HOOFDARTIKEL on Writing a History of the Ancient Near East1) for All

285 ON WRITING A HISTORY OF THE ANCIENT NEAR EAST 286

book that will raise questions from specialists on individual HOOFDARTIKEL periods and areas. This is unavoidable; but still a work by a single author is to be preferred to the multi-authored 1 approach of historiography attempted in such massive works On writing a History of the Ancient Near East ) as The Cambridge Ancient History, which sacrifice unity and clarity in favor of detail. Unfortunately, Kuhrt does not For all teachers of the ancient histories of Mesopotamia and pursue a single theme or approach throughout these two vol- its surrounding areas, the appearance of a new comprehen- umes, and is mostly guided in her discussion of individual sive textbook is a pleasant occasion, one that occurs all too periods by the availability of previously analyzed documen- rarely when compared to the abundance of introductory tation. She is to be credited for the enormous amount of lit- books written on the ancient histories of Greece and Rome, erature she integrates in her work, as demonstrated by her for instance. In the English speaking world, the range of extensive bibliography, but her history lacks a unifying available textbooks is extremeley limited. The still widely theme. That a focused thematic approach to the entire used, The Ancient Near East: A History (Harcourt Brace ancient history of the Near East is possible, has been demon- Jovanovich, New York 1971) by William W. Hallo and strated by the work of Mario Liverani, Antico Oriente. Sto- William Kelly Simpson is now 25 years old, and outdated in ria, società, economia (Laterza, Roma and Bari 1988), in some respects. Moreover, it provides two separate narratives my opinion, the best history written in many decades. on the histories of Mesopotamia and Egypt, an enormous Instead of providing here a traditional review of Kuhrt's subject matter for one 300 page book. The more recent The work, I would like to take this occasion to reassess some History and Culture of Ancient Western Asia and Egypt general questions regarding the writing of a history of the (The Dorsey Press, Chicago 1988) by A. Bernard Knapp Ancient Near East. Throughout her work, Kuhrt has demon- tries to cover too much in too few pages: it deals not only strated that she is very much aware of several of the topics I with Mesopotamia and Egypt in the historical periods up to will discuss, and I certainly do not want to suggest that she Alexander of Macedon, but also with the prehistories of has ignored them or that my views are proposed in opposi- these regions and similar periods for the surrounding areas: tion to hers. It is my hope that a more systematic discussion the Levant, Anatolia, the Aegean, and Iran. Michael Roaf's of these (and similar) issues will generate further debate, superb Cultural Atlas of Mesopotamia and the Ancient Near and, at a minimum, lead to a questioning of some of the a East (Equinox, Oxford 1990) concentrates more on the priori assumptions made by most practitioners of Ancient Mesopotamian heartland, although it takes adjacent areas Near Eastern historiography. In this discussion I will focus into account when relevant to Mesopotamian history. It also primarily on the use of written data for historical research, covers an enormous time span (from 12,000 to 330 BC) and ignoring archaeology to a great extent. This is not due to a its format prevents the author from going into great detail, as conviction that archaeological material is of secondary excellent as the text is. The two volume work, The Ancient importance, but because its interpretation poses separate Near East c. 3000-330 BC, by Amélie Kuhrt, a Reader in problems in the vast subject of historical methodology. Ancient History at University College, London, and well- known for her research on the Late Babylonian to Hellenis- 1) Is there an Ancient Near East? tic periods in Mesopotamia, is thus more than welcome. She deals solely with the historical periods and emphasizes the Any scholar working in Ancient Near Eastern studies intu- Asiatic regions of the Ancient Near East. Egypt receives a itively knows the geographical area of the discipline, but more summary treatment, explained as the result of “plenty when forced to define this area, it becomes clear that its bor- of good studies of Egyptian history at all levels” (p. xxvii). ders are vague and constantly changing. Mesopotamia and Despite the (relative) abundance of books on the subject, I Egypt form the two core areas of the Ancient Near East, am not convinced that the writing of Egyptian history is bet- both having a continuous written tradition, and thus their ter developed than Mesopotamian history, but it is indeed study is at the basis of the discipline.2) Geographically adja- more accessible. cent areas are included in Ancient Near Eastern studies, but Kuhrt's work is some 700 pages long, hence capable of inconsistently throughout the period of 3000 to 300 BC. The going into much more detail than the textbooks mentioned Iranian plateau seems to belong to the Ancient Near East in above. It is aimed primarily at undergraduates and classical the late fourth millennium, during the Uruk expansion, but it ancient historians (p. xxviii), and much in it gives the more or less disappears after that until the Persian period. impression that it depends heavily on the author's lecture Anatolia is included but for its western coast, which is often materials, which makes it very suitable as a textbook for considered part of the Aegean and Greek worlds. The posi- introductory courses. The price will make such a use impos- tion of Lydia and Phrygia is unclear, although they occupy sible, however, and one can only hope that an affordable the same areas as the earlier Hittite heartland. Nubia, when version will appear soon. Because of its wide range, involv- colonized by Egypt and when colonizing Egypt as the ing evidence in several languages from a huge geographical XXVth dynasty, belongs to the Ancient Near East, but at area over some three thousand years, there is much in the other times does not. More and more of the history of the Syro-Palestinian area is becoming part of Ancient Near Eastern studies, but still not its entirety, and the position of 1) Review article of Amélie Kuhrt, The Ancient Near East c. 3000-330 “Biblical” history is a problem on its own (to be discussed BC, 2 volumes, Routledge, London and New York 1995, £ 85.00. I would like to thank Zainab Bahrani, John Baines, and Norman Yoffee for their comments on this article, and Seth Richardson for his editorial 2) I will discuss the chronological boundaries later on, and for the time assistance. They are not to be held responsible for any of the opinions being use in this discussion the arbitrary dates of ca. 3000 to 300 BC as expressed here. defining the ancient histories of Egypt and Mesopotamia. 287 BIBLIOTHECA ORIENTALIS LIV N° 3/4, Mei-Augustus 1997 288 later). One can say, as a rule of thumb, that the inclusion or classical Greece where a miraculous flourishing took place. exclusion of adjacent regions in Ancient Near Eastern stud- This attitude has two repercussions: it frames the study of ies is determined by the presence or absence of textual doc- the Ancient Near East within a western, a European, tradi- uments comprehensible to the Assyriologist or Egyptologist. tion, and it divorces the Ancient Near East from the This then is a philological criterion, rather than a historical Medieval and modern Middle East. The study of the Ancient one. Near East as a pre-history of Europe is especially popular When archaeological evidence is considered, the situation among Assyriologists. Mesopotamian influences on the becomes even more complex. The Arabian peninsula and Bible are obvious and their elucidation grants this major Libya, for instance, can be included into the Ancient Near religious and literary masterpiece a greater antiquity and his- East, but seem often out of place. The end of the Soviet torical value. Moreover, it provides a strong rationale for the Union has opened up Armenia and the Central Asian presence of Mesopotamian scholars in academic institutions republics to western archaeologists seeking new excavations where the large majority of colleagues and students still con- after the forced interruption of their work in Iran and Iraq, sider the Judeo-Christian tradition as their own, and where but their relevance to the study of the Ancient Near East the western canon is still the basis of education. Despite the needs still to be demonstrated. Surely one cannot, and avowed aversion among Assyriologists to this justification should not, draw firm