Feb 23

Lecture 01.
Pre-Classical Age: Geography / Language & Civilization / Chronological framework /
Historical Outline

1) The “Ancient Near East” & “Western Asia”

 “ANE” & “WA” technically
the same area
o WA = Medi. coast of
Anatolia to the Eastern
border of Iran
o ANE = today’s Turkey
& some of the Middle
East
Hurri / Mittani
 This area flourished from
3rd-1st mill. BCE

Most important to study of ANE : Assyrie

 Mesopotamia  name is
Greek = “b/w rivers” (the
Tigris & Euphrates) Syria
Akkad
o Term used to refer to
the modern areas of Iraq,
Kuwait, East Syria, SE
Sumer
Turkey
 South Mesopotamia : Land
of Sumer (Sumerians)
o 3rd mill. BCE =
 Sumerians
flourished
 beginning of urbanization
 creation of cuneiform writing  clay tablets were most popular
writing medium in NE
 BUT cuneiform NOT ONLY syst. (Phoenician also used)
o Typical Sumerian political centres = “city-states”
 Only final phase of Sumerian civ. had bigger political states
 Created by the 3rd DYNASTY OF city of Ur (OMI
Sumerian cities, dominated large part Mesopotamia in
last cent. of 3rd mill. BCE)
o Sumerian = Spoken language NOT related to any other language
 Northern part of South Mesopotamia : Akkad Dynasty
o Rose ~ 2500 BCE =
 Semitic origin founded first empire in history
 Akkad the capital
 Akkadian (language)  2 main dialects : (2nd & 1st mill.) Babylonian (in S) & Assyrian (in N)
 Early 2nd mill (~1850 BCE) = rise of King Hammurabi  of Amorite origin (another Semitic pop.)
o Northern South Meso = Babylonia  after main political centre / city = Babylon
 Over time became the generic name for entirety of S. Meso
o N. Meso = Assyria
o “Cities became provincial centres, de-centralized admin cities of a politically unified land. Therefore, a
political fragmentation of the area couldn’t take place on city-state level anymore, but only through the rise of
sizeable territorial states. In other words, with Hammurabi the concept of a land of ‘Babylonia’, named after
 its main city, was born. Babylonia thus became the heir of the ancient region of ‘Sumer and Akkad’.
Eventually, Babylonia would become the southern counterpart of the land of ‘Assyria’ in the north”
States : city-states (3rd mill.), territorial states (2 nd mill), regional states (Hittite, Mittanian states), empire (Akkadian, Hittite
empires)
- Over time place grew bigger – city-states became provincial centres / territorial states
- w/ King Hammurabi = concept of naming an area after the biggest city was born
 region of Akkad & Sumer -> Assyria & Babylonia
- Idea of the state – came from NE
o Result of urban revolution (end of 4th mill.)  communities went through “state” usually a
big change kingdom, b/c they were
o Origin of the city = origin of state & socio-economic stratification ruled by “kings”
o More complex types of interactions developed w/in & b/w communities
- Depending on how they politically organized themselves  how they’re labeled :
o City-state = made up of urban centre & surrounding area (common in 3 rd mill.)
o Territorial state = includes several urban centres, connected & has greater area (developed in 2 nd mill.)
 In written records become the “Land of …”
o Regional state = had ruler of a great area called “Great King”, ruled over kings of smaller states (~1500
BCE)
o Empire = when regional states have political ideology of universalistic control of territory

o (early 2nd mill.)

Assyria & Babylonia

- Scholars sometimes use both terms in generic geographical sense, no matter the period they’re talking about
o (even though ie. Babylonia didn’t exist in 3rd mill. and it was actually the Sumer Land )
- Assyria & Babylonia are the two poles of Mesopotamia for almost 2 millennia
o They often were in conflict
- BOTH = “Land of Assur” and “Land of Babylon”
Assyria
- Period b/w end of 3rd & early 2nd mill = only the City of Assur
o Central point of important trade network  tin from the east, textiles from south, silver/gold from Anat.
o ~ 2000-1500 BCE = incorporated into major state formations (like Kingdom of Mittani)
o ~1500-1000 BCE = Middle Assyrian Kingdom founded = “Land of Assyria”
Babylonia (2nd mill.)
- Dominate in cultural sphere  due to rich heritage of literary / religious Sumerian & Akkadian tradition
- culture spread all over NE – there was strong cultural cohesion
o created communities where Sumerian/Akkadian culture was received & adapted to those local cultures
 ex. Cuneiform spread all over
- Babylonian = the literature & political language (lingua franca)

2) Geography and History of WA : different areas & civilizations

*** Why Mesopotamia is looked at when studying ANE ***
 b/c of the amount of textual & archaeological material from this place
 cultural prominence of this area
 first oriental archaeological discovery happened in this area
 despite Meso. influence – ANE still
had development of original civilizations
in the west
 ex. Hittites (Anatolia), Hurrians
(Up/West Meso & Upper Syria),
Ebla / Aleppo of Syria
Late Bronze Age (~1500)
 Babylonia drifted away from Assyria & Anatolia (isolated
from long distant contact)
o They experienced demographic, military,
economic decline
o Their central influence disappeared  influence
shifted to the West
 From Upper Meso to Levant (picture )
 This area = Expansion interest for
Hittites & Egyptians
 Commercial networks w/ Myceneans & Cypriots appeared
= as network w/ Babylonia, Assyria and Iran lessened
 Dominance of Mesopotamian power in NE  to more
balanced power around the region

3 Major areas of interest : (part 3, 4, 5 below)

 Anatolia
 Syria (SW part = Levant / Canaan)
 Northern Upper Mesopotamia

3) Anatolia & Hittites

 Anatolia = from Greek word for sunrise
o Also called “Asia Minor” – used in Roman times
 2nd mill. = Hittites developed
o “Land of Hatti” = central part of Anatolia
 Where we get the name “Hittite” & is an indigenous term referring to the Hattians of this land
(indigenous non indo-euros)
 Our “Hittites” were of Indo-Euro origin
 arrived in Anatolia ~ 2400-2000 BCE *** cuneiform was
 w/ other indo-euro pops, like the Luwians important element of
o Hittite & Luwians spoke Indo-Euro languages cultural unification &
 Hittite = oldest Indo-Euro language the transmission of
 BUT actually hard to find traces of their Indo-Euro heritage ideas
 & the Meso influences are easier to see (wrote cuneiform adopted from N Syria)
o Hittite culture = amalgamation of different elements, of cultures foreign and local (Hattian, Sumer-
Akkadian, Hurrian influences)
o After Akkadian, Hittite is best known NE language  TONS of docs written in Hittite
 Main phases of Hittite History
o Old kingdom = 1650-1450 BCE
 Hittites dominated whole of Anatolian peninsula & most of Syria (west of Euphrates)
 Challenged the Assyrians & Pharaonic Egypt.
 Hattušili I expanded towards Syria
 Muršili I victory over Aleepo & Babylon
o Middle Kingdom / Early Empire = 1450-1350 BCE
 Hittites were one of the great regional powers (an
EMPIRE)
 Tuthaliya I/II’s conquest of Aleppo & Kizzuwatna
o New Kingdom / Empire = 1350-1190 BCE
 The empire = lots of internal conflict
 internal struggles & power issues  main
reason for fall in 12th cent. Extent of the Empire in 13th c. BCE
 STILL they continued to have important international role in NE
 Hittites were part of the “Club of the Great Powers” – w/ Egypt, Mittani, Babylonia,
Assyria
  Šuppiluliuma I destroyed Mittani / 1275 BCE clash at Qadeš, 1259 BCE peace w/ Egypt
 Their fall (12th c.) = sudden & complex – both internal & external reasons
o After fall of Hittite state  divided into smaller states = “Neo-Hittite” states
o Cuneiform stopped being used in Anatolian / Syrian region
 Anatolian hieroglyphs (invented by Hittites) continued to be used
 Hattuša = capital of Hittite kingdom
o One of biggest cities in ancient world
o Discovered in 1906 – by a German archaeology expedition
o Residence of Hit. kings, many temples  many Hit. texts found (annals, political treaties, religious texts)
= understanding that they were on the other side of the cultural spectrum in the NE

4) The main city-states of Syria – between 3rd and 2nd mill. BCE
 Modern Syria NOT exactly the same
o Some ancient Syrian states are now in modern Turkey (ex. Ancient city of Karkemiš)
 Most SW of Syria part = Canaan / Levant *** consider Syria as west of Euphrates
 Never really had political unification *** Purattu = ancient name for
o ~2000-1500 BCE = some kingdoms under Amorite dynasties Euphrates
formed (like territorial states)
 Ex: Aleppo capital of Yamhad Kingdom (or
Qatna, Mari) Amorties = West Semitic semi-nomadic tribe
o 3rd mill (before Amorite per.) = urbanization divided - From the deserts of Syria
this area into several city-states - 3rd mill. = Occupied Syria & Meso
 Important trade centres emerged  Ebla & Mari - MAIN AMORITE STATES (in
were most powerful Syria):
o After fall of Yamhad (by the Hittites)  divided into o Reign of Mari
smaller states controlled by the major powers (Egyptians, o Reign of Aleppo/Yamhad
Mittani, Hittites)
 After fall of Hittites = Neo-Hittite kingdoms established in Syria Arameans = another group Semitic-
o Ruled by Luwian & Aramean dynasties nomadic tribe
- Spoke Aramaic (western
Main urban centres / Important cities : Semitic lang.)
 Ebla = oldest major city-state of 3rd mill. - ~1500 = in Syria & N Meso
o Rich archives found
 Mari = important & rival of Ebla How they got widespread power :
o Rich archives  from the “Mari Age” = 1810-1759 BCE - their language / alphabet
 this period known b/c its reconstructed from these texts system  major influence in
 Aleppo = capital of Yamhad NE
o Conquered by king Muršili I (Hittite)
 v. important king  destroyed Babylon
o For a time under Mittanian control, then conquered by
Tuthaliya I & Suppiluliuma I (Hitt.) put son to rule
 Alalah = a small kingdom under control of bigger kingdom of
Yamhad in 17th c.
o Under control of Mittani kingdom in 15th c.
o Also had important archive of texts
 Qatna = 3rd c. commercial centre
o 2nd mill = ruled by Amorite dynasty
o In LBA under Mittani kingdom
 Later fought over b/w Egyptians & Hittites
o Important archive of texts
 Karkemiš = important political centre for the Mittani / then for
Hittites (seat of Hittite viceroy)
o Became one of the main Neo-Hitt. states
 Ugarit = important harbour
 o First under Egypt / then under Hittites
o V. important archives
5) Upper (Northwest) Mesopotamia & the Hurrians
 b/w upper Tigris & Euphrates  area called : *** Names are technically
o Subartu in S Meso. written sources referring to the same thing
o Hanigalbat in Assyrian sources - But aren’t
o Land of Mittani OR Hurri in Hittite sources exactly the same

--- Hurri
 The area was the homeland of the indigenous pop. = Hurrians
Hurrians = OMI NE civilization
 But we have less info about them  there are fewer textual & arch. sources
 Their language gives us problems
 The spread of their kingdom (2250-1250 BCE):
 Hurrians probably originated from the most North East part / mountainy region (today’s Armenia)

 They occupied from

the East of Tigris to
South East Anatolia

 this helps understand

how diff. cultural trads.
came and mixed together

 Great Kingdom of
--- Mittani  Hanigalbat Mittani (at max. ~1400)
 When Mittani fell, (by
Hittite king & Assyrians)
o Hanigalbat was known as whatever was left
 Hurrian language = unknown origin (not Semitic or Indo-Euro)
Oldest historical evidence of Hurrians :
 ~ 2500 BCE evidence = from Urkeš (OMI centres of Hurrians)
o Epigraphic evidences  show Sumerian / Akkadian influences mixed w/ original Hurrian elements
 Hurrians = an intermediary for Meso traditions  passing them to the Western side
 ~ 2000-1500 = evi. for solid Hurrian element in population west of Euphrates *** this mix of NW Semitic /
o The Hurrians encountered NW Semitic cultural & religious trads  big
Hurrian/Mesopotamian
part in influencing Hurrian culture
culture = gets transferred to
the Hittites later on

