DOCSLIB.ORG

Elam and Eshnunna: Historical and Archaeological Interrelations During the Old Babylonian Period

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text

Load more

ELAM AND ESHNUNNA: HISTORICAL AND ARCHAEOLOGICAL INTERRELATIONS DURING THE OLD BABYLONIAN PERIOD Luca Peyronel* Analyzing archaeological evidences connected with trade relations and interregional policies at the time of Eshnunna’s reign, focusing on exchange, in particular with the eastern regions of the Iranian plateau and of Susiana, it is useful to follow the main “steps” of the reign’s historical events, highlighting speciÞc “junctions” in which the markedly diplomatic or military element was found to have inßuenced the economy connected to trade exchanges, not always strictly linked to the logics of politic control. e political, cultural and commercial interactions manifest from the point of view purely of events in episodes of alliances, confrontations and wars, with an alternation of abrupt front changes, characteristic of the so-called age of Mari.1 e unbalance derived from the Middle-Euphrates city’s archives, from which come the widest and most detailed historical information of the time, imposes a privileged but at the same time partial point of view, not always allowing a deep evaluation of the relations between the other players of the near eastern board during the Early Old Babylonian period.2 is is the case regarding the relations between Eshnunna and Elam that, with the exception of the Mari sources, we are able to investigate only through limited and incomplete data.3 e tentative integration of historical aspects with archaeological evidence thus results even more complicated, but certainly unrenounceable. In this contribution attention is drawing on some aspects that reveal historical data coinciding with archaeological record, focusing the interest mainly on Eshnunna-Elam but also stressing the interaction dynamics between Syria, Central- Eastern Mesopotamia and Western Iran through some signiÞcant archaeological indicators of contact.4 Generally speaking the interaction processes between Eshnunna and the other political entities can be better detected along the main directories of territorial expansion, towards North and West, and along the main commercial routes that penetrated in the Iranian plateau through the Zagros mountains. In the latter case, the prerogative of strategic control in the access of goods and raw materials of dierent nature (tin and lapis lazuli, timber and semi-precious stones) into the Mesopotamian alluvium, strongly inßuenced the historical events, peaceful or not, between Eshnunna and Elam. At the same time, the direct overlapping of areas of inßuence in the Northern regions between Tigris and the Zagros chains instead made Shubartu/Assyria the natural antagonist of Eshnunna, especially at the time of Shamshi-Addu I, when also Mari and the Middle Euphrates were under the political domain of the Northern Mesopo- tamian kingdom. * Università IULM di Milano (Italy). 1 See Liverani : –, Wu Yuhong , Charpin : –. 2 Lafont , Charpin/Ziegler . 3 See e.g. Saporetti : –, Charpin : –, in which diverging sequence of Eshnunna’s rulers are present; the Elamite history between the Dynasty of Shimashki and the Sukkalmah period (Paléo-élamite II–III) is outlined in Carter/Stolper : –, tabs. –; Vallat a (with a speciÞc attention to the Mesopotamian relations) and recently by Steve et al. , with some dierences and open questions; see also Potts : tabs. ., ., MoÞdi-Nasrabadi : –. 