as in some other studies, refers to a collection of texts, each text documenting a message or a statement, for example, letters, legal, economic, and administrative documents. In an archive there is usually just one copy of each text, although occasionally a few copies may exist.»3 The aim of this article is to provide an overview of the archives of the Middle Babylonian Period (ca. 1500-1000 BC),4 which are often 1 All kudurrus are quoted according to Paulus 2012a. For a quick reference on the texts see the list of kudurrus in table 1. 2 For an introduction into Babylonian archives see Veenhof 1986b; for an overview of differ- ent archives of different periods see Veenhof 1986a and Brosius 2003a. 3 Pedersén 1998; problems connected to this definition are shown by Brosius 2003b, 4-13. 4 This includes the time of the Kassite dynasty (ca. 1499-1150) and the following Isin-II-pe- riod (ca. 1157-1026). All following dates are BC, the chronology follows – willingly ignoring all linked problems – Gasche et. al. 1998. the limits of middle babylonian archives 87 left out in general studies,5 highlighting changes in respect to the preceding Old Babylonian period and problems linked with the material.
    [Show full text]
  • Ancient Near Eastern Studies
    Ancient Near Eastern Studies Studies in Ancient Persia Receptions of the Ancient Near East and the Achaemenid Period in Popular Culture and Beyond edited by John Curtis edited by Lorenzo Verderame An important collection of eight essays on and Agnès Garcia-Ventura Ancient Persia (Iran) in the periods of the This book is an enthusiastic celebration Achaemenid Empire (539–330 BC), when of the ways in which popular culture has the Persians established control over the consumed aspects of the ancient Near East whole of the Ancient Near East, and later the to construct new realities. It reflects on how Sasanian Empire: stone relief carvings from objects, ideas, and interpretations of the Persepolis; the Achaemenid period in Baby- ancient Near East have been remembered, lon; neglected aspects of biblical archaeol- constructed, re-imagined, mythologized, or ogy and the books of Daniel and Isaiah; and the Sasanian period in Iran (AD indeed forgotten within our shared cultural memories. 250–650) when Zoroastrianism became the state religion. 332p, illus (Lockwood Press, March 2020) paperback, 9781948488242, $32.95. 232p (James Clarke & Co., January 2020) paperback, 9780227177068, $38.00. Special Offer $27.00; PDF e-book, 9781948488259, $27.00 Special Offer $31.00; hardcover, 9780227177051, $98.00. Special Offer $79.00 PDF e-book, 9780227907061, $31.00; EPUB e-book, 9780227907078, $30.99 Women at the Dawn of History The Synagogue in Ancient Palestine edited by Agnete W. Lassen Current Issues and Emerging Trends and Klaus Wagensonner edited by Rick Bonnie, Raimo Hakola and Ulla Tervahauta In the patriarchal world of ancient This book brings together leading experts in the field of ancient-synagogue Mesopotamia, women were often studies to discuss the current issues and emerging trends in the study of represented in their relation to men.
    [Show full text]
  • The Selected Synchronistic Kings of Assyria and Babylonia in the Lacunae of A.117
    Appendix III The Selected Synchronistic Kings of Assyria and Babylonia in the Lacunae of A.117 1 Shamshi-Adad I / Ishme-Dagan I vs. Hammurabi The synchronization of Hammurabi and the ruling family of Shamshi-Adad I’s kingdom can be proven by the correspondence between them, including the letters of Yasmah-Addu, the ruler of Mari and younger son of Shamshi-Adad I, to Hammurabi as well as an official named Hulalum in Babylon1 and those of Ishme-Dagan I to Hammurabi.2 Landsberger proposed that Shamshi-Adad I might still have been alive during the first ten years of Hammurabi’s reign and that the first year of Ishme- Dagan I would have been the 11th year of Hammurabi’s reign.3 However, it was also suggested that Shamshi-Adad I would have died in the 12th / 13th4 or 17th / 18th5 year of Hammurabi’s reign and Ishme-Dagan I in the 28th or 31st year.6 If so, the reign length of Ishme-Dagan I recorded in the AKL might be unreliable and he would have ruled as the successor of Shamshi-Adad I only for about 11 years.7 1 van Koppen, MARI 8 (1997), 418–421; Durand, DÉPM, No. 916. 2 Charpin, ARM 26/2 (1988), No. 384. 3 Landsberger, JCS 8/1 (1954), 39, n. 44. 4 Whiting, OBOSA 6, 210, n. 205. 5 Veenhof, AP, 35; van de Mieroop, KHB, 9; Eder, AoF 31 (2004), 213; Gasche et al., MHEM 4, 52; Gasche et al., Akkadica 108 (1998), 1–2; Charpin and Durand, MARI 4 (1985), 293–343.