and timeless boundaries, but the delin- of their discipline, with frequent references to Benno Lands- eation of the Ancient Near East seems at times a matter of berger's “Conceptual Autonomy of the Babylonian accident rather than informed academic decision. World”,4) itself a problematic statement, the excitement Is there a conceptual unity in the ancient histories of these within and without the field about such (supposedly) bibli- regions? Even if we just focus on Mesopotamia and Egypt, cally relevant finds as the Ebla tablets or the early Aramaic we have to question whether there is a reason to study them inscription from Tel Dan, shows the desire to discover pre- under one subject heading. There are certainly many points decents to the Bible still to be alive. Influences on ancient of comparison between the two, and at times contacts Greece are perhaps less obvious but certainly clear to the between Egypt and Mesopotamia were direct and intense. Mesopotamian scholar who may enjoy the statement that Moreover, states centered in both areas expanded into the “history begins at Sumer”, not in Greece. In any case it intermediate Syro-Palestinian zone whenever possible. gives the impression that Mesopotamian culture is more When historians delineate their field of study by a regional important because it influenced Greece, a Eurocentric atti- designator, they base themselves most often on modern con- tude. cepts, such as existing nation states, that did not necessarily Claims of ancient Egyptian sources for western culture exist in the minds of the people they study. Italian and Ger- are at the moment politically more explosive. The theory, in man histories, for instance, group together a number of my opinion nonsensical, that Akhenaten's religious views political entities that only became united in the nineteenth prompted Hebrew monotheism, may lead to a discrediting of century AD. Scholars work with abstractions that allow the uniqueness of the Judean religious experience, unaccept- them to arrive at encompassing views, and the level of able to many scholars. That Greece may have been inspired abstraction depends on the aim of the study: just as one can by ancient Egypt seems well accepted, but when actual write a history of the Medici family one can write one of the cases of influence are suggested, scholarly doubts are often entire world. Still, the units of research we construct need raised. The use of this idea for contemporary political and some justification, and the sole one I can see for the Ancient cultural purposes by Afrocentrists scares most mainstream Near East is the fact that it is the ancient history of an area scholars of ancient Egypt, who mostly prefer to claim an now considered to have been part of “the West” prior to absence of political relevance to their work, and do not ancient Greece. This leads us to consider the thorny question appreciate the blanket accusation of racism sometimes made of the position of Ancient Near Eastern history in world against them. Paradoxically those scholars trying to estab- history. lish African roots for the ancient Greek civilization, implic- itly make the assumption that the European tradition is priv- 2) The Ancient Near East as part of “the West” ileged. They seek to elevate African Egypt by integrating it into a non-African context, by depicting it as an inspiration The history of the Ancient Near East may be studied by to classical European culture. The predilection to see the most of its practitioners for its own sake, but when asked for Ancient Near East primarily as a precursor of the Judeo- a convincing justification beyond “scholarship for scholar- Christian and Graeco-Roman legacy, tacitly presents the ship's sake” the fact that “the roots of western civilization” European cultural development as the superior one in the lay there is constantly invoked.3) Classical Greek civiliza- world and measures the relevance of other traditions only in tion and the Bible, the foundation of the Judeo-Christian tra- relationship to it. dition, did not originate ex nihilo, but were inspired by The integration within the western tradition also leads to Ancient Near Eastern models. Together with Rome these a negative appreciation of the Ancient Near East when com- formed the basis of European civilization. This teleological pared to the Greek and later accomplishments; the Near East view of western history, heavily promoted by such luminar- presents the childhood of mankind, which truly grew up in ies as James Henry Breasted, sees the torch of civilization Greece, as Hegel stated in 1830-31, before any really scien- passed on from Mesopotamia and Egypt, “the cradle”, to tific investigation of the Near East had taken place.5) In

3) For a more detailed critique of this attitude, see my “Ancient Near 4) Islamica 2 (1926), 255-72, translated into English by T. Jacobsen, B. Eastern history in its Middle Eastern Setting” (in press). I do not want to Foster and H. von Siebenthal, Malibu 1976. claim that all scholars share this opinion, only that it is a commonly held 5) Georg Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel, The Philosophy of History, trans- view. lated by J. Sibree, Dover Publications, New York 1956, 105. 289 ON WRITING A HISTORY OF THE ANCIENT NEAR EAST 290

Hegel's opinion, the Ancient Near Easterner essentially Babylonia Assyria lacked the ability for introspection and the respect for any individual except the ruler, qualities we claim to value Uruk and Jemdet Nasr (ca. 3100-2900) highly in the West. Such preconceptions still influence the Early Dynastic I (ca. 2900-2700) field: they are most visible in the evaluation of art, litera- II (ca. 2700-2500) ture, and expressions of a world view “before philosophy”. III (ca. 2500-2350) As mankind was still young, it must have been less developed, inferior to the later accomplishments as found in Old Akkadian/Sargonic (ca. 2350-2200) Greece. To justify this attitude, we often apply a measure of Gutian interregnum (ca. 2200-2100) evaluation to our subject matter that was completely alien to Ur III (ca. 2100-2000) the cultures we study. Isin-Larsa/Early Old Babylonian Moreover, no possible connection between the ancient (ca. 2000-1800) Old Assyrian (ca. 1900-1800) history of the Near East and its later history is perceived or Old Babylonian (1800-1595) investigated. I will discuss the “end of Ancient Near Eastern Kassite (1595-1159) Middle Assyrian history” presently, but here I would like to question why (ca. 1400-1100) there is little interest in the analysis of continuing historical Middle Babylonian (1158-627) or cultural traditions in the areas we study, beyond anecdo- Neo-Assyrian (ca. 858-612) tal observations by scholars and exuberant fantasies by Neo-Babylonian/Chaldaean (626-539) Egyptophiles. There is an uncomfortable void in between Persian/Achaemenid (539-331) the ancient and medieval periods, which few specialists of Seleucid (330-ca. 150) the Ancient Near East are able to bridge. In Egypt, the Hel- lenistic and Roman periods are extremely well documented, Several variations on these designations appear: German but the textual material is not easily comprehensible to the scholars prefer to use the names of political rulers when trained Eygptologist. Their study is thus left mainly to the referring to the Early Dynastic period, such as the period Graeco-Roman historian; consequently the history of these from Mesilim to Lugalzagesi. The Isin-Larsa period is often periods is written as Greek or Roman history. For lumped together with the Old Babylonian. Middle Babylon- Mesopotamia, the perception of discontinuity is even greater ian sometimes includes Kassite, while the term Middle in that first Greek sources, then Parthian and Sassanian ones, Babylonian in the system above is sometimes replaced by are to be considered. Their study is often left to classicists, post-Kassite. Iranists, and Syriac or Talmudic scholars. No one can be These terms are used by philologists, art historians, expected to master the great variety of languages involved, archaeologists, and historians, and they are generally under- but again philological criteria determine the discipline's atti- stood, although their exact chronological delineations are tude. not always clear. They are useful for providing a temporal framework to an object, a text, or a monument, but for his- 3) The periodization of Mesopotamian and Egyptian histo- torical research they are problematic, in my opinion. ries. The problems involved are manifold. Historians have allowed the amount of extant documentary evidence to deter- The denial of continuity between ancient and medieval mine the periodization they use. When numerous and large Near