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 Sto- William Kelly Simpson is now 25 years old, and outdated in ria, società, economia (Laterza, Roma and Bari 1988), in some respects.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.