    [Show full text]
  • Karduniaš. Babylonia Under the Kassites
    Karduniaš. Babylonia Under the Kassites The Proceedings of the Symposium Held in Munich 30 June to 2 July 2011 Tagungsbericht des Münchner Symposiums 30. Juni bis 2. Juli 2011 edited by Alexa Bartelmus and Katja Sternitzke Volume 1 Philological and Historical Studies Bereitgestellt von | Universitaetsbibliothek der LMU München Angemeldet | [email protected] Heruntergeladen am | 16.08.17 09:30 ISBN 978-1-5015-1163-9 e-ISBN (PDF) 978-1-5015-0356-6 e-ISBN (ePub) 978-1-5015-0348-1 ISSN 0502-7012 Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication data A CIP catalog record for this book has been applied for at the Library of Congress. Bibliographic information published by the Deutsche Nationalbibliothek The Deutsche Nationalbibliothek lists this publication in the Deutsche Nationalbibliografie; detailed bibliographic data are available in the Internet at http://dnb.dnb.de. © 2017 Walter de Gruyter Inc., Boston/Berlin Typesetting: fidus Publikations-Service GmbH, Nördlingen Printing and binding: Druckerei Hubert & Co. GmbH und Co. KG ♾ Printed on acid-free paper Printed in Germany www.degruyter.com Bereitgestellt von | Universitaetsbibliothek der LMU München Angemeldet | [email protected] Heruntergeladen am | 16.08.17 09:30 Jared L. Miller 3 Political Interactions between Kassite Babylonia and Assyria, Egypt and Ḫatti during the Amarna Age Introduction This paper aims first to provide a concise overview of the political interactions between Kassite Babylonia and the other Great Powers of the Amarna Age, i.e. Egypt, Ḫatti, Mittani and Assyria, a subject which could naturally fill a sizable monograph, or rather, a series of monographs. In an attempt to justify yet another general introduction to the era,1 this paper will also discuss two items to which some minor novel contribution can be made.
    [Show full text]
  • ISSN 0989-5671 N°3 (Septembre) NOTES BRÈVES
    ISSN 0989-5671 2016 N°3 (septembre) NOTES BRÈVES 55) Ergänzungen zu CUSAS 17, Nr. 104 — Auf dem „ancient kudurru“ CUSAS 17, Nr. 104 hat der Autor in NABU 2014 Nr. 38 den Namen PI.PI.EN als en-be6-be6 gelesen. Einer plausiblen Vermutung von Piotr Steinkeller (CUSAS 17, 217-18) zufolge handelt es sich bei dem Namensträger um einen König von Umma. Er wäre damit wahrscheinlich der erste Herrscher in Mesopotamien, der durch eine Inschrift aus seiner Regierungszeit belegt ist. Mit diesem Namen lässt sich auch nin-be6-be6 Banca Adab 13 Vs. i 3 (ED IIIb) vergleichen. Der Wechsel en : nin stützt die sumerische Interpretation des Namens und die Lesung be6 gegen die nur in semitischem Kontext gebrauchte Lesung wu. Gegen eine semitische Interpretation spricht auch be6-be6 UET II 171 B; 296, da die Wahrscheinlichkeit für einen semitischen Namen in diesen Texten unter einem Prozent liegt1) und der Name auch bei etwas anderer Lesung kein Merkmal hat, das ihn als typisch semitisch ausweisen würde. Eventuell zu vergleichen ist auch be6-be6-mud SF 63 iv 6 (P010654). Wenn so richtig gedeutet, handelt es sich um einen alten sumerischen Namen.²) Es gibt allerdings später einen ähnlichen semitischen oder semitisierten Namen bí-bí-um, z. B. IAS 531 ii 6. ki ki Der älteste Beleg für wu ist wohl à-wu-ur4 IAS 104 (Mitte) = Ebla à-wu-ur , cf. CUSAS 12, S. 197, 215. Diese Schreibung aus einer geographischen Liste in Tell Abū Ṣalābīḫ belegt die Lesung natürlich nicht für das Sumerische oder auch nur für den Süden, wo auch in semitischen Namen wa und wu nicht belegt sind, was im ersteren Fall nicht als Zufall gewertet werden kann (cf.