Eastern histories is also inspired by the inability to archives written under a particular dynasty have survived, determine when ancient history really ends. This problem that dynasty has earned the right to its own period. But, when is part of the general awkwardness of the periodization of consecutive dynasties are known today only through a lim- Ancient Near Eastern history. Periodization is a tool that ited number of texts, they have been lumped together into the historian rarely questions. History needs to be subdi- one lengthy period. For example, the tens of thousands of Ur vided somehow in order to provide manageable entities in III documents, and the substantial number of royal inscrip- which certain issues can be investigated. Yet, the way a tions of the dynasty, has led to a separate Ur III period, history is subdivided has important repercussions, as it although it only lasted about one century. On the other hand, frames the mind of the investigator and establishes borders Babylonia in the years 1158 to 627 is barely known from that are often difficult to cross. The universally employed archival and other textual sources, and this period is desig- periodizations of Mesopotamian and Egyptian histories are nated as Middle Babylonian today, although the Babylonian very different in their general outlines, and the images of chronographic texts acknowledge the existence of six con- historical continuity they produce are diametrically secutive dynasties: Isin II, Sealand II, Bazi, Elam, “E”, and opposed to one another. Both seem to have their problems one with kings of various backgrounds.7) Perhaps these were for very different reasons, and need thus to be addressed very similar politically and culturally, but that standpoint separately. needs to be argued. Hence, Mesopotamian history has been The periods of Mesopotamian history are usually desig- portrayed as a progression of disconnected, uneven regimes, nated differently for Babylonia and Assyria, and although some long (usually made up of a group of poorly docu- they move in parallel and sometimes coincide, they do not mented dynasties thrown together), others short (those use the same temporal divisions.6) whose bureaucracies left numerous texts). A second problem with the current periodization is its reliance on various disciplines for its justification and termi-

6) The absolute dates BC used here follow the Middle Chronology, dating the reign of Hammurabi of Babylon from 1792-1750. 7) See Babylonian King List A, Grayson, RIA 6 (1980-83), 92-3. 291 BIBLIOTHECA ORIENTALIS LIV N° 3/4, Mei-Augustus 1997 292 nology. For Babylonia, many of the terms are derived from to a perception that ethnic changes in the Mesopotamian the ancient chronographic sources themselves. While the population were numerous, radical, and thorough. Assyrians presented their history as a long and smooth suc- The renowed Assyriologist A.L. Oppenheim accused the cession of rulers from the twentieth to the seventh centuries, existing periodization of presenting a picture of Meso- the Babylonians acknowledged drastic changes in the politi- potamian history that resembles a “never-never-land”, and cal leadership of their land, and recognized several dynasties endeavored to suggest a replacement based on the social, which are presented as having been consecutive. Some of intellectual, and technological changes in Mesopotamia.8) their designations have survived in modern scholarship: the His phases were: dynasties of Akkad, or Ur (the third time the city had hege- 1) The Basic Aggregate (The Substrate) mony), of Isin, and of Larsa. Since the Assyrians presented 2) The Catalyst (The Sumerians) their own history as a fourteen-centuries long continuum, 3) The Transformation (The Rise of Mesopotamian Civi- subdivisions were made by modern scholars. These basi- lization) cally refer to the three periods with a relative abundance of 4) Tradition and Experiment (Scribes and Scholars) texts (Old, Middle, and Neo Assyrian), and their chronolog- 5) The Great Change (The Formation of the Legacy) ical boundaries are not very well fixed. The periodization of The weaknesses of this system — its impressionistic desig- Assyrian history thus coincides more or less with a system nations and vague chronological boundaries — make its use used to distinguish between different stages in the Assyrian for historical research virtually impossible. Hence, it has dialect of the Akkadian language, and clearly philological been either discarded with a sleight of the hand,9) or rather than historical criteria were used in its establishment. acknowledged as being of interest but later treated with Finally, archaeological evidence is relied upon for the peri- benign neglect. The reasons for Oppenheim's frustration odization of third millennium Babylonian history: the Uruk with the existing system have not been addressed, however, and Jemdet Nasr periods refer to cultural assemblages, while and should have been taken seriously. the Early Dynastic period, using a political term as a general designator, is subdivided into I, II, and III based on archae- The periodization of Egyptian history is firmly rooted in ological evidence. The historical importance of these Manetho's dynastic list, itself based on earlier Egyptian changes is entirely unclear. Moreover, the fact that the records. The concept that dominates this text is the smooth archaeological validity of these periods has been hotly succession of single kings of Egypt from the first divine debated, and the existence of Jemdet Nasr and part of Early rulers, through semi-divine ones, to mortals from Menes to Dynastic III even denied, has not affected the historians' Nectanebo. The long list of mortal rulers was subdivided by periodization. The reliance on wildly varying disciplinary Manetho into thirty dynasties, based on criteria that are not criteria for the development of a stable chronological frame- always clear to us. Changes in the dynastic seat or the trans- work is unsuitable to historical research. Archaeologically fer of power from one branch of the family to another are determined architectural or iconographic innovations have often determining factors. The dating, sequence, and co- no obvious historical relevance; changes in dialects do not existence of the dynasties is well studied, and they are not necessarily indicate anything but gradual evolution; the my concern here. What I would like to discuss is how these dynastic progression recognized by the Babylonians does dynasties have been grouped to produce time periods that not always reflect fundamental differences in the historical organize the long duration of Egyptian history. This peri- situation. odization is not as firmly established as it may seem from Yet, scholars have allowed these subdivisions to dictate the universal use of the basic terminology, as a comparison the boundaries of their investigations, by limiting their stud- between two books will show: ies to a subject within a traditionally recognized period, such as Old Babylonian trade. What is really analyzed in such a years BC Dynasties Gardiner10) Baines-Malek11) work is trade as revealed by texts dated to what we call the 3000 — — Old Babylonian period. Although short-term studies can be Early Dynastic highly revealing, changes or continuities with preceding and Early Dynastic succeeding phases are not generally investigated in depth. II — Such periodization produces a highly fragmented view of III — the history of the region, rather than acknowledging conti- 2500 IV nuity. A number of regimes with numerous written remains Old Kingdom is separated by periods with a paucity of textual documenta- V tion. The latter are called dark ages, somehow diconnected VI Old Kingdom from what came before and after. This discontinuity is exac- VII — erbated by the fact that many of the periods in Babylonian VIII — history are presented as having been dominated by different IX First I.P. ethnic groups: Sumerians in Early Dynastic and Ur III, 2000 X — First I.P. Akkadians in the Akkad period, Amorites in the Isin-Larsa and Old Babylonian periods, Kassites in the Kassite period, Chaldaeans in the Neo-Babylonian period, and Persians in 8) Letters from Mesopotamia, Chicago and London 1967, 16-53. the Achaemenid period. Changes certainly occurred in the 9) F.R. Kraus, “Review of A. Leo Oppenheim, Letters from ethnicity of the rulers in these periods, but the image pro- Mesopotamia”, JESHO 12 (1969), 200-11. This acerbic review sees duced by such a framework suggests major changes in the Oppenheim's discussion of the issue of periodization as faddish. 10) Alan Gardiner, Egypt of the Pharaohs, Oxford 1961. composition of the entire population. And although this is 11) John Baines and Jaromír Malek, Atlas of Ancient Egypt, New York not always a conscious attitude, the terminology used leads and Oxford 1980, 36-7. 293 ON WRITING A HISTORY OF THE ANCIENT NEAR EAST 294