4 For a more detailed analysis of the pattern of archaeological interrelations between Elam, Eshnunna and Subartu/Assyria during the Þrst two centuries of the nd millennium bc see Peyronel . luca peyronel e Eshnunna-Elam relations can be followed during the reign’s chronological lifespan, al- though it is possible to detect two phases in which the political features are more emphasized with the consequent cultural and socio-economic relapses. It is striking that these phases roughly correspond with the beginning and the Þnal years of the kingdom: the Þrst can be traced at the beginning of the territorial reorganization with the consequent independence of the Diyala region, aer the disruption of the Neosumerian power,5 and the second occurred aer Eshnunna’s peak of power under Ipiq-Adad II, Dadusha and the Þrst part of the reign of Ibal-pi- El II, when Eshnunna was conquered by Elam, corresponding to the general Elamite expansion in Mesopotamia aer the death of Shamshi-Addu, immediately before the Hammurabi’s seizure of power (bc).6 At the time of Ibbi-Sîn of Ur, the Eshnunna governor, Shu-iliya, son of Ituriya, does not refer to himself as ensi of Ur but “beloved of Tishpak” or “son of Tishpak”. We know his seal from two impressions from the so-called Ilushu-iliya-Nurakhum palace at Tell Asmar.7 e seal (Fig. ) shows a representation of the governor in front of the god Tishpak: the god holds in one hand the rod-and-ring and in the other a fenestrated axe laying on his shoulder, standing upon two crouching Þgures of enemies held with a rope fastened to their nose; Shu-iliya too holds a battle-axe and the meaning of the scene is clearly at the same time the commemoration of royal power through the victory over the enemies and the transmission of this power from the god to the ruler. is is a very interesting iconography, unusual for a seal, but rooted in the previous periods and modiÞed according to a new propaganda that can be observed in some victory stela and monumental rock-reliefs. A meaningful link can be traced looking at the Annubanini relief at Sar-i-Pol, where the king represented his victory adopting an iconographic model replicated through the centuries on the same rock wall, but that had been introduced for the Þrst time by Naram-Sin of Akkad to celebrate his victory over the Lullubites.8 Nurakhum, Shu-iliya’s successor, is again “beloved of Tishpak” and “ensi of Eshnunna” and probably reigned during the years in which Ur was conquered and destroyed by Elam and Ishbi- Erra of Isin tried to obtain the role of direct heir of Ur through his policy of military campaigns against Elam to the East and against Martu to the West.9 Nurakhum was succeeded by Kirikiri, probably his brother. He has a non-Semitic name, related to the Elamites and he called himself “ensi of Eshnunna” on behalf of Tishpak.10 Kirikiri was then followed by his own son, Bilalama, on the throne of Eshnunna, as indicated by the legend of the seal of Bilalama.11 is seal (Fig. ) recovered from a dealer in Baghdad during the Oriental Institute excavations at Tell Asmar 5 From bc until the end of the XX cent. bc, following the traditional Middle Chronology, used by Potts and Charpin , or from bc until the half of the XIX cent. bc, according to the low chronology proposed by Gasche et al. , Gasche , and accepted e.g. by M.-J. Steve and F. Vallat (Steve et al. , Vallat ); e problem of the absolute chronology during the nd millennium bc and the syncronization between Anatolia, Syria- Mesopotamia and Egypt has been recently discussed by several scholars without reaching a consensus, revealing the diculties to choose between middle, low and ultra-low chronologies: see now Pruzsinszky , with updated bibliography. 6 See Charpin , , Charpin/Durand , Durand . 7 Frankfort et al. : Þg. , Frankfort : –, pl. n. , Frayne : . 8 See now Braun-Holzinger : –, –, AB – for Sar-i Pol and AB for the relief of Iddin-Sin of Simurrum. 9 Van Dijk , Vanstiphout –. 10 According to Saporetti, Nurakhum and Kirikiri could be considered related and sons of Shu-iliya and a Shimashkian princess: Saporetti : –. However, beside the possible Elamite origin of their names, this hypothesis is based only on the controverse interpretation of a Nurakhum dating formula (Saporetti : , C). 11 Frankfort et al. : , –, Þg. , : Þg. e, Frankfort : n. , Frayne : –..
Recommended publications
  • Republic of Iraq

