DOCSLIB.ORG

Playbook T a B L E • O F • C O N T E N T S

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Playbook T a B L E • O F • C O N T E N T S A “PAX” Series game, Vol. II PLAYBOOK T A B L E • O F • C O N T E N T S Introduction ..................................................................... 2 Two Player Scenarios ...................................................... 10 Solitaire Introductory Scenario ....................................... 3 Scenario #6: Babylon and Assyria .......................... 10 Scenario #1: Sargon the Great ................................ 3 Scenario #7: Hittites and Mitanni ........................... 11 Multi-Player Scenarios Scenario #8: Egypt and the Hittites ........................ 12 Scenario #2: The Chariot Kingdoms ...................... 4 Player Notes .................................................................... 14 Scenario #3: The Growth of Empires ..................... 6 Extended Example of Play .............................................. 16 Scenario #4: Empires in Conflict ............................ 7 Sources ............................................................................ 23 Scenario #5: Return of the Assyrians ..................... 9 Historical Kings table ..................................................... 24 Minor Kingdoms and Independent Cities tables ............. 24 GMT Games, LLC • P.O. Box 1308, Hanford, CA 93232-1308 • www.GMTGames.com 2 Genesis Playbook Introduction Length Of Play The Genesis playbook includes a Solitaire Introductory Learning Genesis presents the players with a great many decisions, and scenario, four multi-player scenarios playable by two (here the decision-making takes time. We know some of you prefer a game players each play two Kingdoms) to five players, and three two- that can be finished in one sitting, while others prefer a lengthier player scenarios that are suitable for solitaire play. We have also game with nearly unlimited variation. To that end, we present included an extensive Example of Play to assist in the learning several variations players can employ to shorten or lengthen the of the game. scenarios. Number Of Game Turns Getting Started Scenario #2: The players decide prior to the start of play how Scenario #1 (Introductory Solitaire) is designed to introduce the many Game Turns they wish to play. They then set up the game basic mechanics of moving and fighting. Scenario #3, covering per the scenario instructions, with the exception that the players’ the initial expansion of the Kingdoms, is a good first multi-player Kings Pools only include those Kings whose turn number is the scenario. For two players or solitaire play, Scenario #6 is a good same or lower than the number of Game Turns to be played. For place to start. a five-player game, each turn not played will reduce the playing The Scenarios time by about 2 hours; 4 or 2 Players about 1½ hours; 3 Players about 1 hour. The scenarios are presented using the same format: Scenario #3: The players may decide to play three Game Turns • Scenario# Name rather than four, adjusting the King Pools accordingly. Playing • Introduction: Brief description of the situation. time is reduced by approximately 25%. • Game Turns: Number of Game Turns; Start and ending Game Scenario #4: The players may decide to extend the game from Turns. one to three Game Turns. The King Pools are adjusted to reflect • Number Of Players: The recommended number of players. the Game Turns that will be played. Each Game Turn added will • Playing Time: The approximate playing time given the number increase playing by about 33%. of players. Scenario #6/#7: Given the restricted nature of the scenarios, the • The Map: Describes the areas of the map that are in/out of players may extend these scenarios only one Game Turn. Add play. the appropriate Kings to the King Pools. The game will take • Setup: Details the Major and Minor Kingdom deployment another hour to play. for maximum number of players; setup elements include Fewer Activation Markers the starting units, Silver, Manpower Maximum, King Pool, For a faster playing game, the players may reduce the number Activation Markers, controlled spaces, and the procedure for of Activation Markers from 4 to 3. In doing so, the Events will selecting Kings . tend to have a greater impact since the players will have less op- • Cards: Lists the Event Cards in play and initial deal. portunity to react. This option may be used in conjunction with • First Turn: First turn sequence of play adjustments. the adjustments to the number of Game Turns described above. • Special Rules: Some scenarios will have rules applicable only to that scenario. Setup Instructions • Historical Changes: Optional rules for more historical play. The players select the scenario they will play and then decide All, some, or none can be used at the agreement of the players. on any adjustments to the length of play. The players choose the Kingdoms each will play, either by mutual agreement, or by plac- • Fewer Players: Setup adjustments and special rules if fewer ing one AM for each Kingdom in play in a cup with each player than the maximum number of players will play. then randomly drawing an AM to determine which kingdom he will play. The players then decide which Historical Options, if any, they will use. The players place their Kingdoms’ playing pieces and those of any Minor Kingdoms on the map per the scenario instructions. One player shuffles the Event Deck and deals out, randomly and blindly, one card to each player to start the game. The remaining cards in the deck are placed faced down for use during play. © 2015 GMT Games, LLC Genesis Playbook 3 Solitaire Introductory Scenario Scenario #1: Sargon the Great Cards: The Event Cards are not used in this scenario Sargon is the first individual in recorded history to create a multiethnic, centrally ruled empire, and his Akkadian dynasty Sequence Of Play: controlled Mesopotamia for around a century and a half. The This scenario consists of four Action Segments—ignore all scenario allows players to practice the basics of movement and other phases. The player may use the Assyrian AMs to track the combat. number of Action Segments completed if he so wishes. Victory is determined at the conclusion of the fourth Activation Segment. Game Turns: 1 Special Rules: Number Of Players: Solitaire The player may recruit 1 INF unit from each City space he Game Length: captures at no cost. About 1 hour Victory: The Map: The player must capture and control the remaining five green All City spaces on the map are treated as Independent cities. Babylonia City spaces and be able to trace a Trade Route from There are no Major/Minor Kingdoms; ignore all Capital indica- Kish into any Port City space using only Unfortified City and/ tors. All cities start with the Defense Strength printed on the map. or Transit spaces. Unfortified City spaces need not be controlled. If Sargon is Killed, the player automatically loses. Setup: Place King Sargon and 12 INF from the Assyrian counter mix in PLAY NOTE: The player will need to roll average dice or bet- Kish. Silver($) is not used, nor are the Kingdom Display Cards. ter for MP and in Battle to win. If the dice gods are not kind, There are no Chariots. The player does not need to occupy Kish consider it a moral victory if the capture condition is met and to control it. the Trade Route reaches into Mari. © 2015 GMT Games, LLC 4 Genesis Playbook Multi-Player Scenarios Scenario #2: The Chariot Kingdoms EGYPT Manpower Maximum – 18 This scenario provides the basics for the full ten turn game start- Chariot Technology Level – None ing in 1700 BC, Turn 1. Silver – 15$ Game Turns: 10; Turns 1-10 Units – 13 INF Home Kingdom Cities (5) – Thebes (Capital), Sais, Memphis, Number of Players: Two to Five Tanis, and Heliopolis Playing Time: Other Controlled Cities – None Five Players: 12+ hours Monuments – None Four/Two Players: 10+ hours King Pool – Kings 1-10 Three Players: 8+ hours HITTITES The Map: Manpower Maximum – 16 The player Home Kingdom cities and those of the Minor King- Chariot Technology Level – None doms are color coded on the map. All other cities are Independent. Silver – 11$ Unless specified otherwise in the setup instructions, all spaces Units – 16 INF on the map are in play. Home Kingdom Cities (6) – Hattusa (Capital), Kanesh, Setup – Five Players: Purishanda, Amkuwa, Tuwanuwa, and Kummanni The player Kingdoms available are Egypt, the Hittites, the Mi- Other Controlled Cities – None tanni, Assyria, and Babylon. Each player’s Infantry units, Silver, Monuments – None Manpower Maximum, King Pool, and controlled spaces are listed King Pool – Kings 1-10 below. The players either draw a King from their pool to start, or start with the Game Turn 1 Kings listed on the Historical Kings MITANNI chart if using the historical order of appearance option (see 4.1.2). Manpower Maximum – 15 Each player receives four Activation Markers. Chariot Technology Level – None Silver – 12$ Units – 17 INF Home Kingdom Cities (6) – Waushukanni (Capital), Alshe, Harran, Irrite, Taita, and Nisibis Other Controlled Cities – None Monuments – None King Pool – Kings 1-10 © 2015 GMT Games, LLC Genesis Playbook 5 ASSYRIA First Turn: Manpower Maximum – 16 For the first turn, skip phases A, C, and D of the Sequence of Chariot Technology Level – None Play. Determine the Initiative (B) and then proceed to Activa- Silver – 13$ tion Phase (E). Units – 15 INF Historical Options: Home Kingdom Cities (6) – Ashur (Capital), Kalku, Arbik, For a greater semblance of historical simulation, we suggest the Nuzi, Shaushara, and Nineveh following: Other Controlled Cities – None • Use the Historical Appearance of Kings. Monuments – None • Remove all Chariot cards; the Mitanni achieve Chariot King Pool – Kings 1-10 Technology Level 1 at the start of Game Turn 2. All other BABYLONIA Kingdoms achieve Chariot Technology Level 1 at the start of Game Turn 3. On Game Turn 4, add two Chariot Event cards Manpower Maximum – 20 to the deck. Chariot Technology Level – None • Remove the Arzawa Event card from the deck until Game Silver – 14$ Turn 4. Units – 18 INF • Treat a Barbarian invasion by the Azzi-Hayassa as No Event Home Kingdom Cities (6) – Babylon (Capital), Kish, Nippur, until Game Turn 6.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Linguistics Development Team
    Development Team Principal Investigator: Prof. Pramod Pandey Centre for Linguistics / SLL&CS Jawaharlal Nehru University, New Delhi Email: [email protected] Paper Coordinator: Prof. K. S. Nagaraja Department of Linguistics, Deccan College Post-Graduate Research Institute, Pune- 411006, [email protected] Content Writer: Prof. K. S. Nagaraja Prof H. S. Ananthanarayana Content Reviewer: Retd Prof, Department of Linguistics Osmania University, Hyderabad 500007 Paper : Historical and Comparative Linguistics Linguistics Module : Indo-Aryan Language Family Description of Module Subject Name Linguistics Paper Name Historical and Comparative Linguistics Module Title Indo-Aryan Language Family Module ID Lings_P7_M1 Quadrant 1 E-Text Paper : Historical and Comparative Linguistics Linguistics Module : Indo-Aryan Language Family INDO-ARYAN LANGUAGE FAMILY The Indo-Aryan migration theory proposes that the Indo-Aryans migrated from the Central Asian steppes into South Asia during the early part of the 2nd millennium BCE, bringing with them the Indo-Aryan languages. Migration by an Indo-European people was first hypothesized in the late 18th century, following the discovery of the Indo-European language family, when similarities between Western and Indian languages had been noted. Given these similarities, a single source or origin was proposed, which was diffused by migrations from some original homeland. This linguistic argument is supported by archaeological and anthropological research. Genetic research reveals that those migrations form part of a complex genetical puzzle on the origin and spread of the various components of the Indian population. Literary research reveals similarities between various, geographically distinct, Indo-Aryan historical cultures. The Indo-Aryan migrations started in approximately 1800 BCE, after the invention of the war chariot, and also brought Indo-Aryan languages into the Levant and possibly Inner Asia.
    [Show full text]
  • PROCEEDING BOOK Editor: Mehmet Yaman
    rd 3 ICABC 2021 3rd International Congress on Analytical and Bioanalytical Chemistry PROCEEDING BOOK Editor: Mehmet Yaman 22-26 March 2021-Online-Turkey 1 22-26 March 2021-Online-Turkey 2 3 3rd ICABC 2021 Preface The organizing committee of the 3rd ICABC 2021 would like to welcome all participants to the "3rd International Congress on Analytical and Bioanalytical Chemistry ", held as online between 22-26 March 2021. The 3rd ICABC 2021 was started two years ago and covers all areas of Analytical and Bioanalytical Chemistry as well as applications of Chemical and Biochemical Analysis. The scientific congress program consists of 10 sessions that include 18 invited and 52 oral presentations as well as 5 virtuals to be presented in the respective sessions. In addition, researchers of Academia (48 universities from 10 countries) and Research Institutes will present up-to-date developments on analytical and bioanalytical chemistry as well as applications to a wide range of environmental, biological and food matrices. We strongly believe that the discussions and the exchange of ideas among the participants during the 5 days of the meeting will make 3rd ICABC a brilliant platform to initiate new research collaborations, particularly in favor of the young scientists participating in the conference. We wish you all to enjoy this conference and have a pleasant to joining, hoping to meet you again during the next ICABCs. With our best regards The Chair (on behalf of Organizing Committee) Prof. Dr. Mehmet YAMAN Firat University, Science Faculty, Department of Chemistry, Elazig-Turkey 4 ICABC 2021 COMMITTEES INVITED SPEAKERS Antony Calokerinos (Athen U/GR) Sezgin Bakirdere (Yildiz Tech.