XI Middle Kingdom— Ptolemies, three centuries later replaced by the Romans. The XII — historical significance of the Hellenistic take-over of Egypt XIII Middle Kingdom (and the Asiatic Near East) is immense for Greek civiliza- XIV — tion, spreading the political and cultural influence of that XV Second I.P. small European region over a vast area — but how impor- XVI Second I.P. tant was it to Egypt? The country had been ruled several XVII — — times earlier by foreigners, most recently Nubians and Per- 1500 XVIII sians, and its cultural, social, economic, and political struc- XIX New Kingdom New Kingdom tures were not changed overnight by the new dynasty. Ptole- XX — — maic rulers presented themselves as pharaohs, supported 1000 XXI existing cults, and continued to be honored in traditional XXII Egyptian representations and hieroglyphtic texts. Egypt did XXIII Third I.P. not become simply a province of a large state, but remained XXIV Late Period a nation in its own right, with imperial ambitions. Changes XXV — did take place, surely, such as the foundations of the new XXVI capital Alexandria and the introduction of the Greek lan- 500 XXVII guage in the administration. The move of the capital was not XVIII Late Period a first in Egyptian history, and the appearance of Greek did XXIX not replace entirely the use of Egyptian Demotic script for XXX administrative purposes. However, in disciplinary terms the XXXI12)— — latter change has been underscored by the fact that Egyptol- ogists study the Demotic material, while Papyrologists, usu- The image that determines this system is a sequence of peri- ally with a training in classics, study Greek texts. More ods of unification and international strength (Old, Middle, importantly, Egyptologists allow Classicists to write the his- and New Kingdoms) interrupted by periods of political frag- tory of Egypt during this period, which consequently is writ- mentation and weakness (Intermediate periods). This may ten in the larger context of the Hellenistic world, not as be a valid description of Egyptian history during the third Egyptian history. and second millennia, but tends to treat the first millennium The situation for Mesopotamia is somewhat more com- as an appendix, a long and inglorious period of weakness. plex, yet very similar. Although some scholars end its This well-documented and politically interesting era is por- ancient history when Mesopotamia became part of the for- trayed as one of decadence by Breasted,13) dominated by eign, Persian, empire in 539 BC,14) most would accept the foreigners rather than “real” Egyptians. The preceding ages Macedonian conquest in 330 BC as the defining moment. are presented with great continuity dominated by a succes- Yet, continuities are evident, and the proposition that the sion of truly Egyptian great rulers, although harassed by for- Seleucid empire is an Asiatic rather than a Greek one,15) is eign Hyksos in the Second Intermediate period. The differ- convincing. Neither should the Parthian conquest be seen as ences between Old, Middle, and New Kingdoms are a watershed.16) As the discipline of ancient Mesopotamian obscured by the repetition of the term Kingdom. The ancient studies defines itself primarily by the presence of cuneiform Egyptians may have cultivated this image, but if we use documentation, the survivial of Akkadian texts into the their own depiction of the past as a guideline for our peri- Parthian period has led to a contradictory situation, in that odization, we should, for instance, also accept the copying the records are considered to be ancient Mesopotamian of Old Kingdom reliefs and texts by the XXVth dynasty, while they derive from a period not thought to belong to Nubian, rulers as an indication of another “Kingdom” Mesopotamian history. Again, the history of Mesopotamia period. after 330 BC is left to be written by Greek historians. I am The existing periodizations for Mesopotamia and Egypt not arguing here that nothing changed when the Macedo- thus lead to diametrically opposed images. We perceive dis- nians, Parthians, and Sassanians took political control of the continuity in Mesopotamia, where a succession of foreign region, and I do not want to replace the current image of dis- people took political control, with the suggestion that this ruption with one of the “unchanging, static East”. My main led to entirely different historical situations; and continuity objection to the end date of Mesopotamian history as 330 in Egypt where with few interruptions, until the eleventh BC lies in the fact that it presents an almost insurmountable century, great, truly Egyptian, rulers maintained the same disciplinary boundary. The history of the region ceases to be type of order and stability. Surely, such images are not domain of Near Eastern scholars, but that of Classicists and entirely invented, but the contrast between the two is so Iranists. great, and their determinism so strong, that they impede historical insight. 14) William W. Hallo in The Ancient Near East: a History, New York A common problem with both periodizations is their end- 1971, 149; Norman Yoffee, “The Collapse of Ancient Mesopotamian date: when do ancient Mesopotamian and Egyptian histories States and Civilization”, The Collapse of Ancient States and Civilizations end? In Egypt, the conquest by Alexander of Macedonia in (N. Yoffee and George L. Cowgill, eds.), Tuscon 1988, 58-9. Both authors 332 BC seems to be often accepted as the end of pharaonic do, however, stress the continuation of Mesopotamian culture after that date. Egypt. It inaugurated a Graeco-Egyptian dynasty, the 15) For instance, Susan Sherwin-White and Amélie Kuhrt, From Samarkand to Sardis: A New Approach to the Seleucid Empire, London 1993. 12) The XXXI dynasty was added by a chronographer after Manetho. 16) Joachim Oelsner, “Kontinuität und Wandel in Gesellschaft und 13) James H. Breasted, A History of Egypt, New York 1905. Kultur Babyloniens in hellenistischer Zeit”, Klio 60 (1978), 101-16. 295 BIBLIOTHECA ORIENTALIS LIV N° 3/4, Mei-Augustus 1997 296

The situation, in which the ancient histories of Egypt and cepts have survived in the scholarship dealing with the Mesopotamia are terminated due to an event that might have ancient histories of that region, and one cannot separate been relatively insignificant to the inhabitants of those areas, them from a continued Eurocentric and neo-colonialist point is the result of the well-known obsession with Alexander of view. The reasons behind certain traditional stances in the “the Great” as an innovator, and as the initiator of a new era discipline merit investigation in this light: why do we talk in world history. This idea has been around since Plutarch, about the Ancient Near East while the area we study is and was given renewed force in modern times by the nine- called the Middle East today? Why is the term ancient Iraq teenth century historian Johann Gustav Droysen.17) In Droy- so rarely used? Why is the Near East considered to be only sen's opinion Alexander fused the cultures of Greece and a precursor or foil of Greek and European culture, not to the the Near East into something entirely new called Hellenism, Islamic Middle East? Why is Alexander of Macedon by bringing the Greek genius into the superbly fertile, yet allowed to dictate where we end our investigations? These insufficiently exploited, East. For instance, in the economic are uncomfortable questions, but they need to be asked.19) sector, the conquest of Alexander initiated an increased and much more efficient use of the agricultural resources 4) History as a Narrative through new irrigation projects, and a general economic The sources available to the historian of the Ancient Near boom took place through the release of imperial Persian East are numerous and varied, to such an extent that no sin- gold, which enabled monetarization.18) Droysen's scholarly gle person can know them all. They can be divided broadly views on Alexander were gratefully adopted by apologists into primary and secondary material. The first consists of of European colonialism, who saw in Alexander a model the multitude of documents and letters, containing historical and a justification of Europe's expansion into Asia and information but written without any concern for future read- Africa, left “undeveloped” by the natives. Despite several ers. The second are sources with a narrative content describ- decades of research that has demonstrated that the pre-Hel- ing