    [Show full text]
  • A List of Babylonian Kings
    Appendix II A List of Babylonian Kings Dynasty Name Filiation Date (BC) or Regnal years Sumu-abum 1894–1881 Sumu-la-El 1880–1845 Sabium Son of Sumu-la-El 1844–1831 Apil-Sin Son of Sabium 1830–1813 Amorite Sin-muballit Son of Apil-Sin 1812–1793 Hammurabi Son of Sin-muballit 1792–1750 Samsu-iluna Son of Hammurabi 1749–1712 Abishi Son of Samsu-iluna 1711–1684 Ammi-ditana Son of Abishi 1683–1647 Ammi-saduqa Son of Ammi-ditana 1646–1626 Samsu-ditana Son of Ammi-saduqa 1625–1595 Iliman 60 years Itti-ili-nibi 56 years? Damqi-ilishu 26 years? Ishkibal 15 years Sealand I Shushi 24 years Gulkishar 55 years GÍŠ-EN? 12 years Peshgaldaramesh Son of Gulkishar 50 years Adarakalamma Son of Peshgaldaramesh 28 years Ekurduanna 26 years Melamkurkurra 7 years Ea-gamil 9 years Gandash 26 years Agum I Son of Gandash 22 years Kassite Kashtiliashu I Son of Agum I 22 years Abi-Rattash Son of Kashtiliashu I 8 years? Kashtiliashu II Urzigurumash © Koninklijke Brill NV, Leiden, 2020 | doi:10.1163/9789004430921_009 Fei Chen - 9789004430921 Downloaded from Brill.com10/02/2021 09:29:36PM via free access A List of Babylonian Kings 203 Dynasty Name Filiation Date (BC) or Regnal years Harba-Shipak Tiptakzi Agum II Son of Urzigurumash Burnaburiash I […]a Kashtiliashu III Son of Burnaburiash I? Ulamburiash Son of Burnaburiash I? Agum III Son of Kashitiliash IIIb Karaindash Kadashman-Harbe I Kurigalzu I Son of Kadashman-Harbe I Kadashman-Enlil I 1374?–1360 Burnaburiash II Son of Kadashman-Enlil I? 1359–1333 Karahardash Son of Burnaburiash II? 1333 Nazibugash Son of Nobody
    [Show full text]
  • Downloaded from Brill.Com09/29/2021 06:11:41PM Via Free Access 208 Appendix III
    Appendix III The Selected Synchronistic Kings of Assyria and Babylonia in the Lacunae of A.117 1 Shamshi-Adad I / Ishme-Dagan I vs. Hammurabi The synchronization of Hammurabi and the ruling family of Shamshi-Adad I’s kingdom can be proven by the correspondence between them, including the letters of Yasmah-Addu, the ruler of Mari and younger son of Shamshi-Adad I, to Hammurabi as well as an official named Hulalum in Babylon1 and those of Ishme-Dagan I to Hammurabi.2 Landsberger proposed that Shamshi-Adad I might still have been alive during the first ten years of Hammurabi’s reign and that the first year of Ishme- Dagan I would have been the 11th year of Hammurabi’s reign.3 However, it was also suggested that Shamshi-Adad I would have died in the 12th / 13th4 or 17th / 18th5 year of Hammurabi’s reign and Ishme-Dagan I in the 28th or 31st year.6 If so, the reign length of Ishme-Dagan I recorded in the AKL might be unreliable and he would have ruled as the successor of Shamshi-Adad I only for about 11 years.7 1 van Koppen, MARI 8 (1997), 418–421; Durand, DÉPM, No. 916. 2 Charpin, ARM 26/2 (1988), No. 384. 3 Landsberger, JCS 8/1 (1954), 39, n. 44. 4 Whiting, OBOSA 6, 210, n. 205. 5 Veenhof, AP, 35; van de Mieroop, KHB, 9; Eder, AoF 31 (2004), 213; Gasche et al., MHEM 4, 52; Gasche et al., Akkadica 108 (1998), 1–2; Charpin and Durand, MARI 4 (1985), 293–343.