    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
  • SUMERIAN LITERATURE and SUMERIAN IDENTITY My Title Puts

    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.
  • Gilgamesh Sung in Ancient Sumerian Gilgamesh and the Ancient Near East

    Gilgamesh Sung in Ancient Sumerian Gilgamesh and the Ancient Near East

    Gilgamesh sung in ancient Sumerian Gilgamesh and the Ancient Near East Dr. Le4cia R. Rodriguez 20.09.2017 ì The Ancient Near East Cuneiform cuneus = wedge Anadolu Medeniyetleri Müzesi, Ankara Babylonian deed of sale. ca. 1750 BCE. Tablet of Sargon of Akkad, Assyrian Tablet with love poem, Sumerian, 2037-2029 BCE 19th-18th centuries BCE *Gilgamesh was an historic figure, King of Uruk, in Sumeria, ca. 2800/2700 BCE (?), and great builder of temples and ci4es. *Stories about Gilgamesh, oral poems, were eventually wriXen down. *The Babylonian epic of Gilgamesh compiled from 73 tablets in various languages. *Tablets discovered in the mid-19th century and con4nue to be translated. Hero overpowering a lion, relief from the citadel of Sargon II, Dur Sharrukin (modern Khorsabad), Iraq, ca. 721–705 BCE The Flood Tablet, 11th tablet of the Epic of Gilgamesh, Library of Ashurbanipal Neo-Assyrian, 7th century BCE, The Bri4sh Museum American Dad Gilgamesh and Enkidu flank the fleeing Humbaba, cylinder seal Neo-Assyrian ca. 8th century BCE, 2.8cm x 1.3cm, The Bri4sh Museum DOUBLING/TWINS BROMANCE *Role of divinity in everyday life. *Relaonship between divine and ruler. *Ruler’s asser4on of dominance and quest for ‘immortality’. StatuePes of two worshipers from Abu Temple at Eshnunna (modern Tell Asmar), Iraq, ca. 2700 BCE. Gypsum inlaid with shell and black limestone, male figure 2’ 6” high. Iraq Museum, Baghdad. URUK (WARKA) Remains of the White Temple on its ziggurat. Uruk (Warka), Iraq, ca. 3500–3000 BCE. Plan and ReconstrucVon drawing of the White Temple and ziggurat, Uruk (Warka), Iraq, ca.
  • The Limits of Middle Babylonian Archives1

    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.
  • Neo-Assyrian Treaties As a Source for the Historian: Bonds of Friendship, the Vigilant Subject and the Vengeful King�S Treaty

    Neo-Assyrian Treaties As a Source for the Historian: Bonds of Friendship, the Vigilant Subject and the Vengeful KingS Treaty

    WRITING NEO-ASSYRIAN HISTORY Sources, Problems, and Approaches Proceedings of an International Conference Held at the University of Helsinki on September 22-25, 2014 Edited by G.B. Lanfranchi, R. Mattila and R. Rollinger THE NEO-ASSYRIAN TEXT CORPUS PROJECT 2019 STATE ARCHIVES OF ASSYRIA STUDIES Published by the Neo-Assyrian Text Corpus Project, Helsinki in association with the Foundation for Finnish Assyriological Research Project Director Simo Parpola VOLUME XXX G.B. Lanfranchi, R. Mattila and R. Rollinger (eds.) WRITING NEO-ASSYRIAN HISTORY SOURCES, PROBLEMS, AND APPROACHES THE NEO- ASSYRIAN TEXT CORPUS PROJECT State Archives of Assyria Studies is a series of monographic studies relating to and supplementing the text editions published in the SAA series. Manuscripts are accepted in English, French and German. The responsibility for the contents of the volumes rests entirely with the authors. © 2019 by the Neo-Assyrian Text Corpus Project, Helsinki and the Foundation for Finnish Assyriological Research All Rights Reserved Published with the support of the Foundation for Finnish Assyriological Research Set in Times The Assyrian Royal Seal emblem drawn by Dominique Collon from original Seventh Century B.C. impressions (BM 84672 and 84677) in the British Museum Cover: Assyrian scribes recording spoils of war. Wall painting in the palace of Til-Barsip. After A. Parrot, Nineveh and Babylon (Paris, 1961), fig. 348. Typesetting by G.B. Lanfranchi Cover typography by Teemu Lipasti and Mikko Heikkinen Printed in the USA ISBN-13 978-952-10-9503-0 (Volume 30) ISSN 1235-1032 (SAAS) ISSN 1798-7431 (PFFAR) CONTENTS ABBREVIATIONS ............................................................................................................. vii Giovanni Battista Lanfranchi, Raija Mattila, Robert Rollinger, Introduction ..............................
  • First Civilizations: Cities and Public Space