past events, near or distant, for a present and future audi- lenistic Near East was not backward and stationary, and that ence. Both sources require a critical analysis by the modern the Greek newcomers did not start an entirely new era, the historian and present numerous problems. idea that the Hellenistic period was a watershed in Near Scholars educated in the western tradition are accustomed Eastern history has not disappeared. Perhaps Greek histori- to a historiography that relies heavily on narrative sources. ans, relying on the same propagandistic classical sources as Classical historians, for instance, can base themselves on were used by Droysen, could be excused from maintaining Graeco-Roman descriptions that provide a framework in the same views, but certainly ancient Near Eastern histori- which to place and investigate historical events. Much of ans, who have uncovered and analyzed a mass of informa- their training is devoted to the critical evaluation of these tion unknown to Droysen, should not allow his views to set sources, which are almost by definition tendentious, but can- the limits of their research. not be ignored. As Bengtson states it: To recapitulate, the discipline of Ancient Near Eastern “So wertvoll die Aufschlüsse auch sein mögen, die das history is ill-defined both geographically and chronologi- primäre Material über einzelne Ereignisse und Personen cally. In chronological terms the subdivisions of the three der Alten Geschichte zu geben vermag, unsere Kenntnis thousand year long history are vague, inspired by non-his- bliebe dennoch auf weite Strecken hin unzusammenhän- torical criteria, and lead to opposing images of continuity gend, besäßen wir nicht in den antiken Geschichtss- and change in Egypt and Mesopotamia. Moreover, the end chreibern den Leitfaden, der uns einen (im großen gese- of the field of study is determined by the history of Greece, hen) kontinuierlichen Überblick über die Geschichte der rather than the events of the Ancient Near East itself. Geo- Alten Welt von der Zeit der Perserkriege bis in die Spä- graphically, besides the core areas of Egypt and tantike an die Hand gibt.”20) Mesopotamia, the regions included often vary over time, “As valuable as the information may be that the primary based on the presence of Egyptian and Mesopotamian tex- material can give on single events and individuals of tual material. The historical relevance of this delineation of ancient history, our knowledge would remain neverthe- the area of study needs to be argued. The combination of less incoherent if we did not obtain from the ancient his- Egypt and Mesopotamia in one historical discipline is basi- torians the outlines that provide us with a continuous cally inspired by the fact that both regions have pre-Greek overview (in broad terms) of the ancient world from the histories, superseded by Greece around 330. These chrono- Persian wars to Late Antiquity.” logical and geographical definitions of the field were estab- Ever since the Renaissance, scholars have used these lished in the nineteenth century, prior to any scientific inves- ancient narratives to compose their own reconstructions of tigation of Near Eastern materials themselves. They were the histories of Greece and Rome. Although this scholarly based on a completely Eurocentric view of world history, tradition has shaped the form of narrative history, the and were useful to the colonialist enterprise that re-estab- ancient sources provided a well-established framework in lished European control over the areas of the Near East in which to work. the image of Alexander. Despite the now-changed political relations between Europe and the Middle East, these con-

19) For an explanation of some of these issues in a colonial setting and 17) Geschichte Alexanders (1833) and Geschichte des Hellenismus (Bd. the way in which they bias the interpretation of Near Eastern cultures, see I, 1836, Bd. II, 1843). Zainab Bahrani, “The Extraterrestrial Orient: Despotic Time and the Time 18) For an excellent review of this issue, see P. Briant, “Des of the Despots”, in Archaeology Matters: Culture and Politics in the East- Achéménides aux rois hellénistiques: continuités et ruptures (Bilan et per- ern Mediterranean (Lynn Meskell, ed.) London (in press). spectives)”, Rois, tribus et paysans, Besançon 1982, 291-330 [first pub- 20) Hermann Bengtson, Einführung in die Alte Geschichte, 6th ed., lished in 1979]. München 1969, 85. 297 ON WRITING A HISTORY OF THE ANCIENT NEAR EAST 298

The situation for the Ancient Near East historian is very In 1973 Mario Liverani decried the standard approach to lit- different. It is commonly stated by classicists that historiog- erary historiographic texts that believes that such texts con- raphy was a Greek invention and that in the Ancient Near tain a historical “kernel”. Scholars had routinely assumed East no descriptions of the past for their own sake existed. that the historical information can be exposed through The Hittites and the Israelites may have produced something proper exegesis, and they continue to believe so. Instead of that resembles the writing of history, yet it does not really seeing a document as “a source for knowledge of what the deserve that name.21) Again this is a Eurocentric evaluation document says”, Liverani urged Near Eastern historians to of Near Eastern material, that on the one hand denigrates regard it as “a source for the knowledge of itself”.27) Thus, anything that does not conform to the classical model, and, instead of asking whether or not the Egyptian tale docu- on the other hand, overly credits the Greek sources with his- ments the beginning of an anti-Hyksos campaign by Thebes torical accuracy. in the sixteenth century, we should wonder why such a tale Yet, the Ancient Near Eastern texts are sufficiently differ- was written, or copied out, in the thirteenth century, what ent in nature from writings by the ancient Greek historians the author tried to demonstrate or accomplish. Surely, this is to warrant the statement that the Greeks developed a new not an easy task as we often do not know the date of com- genre of literature. Although many Ancient Near East histo- position, the author, and the intended audience of a text, yet rians may have accepted this, the regular use of the terms it is the only scientifically justified approach to these texts. “histories” and “historians” referring to Ancient Near East- Liverani's insightful remarks have been more or less ern writings and their authors shows that the search for his- entirely ignored until quite recently, and even then only toriographically useful and accurate literary material has taken into account by a handful of scholars, those who are been intense. Numerous articles and books describe in detail interested in theory, i.e. a minority. In my opinion, the most the texts that the Near East scholar needs to investigate in successful exercise of this methodology was done under order to write history.22) A wide variety of sources are rated Liverani's own auspices in a re-evaluation of the Akkad by scholars for their historical accuracy. King lists, such as dynasty.28) As is well-known, the Akkadian rulers Sargon the Egyptian Turin Canon or the Assyrian King List, are and Naram-Sin both were the subjects of many literary texts considered to be quite trustworthy. Their various manu- relating their adventures and misadventures as far afield as scripts (if existing) are compared with one another and with Bahrain and Anatolia, a rich field for textual analysis. What independent data in archival texts to arrive at a reliable I found intriguing in the volume re-examining their dynasty chronological framework. At the bottom rank the numerous was the fact that those scholars explicitly analyzing the liter- “literary-historical” texts which are considered useful when ary traditions (Cooper, Liverani, Michalowski) were almost their historical kernel is properly laid bare. A Hittite story ready to discard the image of the Akkad dynasty as militar- about the Queen of Kanesh giving birth to thirty sons at ily highly successful over a wide geographical area,29) while once and sending them off to Zalpa,23) is thought to reflect a those discussing the primary, archival, material (Foster, historical migration by the Indo-European Hittites to Westenholz) seemed to have no doubt about the validity of Kanesh.24) An Eygptian tale, preserved on a papyrus of the that image. Whoever developed the myth of the great Akka- thirteenth century, in which the Hyksos King Apophis (six- dian empire, surely did a great job! teenth century) demands from the Theban ruler Seqenenre that he get rid of hippopotami whose noise keeps him A single text that has been examined along the lines Liv- awake,25) is taken as proof of tensions between the Hyksos erani prescribed is the Sumerian King List, the backbone of and the Theban seventeenth dynasty, and the latter's com- our reconstructions of third millennium Southern mencing a war of liberation.26) Mesopotamian history. According to the analysis by Piotr Michalowski, this document was intended to give legitimacy

