XI Sumero-Babylonian King Lists and Date Lists A. R. GEORGE The Antediluvian King List The antediluvian king list is an Old Babylonian (b) a tablet from Nippur, now in Istanbul text, composed in Sumerian, that purports to (Kraus 1952: 31) document the reigns of successive kings of (c) another reportedly from Khafaje (Tutub), remote antiquity, from the time when the gods now in Berkeley, California (Finkelstein first transmitted to mankind the institution of 1963: 40) kingship until the interruption of human histo- (d) a further tablet now in the Karpeles Manu- ry by the great Flood. The list exists in several script Library, Santa Barbara, California, versions. Sometimes it appears as the opening given below in a preliminary transliteration section of the Sumerian King List, as in text (No. 97) No. 98 below. More often it occurs as an inde- (e) a small fragment from Nippur now in Phil- pendent list, of which one example is held by adelphia that bears lines from the list fol- the Schøyen collection, published here as text lowed by other text (Peterson 2008). No. 96. Other examples of the Old Babylonian A more extensive treatment of the lists of ante- list of antediluvian kings copied independently diluvian kings, including No. 96 and the tablet of the Sumerian King List are: in the Karpeles Manuscript Library, is promised (a) the tablet W-B 62, of uncertain prove- by Gianni Marchesi as part of his forthcoming nance and now in the Ashmolean Museum larger study of the Sumerian king lists. (Langdon 1923 pl. 6) No. 96 MS 2855 Pls. LXXVIII–LXXIX MS 2855 is a small oblong tablet inscribed on Íè ba-de6 “its kingship was taken to GN” as both faces and the top, bottom and left edges nam-lugal-Íè GN ba-de6, literally “GN was with twenty-nine lines of early Old Babylonian brought to kingship,” which is less satisfactory. cuneiform script. The main content is a version The exemplar of the list now in the Karpeles of the antediluvian king list, but this is followed Manuscript Library (No. 97) also uses this ver- by a damaged passage, written in Akkadian and sion of the formula, and shows that it is not an in a smaller script, which remains partly unde- idiosyncrasy of a single scribe but a corrupt ciphered. As understood here, it ends with a variant passed down in tradition. statement enjoining the addressee not to stop MS 2855 has already been published in reciting the text, which suggests that the pre- Jöran Friberg’s volume of mathematical texts in ceding list had some function in scribal ritual or the Schøyen Collection (2007: 237–38, 491). academic oratory. Friberg relied on a copy made by Farouk Al- A notable feature of the text is the render- Rawi from photographs, without first-hand ing of the standard formula nam-lugal-bi GN- collation of the original. 199 200 Royal Inscriptions and Related Texts obv. 1 (In) Eridu (was) kingship: Alulim 2 1 eriduki nam-lugal a-lu-li[m] reigned for 28,800 years, 3 Elalgar [reigned] 2 mu Íár+Íár+Íár+Íár+Íár+Íár+Íár+Íár ì- for 43,200 years, 4 Eridu was overthrown. a[k] Kingship 5 was taken to Bad-tibira: 6 Am- 7 3 e-làl-gar mu Íár™u Íár+Íár ‚ìŸ-[ak] miluanna (was) king, reigned for 36,000 4 eriduki ba-Íub nam-lugal-Íè years, 8 Enmegalanna reigned for 28,800 ki 9 10 5 bàd-tibir -ra ba-de6 years, Dumuzi reigned for 28,800 years, 6 am-mi-lú-an-na lugal Bad-tibira was overthrown. 11 Kingship 12 7 mu Íár™u ì-ak [was taken to Larak:] Ensipazi[anna (was 8 en-me-gal-an-na mu king,) 13 reigned] for 13,800 years, 14 Larak 15 Íár+Íár+Íár+Íár+Íár+Íár+Íár+Íár ì-ak was [overthrown.] Kingship [was taken] 16 9 ddumu-zi mu to Sippar: Meduranki reigned for 7,200 17 18 Íár+Íár+Íár+Íár+Íár+Íár+Íár+Íár ì-ak years, Sippar was overthrown. King- 19 10 bàd-tibirki-ra ‚ba-ÍubŸ ship was taken to fiuruppak: Uburtutu reigned for 36,000 years. 20 Total: eight 11 nam-lugal-Íè l[a-ra-ak ba-de6] 22 21 12 en-sipa-zi-[an-na (lugal)] kings, . they reigned their 222,600 years. lower edge 23 . 24 like tamarisk(?). [Its] inscription, 13 mu Íár+Íár+Íár géÍ-u+géÍ-u+géÍ-u+géÍ- 25 which 26b . 