1550-1450 = Mitt. Kings fighting

Egypt for Syria
1450-1350 = peace w/ Egypt, series of
dynastic marriages b/w them
- See these marriages in
Egyptian archive at El Amarna
6) Egypt & El Amarna (Akhenaten) Relationship & Conflicts b/w
 Akhenaten (El Amarna, modern name) = founded by Amehotep IV (1355-1377 Hittite & Hurrian
BCE) to be new capital of Egypt - Hittite relation was fatal to
 Egypt NOT part of NE Hurrians (Hittite king
o BUT since the 3rd mill. = had relations w/ NE states destroyed the Mittani
 Especially in LBA  Egyptian Pharaohs (18th/19th dynasty) kingdom)
really interact w/ main states of NE at that time (these pharaohs - There relation significant in
belonged to the “club of powers”) cultural POV
 Akhenaten had v. important archive of cuneiform text (in Babylonian) o End of 15th-
o Letters = correspondence of the pharaohs w/ Syrian vassals (small beginning of 14th.
kingdoms under Egypt) & other great powers (Baby, Mitt, Hatt, Ass) c. = Hittite dynasty
 V. important in understanding the diplomatic relations of LBA adopted cultural /
(14th/13th c.) = “Age of El Amarna” religious / literary
o Letters went from pharaohs to Mittani BUT  Very few texts actually traditions of
came from Mittani Hurrians
 So Mittani kingdom of this era had to be reconstructed from ** Hitt kings supported and
those external sources (especially from Hittite & El Amarna introduced Hurrian cults in Hattusa
sources) - Influenced Hitt religion

7) Chronological Framework
Divide NE history into different archaeological phases  based on METALLURICAL techniques

Problem in the Chronology

 No unified chronology :
 There’s 3 = High, middle,
low (regarding when 1st
Dynasty of Babylonia fell)
o High = 1654 BCE
o Mid. = 1595 BCE
o Low = 1531 BCE

Feb 24 ** The Historical

Research – 3 main phases
 Lecture 02.
Sources for Reconstructing the History & Culture: ** Archaeology study of NE
a) Archaeological sources started in Iraq (Mesopotamia)
b) Written Sources = Graphic system in Anatolia & Syria, and  theories & approaches
main text genres developed there spread to
other places
a) Archaeological sources
------- focus on Syria & Turkey
------- some of the major discoveries & sites, the shifting goals & approaches in theoretical frameworks that affects our
understand (last ~180 years)

Difference b/w Near East arch. & Classical arch.

 Relation b/w East and West (Greek/Roman world) = never broken – lit. & his. Tradition always remained
continuity
o Urban places & ruins (esp. Roman ones) in the East & West remain visible  sign of a civilization that
didn’t come from the experience of local inhabitants
o BUT NOT the case for NE  eastern Med. and further east = those civs. preceded the Greek/Romans by
centuries
 Material remains = came from any experiences of the people of the
** follow a Western
West
perspective first b/c they were
 The Old Testament = the unique bond linking the West and East
taken over by Europeans
o From the Old Test (in the West) that preserved and transmitted the names &
- Medieval
interpretation of stories of the East
those ruins o Following this link – Europeans travel through Mesopotamia
 They tried to recognize the important remains of the Syrian & Babylonian
cities

Benjamin of Tudela (1170 CE)

 He recognized ruins of Nineveh
(outside of Mosul)
 area of focus of first European study
in Meso.

--- SYRIAN FOCUS ---

FIRST PHASE OF ARCH.
EXPLORATION OF N. E.
(ANTIQUARIAN)
(1842-1903)
 *19th colonialism, strategic importance
of NE for western powers = field
exploration started
 birth of NE arch. came from this
political aspect (in Dec 1842 by Botta)

2 Important Figures:
 Paul-Émile Botta (Mar 1843-Oct 44)
o Found many remains & wall reliefs
 Later recognized as Sargon II’s castle, centre of the “city of Sargon”
o Thought he was actually exploring Nineveh  caused lot of sensation in Euro
 So British also sent their own (Layard) to Mosul = started French vs. English competition
 Austen Henry Layard (Dec 1845 – Jun 47)
 o Worked at Nimrud (another site not far from Mosul)
o Discovered NW palace of Ashurnasirpal II, South palace of Esarhaddon, central palace of Tiglath-Pileser
III  many reliefs found overall
The first phase:
 Started with first successful exca. of Kuyunjik / Corsova & beginning of systematic investigation of Assur by
Germans
 Pioneered biblical archaeology ** interesting similarity of the
o Sometimes found literature mentioning biblical places beginning of arch. in Meso & in
o First quest for all these people = looking for Nineveh (b/c it was Anatolia
mentioned in the bible) - Both trying to find places
 Similar to what Schliemann did looking for Troy from literature
o So it seemed like they were trying to confirm the Bible with each site
Schliemann (1822-1890)
 BUT soon epigraphic/arch. evi. just told a different story  At his time, Homer’s stories
completely weren’t known if they were
just stories or not
*** not professionals dealing w/ research but political, western powers in the NE*** o So he took them as
Site of Telloh (1870s) historical fact to
- Led to the understanding Sumerians  culture, lang, his. all the way back to look in Anatolia
~2500 BCE  He also exca-ed in mainland
- Realized the Bible didn’t have memory of this  Sumerians already lost to Bible Greece
times
o ** This started detaching Meso arch. from Biblical arch.
Layard supervised exca. at tell Ajaja (1850s) – looked for Neo-Syrian sculptures
- Syrian exca. started to become offshoot of N Meso arch
- Some IA Syrian sites became greatly important b/c of their monumental sculptures
2 major German operations at Zinjirli & Halaf
- Major stepping point of this phase
- Halaf = revealed amazing collection of painted pottery (from 6 th & 5th mill. BCE  date boundaries started to
widen beyond Bible dates) THE GREAT FUNDING BODIES OF
British exca. at. Karkamiš THIS FIRST PHASE:
- T. E. Lawrence (Lawrence of Arabia) & L. Woolley - British Museum
o See the political side of the exca = Lawrence was actually a spy - Louvre
- They really didn’t look at things academically - Pergamum Museum of Berlin
o Only to enrich the British Museum (what cool things they could take * All really to enrich own collections
back to display)
Ishtar Gate (Iraq / Babylon)
** the biblical methods & the museums = 2 negatives that affected the - Literally dismantled and shipped to
development / approaches of NE arch. ** Pergamum Museum in Berlin
 the effects of museums lasted past the 19 cent.
th - Representative of this phase of
 Except Turkey  early on the made a law of anything found is archaeology
the country’s Nineveh Doorway/Gate Sculptures
- Taken to the British Museum

SECOND PHASE OF ARCH. EXPLORATION OF N. E. (HISTORICAL SCIENTIFIC ARCHAEOLOGY)

(1903-1968)
Turning point: **Step towards professional arch.
 Systematic exca in Babylon by Robert Johann Koldewey (1899) & - Not just collecting pretty
in Assur by Walter Andrae (1903) things
o Foundation for scientific based arch – change in attitude and - Not just political reasons
perspectives
o They influenced arch. of all areas of NE Focus of all artifacts to help create
 Accumulated original historical texts (cuneiform) = used them instead of the backbone of understanding
Bible to research those ancient civs.
 The geographical area of exca. expanded to try and have better
chronology  for all material cultures in each cultural area
  Henri Frankfort = set the basis of chrono of 3rd mill. Sumerian
* Now actual professionals, not political powers anymore *
1930’s = established basic NE chrono framework still used today
 Of course, still some change to it

Characteristics of SECOND PHASE

 Consideration of historical problems – to be the reason they go dig
o Problems raised by epigraphical sources collected from the First Phase
 Refining excavation techniques
o Good technique affected the amount & quality of data = so this was important
 Registration of each artefact (not just as art pieces)
 Attention to architectural superimpositions
o Almost like stratigraphy = the sequence of the architecture was taken into account and recorded (NOT the
actual earth/geological method)
 Wheeler & Kenyon introduce the geological way, later
 Can see in literature this difference b/w architectural stratigraphy & geological stratigraphy
 Effective evaluation of context correlations = the BIGGEST STEP (basis of arch. finds)
o Ex: taking into consideration where a coin was found (in a home, a garbage pit, a palace, etc.)

IMPORTANT DIGS:
 After French Mandate in 1920s  Syrian General of Antiquities established
o French exca. in several sites began
o Focus on mounds (tells) – started on bigger mounds first (thought the bigger, the more important) & also
on places mentioned in those epigraphic texts
 Like Hattuša
Tell Hariri (ancient name : Mari) & Ras Shamra (ancient name : Ugarit)
 Exca. during 1930s  consistent excavations until few years ago
o Here shows the beginning of BIG projects lasting almost a century
Al Mina (by Woolley) & Upper Khabur (by Max Mallowan & A. Christie)
Amuq Valley (by Uni of Chicago) & Hama (by the Danish)
 The Danish excavations = helped revealed a v long sequence  provided backbone of Syrian chrono
 American excavation = there weren’t many substantial mound finds
o They just collected surface sherds on the mounds & did small excavations
o Then they tried to overlap their finds and sequences = to get a better picture (from early Neolit. to Roman
times)
o Finds here were the chronological backbone of this part of Syria
 Robert John Braidwood pretty important
o Uni of Chicago did another Amuq Valley exca, a new phase of excavation in 1990s

NEO-SYRIAN EXCAVATION ** After WWII, Syria got

 Exca. at Mari & Ugarit by French continued independence
 New exca. started  by German, British, Danish, French, etc. - All excavations under
o One of the most important was Italian at Ebla Syrian supervision
 New factors began to operate: - Started Neo-Syr. excas.
o Salvage Excavations  wanted to build a dam on Euphrates so
arch. work began in 1960s
 Now, Small mounds were extensively excavated for preservation sake
 German/Belgian/Dutch exca. at Habuba Kabira, Jebel Aruda, & Tel Qanas
o First time found proto-historical Sumerian colonies on the Euphrates
o New epigraphic (cuneiform) data = at
several 3rd. mill. Syrian urban centres, 2 nd ** Archaeologist started to rely on
mill. cities a wider range of places and
 These salvage excavations in Syria, all the way to 80s evidence to build the past
 First time = Large scale surface prospecting used as essential
tool of research
  To scientifically better understand the distribution of settlements in an area
** from focus on big sites, to smaller sites, to surface exploration (giving picture of settlement history of a region) **

--- TURKEY FOCUS ---

 Turkey always seen as bridge between West & East  so, Classical sites in Turkey were never lost
o ALSO – b/c this area was centre of Ottoman Empire & later modern Turkey  they kind of got separate
rules for their own historical research

FIRST PHASE OF ARCHAEOLOGICAL EXPLORATION OF ANATOLIA

 Seen in writings of Western travelers into Otto Emp. ** OVERALL = very western
o They brought back notes and drawings of the places – BUT the sites influenced, aka. focus on things
weren’t really appreciated related to Greek / Roman things
o ON THE OTHER HAND – the relationship b/w Anatolia & ancient
Greek / Roman world was well known
 First excas. started at Hellenistic sites:
 Ephesus (1863), Miletus (1873), Pergamum (1878)
 Turkish research was really influenced by this kind of western thinking – first Otto excas:
 Sidon, Allah Banda (at Classical sites)
 1846 collect in Istanbul = basis of Istanbul Archaeological Museum
o Biased towards Greek & Roman periods