    [Show full text]
  • N°1 (Mars) NOTES BRÈVES
    ISSN 0989-5671 2016 N°1 (mars) NOTES BRÈVES 1) On two Ebla lexical lists with personal names (MEE 3 67, 59) — [1] TM.75.G.1565 = MEE 3 67 – This small rounded tablet, published among the “esercizi scolastici” in PETTINATO 1981:261, is a “word list with personal names” for ARCHI 1992:14 (and see also CIVIL 1984:81 n. 10). For Pettinato “il testo si compone di due parti nettamente distinte tra loro: la prima parte (recto) contiene un elenco di parole sumeriche ordinate acrograficamente in base all’elemento iniziale nì-; la seconda invece (verso) abbraccia una serie di nomi di persona che contengono tutti l’elemento lugal- in prima posizione. Mentre la serie che inizia con nì- ricorda da vicino l’omonima serie dei testi lessical šè-bar-unken, la seconda va rapportata al testo [MEE 3] n. 59 r. II:1-7”. However, the comparison with TM.75.G.2014 = MEE 3 59 (see below) suggests that also in TM.75.G.1565 = MEE 3 67 the six personal names were instead written before the seven common nouns of the acrographic section ninda (and note not only “r.?” and “v.?” in the edition in PETTINATO 1981:261, but also the inversion of the obverse and the reverse in the photographs of the tablet in MEE 3, Tav. XXXVIIa-b). I read the lexical list TM.75.G.1565 = MEE 3 67 as follows: (PN1) obv.I:1 Lugal-˹á˺-máḫ (PN2) obv.I:2 Lugal-ur-sag mušen (PN3) obv.I:3 Lugal-ánzud(AN.MI) ? (PN4) obv.II:1 [Luga]l-˹da-zi ˺ (PN5) obv.II:2 Lugal-gal-bí-DU ? (PN6) obv.II:3 Lugal-(x -)šùd-šè (1) rev.I:1 GAR-X (2) rev.I:2 kadra(GAR.ŠÀ!.A) (3) rev.I:3 níg-šu!-luḫ (4) rev.I:4 ninda-sag?(-x?) (5) rev.II:1 níg-ki-za (6) rev.II:2 ninda-géme (7) rev.II:3 níg-mul – 1 – N.A.B.U 2016/1 (mars) [2] TM.75.G.2014 = MEE 3 59 – This tablet with rounded corners, six columns on the obverse and only three columns on the reverse, has been published among the “liste di nomi di persona sumerico- eblaiti e parole sumeriche” in PETTINATO 1981:243-245 (photograph in Tav.
    [Show full text]
  • Assyrian Collective Identity in the Second Millennium BCE: a Social Categories Approach
    Assyrian Collective Identity in the Second Millennium BCE: A Social Categories Approach By Jonathan Valk A dissertation submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy Institute for the Study of the Ancient World New York University May, 2018 ___________________________ Professor Beate Pongratz-Leisten © Jonathan Valk All Rights Reserved, 2018 Dedication To the two most important women in my life: my mother Tamara, and my wife Avichag. In thinking of either of them I can do no less than echo the praise of the goddess Nanaya: ela šâša, mannu mīna eppuš? Without her, who can do anything? - SAA III, 4: r ii 9' iii Acknowledgements This project represents not the culmination of a long journey, but an important waystation on the road. The path has been muddy and riddled with potholes. It has, on occasion, been lost altogether, only to reappear in an unexpected place, meandering in an here I am! – with my offering in hand. I first set out – הנני ,unanticipated direction. Nevertheless on this journey many rotations around the sun ago. When I left the safety of the maternal nest, I had only just begun to realize that I do not know much. Now, I am acutely aware of it. All to the better. My awareness of my own ignorance has been helped along by many people whom I have been fortunate to know and to learn from. Before moving to New York and deciding to pursue research in the ancient world, I had the opportunity to work closely with Martin Goodman and Bernard Wasserstein at the universities of Oxford and Chicago respectively.
    [Show full text]
  • Mesopotamian Political History Into Distinct Halves. Thus the Old Baby
    FOR FURTHER READING 109 Mesopotamian political history into distinct halves. Thus the Old Baby- lonian world is deeply rooted in the third millennium, while Kassite culture is more akin to the first. Potts, Daniel T. Mesopotamian Civilization: The Material Foundations. Ithaca, N.Y.: Cornell University Press, 1997. A useful collection of stand-alone essays covering features of Mesopotamian civilization often overlooked in other studies. Gives much attention to the written cuneiform sources while also updating and interacting with the perti- nent secondary literature. Roaf, Michael. Cultural Atlas of Mesopotamia and the Ancient Near East. New York: Facts on File, 1996. The best available atlas on ancient Mesopotamia. Also includes much discussion and treatment of relevant background information. Roux, Georges. Ancient Iraq. 3rd ed. London: Penguin, 1992. Written by a French medical doctor who subsequently became a scholar of ancient Mesopotamia in his own right and published articles in technical jour- nals. A comprehensive survey with an astounding sweep from Paleolithic times to the Sassanians (224–651 C.E.), this book is engag- ingly written and lucid. Its usefulness is still evident in its third edition since its original publication in 1964. Saggs, H. W. F. The Greatness That Was Babylon: A Survey of the Ancient Civilization of the Tigris-Euphrates Valley. 2nd ed. London: Sidgwick & Jackson, 1988. Originally published in 1962, this authoritative and comprehensive treatment covers Babylonian society, law and adminis- tration, trade and economics, religion, literature, and science, as well as providing an overview of political history. Abbreviated and more up-to-date treatment may be found in the author’s Babylonians (Berke- ley and Los Angeles: University of California Press, 2000).