    [Show full text]
  • Republic of Iraq
    Republic of Iraq Babylon Nomination Dossier for Inscription of the Property on the World Heritage List January 2018 stnel oC fobalbaT Executive Summary .......................................................................................................................... 1 State Party .......................................................................................................................................................... 1 Province ............................................................................................................................................................. 1 Name of property ............................................................................................................................................... 1 Geographical coordinates to the nearest second ................................................................................................. 1 Center ................................................................................................................................................................ 1 N 32° 32’ 31.09”, E 44° 25’ 15.00” ..................................................................................................................... 1 Textural description of the boundary .................................................................................................................. 1 Criteria under which the property is nominated .................................................................................................. 4 Draft statement
    [Show full text]
  • In the Late Bronze
    ARCHAEOLOGY INTERNATIONAL Hittites and "barbarians" in the Late Bronze Age: regional survey in northern Turkey Roger Matthews The Hittites have attracted less attention fr om British archae­ ologists than other Bronze Age states of ancient Southwest Asia, and yet in the second millennium BC they controlled most of Anatolia and at the peak of their power they even conquered eHattusa Babylon. Here the Director of the British Institute of Archaeol­ ogy at Ankara describes new research on the northwest fr ontier •Gordion of the Hi ttite empire. Ku�akli• -t its peak the Hittite state of linen", probably disparagingly, but were the Late Bronze Age was one prepared to sit down and negotiate with ANATOLIA of the most powerful political them on the many occasions when military Aentities ever to have arisen in action failed to subdue them. However, in southwestern Asia. The Hit­ archaeological terms we know little about tites held sway over almost the whole of the Kaska people or about the landscapes Anatolia (modern Asiatic Turkey) and, in which they lived, despite their proxim­ sporadically, over large swathes of adja­ ity to Hattusa and their undoubted signif­ cent territory too. The high point of Hittite icance in the evolution of the Hittite state. expansion came with the capture of Baby­ Ion in 1595 BC by Mursili I, which brought Project Paphlagonia and the Late to a violent end the 300-year-old First Bronze Age landscape of northern N Dynasty ofBabylon, of which Hammurabi Tu rkey was the dominant figure. But a marked In 1997 I began a five-year programme of characteristic of the Hittite state is the multi-period regional survey, on behalf of t rapidity and severity with which the the British Institute of Archaeology at extent of its territory waxed and waned.
    [Show full text]
  • Contacts: Crete, Egypt, and the Near East Circa 2000 B.C
    Malcolm H. Wiener major Akkadian site at Tell Leilan and many of its neighboring sites were abandoned ca. 2200 B.C.7 Many other Syrian sites were abandoned early in Early Bronze (EB) IVB, with the final wave of destruction and aban- donment coming at the end of EB IVB, Contacts: Crete, Egypt, about the end of the third millennium B.c. 8 In Canaan there was a precipitous decline in the number of inhabited sites in EB III— and the Near East circa IVB,9 including a hiatus posited at Ugarit. In Cyprus, the Philia phase of the Early 2000 B.C. Bronze Age, "characterised by a uniformity of material culture indicating close connec- tions between different parts of the island"10 and linked to a broader eastern Mediterra- This essay examines the interaction between nean interaction sphere, broke down, per- Minoan Crete, Egypt, the Levant, and Ana- haps because of a general collapse of tolia in the twenty-first and twentieth cen- overseas systems and a reduced demand for turies B.c. and briefly thereafter.' Cypriot copper." With respect to Egypt, Of course contacts began much earlier. Donald Redford states that "[t]he incidence The appearance en masse of pottery of Ana- of famine increases in the late 6th Dynasty tolian derivation in Crete at the beginning and early First Intermediate Period, and a of Early Minoan (EM) I, around 3000 B.C.,2 reduction in rainfall and the annual flooding together with some evidence of destructions of the Nile seems to have afflicted northeast and the occupation of refuge sites at the time, Africa with progressive desiccation as the suggests the arrival of settlers from Anatolia.