21 to the Isin dynasty in the early second millennium by prop- ) See Bengtson, ibid., 86. agating the ideology that kingship passed from city to city 22) These seem often to be the result of seminars, e.g. in 1974-75 at the University of Toronto, “Histories and Historians of the Ancient Near from its inception. The sequence of cities differs among the East” which was published in Orientalia 49 (1980), 137-94; 283-332; various manuscripts, but that is unimportant as the text does Orientalia 50 (1981), 137-185; and which led to two books: Donald B. not set out to provide the reader with a historically accurate Redford, Pharaonic King-Lists, Annals and Day-Books, Mississauga 1986, succession of dynasties, but only with an ideology that king- and John Van Seters, In Search of History, New Haven and London 1983. ship was constantly invested in new dynasties.30) In 1979 a seminar with a similar title was held at the Institute of Advanced The attraction of employing the contents of ancient narra- Studies, the Hebrew University of Jerusalem, Mt. Scopus, published as tives as historical sources remains very strong, however, for History, Historiography and Interpretation (eds. H. Tadmor and M. Wein- two reasons: first, because their relative proximity to the feld), Jerusalem 1983. A recent dicussion, rather than survey, of all events they describe suggests that they are more insightful Ancient Near Eastern historical material is by John Van Seters, “The His- toriography of the Ancient Near East”, in Civilizations of the Ancient Near than anything we could produce, and second because by East (Jack Sasson, ed.) vol IV, New York 1995, 2433-44. The French their very nature narrative sources appeal to us. The weak- scholar, Jean-Jacques Glassner, also recently published an essay on ness of the first argument has been demonstrated repeat- Mesopotamian historiographic material, in which he includes epic and mythological texts (Chroniques mésopotamiennes, Paris 1993, 20-47). 23) For a recent translation see, Harry H. Hoffner, Hittite Myths, 27) M. Liverani, “Memorandum on the Approach to Historiographic Atlanta 1990, 62-3. Texts”, Orientalia 42 (1973), 178-94. 24) H. Otten, Eine althethitische Erzählung um die Stadt Zalpa (StBoT 28) Akkad. The First World Empire (M. Liverani, ed.), Padova 1993. 17), Wiesbaden 1973, 64. 29) The title of the book, nevertheless, still states the belief in a “world 25) Translated by John A. Wilson in Ancient Near Eastern Texts Relat- empire”. ing to the Old Testament (James B. Pritchard, ed.), Princeton 1969, 231-2. 30) Piotr Michalowski, “History as Charter: Some Observations on the 26) Simpson in The Ancient Near East: A History, 252. Sumerian King List”, JAOS 103 (1983), 237-48. 299 BIBLIOTHECA ORIENTALIS LIV N° 3/4, Mei-Augustus 1997 300 edly,31) and is generally acknowledged by the acceptance extra-biblical evidence appears for individuals and events that historical writing is “tendentious”. Yet this tendentious- described in the Bible. That evidence is disappointing, how- ness is not taken seriously enough when history is written by ever: it is limited to a few Assyrian and Babylonian men- the modern scholar. An example of a literary text from Egypt tions of the states of Israel and Judah, the Moab inscription, that is constantly used as a historical source is the “Instruc- and some, extremely limited, Hebrew inscriptional evidence. tion for Merykare”. The text is only found in New Kingdom Imagine writing a history of Israel and Judah based solely exemplars, but is used to describe the political situation at the on those sources.36) The result would be meager and very end of the First Intermediate period. This use is justified by different from what we are accustomed to. I suggest that the impression that the text sounds “historical”, but none of such a history of Israel and Judah would be virtually impos- its contents can be corroborated as there is virtually no docu- sible to produce, as no-one currently engaged in the scholar- mentation from the late First Intermediate period.32) ship of this region would be able to set aside his or her, The problem of our narrative predilection has never been however limited, awareness of the Biblical narrative. It is explicitly discussed in relation to Ancient Near Eastern his- not my intent here to disprove any of the details of Biblical toriography to my knowledge, and I will try to demonstrate history, only to put clear question marks behind the method- its nature. Since we are raised in a tradition that relies ology employed by its modern writers, and especially to entirely on narrative for historiography, rooted in Greece show how the presence of a narrative source with problem- and developed ever since in the western world, the presence atic “historical” credentials can entirely dominate our views of narrative sources is so powerful to us that we cannot on the history of a region. In other areas of the Ancient Near ignore them. The most obvious example of this is found in East equally dominating texts are not found, but everywhere “Biblical history”. What is often called the “ancient history the narrative sources bias and direct our minds. The heavy of Israel” or “of Israel and Judah” is in reality a retelling of reliance on narrative literary sources for historical recon- the historical narrative found in the Hebrew Bible by ana- struction is certainly not a problem limited to this history, lyzing, contrasting, and evaluating the different traditions but the relative scarcity of independent historiographic tradi- that can be found side by side in the ancient text. Innumer- tions in the Near Eastern material makes their evaluation so able books with these titles have been written since the mid- much more difficult, and increases the temptation to trust nineteenth century and continue to be written today. All of them for want of anything better. them have used the same literary text as their main source. They vary only in their evaluation of the historical accuracy 5) Documents as historical sources of the various traditions within it, and in their acceptance of The primary sources for the writing of Ancient Near Eastern extra-biblical material as confirming or not confirming the history are overwhelming in number and variety: documents biblical text. Thus, especially with regard to the second mil- from public and private archives abound with a diversity of lennium, when there existed no political entities called Israel formats and subject matters from many regions of the and Judah, the disagreements are great. Some scholars, Ancient Near East. These texts are actually what defines the encouraged by perceived Mesopotamian and Syro-Palestin- Ancient Near East to us: a commemorative royal inscription ian parallels, put a lot of credence in the stories about the carved on a rock facade in a distant area will be interpreted Patriarchs, the Exodus from Egypt, the Conquest, the by historians as the result of a far-flung campaign abroad, Judges, and so on.33) while an archive, especially when written in Akkadian or Others see the descriptions of the United Monarchy with Egyptian, will lead to the incorporation of its findspot into David and Solomon as the earliest historically accurate the Ancient Near East (Old Assyrian Kanesh, for instance). accounts in the Bible, and start their histories then.34) But These texts can be used in a variety of ways for historical the evidence for the existence of a United Monarchy is research. entirely Biblical, and in my opinion there is no greater rea- a) : When documents are dated according to the son to believe in the existence of David than there is for chronology regnal years of a particular king, as was common in Babylon Abraham.35) It is only in the mid- to late ninth century that and Egypt, the lengths of reigns sometimes can be established. In Babylonia, this is a very useful tool to check the 31) E.g., by Liverani in Akkad, 41-4. accuracy of King Lists; in Egypt, it is only possible to do so 32) See Gun Björkman, “Egyptology and Historical Method”, Orien- in the Ramessid period. Moreover, the use of year names in talia Suecana 13 (1964), 9-33. Babylonia from ca. 2400 to 1600 allows the confirmation or 33) In the USA the Albright school still dominates the field of Biblical history and continues to write accounts of second millennium Israel along correction of existing dynastic lists. The interest in chrono- Biblical lines, e.g. in the very influential text book by John Bright, A His- logical questions often predominated in the early publica- tory of Israel, 3rd ed., Philadelphia 1981. tions of documents by Assyriologists when year names were 34) E.g., J.A. Soggin, A History of Ancient Israel, Philadelphia 1984. even published separately or the selection of texts was This book does, however, include a long discussion of the traditions of guided by the variety of year names they contained.37) earlier times. In a later article Soggin states explicitly that Biblical history can only start with the United Monarchy, “Probleme einer Vor- und Frühgeschichte Israels”, Zeitschrift für die alttestamentliche Wissenschaft 100 (1988) supplement, 255-67. 