SECOND PHASE OF ARCHAEOLOGICAL EXPLORATION OF ANATOLIA ** very diff. from how arch.
 Late 19th c. = introduced legal framework of protecting heritage of Turkey was purposed in Syria /
o All antiquities excavated should stay in their own country Mesopotamia
 This idea clashed with the Western idea
 Seen with Schliemann’s Troy site – things were smuggled out to Greece
 When Turkey was founded in 1923 = need for a national identity for Turks
o So the importance of archaeology became huge
o One of the greatest achievements of Turkish arch. = reconstructing
societal identity
o Biblical arch was really small, it was more scientific based
 In Hittite, inscriptions about Anatolia already known (from reports of
travelers)
o Big change in 1888  discovery of Tel Amarna tablets in Egypt =
showed mid 14th c. BC, king of Hatti made deals with 2 pharaohs
 Anatolian plateau = can tell about regions of late Hittites kingdoms attested
in sites & inscriptions of Turkey/Syria
o OMI developments  German Oriental Institute allowed at Hattuša
(1906)
 See active involvement of the local authorities
Bogazköy Hattuša (1906-1912) excavation
 Very successful = 10,000 clay tablets, plans of state buildings (royal
acropolis at Buyukkale), great temple, city walls w/ 5 gates
 Texts found = written in steel & sephred lang. attested into Armarn docs
studied (???)
o Others in Akkadian known in Assyrian & Babylonian texts
o Found this was the capital of Hatti
o Treaty b/w the king Hattušili III & Rameses II (dated 21st year of the
pharaoh)
 The discoveries showed the Kingdom of Hatti in LBA was equal to Egypt, Assyria, & Babylonia
Kingdom of Hatti (~1400 BCE) had violent end 
- many remains found belong to the next successors of area
o From LBA to EIA = chronology started to fall into place
1947, discovery of bilingual text at Karatepe  helped decipher Hittite hieroglyphs
 - Written in both Phoenician & Hittite

50’s Turkish Arch.  discovery of long pre-his on central Ana. Plateau

 Before then, they thought people couldn’t survive there (didn’t find any convincing evi.)  even when they found
pre-his stuff, they assigned it to the BA

THIRD PHASE (GLOBAL PHASE)

(1968-present) “Analytical Archaeology” by David L Clarke
 Marked introduction of the theories & practices of arch. interpretations

Characteristics of THIRD PHASE

 Support provided by natural science, paleobotany, zooarchaeology for CHRONO
 Interdisciplinary skills used to help understand
 Arch. activity in Syria, Turk, Upper Meso & Israel = A LOT
o Important in identifying many different places to ancient cities
o Internal Syria = Aleppo & Qatna have been the 2 most important sites
 Aleppo = the temple of the storm god
 Qatna = subterranean complexes

b) Written Sources = Graphic system in Anatolia & Syria, and main text genres
1. Critical approaches to written texts: some reflections
2. Writings & language of the A.N.E. s
a. Cuneiform: origins & development
b. Main langs of A.N.E.
c. Other scripts  Anatolian hieroglyphs & alphabetic writing
3. Geographical distribution of written sources & Main textual genres

1. Critical approaches: Reflections on written sources

 From van de Mieroop ** Cuneiform can come in
o Written sources are MAIN source: different shapes & sizes
 Early  royal inscriptions in stone (many were first arch. - Not just the tablets
finds) themselves BUT the
 Clay tablets became a medium dev-ed in S Meso & others in actual script
NE adopted it  Durable in dry region - And they’re fragmented
 # of docs about daily stuff help distinguish NE w/ other
Therefore have to actually
ancient cultures
 Egypt / Gr / Ro – wrote similarly BUT on papyrus & puzzle the pieces & restore the
parchment  Survival of those = harder text based on other texts
 NE writing = rich in amount & in topics (economy, building (philologist work)
activities, military, admin, lit., science, etc.)
 Cuneiform could document mundane receipts or
literary epics
 From Liverani
o History of NE, reconstructed brand new from primary sources
 Important that there are so many admin docs that survived
 BUT a downside, is every time you get the idea, more sources are found that have to be
considered & added to the previous theory
o The Historiographical tradition (keeping their own history) of NE = Liverani say it’s not there
 BUT they kind of did implicitly  they created royal lists, chronicles / reports of military exploits
by those rulers.
 It just they didn’t really create them for the sole purpose of documenting the history
 It was usually for some other practical purpose – like legitimizing ruler
  From Hallo (Ancient Near Eastern Background of Some Modern Western Institutions)
o Discussed context of literature in NE cultures
 3 diff categories of texts: ** these 3 TYPES OF TEXTS
o On ARCHIVAL texts: - Only applicable for
 Giant collections (100,000s) of accounts, contracts, MESOPOTAMIA texts
letters, etc. of daily life
 Some call them “laundry lists” (because they’re The more western areas (Anatolia, Hittite)
so mundane??) – there’s issues w/ dividing texts like this
 Difference b/w PRIVATE & STATE / ROYAL archives - HITTIES
 Archives grew by forced accumulation = o Hard to distinguish b/w
anything need for admin was collected “archive” & “library”
 But after a few years they were thrown out – o They don’t have private
they didn’t really keep everything archives (all “royal”)
o On MONUMENTAL texts: - MESO / SYRIA
 Smaller collection of these inscriptions  helps o More private archives
reconstruct the actual history
 Normally about = celebrating a building the ruler made, etc. (deeds of the ruler)
 Usually were inscriptions (foundation / cone inscriptions) written on the literal building or thing –
so they were buried with the building or thing
o LITERARY texts (LIBRARY texts):
 Hallmark of cuneiform literature = its place as the formal language of scribal schools
 Oppenheim label it as the “stream of tradition”
 “library text” = are collection that grew by choosing to collect them (not by necessity)
 Ex. Royal Library of Ashurbanipal
o Usually texts on religion, myths, lexical lists, wisdom, proverbs, etc.
o Text copied in scribal schools
Ex. Deeds/Annals of Hattusili I
- First example of analytic texts
o Records of deeds of the king each year (the wars/victories, etc.)
- Usually these texts would be “Monumental texts”
o Inscription on his statue
o BUT we only have clay tablets  which are 13th c. copies of original from 16th c.
 Preserved in archives over the centuries  so ARCHIVAL, not monumental exactly

Critically Approaching written sources

 From van de Mieroop
o NE = where first historical research can take place
o BUT NE ancient sources are usually always written in POV of people in power
 Describe more success than failures
 Ignores people and things that oppose them OR weakens their power
 HAVE TO NOT BE MISLED BY THIS KIND OF VOICE – be aware of the author and their
agenda
o ** read b/w the lines **
 Post-modernism – school of thought  evaluating written sources very critically & re-evaluate written docs
o Developed by Liverani

2. Writings & language of the A.N.E.

– a) Cuneiform: Origins & Development
Origins of cuneiform & its first pre-linguistic evidence
Bullae
(~ 3300 BCE)
 Created as business / admin tool – around end of 3rd mill.
BCE
o Dev-ed from older admin system = it used sealed Tokens
clay bullae & imprinted on them were small (other side)
the symbols
symbols (“tokens”) telling what the goods were they’d stamp
  Growth of centralized economy  need for more efficient see the progression from symbols to the
way to track all the goods “edge” script
o Cuneiform came out of those “tokens” symbols

Evolution of cuneiform
“tokens”  pictographic tablets  to more abstract looking
symbols 
cuneiform

Pictographic Tablet – ~3300 BCE, Uruk IV

Cuneiform & Sumerian Language

 Writing was both logograms as well as phonetic pronunciations
o In the beginning = writing didn’t reflect “the language” exactly – just script of ideas & things
o BUT later = script distinctly represented people who SPOKE Sumerian
 Akkadian had their phonetic script, but they also used some Sumerian logograms
o Similar to how we used 1 2 3
 There was change in orientation of script
o Started from top to bottom (right to left)  then turned to horizontally from left to right
 The stylus also changed

– b) Main languages of Ancient Near East

 There were many different languages:
o Sumerian – first language attested by the cuneiform script
o Akkadian – in LBA was the lingua franca (used by Hittites, Mittani, etc.) with some dialects
 Sumerian / Akkadian = used in the scribal schools
 Learning cuneiform = learning Sumerian (for the Akkadians)
 And then later – Hittite scribes learning cuneiform = learned Sumerian & Akkadian
*** passing of writing system  passing of a language ***
 Scribes = polyglots
o Knew several diff languages
 They made lists of everything – from gods to animals  And in a way they acted like dictionaries of vocab
o Lists = their way to organize their world & what they knew – a science

SUMERIAN (~ 3000-1900 BCE)

 A ergative & agglutinative language (don’t know what that
means tho)
 Don’t know where it originates
 Sumerian survived past speaking
= like what Latin is for us

Cone inscription of King

Enmetena of Lagaš
- about treaty w/ King of Lagaš, Gudea
Sumerian tablet (E.D.P) Lugalkinisedudu, King of Uruk w/ Sumerian inscription
AKKADIAN (~2700-100 BCE)
 Has been attested for the longest period – has the most sources & best known
 Eastern Semitic language (similar to Hebrew or Arabic, but those are South & West Semitic languages)
 ~ 2700-2500  only names and some loan words in Sumerian
 There were dialects:
o Eblaite (Ebla)(2500-2300) – debate whether it was another language on its own
 Most western part of Akkadian speaking area
There were different phases of Akkadian:
- Pre-sargonid Akkadian (Mari)(2400) ** Akkadian probably not spoken in
- Sargonid Akkadian (2350-2200)  was “old Akkadian” Syria, Anatolia, etc. (west side)
- Ur III Akkadian (Babylonian)(2100-2000) - BUT it was written
Akkadian Dialects (had own phases = Old, Middle, Neo, Late) - The language of diplomacy
 Babylonian
 Assyrian

HURRIAN (2300-1350 BCE)

 A ergative & agglutinative language
 Only language related to Uratian (lang from 1st mill.) – spoken in Urartu (Armenia)
 Most texts of this lang. comes from Hittite archives in Anatolia
o The archive found at El Armarna (all letters in Akkadian) – ONE LETTER
IN HURRIAN
 Letter from
Mittani king to
Amenhotep III
(~1380 BCE)
 There was big influence from
Hurrian to Akkadian
 Oldest Hurrian text (from
Urkeš) = a bronze lion &
limestone tablet  about
celebrating the building of a
temple by the ruler
o Written on tablet & on
lion Bronze lion & limestone
 Trilingual text (Ugarit) Trilingual vobab tablet w/ temple building
inscription of Tiš-atal, endan One Hurrian Letter from Tušratta
of Urkeš (Hurrian for (Mittani King) to Amenhotep III
“king”)
 o In Sumerian – Akkadian – Hurrian
– c) Hittite & Other scripts (Indo-Euro languages): Anatolian hieroglyphs & alphabetic writing
HITTITE & OTHER INDO-EURO LANGUAGES (NOT Indo-Euro from Anatolia)
 Different types of writing:
o Cuneiform – in different languages
 All of them Indo-Euro
language found in Hittite
archives
 Also used non Indo-Euro 
o Anatolian Hieroglyphs
o Alphabetic scripts (only in 1st. mill)
 Hittite (& Akkadian) = best known languages
of NE
o Hittite is Indo-Euro
 Cuneiform was in Anatolia before the Hittites
o Written in Old Assyrian
 Correspondence b/w Assyrian Languages & writing in Anatolian (2nd & 1st mill.)
merchants w/ their homeland
 Many bilingual texts in Hurrian & Hittite
 Cuneiform = Hittite official admin script
o When Hittite fell  cuneiform stopped
o BUT the hieroglyphic script continued

Example of tablets
- One is Bronze tablet
o Few examples of metal
tablets – used for v.
important texts
o Here it is for a treaty
- Bilingual tablet (in Hurrian &
Hittite)
o A myth in original Hurrian
then, a Hittite translation of
story
- Hieroglyphic script  used to
write name of king & dieties

Languages in Alphabetic scripts

(II & I mill. BCE)
 Mostly Semitic languages
 Alphabetic script invented in the
Levant – influenced by Egyptian
demotic
 Anatolian Hieroglyph
o NOT influenced by Egyptian hieroglyph
o Writing system was the same as cuneiform,
 A mixed script of logographic & syllabic
o Created probably by Luwians
 First alphabet attested from Ugarit
o Tablet with an abecedary Ugaritic alphabet (14 th-13th c.)