    First Civilizations: Cities and Public Space

    Arch 150: Appreciation of Architecture I First Civilizations: Cities and Public Space First test opens Tuesday at 6:00 pm • 30 questions, 40 minutes • covers the first 5 lectures and associated readings • available until Thursday at 6:00 pm • study guide available on Canvas 3000 bce (Stonehenge) 4000 bce (Jomon) 7000 bce (Çatal HüyüK) 4000 bce (Ggantija) Early settled cultures 1600 bce 1800 bce 3000 bce 3000 bce 2400 bce Early literate, urban cultures 3000 bc 2400 bc 3500 3000 2000 1000 500 bc ad Uruk, Sumer Ur, Sumer Khorsabad Babylon Jerusalem UruK Ur Persepolis Jerusalem, Canaan Khorsabad, Assyria Babylon, Babylonia Persepolis, Persia (Iran) 2500 2000 1500 1000 500 bc ad 500 Mohenjo-Daro Mohenjo-Daro, Pakistan Jerusalem Ur Northern Persian Gulf and the “Fertile Crescent” (ca. 3000 bce) Sumer 3000 bce UruK Ur Akkad 2200 bce Sumer UruK Ur Assyria 700 bce Khorsabad Babylon Jerusalem Ur Khorsabad Babylon Jerusalem Babylonian Empire 560 bce Ur Khorsabad Persian Empire 480 bc Babylon Jerusalem Ur Persepolis City: • large, dense population • ritual centers • system of laws • social classes • excess agricultural production • trade (and weights and measures) • fortifications • sanitation Mari, Sumer (ca. 3000 bce) Writing (Sumer (ca. 3000 bce)) Production (mass-produced pottery, Sumer (ca. 3000 bce)) Artworks, Sumer (ca. 3500 bce) Monumental building (Uruk, Sumer (ca. 3300-3000 bce)) Uruk, Sumer (ca. 3500-500 bce) White Temple, Uruk, Sumer (ca. 3300-3000 bce) White Temple, Uruk, Sumer (ca. 3300-3000 bce) Cone mosaics, Uruk, Sumer (ca. 3000 bce) Ur, Sumer (ca. 2000 bce) Ur, Sumer (ca. 2000 bce) Ur, Sumer (ca. 2000 bce) Ur, Sumer, residential area Ur, Sumer (ca.
  • Who Is the Daughter of Babylon?

    Who Is the Daughter of Babylon?

    WHO IS THE DAUGHTER OF BABYLON? ● Babylon was initially a minor city-state, and controlled little surrounding territory; its first four Amorite rulers did not assume the title of king. The older and more powerful states of Assyria, Elam, Isin, and Larsa overshadowed Babylon until it became the capital of Hammurabi's short-lived empire about a century later. Hammurabi (r. 1792–1750 BC) is famous for codifying the laws of Babylonia into the Code of Hammurabi. He conquered all of the cities and city states of southern Mesopotamia, including Isin, Larsa, Ur, Uruk, Nippur, Lagash, Eridu, Kish, Adab, Eshnunna, Akshak, Akkad, Shuruppak, Bad-tibira, Sippar, and Girsu, coalescing them into one kingdom, ruled from Babylon. Hammurabi also invaded and conquered Elam to the east, and the kingdoms of Mari and Ebla to the northwest. After a protracted struggle with the powerful Assyrian king Ishme-Dagan of the Old Assyrian Empire, he forced his successor to pay tribute late in his reign, spreading Babylonian power to Assyria's Hattian and Hurrian colonies in Asia Minor. After the reign of Hammurabi, the whole of southern Mesopotamia came to be known as Babylonia, whereas the north had already coalesced centuries before into Assyria. From this time, Babylon supplanted Nippur and Eridu as the major religious centers of southern Mesopotamia. Hammurabi's empire destabilized after his death. Assyrians defeated and drove out the Babylonians and Amorites. The far south of Mesopotamia broke away, forming the native Sealand Dynasty, and the Elamites appropriated territory in eastern Mesopotamia. The Amorite dynasty remained in power in Babylon, which again became a small city-state.
  • Marten Stol WOMEN in the ANCIENT NEAR EAST