36) A detailed collection and discussion of extra-biblical sources relat- 35) The appearance of “[the kin]g of the house of David” in a ninth ing to “Biblical” history is available in the Italian journal Rivista Biblica century Aramaic text from Tel Dan (A. Biran - J. Naveh, “An Aramaic 32 (1984), 3-151, and 34 (1986), 1-283. To my knowledge this has not led Stele Fragment from Tel Dan’, IEJ 43 (1993), 81-98 and “The Tel Dan to the writing of a history solely based on them. Inscription: A New Fragment’, IEJ 45 (1995), 1-28) proves nothing more 37) See, for instance, E. Grice, Records from Ur and Larsa dated in the than that a David was considered to be the (real or fictitious) ancestor of Larsa Dynasty (YOS 5), New Haven 1919. Note how few texts dated after kings, presumably from Judah. Exactly the same ideology is expressed in Rim-Sin year 30 are published here (and in general) because the names of Matthew 1,1-17, where the genealogy of Jesus Christ is given. those years all repeat the phrase “year N after Isin was defeated”. 301 ON WRITING A HISTORY OF THE ANCIENT NEAR EAST 302 b) political history: The presence of documents dated with a documentation on most of the economic activities by indi- system that originated elsewhere permits the conclusion that viduals and institutions.42) Outside Mesopotamia, the docu- political control was likely. For instance, texts dated to the mentary written material in the Asiatic Near East it too lim- reign of Hammurabi of Babylon found in Larsa show that he ited to allow a statement about the reasons for its creation, conquered that city in his thirtieth year. The fact that Middle and I am unqualified to discuss the Egyptian situation in this Assyrian eponym-dated tablets appear in Tell Chuera shows context. Assyrian control of the western Habur region during the Socio-economic history remains still the area with the reign of Tukulti-Ninurta I (1244-08).38) most unexplored territory in the study of the Ancient Near Letters, especially those of kings and high court officials, East, and with massive amounts of new material to be con- reveal a great deal about political, diplomatic, and military sidered. A common approach to topics has been to investi- activity by individuals known through other sources. Exam- gate them only within the traditional periods I discussed ples are rife and so well-known that I do not need to elabo- before, oftentimes within a single archive or a closely rate on them here. Good examples are to be found in the related set of archives. Thus the discussions are not really Mari correspondence, which has been mined, for instance, devoted to a historical question but to the question as it is for information on the reigns of Southern Mesopotamian documented in a particular archive. For example, one does kings, such as Hammurabi of Babylon.39) not really discuss the functioning of early funerary temples c) socio-economic history. It is especially in this area that in Egypt, but the temple of Neferirkare as revealed by the the Ancient Near Eastern material provides a data base Abusir papyri. One does not discuss animal husbandry in unequaled in classical antiquity, excepting Roman Egypt. late-third millennium Babylonia, but the Puzrish-Dagan Assyriologists especially have explored the gold mine of archive. This approach is dictated to an extent by the need to archival material in order to investigate topics such as trade, publish or study the documentary material as coherent credit, marriage, inheritance and the like. Again, the danger groups that facilitate comprehension. But oftentimes analy- lurks of having too much trust in the documentation, in that sis remains at that level and goes no further; problems are a purely positivistic approach to it is often taken: textually not investigated in a long-term perspective. In some cases, observable data are noted down and taken as the sole build- this might be due to the fact that preceding and succeeding ing blocks of historical reconstructions. However, such data periods have not produced equivalent evidence, but not nec- may make up only a small percentage of the information essarily so. Sometimes evidence is available, but has not needed to fully evince patterns of economic activity. Many been analyzed because specialists in that particular time scholars interpret gaps in the documentation to be the result period have traditionally focused on other genres of texts or of loss caused by decay over time or improper recovery by other topics. If we look, for instance, at international trade in the archaeologist or looter. They think that a new discovery Mesopotamia, we see a lot of discussions of third and early- could easily clarify matters. As far as Mesopotamia is con- second millennium material, but much less for later periods. cerned, this optimism regarding the informative truth of the This is not because trade is less important in later times, archival material is misplaced, in my opinion. such as the Neo-Babylonian period. On the contrary. But the Instead of assuming that in Mesopotamian antiquity basi- tradition of Neo-Babylonian scholarship has focused on cally everything had been written down at some point, be it other issues, possibly because such important sources on an activity of a private individual or of a palace or temple trade as the Egibi archive have not been fully analyzed yet. official, I suggest that two conditions needed to be met Also when certain topics are not accessible through the before a legal or administrative document was written.40) study of a single or confined set of archives, they are less First there had to be a transaction involving a transfer of frequently addressed. I believe that urban government is one property at the time of the writing of the text or at a later of these areas, and have tried to discuss it using data from date. Property could be anything of value: persons, goods, the entirety of Mesopotamian history.43) In my opinion, or services, including labor. Secondly, there had to be a institutions and practices can and must be studied on a long- future need for a document either to demonstrate legitimate term basis, when the current compartmentalization is aban- ownership or to justify a transfer which had taken place to a doned. The area of socio-economic historical research seems higher authority. Thus, the new owner of a house kept the to present the greatest potential for further investigations sale document and the office disbursing grain rations kept a with a mass of unanalyzed data and remaining unanswered list of recipients and the amounts they received. When we questions. The abundance of documentary sources from the study such topics as marriage and adoption through actual Near East provides the researcher with opportunities that documents, we are not in the possession of marriage and should be exploited to the full. A critical approach to these adoption contracts, only of records of transfers of property ancillary to those acts. The Mesopotamian economy is often prominent role. This opinion is taken to an extreme in the work of Morris portrayed as a “capitalist” one because of this emphasis on 41 Silver, e.g., Economic Structures of the Ancient Near East, London & Sid- financial transactions in our sources, ) but we probably lack ney 1985. Others, more theoretically informed, see entirely different patterns of exchange at work, such as redistribution and reciprocity. Johannes Renger has been most outspoken for this point of view, e.g., “On Eco- 38) W. Orthmann, “Chuera” in “Archaeology in Syria” (H. Weiss, nomic Structures in Ancient Mesopotamia”, Orientalia 63 (1994), 157- ed.), AJA 98 (1994), 122. 208. 39) See, for instance, Dominique Charpin in Archives royales de Mari 42) For a more detailed discussion of this issue, see my “Why Did They XXVI/2, Paris 1988, 139-205. Write on Clay”, Klio 79 (1997), 7-18. 