Tradition of Cuneiform in Persian Empire

*** cuneiform so prestigious, Persians adopted it too ***
  They created 2 cuneiform types
o To write in Old Persian (language of Achaemenid dynasty) and Elamite (Old Iranian language)
 BUT they also use Babylonian & Akkadian cuneiform
 A Relief w/ Trilingual inscription of Dareios (521-486) at Behistun = in Old Persian – Elamite – Akkadian(w/
Babylonian cuneiform script)
o Helped decipher cuneiform & Akkadian

3. Geographical distribution of written sources in West Asia & Main text genres
Most important archives in each age & area

Iron Age – only hieroglyphic inscriptions

Feb 25
Lecture 03.
The Urban Revolution & Political Developments in 3rd mill. Southern Mesopotamia

Sumerians
 docs w/ their language all throughout 3rd mill
o they prob settled down in S Meso before they wrote  well known transition from pre his. to writing
times (based on material culture), so they’ve lived there for a while
 OMI civilizations in world history ** “Revolution” implies a quick change
- BUT it probably happened gradual
LAKE URUK PERIOD (L.U.P) (34/300-3100 BCE) = “Urban Revolution” over 1000 years
& implies it greatly impacted those people
 “Urban revolution” created in 19th c. by Gordon Childe – on the model suddenly
of “industrial rev” - Demo, tech, social economic,
 Important “revolutions”: ideologies
o Neolithic  agricultural, production - It did cause great changes ^ = that’s
o & Urban  second biggest important point why there was a need to create a
 When people moved from rural to urban centres new structure of society & urbanize
 Happened all over NE ** They created a structure that survived
through BA & provided ANE w/ its
Why focus on South Meso?
characteristic traits
 This dev happened there first
 Sumerians created the first cities – lived in larger and more complex communities
** Uruk = first city
Settlement patterns
 Dramatic ^ in settlement density  demographic growth
 Difference in the size of settlements  according to hierarchal system
o Ex. Uruk = reached 250 hectares
 There was a central area & reached outwards  surrounding settlements of different scales (like towns, villages,
etc.)
o Establishing “settlement hierarchy”
 There were so many people in Uruk  some had to have migrated from outside of Babylonian region (West Iran /
North Meso)
 Why this growth / development?

Agricultural Innovations = most influential for this demographic growth

From Liverani  “Urban revolution = systematic phenomenon where diff factors interacted with each other in a complex
system of stimuli and feedbacks. Instead of looking for primary factors that would’ve triggered secondary factors, its therefore
necessary to synthesise this systemic process and establish a logical rather than chrono order of priority for these factor. It’s
clear the increase in agricultural productivity was the most influential prereq, guaranteeing the sustainability of demographic
growth, as well as food surplus. Unlike N Meso where rain-feed agri was possible, Lower Meso shows a harsh natural
environment, unsuitable for human settlement. Anyway, once properly managed through canals, to drain marshes and irrigate
fields, the irrigate land of this region had potential for higher crop yield than N. The major & constant availability of water, in
fact, allowed irrigated agri to provide higher & more regular yield than rain agri.”
*** Rain agri = North Meso / Irrigated agri = South Meso ***
 Lower Meso was not easy to live in
INNOVATIONS
o BUT IF MANAGED PROPERLY = could produce more food than
- Irrigation & long fields system
the North or anywhere else
- Seed plough
 Agricultural progress affected the materials of agri 
 agriculture became faster, more
effective & created surplus
 o For cultivate of the Alluvial plains  system of sloping long canals, coupled irrigation canals
o Seed plough invented – continued to be used for 3 mill
 irrigation & long field systems = larger seed yields (1 seed got 30 back)
o in N Meso = 1:5 yield
Specialisation of jobs
Surplus = could help sustain a wide & diverse range of workmen / admin  specialized people & jobs (people who could
live in the city & didn’t take part in process of food production) = elites of the state
 These people NOT involved in food production did other jobs (usually admin jobs)
o Establish social / economical / political elites of the state – who relied completely on the state to live
o Rest of pop. = food producing families, were able to sustain themselves
 The creation of “elites” from 2 things:
o SURPLUS of food
o INSTITUTION created for their work (responsible for collect & redistributing food surplus)  2 most
important organizational centres = temple & palace
 Core of the system & redistributing food
 Land exploited / organized in 2 ways:
 1 part divided for labour, belonging to these institutions
 1 part divided into lots given to individuals for their service to the organization
(specialized services, in exchange for the land)
 Another source of income = VILLAGES
 Community of free land owners – had to pay percentage of produce to central institution
 ACCUMULATION OF THE FOOD  then gets redistributed as rations to specialists
and everyone else sometimes
 Development of “villages” = areas further from centre developed, places growing
produce that was like tax for the centre
o These goods given to centre = form of income
 Seasonal tasks that need a big work force = an obligation of these villagers
This kind of system (centralized, village, surplus, etc)
Have evidence for it in later periods, BUT was probably a thing in L.U.P.
- In Uruk 4 level = tablets found with proto-cuneiform
o But it’s not really a language script exactly (logographic only)
- Comparing 3rd mill. tablets we can read to Uruk 4 ones
o Can see that Uruk 4 had these ration lists in Sumerian for organization
- Beveled Rimmed bowls = mass produced for storing grain/rations
o Finding these in mid-4th mill. shows already system of distributing grain (?)
o Undecor. utilitarian pottery  b/c mass produced
o Limited # of standard sizes
o Most telling for IDing Uruk site
- Cylinder seal = admin tool — carved elaborate scenes & work of specialists
 continuity can be seen b/w 5th to 4th mill. (from Early Uruk Period)
 EUP connect to = Ubaid period (Before Uruk period)
 Late Uruk Period = Late Chalcolithic period OR “Copper Age”
o It’s both the beginning of next 3 thousand years, BUT also end of what happened before

Social prerequisites must’ve existed that caused the development of this system
 Vertical  Pre-Uruk period (Ubaid) = show potential for there to be social distinction / diff ranks of families
o Some social elements already there – help explain why changes happen in URUK & NOT in everywhere
could handle that much surplus
 Ubaid period – had egalitarian society BUT was different Food Processors
o Powerful conceptual tool = diff b/w horizontal & vertical egalitarian - Also had specialization
societies - Because of the different environmental
 Main difference b/w NOW & BEFORE niches in the area
o Systematic separation b/w primary production & secondary  Some were crop farmers, some
specialization looked after animals
 Development of agri
technology (ie. Seed plough) =
needed skilled people to use,
NOT just anyone could farm
now
 o  food processors (in countryside) & specialists in the palaces (at centres) = relation became hierarchical
 Food  crafts people & goods food producers
 the country work and centre work created a natural hierarchy and social difference/economic
inequality was set up
Monumental Architecture  differentiated country & centres / first time see monumental art clearly by specialists
 Heart of the city dedicated to economic activities
 Practical needs = admin, craft, storage buildings
 Ideological “propaganda”
2 complexes in Uruk:
 Temple of Anu
 Temple of Eanna = “House of Heaven”
o A complex w/ several monumental buildings
 Elaborate w/ décor from LUP that look
 rebuild several times during Uruk 4
o Had Cone Mosaics in buildings that formed mosaic geometric patterns
 Most were clay, one building had stone
 Stone  a hard material to find in Uruk region – so must’ve been imported
 These buildings needed a lot of people, organization & time to construct
o Estimated 15,000 people, 10h a day, over 5 years
Important Points
 Temple’s role & administrator = from the need for new specialist in the complex collection & re-distribution of
goods
 origins of WRITING = admin tool -- from need to better count goods coming in & out when economy became so
complex
 “The Priest-King” = Top of society  men who were at the Characteristic belief of Meso ideology
top b/c of role in temples = the scholars/preists - Each city = home of a god/goddess
 IDEOLOGICAL FOUNDATION OF THIS URBAN - Temple represented the site of the diety’s house
SYSTEM o So taxes to temple = offerings to the
o Make people in system contribute their production in gods
return for service in the future
o During Uruk Period  RELIGION was that ideology image of Uruk Vase
 showing their hierarchal society – plants, animals,
 God of the city received goods – then
servants bringing goods all to Eanna
redistributed to people
 how taxes worked in the beginning = as offering
(Eanna, below looking at basket)
URUK EXPANSION
 LUP  arch. evidence for their influence outside S Meso
o Variety of interactions b/w Uruk ppl & locals
 Early 4th mill.
o Suza (southwest Iran) = large settlement emerged due
to local factors
 But later in the millennium, their material
culture was entirely influenced by S Meso
(Uruk)
o Diff. situation in Upper Meso  SE Turkey, Syria, N
Iraq
 Already had monumental archi. influenced by
Uruk
 Uruk culture clearly seen in mid 4th mill.
 BUT growth in these places slowed in mid 4th
mill.
 Mid-4 mill = URUK CONTINUED GROWING – size &
th

complexity
o Uruk established close links to the North
 Their influence on the North varied depending on each site & degree they affected them varied
o 4 types of interactions with other sites:
 1. Completely different sites outside S Meso w/ material culture looks wholey imported from Uruk
 ie. Jebel Aruda, Habuba Kabira
2. Uruk people established into other settlements – they introduced innovations to local pop. there
 ie. Beveled Rimmed bowls, painted cone mosaics, numerical notation tablets = all S stuff
 BUT they didn’t fully replace the local stuff, just added to it
3. Influence were less, came from more restricted trade (elites imitating similar practices &
monumental building)
4. Some places had absolutely no influence from Uruk = fully indigenous

 How to explain their influence outside Mesopotamia

 Scholar called Guillermo G.  Uruk interest in these areas, “to get resources they couldn’t get in Mesopotamia”
o So Uruk developed settlements near those locals for trade
o The interaction b/w highly deved Uruk & the Copper Age societies = created dependent relationship
 Copper Age settlements deved econ in certain areas & those elites relied on Uruk things to keep
their status and roles
 Uruk got a few goods back from those locals – ie. Textiles
 Which strengthened their central control of labour industries at home & undermined econ-
diversifications in the periphery areas
o SUMMARY = Uruk had an informal empire, dominance through economy
 Complexity seen outside of S Meso in 3rd mill. BCE = b/c of Uruk contact
o ^ CRITISIM: Idea Uruk set out b/c no resources = may be exaggerated
 They actually had a lot of local Uruk materials available
 & the dominance they had started from their home settlement hierarchy
 Which came before we see this expansion
 So their influence may be foundation of local cultures instead of inspiring it (?)
 INSTEAD, NEED TO LOOK AT: Social & Ideological changes in Uruk at the time =
o Where elites emerged having major influence over others
 The elite may have wanted luxury items outside Mesopotamia to reinforce their status
o East & North of Southern Meso = may have been colonies to ensure those goods
o SUMMARY = so those place were already developed/developing, and contact just help speed up more

JEMDET NASR (3100-2900 BCE) (Uruk III Level)

 End of Uruk period  had fundamental changes at home and abroad
 CHANGES IN THE OUTSIDE
o Suddenly Uruk influences disappeared in outside sites & their indigenous traditions came back
o The Uruk Expansion collapse
o Village life became norm again (in N Meso &
Syria)
o People from Zagros Mountains took over Suza
 CHANGES IN URUK
o Don’t know what happened in Uruk
o Monumental buildings were razed & leveled
 Then built on top of (Level III) – had
many tablets, more elaborate than in
Level IV
o The city was still pretty big BUT other cities in
upper Meso developed got bigger
 & the Jemdet Nasr culture seemed to
dominate in influence of nearby sites
 Direct contact w/ Persian Gulf area seen
now
 Contacts with other sites from early period stopped A
few closely related tablets found at Jemdet Nasr &
Okahir (?) – N Babylonia
 oArchaeologically, period called Jemdet Nasr b/c here is where the first assemblages of this period was
found
EARLY DYNASTIC PERIOD (2900-2350 BCE) (E.D.P.) = Also considered the classical Sumerian period
 A lot of conflict & collapse of a system  NEW SYSTEM = CITY-STATES
o S Meso = see more similar size urban centres w/ their own influence on nearby areas
o Lasted around ~500 years
 Divided into an arch chronology based on stylistic changes in material cultures: – Historically, periods are similar
o E.D.P I (2900-2750)
o E.D.P II (2750-2600)
o E.D.P III (2600-2350)