    Marten Stol WOMEN in the ANCIENT NEAR EAST

    Marten Stol WOMEN IN THE ANCIENT NEAR EAST Marten Stol Women in the Ancient Near East Marten Stol Women in the Ancient Near East Translated by Helen and Mervyn Richardson ISBN 978-1-61451-323-0 e-ISBN (PDF) 978-1-61451-263-9 e-ISBN (EPUB) 978-1-5015-0021-3 This work is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial- NoDerivs 3.0 License. For details go to http://creativecommons.org/licenses/ by-nc-nd/3.0/ 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 on the Internet at http://dnb.dnb.de. Original edition: Vrouwen van Babylon. Prinsessen, priesteressen, prostituees in de bakermat van de cultuur. Uitgeverij Kok, Utrecht (2012). Translated by Helen and Mervyn Richardson © 2016 Walter de Gruyter Inc., Boston/Berlin Cover Image: Marten Stol Typesetting: Dörlemann Satz GmbH & Co. KG, Lemförde Printing and binding: cpi books GmbH, Leck ♾ Printed on acid-free paper Printed in Germany www.degruyter.com Table of Contents Introduction 1 Map 5 1 Her outward appearance 7 1.1 Phases of life 7 1.2 The girl 10 1.3 The virgin 13 1.4 Women’s clothing 17 1.5 Cosmetics and beauty 47 1.6 The language of women 56 1.7 Women’s names 58 2 Marriage 60 2.1 Preparations 62 2.2 Age for marrying 66 2.3 Regulations 67 2.4 The betrothal 72 2.5 The wedding 93 2.6
  • Ancient Foundations Unit Two CA * the Babylonians

    Ancient Foundations Unit Two CA * the Babylonians

    Marshall High School Mr. Cline Western Civilization I: Ancient Foundations Unit Two CA * The Babylonians • By the mid-20th century BC, Sumerian Civilization had already been through a lot: • It had been co opted by the Akkadians • It had been conquered by the Guti. • It had thrown off its invaders, and started a new Sumerian Empire with Ur as its capitol • Then, in 1950 BC, a new group of people entered the scene, the Elamites, a fierce people living to the southeast of Mesopotamia. • The Elamites, like the Guti before them, seem to have been more interested in pillaging than empire building. • It would take another thousand years before the Elamites would mount their own bid for control of the empire. • Nevertheless, the Elamites destroyed the power structure that held the Sumerian empire together. • After a thousand years, the Sumero-Akkadian empire was dead at last. * The Babylonians • Yet the idea of a united Mesopotamian empire lived on as new peoples tried their hand at imperialism. • With the break down of the empire at the hands of the Elamites, a new people, the Amorites, came to conquer much of southern Mesopotamia, including an important religious center called Babylon. • Like the Sumerians before them, the Amorites began by creating minor kingdoms or city states, which vied with one another for power. • The earliest of these were two cities, Isin and Larsa. • For about 200 years, these two were rivals and struggled with each other for supremacy. • Then around 1830, the city of Babylon took advantage of the distraction of these two power players and established itself as an independent kingdom.
  • Generation Count in Hittite Chronology 73

    Generation Count in Hittite Chronology 73

    071_080.qxd 13.02.2004 11:54 Seite 71 G E N E R A T I O N C O U N T I N H I T T I T E C H R O N O L O G Y Gernot Wilhelm* In studies on Ancient Near Eastern chronology of three participants who voted for the high Hittite history has often been considered a corner- chronology without hesitation (ÅSTRÖM 1989: 76). stone of a long chronology. In his grandiose but – At a colloquium organized by advocates of an as we now see – futile attempt to denounce the ultra-low chronology at Ghent, another hittitolo- Assyrian Kinglist as a historically unreliable source gist, B ECKMAN 2000: 25, deviated from the main- for the Assyrian history of the first half of the 2nd stream by declaring that from his viewpoint, “the millennium B.C., L ANDSBERGER 1954: 50 only Middle Chronology best fits the evidence, although briefly commented on Hittite history. 1 A. Goetze, the High Chronology would also be possible”. however, who at that time had already repeatedly Those hittitologists who adhered to the low defended a long chronology against the claims of chronology (which means, sack of Babylon by the followers of the short chronology (GOETZE Mursili I: 1531) had to solve the problem of 1951, 1952), filled the gap and supported Lands- squeezing all the kings attested between Mursili I berger’s plea for a long chronology, though not as and Suppiluliuma I into appr. 150 years, provided excessively long as Landsberger considered to be that there was agreement on Suppiluliuma’s likely.
  • The Archaeology of Elam Formation and Transformation of an Ancient Iranian State