40) Letters were mostly written for entirely different purposes. 43) Marc Van De Mieroop, “The Government of an Ancient 41) There is a wide variety of opinions regarding the nature of the Mesopotamian City: what we know and why we know so little”, in Priest Mesopotamian economy. I would argue that the majority of scholars has a and Officials in the Ancient Near East (K. Watanabe, ed.), Heidelberg “modernist” point of view, and imagines that free enterprise played a (in press). 303 BIBLIOTHECA ORIENTALIS LIV N° 3/4, Mei-Augustus 1997 304 sources is necessary, as for any other historical source, but The philological approach to the writing of history is also when properly analyzed, they do allow insights unattainable not limited to non-Western topics either. It is to be found in in other regions of the ancient world. all historical disciplines and was portrayed as the only suitable methodology by academic historiography of the mid- 6) Conclusions nineteenth century, led by the German historian Leopold von Ranke (1795-1886). This approach presumes that reality The writing of Ancient Near Eastern history presents many can be known through an observation of facts and that the challenges, which make the discipline worthy of pursuit and study of every detail is useful. It has received scathing intellectually appealing. We are faced with cultures far reviews by twentieth century historians and philosophers of removed in time, with a rationality and a perception of the history. For instance, Collingwood attacked it in these world that is often alien to us. It is an enormous field in that words: the geographical areas and time spans involved are vast. The “Just as the antiquary keeps implements and pots in his constant discovery of new data, all presenting numerous dif- museum without necessarily reconstructing history from ficulties of comprehension, both philological and concep- them, and as the archivist in the same way keeps public tual, overwhelms the researcher who tries to remain documents, so the pure scholar edits and emends and informed about them. Non-textual sources, which I have reprints texts of, for example, ancient philosophy without ignored in this discussion, are equally important to the his- necessarily understanding the philosophical ideas they torian, and also continue to multiply at an enormous rate. No express and therefore without being able to reconstruct single individual is any longer able to claim a good under- the history of philosophy. standing of the empirical data of the entire discipline, let This work of scholarship is often taken for history alone the philological and other tools necessary for their itself, and as so taken it becomes a special type of pseudo- analysis. history, which Croce calls philological history. As this When compared to other areas of the human sciences, misconceived, history consists in accepting and preserv- Ancient Near Eastern history is also a new discipline. 150 ing testimony, and the writing of history consists in tran- years ago Egyptian texts had barely become decipherable scribing, translating, and compiling. Such work is useful, and cuneiform inscriptions, other than the Old Persian ones, but it is not history; there is no criticism, no interpreta- were incomprehensible. Knowledge of the Ancient Near tion, no reliving of past experience in one's own mind. It East was almost entirely derived from Biblical and Classical is mere learning or scholarship.”44) sources. In the second half of the nineteenth century the dis- The question of how to write history is far from new, and cipline created itself, developing at a dazzling speed. can be summed up as the contrast between theory driven and Although it is possible to observe changes in interests and positivistic scholarship. It is a complicated issue that has methodologies, it is still much rooted in its nineteenth cen- been discussed extensively, and needs to be addressed in tury background, however. Ancient Near Eastern scholarship as well. The basic approach to the history of the Ancient Near A further aspect of Ranke's philosophy of history that East is philological: topics are studied through a collection inspired Ancient Near Eastern studies is the belief that one of texts that are translated, catalogued and classified. The can reconstruct the past “as it actually happened”. The doc- limits of the investigation are usually defined by philologi- uments, especially when they are properly collected, are cal criteria: the starting point usually is either one archive or thought to provide the building blocks for a reconstruction a few archives, a group of monumental inscriptions or liter- of historical reality that is unbiased by philosophical trends. ary-historical texts from a traditionally delineated time Both the possibilities of an unbiased approach and of the period. The manipulation of the data is also determined by a reconstruction of “reality” are now commonly doubted.45) philological methodology. Texts are often classified on the On a more technical level, we can question the presence of basis of terminology and their textual difficulties are high- data on all the multiple facets of reality. Yet, the unstated lighted and presented as the greatest challenge. Indeed, tex- aim of much work in the Ancient Near East seems to pre- tual understanding remains an enormous problem in that the serve the Rankean ideal. knowledge of Ancient Near Eastern languages is still lim- Another nineteenth century doctrine that still dominates ited. Moreover, the of texts is often the only editio princeps Ancient Near Eastern history writing, is the teleological study they will receive. In that context they are best pre- development of world history from the Ancient Near East to sented within their archival setting, or compared to already the modern Western world, a concept argued by Hegel. As I known similar inscriptions that can be used as materials for argued above, it places the Ancient Near East at the start of a standard comparative philological treatment. But the a tradition, considers it by definition less developed and analysis should not be confined to that level only. poorly formed, hence inferior. Moreover, it perpetuates a The philological orientation of the field is often institu- colonialist attitude that annexes the Middle East and North tionalized in that scholars of the Ancient Near East are Africa to Europe when these regions can provide something placed in University departments of Middle/Near Eastern desirable, in this case a greater antiquity. It denies the Mid- Languages and Cultures/Civilizations, rather than in those of dle East its own history, as if with the coming of Islam the history, literature, art history, etc. And it is at the basis of the slate was wiped clean and history had started anew. The training we provide to students: at its foundation lies the learning of languages and the reading of texts. This is a predicament in which most scholars of non-Western literate 44) R.G. Collingwood, The Idea of History, revised edition, Oxford and civilizations find themselves, and is not easily solved. No New York 1994 (first published 1946), 203-4. one would want the writing of history to be left to people 45) For one of the many critical analyses of “Rankean” history, see, ignorant of the primary material in its original form. Peter Burke in New Perspectives on Historical Writing (P. Burke, ed.), University Park, Pennsylvania 1991, 3-6. 305 BOEKBESPREKINGEN — ALGEMEEN 306 annexation of the Ancient Near East to the history of the West, also wrongly privileges the latter's tradition over that of other civilizations, presenting it as superior and the measure of all human accomplishment. The philosophy of history is a wide and contentious field, one filled with political and intellectual debates, with fads but also with deep insights. As in all disciplines of the humanities and the social sciences there has been a destruction of old paradigms and a confusion about what to put in their stead. Ancient Near Eastern scholars have observed some of this, and have accepted some influences on their work,46) but in general they have stood above the fray. I am nog arguing here that we should join in the debates at full force or immerse ourselves in the vicissitudes of one school of thought or another. What I do argue is that a critical re-evaluation of any discipline is needed at times, and that justifying and revising existing practices is helpful. This review, which again is not aimed at Kuhrt's book and which is perhaps too polemical in tone, hopes to move us in that direction.

Columbia University Marc Van De MIEROOP New York, December 1996

46) The Annales school especially has found a sympathetic ear.