CITY-STATES
 Usually urban centre controlled surrounding territory where people lived in villages
o BUT we find centres with larger control
 Lagash controlled other surrounding cities (ie. Girsu, Telloh, etc.)
 Umma controlled a small state (ie.
 Have information about these 2 centres b/c we have a lot of texts
o They had long conflict b/w each other
o Maybe this was what the general relationship b/w city-states were like
 Usually cities & villages located near water ways = for irrigation & transport
o Often different political states had settlements on same water way – advantage for N centres (?)
 Settlements surrounded by agri lands & marshes and pastures (for animals) surrounding agri land
o Marshes / pastures = periphery areas
 Considered buffer zones b/w the diff. states
 But later – pop. grew & they extended agri land =
 erasing buffer zones & created more blurred borders of where city-states started and ended
 conflict of land for farming (ex. b/w Umma & Lagash ~2500-2300 BCE)
 these long lasting conflicts linked to the type of ruler during this period
 Temples continued to be really important to distribution of food & centre of city state

LEADERS / KINGS  New figure = Secular rulers in image of Vulture Stele (2450 BCE)
charge of military Erected by ruler of Lagash to commemorate victory
 Egal “the great household” = royal household - LEFT = shows the local god capturing enemy in net and
o docs mention this new central institution, subduing w/ his mace
the first real palaces - RIGHT = shows the king leading troops and making tumuli w/
 House of the gods (temples) & house of the Lugal enemies bodies
(“great man”) (egal) – NOT conflicting (image)
 “God” & “King” = two sides of the same coin
o BUT still diff & not same level of import.
 King = more of a “seal” of the
gods’ land, NOT really
independent entity
 Egal did NOT replace the Temple in importance or
role

DEV OF IDEOLOGICAL TRAITS in EDP

(important for later Akkadian period developed)
 Last independent ruler of Lagash, Urukagina 
erased distinction b/w religious & secular authority
o In his reforms – removed royal agri lands
& gave to the city’s god, Nigirsu, abolished
some taxes
 BUT later he & the queen appear to be chief admins, even tho everything belonged to the god
o “Lugal” = King ruled by gods favour, BUT he controlled god’s earthly things
 No distinction b/w secular & reli
  Both merged into single role – a stronger military figure (prob b/c of all the conflict)
 This figure replaced the early priest-kings
 General cultural unity
o since ~3000 BCE – when multiple cities deved & Uruk had a prominent role in the common religion
 Common Babylonian pantheon
o E.D.P. = focus of this cult shifted to Nippur (central Babylonia)
 Enlil = the head god, power over divine world & other gods
 Nippur got status that
image of Ur Treasure from Mari
lasted until 18th c. BCE
Found in Mari, but has inscription referring to King of Ur
 City-state were the main thing, BUT territorial - So, was probably a gift
control of larger regions started
o Through diplomatic relations b/w states =
 gifting presents (image)
 creation of alliances in wartimes 
docs from Shuruppak (2502A0)
 See an alliance b/w
Lagash, Umma, & Adab
o War b/w nations  one state occupies
another
 end of E.D.P. = culmination of
process of conquering and unifying
 King of Umma – conquered Ur &
Uruk, defeated King of Lagash = got S Babylonia
 Idea of universal kingship making its mark
E.D.P. = period of independent city-states
At the end = attempts of unification
*** last centuries of 3rd mill. = centralization of power under 2 city dynasties ***
 From Akkad (2200-2100 BCE)
 From Ur (2000 BCE)

THE AKKADIAN PERIOD & EMPIRE (2350-2100 BCE)

 Akkadians were 2nd largest ethnicity in N Babylonia
o Participated in Sumerian culture  see from names of scribes using Sumerian to write (NOT E Semitic)
 3 mill = no ethnic homogeneity
rd

o Norm was always diff. ethnic cultures living together

 This Akkadian dynasty started by someone from N, & incorporated some Sumerian culture
 Sargon (a King of Kish) moved capital to Akkad
o He and grandson, Naram Sin  Military expeditions outside of Babylonian – in N Syria & west Iran
 In N – Destroyed Mari & Ebla
 In Syria – they set up posts in existing centres w/ military garrison/reps
 Aim = secure trade routes
 In Babylonia – NEW SYS OF GOVERNMENT
 Rulers of former independent states mostly remained  became Akkadian governors =
Ensi
o Maybe alt. term for lugal – a local variant
 This system shows = conquered states were just annexed & put in subordinate relationship
to the centre
 Akkadian empire = sum of everywhere they conquered
o NOT a centralized, unified state, politically
o STILL In Lower Meso 
 Centralized admin introduced for economy
 New system of tax – part of income of each region sent to capital
 Scribes had standardized measurement unites & dating system
 Akkadian = official royal admin language
 Sumerian = used for local affairs in South
  Monuments / art / iconography
o Stresses war stuff
o Some continuity from EDP kings (ie. like the style, fashion depicted, etc.)
Ideologies = universal kingship Their titles  gave to themselves
 b/c of Sargon  King of Kish = “King of the world” - To make themselves seem even
 Naram Sin introduced new title= “King of the 4 quart. of the uni.” more like gods
The internal & external conflict
 Met resistance from the political entities that still existed under their rule &  In writing & iconography they portrayed
pressures from mountain people outside themselves as gods & divine
(using lil star beside name, horned helmet)
 Led to quick collapse of Akkad rule
** Naram Sin = first time in Meso that kings
Legacy of Akkadian Empire declared themselves divine
 The memory & deeds lasted centuries after (in Egypt, it was already common)
o An Assyrian king from 1st mill. named himself “Sargon”
 After fall = whole of NE reverted into independent states – some governed by new populations
o In Babylonia = Gushens took over several city-states (maybe one of the strongest in region)
 Ex. Lagash – Gudae of Lagash portraits  presents himself as promoter of holy architectural
works & bringer of prosperity
 NOT really emphasising war Difference b/w Ur 3 & Akkadian Empire
 Ur 3 never reach extent of Akkadian
THIRD DYNASTY OF UR (~2000 BCE) o BUT achieved better cohesion of city-
New phase of unification in S Meso states in South & standardized admin
 By a Sumerian dynasty  moving capital to Ur  Admin doc production was HUGE in this period
 so we have a lot of info about admin
 Called “Third Dynasty” – b/c of the Sumerian Kings List
 Sumerian = official language of state again Urnammu = one of the most important kings
 Last Sumerian dynasty in Meso history - Founder of dynasty
& son, Shulgi who reigned 48 years
- Est. basis of admin system for Ur 3 emp.
March 2
Lecture 04.
Rise and Fall of Urbanisation in Syria
(3rd mill. in Syria)

During Uruk Expansion in Syria  Jebel Aruda & Habuba Kabira

 ^ Typical of Uruk/S Meso settlement
o Architecture w/ tripartite plan & material culture that looks copied from Uruk
 That’s why these sites were considered “colonized” by S Meso/Uruk people
 ^ 2 centres = First representation of urban centres in Syria
o Didn’t last long though
o Beginning of 3rd mil.  already ended
During Akkadian Empire
 A core area of city-states w/ periphery area
o Mostly all in area of Syria
After disappearance of Uruk Expansion
 No evi. of settlements until 2600 BCE  when
finally see urbanization in Syria again
o 2nd Urbanization (~ 2600-2000 BCE)

What happened b/w disappearance of Uruk Expansion & 2nd Urbanization

 Not sure what happened
 Idea that they reverted back to pre-historic villages = dismissed
 Ideas proposed:
o Some think it was chiefdoms
 They’re considered a stepping stone towards the full complex developed society
 Has chiefs, elites, commoners – has social complexity but not fully there
o Some are against idea of chiefdoms – based on ethnographic examples, a more historical POV
 Try to explain the exactly sit. of N Syria in the first half of 3 rd mill. – w/o using models that are
misleading
 typical archaeological horizon used was = Nineveh V(?) Pottery

2ND URBAN REVOLUTION

2 reasons for using “revolution”:
A fresh start after 2600 BCE  Characteristics of urban society was first in 4 th mil.
 How much was it influenced by the first? (Uruk’s “rev”)
o Role of S Meso in this 2nd Revolution is still o So, the urban boom happening almost a mill.
studied after S Meso’s makes you question if S Meso
actually influenced this Syrian one
 “Revolution” = implies it could happen again
- The urbanization happen again in Syria after the first one
in Uruk/S Meso
 SYRIA’S URBANISM = shows own unique traits (NOT EXACT COPY)
o Difference environment  NOT arid
 Agriculture through rain water
 NO NEED for irrigation/agri innovations
o Pre-eminence of palaces
 Complex layout for a palace
 Ex: Tell Chuera Palace in NE Syria
 Temples = very simple  no storage or admin rooms needed for
distributing (NOT like in Uruk)
 Ex: Tell Halawa Temple in Mid-Euphrates/W Syria
 Not all temples in Syria were this simple
 BUT clear that temples were NOT centre of distribution =
the palaces were
Important characteristic of EBA  use of metal & technical advances b/c of it
 Bronze increase use in Syria/Meso, NOT in Palestine/Egypt
 Tin important in production of metal
o Tin – sourced from Anatolia & Syria = implies long distance trade &
connected to idea of elites who could afford this

Principle areas of new cities (after 2600~)

All in the Khabur Valley
 Tell Leilan – reached 100 hectares
 Tell Brak – v. important
 Tell Mozan (Urkeš in Antiquity)
 Tell Chuera – on the fringe of Khabur valley
*** the amount of dots is a bias from how research was started
and done there, NOT exactly reflecting that was how is was back
then
Along Euphrates, a lot of cities
 Mari – main site in the east
o Mari & Assur (N Iraq) had v. apparent S
Meso/Sumerian influence
 Ebla – main site in the west
o Important archive w/ lots of cuneiform tablets
 showed dominance of Semitic language &
adopting S Meso scribal culture
 Syria became literate b/c of south BUT spoken
language was W Semitic

*** Urbanism NOT ONLY in Syria, but surrounding areas too  upper Meso & SE Anatolia

2 most developed centres influenced by S Meso = ASSUR & MARI

ASSUR
 not exca to the levels of the 3rd mill. yet
o BUT what we have so far:
 it prob was a large urban centre in 3rd mill.
 The earliest layers (Level H & G) show classic Sumerian-style sanctuary
 Votives found there similar to other centres in the S of the same period
 Assur = an example of S culture in North
MARI
 Found part of royal palace from Early Dynastic Period (3A-3B) & several *** see here, even tho Mari is a political
temples centre in N, researchers/archaeologists
usually adopt S Meso chrono to describe
things = b/c similarities in mat. cult.
 similar at Ebla (the “Western Syria”
chrono from chart ^ is just chrono of
Ebla applied to whole W Syria)
 o Show strong Sumerian influence on architecture, sculpture, & scribal traditions
 BUT use of W Semitic language for personal names & in their admin texts – a language used from
mid-Euphrates to Medi. & also at Ebla
 So epigraphical evi = Mari NOT a Sumerian colony
 BUT They were involved in Sumerian diplomacy and politics – relations w/ the First Dynasty of Ur
Image of The Treasures of Ur
 Mari really integrated into Southern Culture = in scribal Gifts from King Mesannepada (Ur) to King Gansud/Ansud (Mari)
trads. & ALSO in a political POV  existence of diplomatic exchange
 So integrated that one of their dynasties was
included in the Sumerian Kings List – even tho,
they’re not Sumerian

2 times Mari’s peaked in influential power (w/ 2 kings)