    [Show full text]
  • The Emergence of the Light, Horse-Drawn Chariot in the Near-East C. 2000-1500 B.C. Author(S): P. R. S. Moorey Source: World Archaeology, Vol
    The Emergence of the Light, Horse-Drawn Chariot in the Near-East c. 2000-1500 B.C. Author(s): P. R. S. Moorey Source: World Archaeology, Vol. 18, No. 2, Weaponry and Warfare (Oct., 1986), pp. 196-215 Published by: Taylor & Francis, Ltd. Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/124615 Accessed: 06-11-2015 06:35 UTC Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at http://www.jstor.org/page/ info/about/policies/terms.jsp JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected]. Taylor & Francis, Ltd. is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to World Archaeology. http://www.jstor.org This content downloaded from 141.211.4.224 on Fri, 06 Nov 2015 06:35:53 UTC All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions Tlhe emergence of the light, horse-drawn chariot in the Near-East c. 2000-1500 B.C.* The recent appearance of three richly documented monographs assembling the diverse and often complex evidence for riding and traction in the pre-classical societies of the Near East and Europe (Littauer and Crouwel 1979: Crouwel 1981: Piggott 1983) provides an opportunity for reassessing a number of critical issues in the earliest history of the light, horse-drawn chariot, whose arrival in many ancient communities has long been seen as a source of significant change in politics and society.
    [Show full text]
  • Sea Peoples of the Bronze Age Mediterranean C.1400 BC–1000 BC
    Sea Peoples of the Bronze Age Mediterranean c.1400 BC–1000 BC RAFFAELE D’AMATO ILLUSTRATED BY GIUSEPPE RAVA & ANDREA SALIMBETI© Osprey Publishing • www.ospreypublishing.com &MJUFt Sea Peoples of the Bronze Age Mediterranean c.1400 BC–1000 BC ANDREA SALIMBETI ILLUSTRATED BY GIUSEPPE RAVA & RAFFAELE D’AMATO Series editor Martin Windrow © Osprey Publishing • www.ospreypublishing.com CONTENTS INTRODUCTION 4 CHRONOLOGY 6 HISTORICAL BACKGROUND & SOURCES 7 5IFXBSTPG3BNFTTFT** .FSOFQUBIBOE3BNFTTFT*** 0UIFSTPVSDFT IDENTIFICATION OF GROUPS 12 Sherden Peleset 5KFLLFS %FOZFO 4IFLFMFTI &LXFTI Teresh ,BSLJTB-VLLB 8FTIFTI .FSDFOBSZTFSWJDF 1JSBDZ CLOTHING & EQUIPMENT 31 $MPUIJOH %FGFOTJWFFRVJQNFOUIFMNFUToTIJFMEToCPEZBSNPVST 8FBQPOTTQFBSTBOEKBWFMJOToTXPSET EBHHFSTBOENBDFT̓ MILITARY ORGANIZATION 39 $PNQPTJUJPOPGUIFIPTUEFQJDUFEJOUIF.FEJOFU)BCVSFMJFGT Leadership TACTICS 44 8BSDIBSJPUT 4JFHFXBSGBSF /BWBMXBSGBSFBOETFBCPSOFSBJET ‘THE WAR OF THE EIGHTH YEAR’, 1191 OR 1184 BC 49 5IFJOWBTJPO The land battle The sea battle "GUFSNBUI BIBLIOGRAPHY 61 INDEX 64 © Osprey Publishing • www.ospreypublishing.com SEA PEOPLES OF THE BRONZE AGE MEDITERRANEAN c.1400 BC–1000 BC INTRODUCTION The term ‘Sea Peoples’ is given today to various seaborne raiders and invaders from a loose confederation of clans who troubled the Aegean, the Near East and Egypt during the final period of the Bronze Age in the second half of the "QSJTPOFSDBQUVSFECZUIF 2nd millennium BC. &HZQUJBOT QPTTJCMZB1FMFTFU XBSSJPS XFBSJOHBUZQJDBM Though the Egyptians presumably knew the homelands
    [Show full text]
  • 2 the Assyrian Empire, the Conquest of Israel, and the Colonization of Judah 37 I