25 for [ . ] 26a and [ . ,] u+géÍ-u ì-[ak] 27 you must not refrain(!) from reading rev. aloud. 14 la-ra-ak ba-Í[ub] k i 15 nam-lugal-Íè zimbir [ ba-de6] 16 me-dur-an-ki mu Íár-Íár ì-a[k] 17 zimbirki ba-Íub ki 18 nam-lugal-Íè Íuruppak -Íè ba-d[e6] 19 ubur-du-du ‚muŸ Íár™u ì-ak 20 ‚Íu+nigin 8Ÿ lugal 21 ‚muŸ-bi-me-eÍ Íár{™MIN}-gal Íár géÍ- u+géÍ-u+géÍ-u+géÍ-u+géÍ-u 22 giÍ-x ì-ak ———————————————————— 23 x mi id ‚riŸ mi ir mi r[i] / x x gi zi za ni 30 u[Í]? 24 ki-‚maŸ bi-ni-im Íi-ˇi-ir-[Íu] 25 Ía a-na me-[x x (x) x x] 26a ù [x x x (x) x x x] upper edge 26b i-za-x[ (x) x] left edge 27 Íi-ta-sà-am ù-la ta-ka-la!(tablet: li) Sumero-Babylonian King Lists and Date Lists 201 No. 97 Karpeles Manuscript Library Pl. LXXX This is a small oblong tablet now in the collec- abgal “sage”) instead of simple NUN (ll. 1, 4, 16, tion of the Karpeles Manuscript Library, Santa 17). This mistake probably arose from an intru- Barbara, California. It holds twenty-seven lines sion in the writer’s mind of the mythological of Old Babylonian cuneiform, inscribed on tradition that placed the sages in the antedilu- both faces and three edges. The text is a version vian era. of the list of antediluvian kings very similar to The transliteration given here is informed the preceding exemplar, but with an interesting by photographs kindly supplied by Renee line of summary (l. 27). A noteworthy idiosyn- Kovacs, checked against the transliteration of a crasy is the erroneous spelling of Eridu and Sip- scholar who was able to study the tablet first- par with the sign combination NUN.ME (i.e. hand but wished to remain anonymous. obv. 24 Íuruppakki ba-Íub 1 eridu.{me}ki nam-lugal upper edge 2 a-lu-lim Íár+Íár+Íár+Íár+Íár+Íár+Íár+Íár 25 Íu-nigin 8 lugal 5 ur[uk]i-didli mu ì-ak 26 Íu-nigin Íár-gal Íár géÍ-u+géÍ-u+géÍ- 3 e-lal-gar Íár™u Íár+Íár mu ì-ak u+géÍ-u+géÍ-u mu-bi/-e-ne 4 eridu.{me}ki ba-Íub nam-lugal left edge ki ? 5 ‚bàd-tibirŸ-ra ba-de6 27 a-ma-ru b[a-(x)-è]d([DU]6.DU) -àm ki 6 [b]àd-tibir-ra lugal-e ‚lugal-eŸ ba-záÓ-am6 7 [am/en]-‚menŸ-lu-an-na Íár™u mu ì-ak 1 (In) Eridu (was) kingship: 2 Alulim 8 en-me-gal-an-na reigned for 28,800 years, 3 Elalgar reigned Íár+Íár+Íár+Íár+Íár+Íár+Íár+Íár mu ì-ak for 43,200 years, 4 Eridu was overthrown. 9 ddumu-zi Kingship 5 was taken to Bad-tibira, 6 in Íár+Íár+Íár+Íár+Íár+Íár+Íár+Íár mu ì-ak 7 ki Bad-tibira (ruled) the king: [Am/ 10 bàd-tibir-ra ba-Íub 8 ki En]menluanna reigned for 36,000 years, 11 nam-lugal-Íè la-ra-ak -Íè ba-de6 9 ki Enmegalanna reigned for 28,800 years, 12 la-ra-ak lugal-e Dumuzi reigned for 28,800 years, 10 Bad-ti- lower edge bira was overthrown. 11 Kingship was taken 13 en-sipa-zi-an-na to Larak, 12 (in) Larak (ruled) the king: 13 rev. Ensipazianna 14 reigned for 13,800 years, 15 14 Íár+Íár+Íár géÍ-u+géÍ-u+géÍ-u+géÍ- Larak was overthrown. 16 Kingship was u+géÍ-u mu ì-ak taken to Sippar, 17 (in) Sippar (ruled) the 15 la-ra-akki ba-Íub king: 18 Meduranki reigned for 7,200 years, ki 19 20 16 nam-lugal-Íè zimbir.{me} / ba-de6 Sippar was overthrown. Kingship was 17 zimbir.{me}ki lugal-‚eŸ taken to fiuruppak, 21 (in) fiuruppak (ruled) 18 [m]e-dur-an-ki Íár+Íár mu ì-a[k] the king: 22 Uburtutu 23 reigned for 36,000 ki 24 25 19 [zi]mbir.{me} ba-Íub years, fiuruppak was overthrown. To- ki 26 20 nam-lugal-Íè Íuruppak / ba-de6 tal: eight kings, five cities; total: 222,600 21 Íuruppakki lugal-e years. 27 The flood [came] down(?), the (of- 22 ubur-tu-tu fice of) king was lost. 23 Íár™u mu ì-ak 202 Royal Inscriptions and Related Texts The Sumerian King List The principal chronological text handed down An electronic edition, based on sources avail- in Old Babylonian schools is that known as the able in 1999, is available at the Electronic Text Sumerian King List. Since the time of its last Corpus of Sumerian Literature (www-etcsl. print edition (Jacobsen 1939), many new orient.ox.ac.uk). sources have been published, conveniently list- Two further sources exist in the Schøyen ed by Claudine-Adrienne Vincente (1995: Collection and are presented here as texts Nos.