:
 1st time = King Ibulil & King Enna-Dagan
o They ruled Middle/Upper Euphrates
region
o Letter from Enna-Dagan  long list of his
victories
 Ebla was in a tribute position to On Sumerian Kings List
Mari - Included King Ansud on it, founder of the only Mari dynasty
o Brief History on the list (contemporary to 1st Dynasty of Ur)
 After a brief Ebla hegemony, Mari actually rose and Ebla was destroyed
 Then, Sargon destroyed Mari 10 years later
 With rise of Narim Sin, Mari had period called “The Shakkanakkus” – rulers subordinate to
Akkad & then, to neo-Sumerian kings of Ur 3
 Archaeology wise – decrease in monumental architecture compared to before
 Aimed at gaining control of trade network of their area
 But Sargon’s intervention caused their decline & the rise of nomadic tribes  who
eventually collapsed the whole system
 Mari’s role = commercial purpose b/w S & N  near a river, v. strategic point
o Euphrates river valley = motorway across the whole West part of NE
o Mari = border of south Meso and rest of Syria
 Can explain the great mix of cultures there, its importance, and how important it is
** Huge debate about Mari’s beginning  always been Semitic & deved through time?
 Some say it had a settlement back in 3rd mill. but not urban
 Others say, the excavated canal is from its origins  so Mari was monumental *** Mari & Ebla are very similar,
since the beginning but still very different
 Mari more south, so
EBLA (Modern Tell Mardikh) maybe why it was more
– some influences from S Meso influenced by S Meso
 60 hectares, similar to Mari culture
 60 km from Aleppo  But both are Semitic
 On tri-farming plains of West Syria
o v. diff environment from the Euphrates & Khabur valleys
 Why it’s important
o Before excavation here
 3rd mill. Syria = considered illiterate area of small towns & not culturally developed like S Meso
 Findings from Ebla & other sites show different story
o Some of the most important finds : Large archive at Palace G
 Many 1000s of tables = Gave a lot of info of Syrian states in Early Dynastic period
 Population seems homogenous (Semitic like Mari) – from the names, language, etc.
 All the names used = same as ones in Ebliate (?) sources

Political structure – diff from Meso model

  Central admin was around the palace  NOT around temples
o Centre around palace = characterise this area for 2 millennia
 Had King & Queen
o Kings were celebrate in funerary cults and image preserved – like ancestor cult
 There were Elders — act like an assembly = were political
o They lived in palace as important guest of kings – given rations/provisions
o From the most powerful fams of community & reped local community’s *** Interpersonal connections at
interest Ebla = v. important
 ΝΟΤ impersonal functionaries who supervise tasks/admin stuff - Unlike S Meso
 Head of admin — in charge of trade, army, admin
o Head lived in palace with royals & elders Maybe b/c of their agri/pastoral
 Governors of smaller cities = Lugal (in S Meso this term meant “king”) structure  kin-based relations
o Under the head of admin were v. important
 Ebla had 14 districts  12 outside city, 2 inside city
 Palace = home of different groups was were a bunch of people lived

Distributive system – diff too

 More ceremonial & personal (like the political structure/relations)
 Palaces provided food for workers & seasonal workers
 Size of redistributive system based on direct provision of rations – estimated by written annual records (sometimes
included more than 1 year of rations tho)
o Estimate 40, 000
 Their system connected w/ religious festivals where they gave out a lot of food
o Temples NOT for surplus of food = was for ceremonial redistribution & affairs
 Distributive system = gift giving / exchange  underlines the personal & ceremonial aspects of economy
 THIS SYSTEM  didn’t go from giving out food to giving out land
o Instead, Land = personal gifts from the king & were limited
 A personal level NOT part of a system of distribution
Economy
— like in S Meso  basis of economy was agriculture
BUT agriculture was different b/c of diff. ecology
 The environment
o They had rainfall & few patches of agri land
 Yields = 1:3 / 1:5  less than S Meso
o Exposed to whims of nature
 Surplus was unpredictable
 In Elba – cultivated typical Medi. plants
o Different diet from Meso
 Find wine NOT beer, olive oil NOT sesame oil
o Palace manage large scale farming of sheep & goats
 Other animals owned by the kings, elders, other public institutions, and villages
 Part of these animals sent to centre during festivals
Other main sectors = craftsmanship & trade
 Artifacts from Palace G
o Shows high level of craftsmanship – wood carvings, in-laid objects, ornaments, statuettes, metal objects…
o Found A LOT of lapis  from Afghanistan = shows impressive long distance trade OR at least a big
network
*** multiple lines of S influence up to N – so accessing the degree of S Meso influence on Syrian Urbanization is hard
 Van de Mieroop  thinks the Urbanization was indigenous BUT w/ some S Meso cultural influences (one idea)

Political dev in History of Ebla

– from texts from Palace G  Some letters and 1 diplomatic treaty
 Around 50 years of history  end in 2300 BCE (when Ebla destroyed)
 3 kings : Igrish-Halam (12y), Irkab-Damu (11y), Isar-Damu (35y)
 o Previous rulers mention on list about a cult for ancestral rulers (for 1 cent.)
o Another list mention other 26 kings – BUT not exactly reliable
 Can reconstruct ~2350 BCE = Ebla was under Mari, had to pay taxes to them
o Under King Irkab-Damu (~2348 BCE) situation changed
*** still figuring out who exactly were
 Campaigned against rebellious vasal rulers & other
these “entities”
political “entities”
- They’re mentioned in several
 Made alliance w/ Kish & Nagar (?)  to fight
Akkadian inscriptions
 They defeated Mari
- According to Liverani (down)
 After Mari’s defeat, Ebla didn’t destroy it somewhere there
o Maybe for commercial reasons
o Use Mari as buffer – b/w emerging Kish & Akkadians from South
 Mari recovered eventually somehow  then destroyed Ebla
o There was period of crisis after
o EBA 4 (2300-2000 BCE) = don’t know what happened then
 City was still there but nothing tells us what’s going on
 Inscription from Narim Sin (Sargon’s son) – said they
conquered and destroyed Ebla but that’s it
o other ideas of what destroy Ebla
 Some think from Akkadian kings
o Ebla never recovered
** oscillating
 And end of 3rd. mill = destroyed again
balance of powers
b/w Mari & Ebla
*** important point from all this (exam)  Difference b/w S Meso & Syria ***

2 IMPORTANT TOPICS OF EBA SYRIA (2200-2000~ BCE)

1) Role of impact of Akkad
o The impact of Akkad  from Meso influence in Syria
o Have diff royal inscriptions from Sargon & Narim Sin
 Tell us Enlil (highest deities of Meso panethon) & the god Dagon of Tuttul (Tuttul like Syria’s
Nippur, home of a v. important god) = gave Sargon this land (from upper Med to Persian gulf)
– including Mari, Ebla and Lebanon area
 Reference to campaigns in Subatur (in Syria) – west of Euphrates & Upper Meso
 References to wars against Ammanum and Ebla
 References to military in Syria  from King Shar-Kali-Sharri’s reign
 Last major ruler of the Akkad dynasty
 Talks about a battle w/ the Amorites in an area NE of Palmera (mid-Syria area)
o Some military battles of Akkadian kings in Syria
o Archaeological evidence
 Show a lot of military presences & admin centres
 Massive destruction at key Syrian sites around time of Sargon’s rule
 Palace/temples at Mari, Tutor (?) Palace, & destruction at Tell Brak
o First 2 sites, named by Sargon & Tell Brak known at control point during Naram
Sin’s reign
 Tell Brak = best evidence of direct Akkadian control  Akkadian rulers chose this to be
their admin site for the Upper Khabur
o Found a foundation of big, square admin building (~1 hectare) with Naram Sin’s
name stamped on mud bricks
 Narim Sin Palace = narrow galleries & big courtyards suggest its for
storage & admin things – connected to receiving tribute from surrounding
areas & provisions for troops
o Cuneiform tablets show admin docs of Sargonic state
 for distribution of ration & silver, lists of garments & livestock, other
bureaucratic stuff
 dated to Late Akkadian times = reign of Narim Sin (2254–2218 BCE) &
Shar-Kali-Sharri (2217–2193 BCE)
  Evidence from Tell Brak & other areas = shows existence of Akkadians in Khabur area & Mari,
BUT NOT in west
 Evidence show = how Akkadian power manifested in Syria
 See widespread destruction at the time of Sargon/Akkadian Empire
 See possible system of direct control in East Syria (sites like Mari) & along Euphrates
o NOT proper territorial control – BUT mainly control of a few important centres in
a bigger commercial network = the Akkadian strat
o OVERALL EFFECT ON SYRIAN SOCIETY
 Akkadian imperialism responsible for = delimitation of authority & local institutions (ie. Mari &
Tell Brak)
 Their impact was disastrous in some areas
o 2300-2200 BCE = Middle Khabur suffered
 Other areas = West Syria  continuity of urban life & material culture until 2000 BCE
(?)
2) Why this dense urban landscape collapsed (below)

** be aware of the scholarship

URBAN CRISIS OF LATE 3RD MILL. (2200-2000 BCE)
 Last centuries of 3rd mill = see collapse
o around when Akkadians were in Syria = Khabur region  sites abandon
o ~2200 BCE = Tell Leilan & around it (like Chuera, etc) & Middle Khabur sites  deserted
 ONLY Tell Mozan & Tell Brak survived – survived maybe as Hurrian centres
 In West Syria ~2200 BCE = evidence of decentralization
o Sites burned OR reduced to smaller villages OR totally / partly abandoned
o Burned during Akkadian raids probably – not part of urban crisis
*** The end of early urban societies late 3rd mill. = NOT unique to Syria  see in Palestine, Egypt, Cyprus, Ana.&
Aegean

For Syria – Why urban LS collapsed? – 2 diff. approaches

1. Climate change
o Late 3rd mill of aridness exhausted agri capacity & brought collapse
2. Enviro deterioration due to ppl themselves – focus on internal weakness of early societies, not external challenges
o Traditional (“alternate fallow”) agri abandoned when people needed more food
 Introduction of “manuring” = gave bigger crops & recovered some soil nutrients
 BUT (unlike alt fal) it failed to retain moisture  made land more vulnerable to aridity
 Sequence of dry years = would be disastrous
Exceptions of this collapse
 Some text evi  Post-Akkadian kingdom of Urkeš (Mozan) & Awar (Tel Brak) *** why these places continued
– ruled by kings w/ names in Hurrian  these were important access
o After Akkadian kings – see new polity in this area & ethnic group (?) points to the south – so this
 Mari  it got smaller (like monumental archit. got worse), BUT it still continued importance kept them existing
and existed

 MAIN POINTS: why it’s call “2nd urban revolution”, Syria/North’s relation to south, Syria’s own local character of
political/economic institution (ie. their redistributive system), impact of Akkad conquest, why it collapsed ideas (2 main
ideas)
 The 2nd Urban Rev reached a point of density that even later (like in 2 nd mill) couldn’t reach (not until the Hell.
period)
 once process of urbanization starts – doesn’t mean it stays forever
 It can have set backs, and step backs – not to be taken for granted
March 4 Some basic differences b/w S Meso & N part
- S Meso = arid region & irrigated
Lecture 05. agri
- N / Syria = NOT arid & rain agri
The Early Bronze Age in Anatolia  Turkey more complex, environmentally
(so far, covered this period for S Meso & Syria)
— focus on Asia Minor area
 For 2 reasons:
o SE Turkey took part in cultural dev of the
Cyro-Meso world
o & it’s the core area of the Hittite Empire

Turkey’s topography
 Several valleys from E to W
o Divided turkey into diff enviros
 V. mountainous 
o Taurus = physical barrier to Medi. climate in
S&E
o Northern Anatolian Mtns = barrier to the
Black Sea
o So rain clouds usually stopped by the mtns
 Distribution of rain v. diff all over
 Usually coasts were wetter than
interior
 Coast = Mediterranean climate
o V. rich vegetation
 Interior = more continental climate
o Vegetation mainly stepic (?)
o Area v. dry – rain agri barely able to happen
o V. hot in summer, v. cold in winter

 V. rich in mineral & other natural resources

o (map of mine locations )
o Obsidian mining important during prehis.
o Salt from salt lakes also v. important

EARLY BRONZE AGE (3000-2000 BCE)

 This point is still part of Anatolia’s pre history
o Unlike in Meso, writing wasn’t spread during 3rd mill.
o So sources, ONLY ARCHAEOLOGICAL
 Metallurgy & exchange networks in EBA stemmed
from Copper Age before it – esp in the beginning of
EBA
Divided into THREE PHASES:

 unlike some of the Syrian sequences that have 4 phases

 Knowledge of each phase comes from few
archaeological sequences of the main sites
 Troy’s Excavation
 o Most problematic b/c Schliemann destroyed a lot BUT most complete
EBA I (3000-2600 BCE)
 Like early Copper Age, EBA I = period of regional ceramic traditions (difficult to cross date)
o Ex. EBA I stuff at Beycesultan is diff from EBA I Troy or Tarsus
o Why chrono of EBA I was so complicated before radiocarbon dating
 3 ceramic traditions
o 1 in NW = based off Troy’s
o 2 in SW/mid area = based off Beycesultan’s
o 3 N central area = based in Demircihöyük
 E central area EBA I (later core of Hittite Emp.) NOT as known – except for some stuff in Cadir H.
o Many EBA I ceramics here = v. similar to the Copper Age ceramics
 Very South E, at Tarsus = v. little on EBA I ceramics, v. few vessel shapes reconstructed
 Demircihöyük
o Best documented site for EBA I
 Found small agri village (like a circle) on Level H
 No evidence it was a fortified settlement
 More like earlier type villages
 Troy
o Settlement at Level 1A & E = poorly understood
o EBA I Troy idea that it was surrounded by walls  disproven
 No evi for proper urban centres & v. little actually know ( Demir. the only well excavated place )
 So basically just agri villages in this period
 Considered “Proto-Urban Period” – w/ villages of diff. Sizes
o Some specialization and long-distance trade
o Metallurgy = local industries, no large scale production of copper, w/ regional variability in production
techniques
 Artifacts of copper/arsenic alloys found at some EBA I sites (ex. Beyce. & Demir.)
o *** this technology existed during copper age (? The making of alloys)
 Increase of metal artifacts (vessels) – imitating pottery/ceramics
o Beyce. has clearest evidence of this
o In direct evi. for the diffusion of metal vessels in EBA I (?????)