    The Archaeology of Elam Formation and Transformation of an Ancient Iranian State

    Cambridge University Press 0521563585 - The Archaeology of Elam: Formation and Transformation of an Ancient Iranian State D. T. Potts Frontmatter More information The Archaeology of Elam Formation and Transformation of an Ancient Iranian State From the middle of the third millennium bc until the coming of Cyrus the Great, southwestern Iran was referred to in Mesopotamian sources as the land of Elam. A heterogenous collection of regions, Elam was home to a variety of groups, alternately the object of Mesopotamian aggres- sion, and aggressors themselves; an ethnic group seemingly swallowed up by the vast Achaemenid Persian empire, yet a force strong enough to attack Babylonia in the last centuries bc. The Elamite language is attested as late as the Medieval era, and the name Elam as late as 1300 in the records of the Nestorian church. This book examines the formation and transforma- tion of Elam’s many identities through both archaeological and written evidence, and brings to life one of the most important regions of Western Asia, re-evaluates its significance, and places it in the context of the most recent archaeological and historical scholarship. d. t. potts is Edwin Cuthbert Hall Professor in Middle Eastern Archaeology at the University of Sydney. He is the author of The Arabian Gulf in Antiquity, 2 vols. (1990), Mesopotamian Civilization (1997), and numerous articles in scholarly journals. © Cambridge University Press www.cambridge.org Cambridge University Press 0521563585 - The Archaeology of Elam: Formation and Transformation of an Ancient Iranian State D. T. Potts Frontmatter More information cambridge world archaeology Series editor NORMAN YOFFEE, University of Michigan Editorial board SUSAN ALCOCK, University of Michigan TOM DILLEHAY, University of Kentucky CHRIS GOSDEN, University of Oxford CARLA SINOPOLI, University of Michigan The Cambridge World Archaeology series is addressed to students and professional archaeologists, and to academics in related disciplines.
  • The Mesopotamian Netherworld Through the Archaeology of Grave Goods and Textual Sources in the Early Dynastic III Period to the Old Babylonian Period

    The Mesopotamian Netherworld Through the Archaeology of Grave Goods and Textual Sources in the Early Dynastic III Period to the Old Babylonian Period

    UO[INOIGMUKJ[ 0LATE The Mesopotamian Netherworld through the Archaeology of Grave Goods and Textual Sources in the Early Dynastic III Period to the Old Babylonian Period A B N $EEP3HAFTOF"URIALIN&OREGROUNDWITH-UDBRICK"LOCKINGOF%NTRANCETO#HAMBERFOR"URIAL 3KELETON ANDO "URIAL 3KELETONNikki Zwitser Promoter: Prof. Dr. Katrien De Graef Co-promoter: Prof. Dr. Joachim Bretschneider Academic Year 2016-1017 Thesis submitted to obtain the degree of Master of Arts: Archaeology. Preface To the dark house, dwelling of Erkalla’s god, to the dark house which those who enter cannot leave, on the road where travelling is one-way only, to the house where those enter are deprived of light, where dust is their food, clay their bread. They see no light, they dwell in darkness. Many scholars who rely on literary texts depict the Mesopotamian netherworld as a bleak and dismal place. This dark portrayal does, indeed, find much support in the Mesopotamian literature. Indeed many texts describe the afterlife as exceptionally depressing. However, the archaeological study of grave goods may suggest that there were other ways of thinking about the netherworld. Furthermore, some scholars have neglected the archaeological data, while others have limited the possibilities of archaeological data by solely looking at royal burials. Mesopotamian beliefs concerning mortuary practices and the afterlife can be studied more thoroughly by including archaeological data regarding non-royal burials and textual sources. A comparison of the copious amount of archaeological and textual evidence should give us a further insight in the Mesopotamian beliefs of death and the netherworld. Therefore, for this study grave goods from non-royal burials, literature and administrative texts will be examined and compared to gain a better understanding of Mesopotamian ideas regarding death and the netherworld.