    [Show full text]
  • The Babylonian Chronicles
    The Babylonian chronicles The chronicles from Babylon and Borsippa in a comparative perspective Mariëtte Wessels s1023039 Master thesis Assyriology @1 Table of contents Page Abbreviations 3 Periods 4 Introduction and method 5-9 Introducing the corpus 10-12 Periods and dynasties in the chronicles 13-16 Subjects in the chronicles 17-25 Places in the chronicles 26-32 Kings in the chronicles 33-40 Timespan of the chronicles 41-43 Reoccurring sentences in the chronicles 44-46 Gods and religion in the chronicles 47-50 Appearance of the chronicles 51-54 Conclusion 55-56 Bibliography 57-62 @2 Abbreviations ADRT I Hunger, H. and Sachs A.J. (1988). Astronomical Diaries and Related Texts from Babylonia, volume I. Vienna. BM British Museum Glassner, MC Glassner, J. (2004). Mesopotamian Chronicles. Atlanta. Grayson, ABC Grayson, A.K. (1975). Assyrian and Babylonian Chronicles. New York. Van der Spek, BCHP Van der Spek, R.J. (2004). Babylonian Chronicles from the Hellenistic Period. http://www.livius.org/babylonia.html. @3 Periods1 Akkad Dynasty 2334-2154 Third Dynasty of Ur 2112-2004 Larsa Dynasty 2025-1763 First Dynasty of Isin 2017-1794 Old Assyrian Period ca. 1900-1750 First Dynasty of Babylon 1894-1595 First Dynasty of the Sealand unknown Middle Assyrian Period ca. 1300-1100 Kassite Dynasty 1374?-1155 Second Dynasty of Isin 1157-1026 Second Sealand Dynasty 1025-1005 Bazi Dynasty 1004-985 Elamite Dynasty 984-979 Uncertain Dynasties 978-748 Neo-Assyrian Dynasty 744-612 Neo-Babylonian Dynasty 626-539 Persian Empire 538-331 Macedonian Rulers 330-307 Seleucid Dynasty 305-65 BCE Arsacid Dynasty 250 BCE-228 CE 1 Information retrieved from: Oppenheim 1964: 335-347; Van de Mieroop 2007: 302-317.
    [Show full text]
  • Kurigalzu's Statue Inscription
    KURIGALZU’S STATUE INSCRIPTION Niek Veldhuis (University of California, Berkeley) During excavations at Dur-Kurigalzu (çAqar-Quf) in the 1940s the Iraqi team recovered several fragments of an inscribed diorite statue of King Kurigalzu. The inscription is by far the longest Kassite period Sumerian text, and it is therefore our prime example of what Kassite Sumerian looks like. The present article provides a new edition and translation of the text, focusing on its usage of rare Sumerian words and expressions that are known from the lexical tradition.1 1. Introduction The Kurigalzu statue was apparently destroyed in antiquity; the fragments were dispersed over several rooms of the Eåugal temple. During the 1943 season, several pieces were recovered in room 25 and one in room 11 (Baqir 1944: 13). An additional fragment (Fragment B) was discovered in the second season in the palace on Mound A (Baqir 1945: 13), at some distance from the ˜nd spot of the other pieces. Fragment B shares many characteristics with the earlier ˜nds, including the style of writing and the unusual distribution of words over several cases of text. There is no ˜nal proof, however, that the pieces found in the Eåugal and the one from Mound A belong together, and therefore we may be dealing with more than one statue.2 One fragment (˜g. 1), preserving part of the toes (Baqir 1944: ˜g. 20), indicates the original size of the object, which must have been more than life-size. By contrast, the preserved fragments are rela- tively small, and we have no idea how much of the text is missing.
    [Show full text]