EBA II (2600-2300 BCE)

 A transformative period
 4 important distinctions / characteristics
o Rise of more complex metallurgical industries
o Emergence of long distance trade networks
o Development of fortified settlements & monumental architecture
o Formation of prestigious techniques (?? Prestige segment in mat. Cult.)
 No clear distinction in material culture of the end of EBA I & start of EBA II
o Regional traditions were the norm in the beginning
o Then later in period = wheel-made pottery was the norm
 Near the end = Increased convergence of pottery types/wares across Asia Minor (& Aegean)
o This convergence = maybe point to emergence of shared cultural practices here
The two-handed goblets/cup things = depas
 Maybe part of their social traditions  drinking alcohol together
o Has been proposed that Eastern Anatolia (& place in NW Iran) = centres of early wine production (~6 th
mill.)
o Near the Mediterranean side = earliest evidence for wine drinking in 3 rd mill.
 So this could fit with these cup things as being alcohol drinking cups & a shared tradition

It’s been proposed on the basis of….

o regional methods & methodological improvements
 Consumption of wine
 o Wine produced locally
 Maybe not as expensive as in Meso
o Long distance relations
 Kultepe
o First written evi. in Asia Minor
 Articulation of elites
 Bronze found in Asia Minor
o Local metalworking
o Used for prestigious / luxury objects
 Prestigious objects found in Troy

EBA III (2300-2000 BCE)

 Know v. little of central Anatolia again  v. few sequences for this period
-- N CENTRAL ANATOLIA
 Some really good finds at : burials at Alaca H., Horoztepe, (?), Mahmatlar
o # of elaborate & rich fill burials found
Alaca H. “ROYAL TOMBS”
 13 burials found = labeled “royal graves” – b/c of what was inside
o Compared to “Royal tombs” in Ur (social context b/w 2 prob v. diff)
 Variety of grave goods  many ceremonial weapons, statutes, metal vessels
o Made of different metals – gold, silver, electrum, copper, iron, crystal and
jade
 Most conspicuous objects were the standards (?) (image 8, 9, 10, 14 )
o Maybe attached to a wagon or a (???)
 Possible parallel to burial at Demircihöyük
 7 double cattle burials found – Both faced same direction &
maybe associated w/ nearby human burial
 Maybe the cows used for the transport of the dead people
on wagons
o 4 late-4th mill = wheeled wagons known in S Meso
o during 3rd mill = Clay models of wagons in N Meso
o 2nd mill texts = talk about variety of wagon types in Asia Minor
 So, wagons probably known ~2300 BCE in AM
 In the beginning the argument was = these burial were thought to be “royal” & associated w/ the palace
o BUT a palace isn’t found & the large graves aren’t linked to any substantial settlement
o So, these maybe elite burials NOT royal
— Arslantepe  rich burials found from societies w/o states OR urban settlements
o Maybe here, new ideology came to be:
 Hierarchy = from collecting prestigious items (cooler stuff = cooler people)
 This idea fits Alaca H. situation better than idea of a royal presence
 Alaca H. burials  part of a regional phenomenon
o Characteristic of this N Central regional style = having things like the standards
 from burials at this site, we know : 1) of a N Central regional tradition 2) system of using valuable metal artifacts and
collection/having them to define the

-- S CENTRAL ANATOLIA
 Settlements here also poorly known
 Long excavations at sites : Acemhöyük, Kületepe
o Got to some of the EBA III levels, but in small portions – so hard to say much yet
Kületepe
 # of EBA III monumental buildings
o Don’t know much about the function of buildings
o BUT the mat. cult. found here – suggests long distance trade
 S C Ana = already a process rising large urban settlements & possible regional polity (precursors for the well-known
cities of thee Early 2nd mill.)

DEVELOPMENT OF COMPLEX SOCITIES ACROSS ANATOLIA

--- Rise of hierarchal societies
 EBA I & early EBA II didn’t differ much from Copper Age
 (unlike the ceramic style) EBA I Building types were similar across Anatolia
o Large in antis buildings (~50 m2) dominated the entire EBA
o ~ maybe homes for extended households
 During EBA I = villages remained the norm
 During EBA II = # of decisive changes
o Increase of convergence of ceramic style groups all over Anatolia
o Emergence of fortified upper towns/citadels
 Impressive fortification & monumental archi
o (evi is little) BUT they had substantial lower towns for 1000s of people
o Late EBA II = elite culture seen in deposits of production & consumption of valuable things
 In Troy = find lots of gold & them liking things coming in from long distance trade
 During EBA III = esp in S central Ana  settlements got big – the beginning of the big states we see later in 2 nd
mill.
o N Ana  social hierarchy & urbanisation wasn’t as well established yet
 This is the environment where the showy burial types (ie. Ones from Alaca H.) were created
Compared to Syria/Mesopotamia
 Societies in Anatolia became urban w/ hierarchy later
o Their delay in urbanizing = seen as negative by some scholar
 And when they did finally urbanise  it’s because of their trade w/ Syria/Meso
 According to During  this idea is stupid for 2 reasons
o It doesn’t help us understand how urbanism dived in Ana
 The process looks more local
 Interaction w/ more complex societies doesn’t automatically cause urbanisation
o The normative idea that more “dived”, more “urbanised”, more “social hierarchy” = “achievement” &
“better” / & anyone not living like this is = bad  a modern and narrow way of perceiving human
societies
 What made people give up their autonomy for a system where only a few got to be elite?
 The status of life must have been better for everyone if such a change happened
March 5
Lecture 06.
Movements and Shifts of Populations in Anatolia and Syria (3rd - 2nd mill. BCE) :
Amorites, Hurrians and Indo-Europeans
 The written evidence & archaeological evidence
*** MAJOR CHANGES B/W 3rd & 2nd MILL.
- Sumerians disappeared
The Written Evidence - ~ 2000 BCE = New system : territorial
1) Some General Intro Reflections on: MIGRATION & ETHNICITY states in SYRIA & MESO  ruled by
 Crisis of the EBA cultures – over a long period of time, in diff. ways Amorites
o ~ 2300 BCE = Start seeing trouble (in Ana & from external - 18th c. BCE = Hurrians in N Syria & SE Ana
pressures on the Akkadian Empire – later Iran area & Syria o 16th c. BCE = formation of Mittani
affected too) Kingdom
o Causes for crises of 2nd Urban Rev : mostly internal - 17th c. BCE = formation of Hittites
 Many groups (esp pastoral ones) settled in the open o 24th c. BCE = Indo Euros already in
areas of the declining cities Anatolia & E of Euphrates
 Semitic groups went to the Semitic speaking
areas of Syria & Meso
 Indo Euro groups went to Ana, Armenia, Iranian plateau, and the transcaucasia area
o Crisis of the EBA = decline of non-Semitic & non-IndoEuro pops
 They were formerly important BUT now live b/w two rising groups
 Ie. Pops like = Sumerians in S Meso & pre-Hittites (Hattians?) in C Ana
 Start of 2nd mill = Stability regained – RISE OF MBA CULTURES

 MIGRATIONS
— how to historically construct migration? ** migrations usually DID NOT
— what are the indicators that tell us a pop. moved and settled in an area? cause major, radical changes
— can you understand what kind of movement it was?
Liverani  “the Near East began to be populated very early on, and from the Neolithic period onwards experienced
considerable internal movements, such as seasonal and permanent migration. The invasions and migrations emphasised by
historians of the 19th century CE must have been quite modest in scale. They therefore influenced genetic diversity only
marginally, allowing the leading human species to survive. The impact of migratory movements was more cultural than
genetic, especially in the case of movements of elite groups (i.e. specialised military, technological, religious, or administrative
groups). The latter were both culturally and politically influential, but too limited in size compared to the rest of the population,
made of sedentary agro-pastoral communities. [...] As can be seen, these changes in the ethno-linguistic groups of the area
were long-term phenomena affecting the Near East as a whole. The individual migrations attested in the sources were cultural
phenomena rather than movements of large ethnical groups. Substantial changes in the Near East, from the assimilation of
entire groups, to the shift of linguistic boundaries, and the rise of internal subdivisions, took place without the full awareness of
the people experiencing them. Consequently, they remain undocumented in the sources. However, scholars have too often
drawn simplistic connections between the available documentation and these changes.”
 NE populated since Neolithic onward – lot of internal movements (seasonal & permanent migrations)
 Genetic diversity ONLY marginally influenced
o Impact of migration = more cultural than genetic
 Esp. elite groups
 Changes were long term affect NE as a whole
 o Linguistic changes, rise of internal subdivisions
 Individual migration in sources = cultural phenomena, NOT movement of big ethnic groups
 The changes = NOT documented, because they were slow, over time (they weren’t aware of it)
o B/c no docs = scholars have drawn simplistic connections from docs to the changes that happened

 ETHNICITY
 Recognises difference b/w people  based on language & shared cultural traits (ie. lang, religion, art, customs =
all help ID meaning of ethnicity)
 Most cases = diffusion of language helps
o It’s a powerful identifier, BUT ethnicity is not just based ONLY on language
 Movement of people & new communities does NOT mean they replaced old communities
 Language diffusion can also come from contact with others  adopting language due to a lot of communication,
utilitarian reasons, social prestige of a language, etc.
 Evidence that different languages coexisted in a community = bilingual / multilingual
 IDing speaking groups does not exactly mean IDing an ethnicity
 Ethnicity needs to be actively proclaimed / reclaimed / disclaimed
o Written sources = v. important to seeing this (w/o it’s v hard)
o Archaeological sources = can help see if material culture was important in marking culture

2) AMORITES
 ~2000-1500 BCE = Their presence in Meso. =
o A turning point in Meso history – important for the dev of Meso
 BUT little known about them
o Don’t know how they affected region = B/C NO TEXTS FROM THEM
o ONLY they spoke NW Semitic language through some Akkadian texts
 2 personal names & a few other words

*** names were usually sentences,

so the names:

“the god Dagan gave”

In Amorite = Yattin-Dagan
In Akkadian = Iddin-Dagan

(for 2 sons of Samsi-Addu)

“the god Addu OR Dagan heard”
In Amorite = Yasmad-Addu
In Akkadian = Išme-Dagan

  Amorite = NW Semitic –
like Hebrew of Phoenician
o Akkadian = E Semitic
 Once they settled, they never used their language in writing
o Sumerian & Akkadian already had long prestigious history  so Amorites just used that
 “Amorite” = comes from Akkadian “Amurrum” & Sumerian “Martu”
o Means the region west of Meso & more generally, just “west”
 (left) Meso & Syria The
during Amorite period
(20th – 17th cent. BCE)