    ISRAEL AND EMPIRE ii ISRAEL AND EMPIRE A Postcolonial History of Israel and Early Judaism Leo G. Perdue and Warren Carter Edited by Coleman A. Baker LONDON • NEW DELHI • NEW YORK • SYDNEY 1 Bloomsbury T&T Clark An imprint of Bloomsbury Publishing Plc Imprint previously known as T&T Clark 50 Bedford Square 1385 Broadway London New York WC1B 3DP NY 10018 UK USA www.bloomsbury.com Bloomsbury, T&T Clark and the Diana logo are trademarks of Bloomsbury Publishing Plc First published 2015 © Leo G. Perdue, Warren Carter and Coleman A. Baker, 2015 All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced or transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic or mechanical, including photocopying, recording, or any information storage or retrieval system, without prior permission in writing from the publishers. Leo G. Perdue, Warren Carter and Coleman A. Baker have asserted their rights under the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act, 1988, to be identified as Authors of this work. No responsibility for loss caused to any individual or organization acting on or refraining from action as a result of the material in this publication can be accepted by Bloomsbury or the authors. British Library Cataloguing-in-Publication Data A catalogue record for this book is available from the British Library. ISBN: HB: 978-0-56705-409-8 PB: 978-0-56724-328-7 ePDF: 978-0-56728-051-0 Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data A catalogue record for this book is available from the British Library. Typeset by Forthcoming Publications (www.forthpub.com) 1 Contents Abbreviations vii Preface ix Introduction: Empires, Colonies, and Postcolonial Interpretation 1 I.
    [Show full text]
  • Separating Fact from Fiction in the Aiolian Migration
    hesperia yy (2008) SEPARATING FACT Pages399-430 FROM FICTION IN THE AIOLIAN MIGRATION ABSTRACT Iron Age settlementsin the northeastAegean are usuallyattributed to Aioliancolonists who journeyed across the Aegean from mainland Greece. This articlereviews the literary accounts of the migration and presentsthe relevantarchaeological evidence, with a focuson newmaterial from Troy. No onearea played a dominantrole in colonizing Aiolis, nor is sucha widespread colonizationsupported by the archaeologicalrecord. But the aggressive promotionof migrationaccounts after the PersianWars provedmutually beneficialto bothsides of theAegean and justified the composition of the Delian League. Scholarlyassessments of habitation in thenortheast Aegean during the EarlyIron Age are remarkably consistent: most settlements are attributed toAiolian colonists who had journeyed across the Aegean from Thessaly, Boiotia,Akhaia, or a combinationof all three.1There is no uniformityin theancient sources that deal with the migration, although Orestes and his descendantsare named as theleaders in mostaccounts, and are credited withfounding colonies over a broadgeographic area, including Lesbos, Tenedos,the western and southerncoasts of theTroad, and theregion betweenthe bays of Adramyttion and Smyrna(Fig. 1). In otherwords, mainlandGreece has repeatedly been viewed as theagent responsible for 1. TroyIV, pp. 147-148,248-249; appendixgradually developed into a Mountjoy,Holt Parker,Gabe Pizzorno, Berard1959; Cook 1962,pp. 25-29; magisterialstudy that is includedhere Allison Sterrett,John Wallrodt, Mal- 1973,pp. 360-363;Vanschoonwinkel as a companionarticle (Parker 2008). colm Wiener, and the anonymous 1991,pp. 405-421; Tenger 1999, It is our hope that readersinterested in reviewersfor Hesperia. Most of trie pp. 121-126;Boardman 1999, pp. 23- the Aiolian migrationwill read both articlewas writtenin the Burnham 33; Fisher2000, pp.