On Writing the History of Southern Mesopotamia* by Eva Von
On Writing the History of Southern Mesopotamia* by Eva von Dassow — Colorado State University In his book Babylonia 689-627 B.C., G. Frame provides a maximally detailed his- tory of a specific region during a closely delimited time period, based on all available sources produced during that period or bearing on it. This review article critiques the methods used to derive the history from the sources and the conceptual framework used to apprehend the subject of the history. Babylonia 689-627 B. C , the revised version of Grant Frame's doc- toral dissertation, covers one of the most turbulent and exciting periods of Babylonian history, a time during which Babylon succes- sively experienced destruction and revival at Assyria's hands, then suf- fered rebellion and siege, and lastly awaited the opportunity to over- throw Assyria and inherit most of Assyria's empire. Although, as usual, the preserved textual sources cover these years unevenly, and often are insufficiently varied in type and origin (e.g., royal or non- royal, Babylonian or Assyrian), the years from Sennacherib's destruc- tion of Babylon in 689 to the eve of Nabopolassar's accession in 626 are also a richly documented period. Frame's work is an attempt to digest all of the available sources, including archaeological evidence as well as texts, in order to produce a maximally detailed history. Sur- rounding the book's core, chapters 5-9, which proceed reign by reign through this history, are chapters focussing on the sources (ch. 2), chronology (ch. 3), the composition of Babylonia's population (ch.
The Sumerian King List the Sumerian King List (SKL) Dates from Around 2100 BCE—Near the Time When Abram Was in Ur
BcResources Genesis The Sumerian King List The Sumerian King List (SKL) dates from around 2100 BCE—near the time when Abram was in Ur. Most ANE scholars (following Jacobsen) attribute the original form of the SKL to Utu-hejel, king of Uruk, and his desire to legiti- mize his reign after his defeat of the Gutians. Later versions included a reference or Long Chronology), 1646 (Middle to the Great Flood and prefaced the Chronology), or 1582 (Low or Short list of postdiluvian kings with a rela- Chronology). The following chart uses tively short list of what appear to be the Middle Chronology. extremely long-reigning antediluvian Text. The SKL text for the following kings. One explanation: transcription chart was originally in a narrative form or translation errors resulting from and consisted of a composite of several confusion of the Sumerian base-60 versions (see Black, J.A., Cunningham, and the Akkadian base-10 systems G., Fluckiger-Hawker, E, Robson, E., of numbering. Dividing each ante- and Zólyomi, G., The Electronic Text diluvian figure by 60 returns reigns Corpus of Sumerian Literature (http:// in harmony with Biblical norms (the www-etcsl.orient.ox.ac.uk/), Oxford bracketed figures in the antediluvian 1998-). The text was modified by the portion of the chart). elimination of manuscript references Final versions of the SKL extended and by the addition of alternative the list to include kings up to the reign name spellings, clarifying notes, and of Damiq-ilicu, king of Isin (c. 1816- historical dates (typically in paren- 1794 BCE). thesis or brackets). The narrative was Dates.