    [Show full text]
  • 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]
  • Hanigalbat and the Land Hani
    Arnhem (nl) 2015 – 3 Anatolia in the bronze age. © Joost Blasweiler student Leiden University - [email protected] Hanigal9bat and the land Hana. From the annals of Hattusili I we know that in his 3rd year the Hurrian enemy attacked his kingdom. Thanks to the text of Hattusili I (“ruler of Kussara and (who) reign the city of Hattusa”) we can be certain that c. 60 years after the abandonment of the city of Kanesh, Hurrian armies extensively entered the kingdom of Hatti. Remarkable is that Hattusili mentioned that it was not a king or a kingdom who had attacked, but had used an expression “the Hurrian enemy”. Which might point that formerly attacks, raids or wars with Hurrians armies were known by Hattusili king of Kussara. And therefore the threatening expression had arisen in Hittite: “the Hurrian enemy”. Translation of Gary Beckman 2008, The Ancient Near East, editor Mark W. Chavalas, 220. The cuneiform texts of the annal are bilingual: Babylonian and Nesili (Hittite). Note: 16. Babylonian text: ‘the enemy from Ḫanikalbat entered my land’. The Babylonian text of the bilingual is more specific: “the enemy of Ḫanigal9 bat”. Therefore the scholar N.B. Jankowska1 thought that apparently the Hurrian kingdom Hanigalbat had existed probably from an earlier date before the reign of Hattusili i.e. before c. 1650 BC. Normally with the term Mittani one is pointing to the mighty Hurrian kingdom of the 15th century BC 2. Ignace J. Gelb reported 3 on “the dragomans of the Habigalbatian soldiers/workers” in an Old Babylonian tablet of Amisaduqa, who was a contemporary with Hattusili I.
    [Show full text]
  • M. Witzel (2003) Sintashta, BMAC and the Indo-Iranians. a Query. [Excerpt
    M. Witzel (2003) Sintashta, BMAC and the Indo-Iranians. A query. [excerpt from: Linguistic Evidence for Cultural Exchange in Prehistoric Western Central Asia] (to appear in : Sino-Platonic Papers 129) Transhumance, Trickling in, Immigration of Steppe Peoples There is no need to underline that the establishment of a BMAC substrate belt has grave implications for the theory of the immigration of speakers of Indo-Iranian languages into Greater Iran and then into the Panjab. By and large, the body of words taken over into the Indo-Iranian languages in the BMAC area, necessarily by bilingualism, closes the linguistic gap between the Urals and the languages of Greater Iran and India. Uralic and Yeneseian were situated, as many IIr. loan words indicate, to the north of the steppe/taiga boundary of the (Proto-)IIr. speaking territories (§2.1.1). The individual IIr. languages are firmly attested in Greater Iran (Avestan, O.Persian, Median) as well as in the northwestern Indian subcontinent (Rgvedic, Middle Vedic). These materials, mentioned above (§2.1.) and some more materials relating to religion (Witzel forthc. b) indicate an early habitat of Proto- IIr. in the steppes south of the Russian/Siberian taiga belt. The most obvious linguistic proofs of this location are the FU words corresponding to IIr. Arya "self-designation of the IIr. tribes": Pre-Saami *orja > oarji "southwest" (Koivulehto 2001: 248), ārjel "Southerner", and Finnish orja, Votyak var, Syry. ver "slave" (Rédei 1986: 54). In other words, the IIr. speaking area may have included the S. Ural "country of towns" (Petrovka, Sintashta, Arkhaim) dated at c.
    [Show full text]