{PDF} Ancient Civilizations the Near East and Mesoamerica 2Nd Edition
ANCIENT CIVILIZATIONS THE NEAR EAST AND MESOAMERICA 2ND EDITION PDF, EPUB, EBOOK C C Lamberg-Karlovsky | 9780881338348 | | | | | Ancient Civilizations The near East and Mesoamerica 2nd edition PDF Book Thanks to their artwork, we have a very good idea of how they looked: men of short stature, but with muscular bodies, that shaved their faces and heads. Their known homeland was centred on Subartu , the Khabur River valley, and later they established themselves as rulers of small kingdoms throughout northern Mesopotamia and Syria. Add to Wishlist. They are the most striking constructions in their monumental funerary complex, the position of which symbolized the journey of the deceased ruler to the western realm of the dead. The River Nile was the center of Egyptian life. Rating details. Later dynasties promoted the worship of Ra, the solar god who ruled the world. Deanne rated it really liked it Feb 15, Scholars even have used the term 'Aramaization' for the Assyro-Babylonian peoples' languages and cultures, that have become Aramaic-speaking. Laurelyn Anne added it Oct 23, It has Nefertiti on the front, need I say more? Luwian was also the language spoken in the Neo-Hittite states of Syria , such as Melid and Carchemish , as well as in the central Anatolian kingdom of Tabal that flourished around BC. Priests were seers who predicted the future, acted as oracles, explained dreams, and offered sacrifices. The great Sumerian invention was cuneiform writing, which made it possible to share their thoughts and the events that affected them with future generations. A'annepada Meskiagnun Elulu Balulu. Rick rated it it was amazing Oct 19, Twenty-seventh Dynasty of Egypt Achaemenid conquest of Egypt.
SUMERIAN LITERATURE and SUMERIAN IDENTITY My Title Puts
CNI Publicati ons 43 SUMERIAN LITERATURE AND SUMERIAN IDENTITY JERROLD S. COOPER PROBLEMS OF C..\NONlCl'TY AND IDENTITY FORMATION IN A NCIENT EGYPT AND MESOPOTAMIA There is evidence of a regional identity in early Babylonia, but it does not seem to be of the Sumerian ethno-lingusitic sort. Sumerian Edited by identity as such appears only as an artifact of the scribal literary KIM RYHOLT curriculum once the Sumerian language had to be acquired through GOJKO B AR .I AMOVIC educati on rather than as a mother tongue. By the late second millennium, it appears there was no notion that a separate Sumerian ethno-lingui stic population had ever existed. My title puts Sumerian literature before Sumerian identity, and in so doing anticipates my conclusion, which will be that there was little or no Sumerian identity as such - in the sense of "We are all Sumerians!" outside of Sumerian literature and the scribal milieu that composed and transmitted it. By "Sumerian literature," I mean the corpus of compositions in Sumerian known from manuscripts that date primarily 1 to the first half of the 18 h century BC. With a few notable exceptions, the compositions themselves originated in the preceding three centuries, that is, in what Assyriologists call the Ur III and Isin-Larsa (or Early Old Babylonian) periods. I purposely eschew the too fraught and contested term "canon," preferring the very neutral "corpus" instead, while recognizing that because nearly all of our manuscripts were produced by students, the term "curriculum" is apt as well. 1 The geographic designation "Babylonia" is used here for the region to the south of present day Baghdad, the territory the ancients would have called "Sumer and Akkad." I will argue that there is indeed evidence for a 3rd millennium pan-Babylonian regional identity, but little or no evidence that it was bound to a Sumerian mother-tongue community.
The Purchasing Power of Silver in the Seleucid Empire and Beyond
Academy Colloquium “The efficiency of Markets in Pre-industrial societies: the case of Babylonia (c. 400-60 BC) in comparative perspective” (19 – 21 May 2011) Introduction. The relevance of the Babylonian price data for the study of market integration and market efficiciency. (provisional paper; not to be quoted) Bert van der Spek 0. Prolegomena The purpose of this paper is to introduce the topic of the conference. Because the point of departure is a new corpus of data from Babylonia in the first millennium BC, I shall first present some information on this corpus and on Babylonian economy in general. The paper by Michael Jursa shall provide a deeper insight into the Babylonian economy. For much more detailed information I recommend his magnum opus (2010), which is the result of a great research project in Vienna on the character of the Babylonian economy in the first millennium BC. In an appendix I present some basic historical facts and information on weights and measures, which may be of help for people who are not acquainted with the history of the Near East in Antiquity. My second point of attention will be a short introduction to the points of discussion which I regard as basic for this conference. 1. Introduction The aim of this conference is to include the history of Antiquity into the discussions on market efficiency which has been a major topic of research for the last decades. This topic has gained more attention since the study of economic institutions and structures necessary for economic growth has been brought further and further back in time.