(below) “Amurrum” area

centre/”cradle”/ HOME of the AMORITES = in SYRIA

 “Amurrum” = the area East of Ugarit, b/w Jebel Ansarieh & Jebel Bishri
 21st c. BCE = groups headed out East of this region
o Still unsure why they went out
 It can’t just be b/c Sumeria was rich
 Maybe climate change = shepherds found it hard to get good pasture land so they moved
ORIGIN & MEANING of Amorite  disputed (west or east)
o Prevailing idea = means a population of western & nomadic origin
 People west moving into N & S Meso
o BUT other unsure of this idea
 Some think “Amorite” = “foreigner”
 OR “Amurrum” / “Martu” = describes a kind of lifestyle  “pastoral / nomadic life”
o PROFESSOR = believes they were a western group  follows the French school
TRIBES OF AMORITE – little is known
 2 best document groups are :
o Banu-Sim'al = “Sons of the Left (hand)” (the North
tribes)
 North faced the rising south
o Banu-Yamin = “Sons of the Right (hand)” (the South
tribes)
 Modern day “Yemen”
o The division of these 2 groups
 Date to the migration at the end of 3rd mill
 Banu-Sim’al went North (N Syria), Banu-
Yamin went South (to Iraq area)
AMORITES & 3rd DYNAST OF UR
 End of 3rd mill = Alluvial plain under (Neo-Sumerians) 3 rd Dynasty
of Ur
 Contact b/w sedentary Ur & nomadic Amorite – seen in several
ways
o In literary texts of scribes – contempt for Amorites
 Described as barbarians  didn’t have funerary customs like Sumerians, don’t have homes, etc.
 Literary vs. Admin texts on “Martu” 
 Admin – more neutral
 Literary – more savage
 o Military reaction= kings of Ur tried to stop Amorite progress
 Built a wall b/w Tigris & Euphrates – started by Shulgi (2094–2047) & finished by Shu-Sin
(2037–2029)
 NO arch traces
 Know it’s called = Muriq-Tidnim, “the wall who repels nomads”
 At first  Amorites weren’t trying to fight them – during last king Ibbi-Sin
 But they cut the kingdom’s network b/w cites & disrupted it
 Then they took over one city after another
Mid 20th c. BCE = Ur 3 disappeared & political fragmentation in S Meso (*** 4 centuries, 2000-1600) =
 Some of the new dynasties that appeared claimed Amorite ancestry “Paleo-Babylonian Period”
o The rulers were proud of this heritage - But its misleading name
o V DIFF from how Sumerian texts hated the Amorites b/c it sounds like
 Ex. Seen in title of King Hammurabi = “… king of all the Babylonia is dominating
Amorite land… ” this whole time
 Ex. Zimri-Lim of Mari = “… and the Land of the Hana…” - ONLY after King
 Hana = those who live in tents (nomadic) Hammurabi (for 25 years)
 Ex. Ammi-Saduqa (4th king after Hammurabi) = a text from him = is it true
see a list of ancestor kings explicitly recognised as Amorites Better to think of it as the
 The same names on this list (part of a funerary ritual) was Amorite Period
at the beginning of the Assyrian Kings List by King - b/c all the rulers in this
Samsi-Addu found in Assur time in the NE were of
Amorite origin

*** Amorites characterised as

“nomadic” & “tent-dwellers”

 There was a group of common ancestors all these Amorite people acknowledged
 Clear acknowledgment of rulers outside cities  may indicate trad Sumerian concept of city (centre of political
power) = was waning
o New idea starting to dev = Larger region/unit of political power
 BUT still diff from modern idea of territorial state
 Characterised by “discontinuous territoriality”
 “nighum” = how Amorites thought of the space / land
 May have been Amorite word, transferred into Akkadian
 About an area and the right for a group to travel through there, seasonally, for food &
water
o According to Jakob L.  this “discontinuous territoriality” could be an Amorite trait (?^)
 Amorite language could help ID ethnicity
o Letter of Samsi-Addu to son, Yasmah-Addu (King of Upper Meso kingdom [omi Amorite kingdoms] –
conquered Mari & put son there)
 Yasmah needed someone to write Sumerian – BUT dad said he should learn to speak Amorite
instead
 “Yasmah-Addu” = an Amorite name, BUT clearly doesn’t mean he could speak the language, just
spoke Akkadian
 Personal names doesn’t tell us that person spoke the language of their name

3) HURRIANS
 ~2500-2000 BCE = Oldest arch evidence of their civilization =
o Docs relate to King Naram-Sin of Akkad & King Shulgi of 3rd Dyn. Of Ur
 Tell us there were kings with Hurrian names in N Meso
 Hurrian kings & people assuming spoke some Hurrian  under strong cultural influence /
military pressure from South
o Recent exca. at Tell Mozan
 Monumental remains of Urkeš  one of the main Hurrian kingdoms in N Meso
 First strata date older than ~2500 BCE – possible Hurrian settlement since 4th mill.
  Found evidence for Hurrian names in Urkeš kings (had the title “endan”)
 Tar’am-Agade (daughter of Naram-Sin), married to an Urkeš king
 Oldest doc – limestone tablet
 A lot attesting to Hurrians comes from Urkeš
o Sum / Akk influences & original Hurrian elements
 Hurrians was an intermediary for Meso traditions to past to west areas of NE (ie. Hittite, Anatolia)
 2000-1500 BCE (MBA) = many Hurrian personal names were recorded in the N part of fertile crescent – from
Zagros mountains to Medi coast
o ~1800 BCE = there was a solid
Hurrian population b/w Med &
Euphrates
  result of movement for
few cents. b/w 3rd & 2nd
mill – after fall of N Meso
kingdom
 Hurrians encountered NW Semitic cultures
= fundamental to Hurrian culture
MBA HURRIAN IN SYRIA
 All evidence linguistic  so talking about
Hurrian speaking people in general
- Syrian archive of Alalah – lots of Hurrian
names
o Before this period (mid 3rd mill)
 in archive at Ebla = no Hurrian
names
 So Hurrians arrived in W
Syria after 3rd mill.
- Hurrian words in some Akkadian texts in Alalah & Qatna
o “šinuzzum” = blinkers on horses
o “ahrušhnum” = censer
o “huruppum” = bowl, rhyton
- Reconstruct System of Hurrian kingdoms in Syria, SE Anatolia, N Meso
o Kingdom of Anum-hirbi (Hassum) = main centre of Hurrian culture in MBA (W Euphrates)
- Interesting letter in Syrian cuneiform script of a man named Ehli-Addu (Hurrian name)
o Found in Kaniš (probably sent there from W Syria)
o Evidence for Hurrians speakers there then
 No evidence of Hurrians in central Anatolia
o According to Wilhelm  clear Hurrian names are rare & no evidence at all to think those indigenous
people spoke Hurrian
OVERVIEW:
 4th mill = Hurrians came from the Armenian plateau area to the N Meso area
 b/w end of 3rd & beginning of 2nd mill. = moved outwards, both W (Syria) & E (more into Meso)

4) INDO-EUROPEAN
 1905-06 = arch exca. in central Turkey found Hattuša (cap of Hittite state)
o Found lots of cuneiform texts
o deciphered in 1915-17 by Bedrich Hronzy = Indo Euro language  HITTITE
 New & different Indo Euro language brought questions :
 Were the differences caused by separation of Hittite people before the development of the
other languages
 Indo-Hittite hypot. = there was a
previous “Indo-Hittite” proto-language
that needs to be reconstructed
o Hittite & Indo Euro langs were
sister langs
  Old Assyrian period (19th-18th cent. BCE) = Traces of Hittite & Luwian in texts from Assyrian colonies in
Cappadocia & Kaneš
o Shows presence of Indo-Euros in central
Anatolia already by that time
 even if the Hittite, Palaic, Luwian texts
were older

 See loan words in Akkadian from

Hittite
 Nuwa’um = Assyrians talking about
indigenous Anatolians
 TRADITIONAL IDEAL =
Close to luwa’um (Luwians) –
so they may have been most
widespread pop in Anatolia,
even tho the Kaneš texts show a lot of Hittite names
 A NEW IDEA = A. Kloekhorst
thinks Nuwa’um just means Already see differences b/w Hittite and other IndoEuro
“barbarian” – BUT majorly languages in Ana (like Luwians)
criticized theory  See loan words in Akkadian from Hittite
Linguistic contact & ethnic-linguistic geography of Central  TRADITIONAL IDEAL = Nuwa’um = Assyrians
talking about indigenous Anatolians
Anatolia (beginning of 2 mill BCE)
nd
o Could be an older form of “luwa’um” = for
 According to P. Goedegebuure  Influence of Indo-Euro
Luwians
(Luwian) lang on Hattian – the non-Indo Euro language in
o SO the Luwians = most widespread pop
Anatolia (the ones before the Hittites came)
 BUT in texts from Kaneš 
o Luwian pop. probably most common in Anatolia Hitties names were most populous
 According to I. Yakubovich  in Prehistoric time  NEW IDEA = A. Kloekhorst  “Nuwa’um” =
o Luwians in Lower Land (went west to CS generic term for “barbarian” NOT “Luwian”
Anatolia) & Hittites main pop. in C Anatolia o BUT majorly criticized theory
o Dialect division b/w Hit & Luw from proto-
Anatolia happened before 2nd mil.
o Luwian influence on Hittite since Old Hittite period (or earlier)
Indo-Euros (Hittites) attested in the east of Euphrates already in 2300 BCE
 Evi. found in Ebla texts – names with Hittite origin (belong to the city, Armi)

Indo-Euro in Anatolia : Linguistic & Archaeology

 Indo Euro presence in pre-classical Anatolia  seen on linguistic level
o Material traces harder to link to Indo-Euros
 Hard to recognize Indo Euro cultural traits in Anatolia civilizations in pre-classical era (esp. Hittite era)
o See strong NE cultural influences
 Did the Indo-Euros come in more than one migratory wave (traditional)? OR were they indigenous Anatolians
(recent)  immigrants OR natives

LINGUISTICS – v. debated (even Liverani & Mieroop readings believe diff things)
 Traditional Hypothesis  Urheimat (Indo-Euro) in steppes of central Eurasia – then migrated to Anatolia (from
Balkans or Caucasus)
 New Hypothesis (1980s)  Urheimat homeland was in Anatolia
o According to Gamkrelidze & Ivanov  they settled E Anatolia (5th/4th mill. BCE)
 Indo Euro words for topography & bodies of water, southern plants & flora
 And they borrowed a lot from Sumerian & Semitic languages
o Renfew  Indo Euro settled in C Anatolia (~7000 BCE)
 They were the link to spreading agriculture & Indo Euro languages to Europe
2 main objections to migration theory:
1. NOT always a connection b/w language & material culture
2. Language changes NOT always b/c of migration
 o So the NEW HYPOTHESIS don’t really work (?????)
The Archaeological Evidence
 Theories of Indo-Euros in Anatolia :
o Indo-Euros = natives
o Indo-Euros = migrated & see them around beginning of 2nd mill. BCE
o Steppic Hypothesis – doesn’t have to do with Anatolia

Renfrew Theory = Indo Euros native in Anatolia – triggered a long debate & involves other fields (NOT just linguistics)
 Its appeal & how it fits into research
 Asikh Höyük OMI & well documented first sites in Ana
 Discussion on how farming came to Anatolia = very polarizing
o b/w MIGRATION or LOCAL POPS. adopting farming
 based on material culture (architecture)
 clear that Neolithic C Ana  have clear indigenous traits
o population b/w the hunter-gather time & first period of farming seem indigenous
o this idea = fits w/ the theory that Indo Euros were natives here
 they adopted farming & still see continuity of Neolithic industry & development of
particular layout of settlement in C Ana. – no streets, home access by ladders to the roof
 Language = can assume they were already Indo Euro
 (could support Renfew) the spread of farming to Europe – supported by clear evidence
 Migrating farmers into Europe  seen from biomolecular findings = farming spread by
people moving, NOT through cultural adoption (9600-4000 BCE)
 Over time these Indo-Euro pop. became isolated & they developed independently
 According to Renfew  spread of languages could be correlated to processes that are
archaeologically visible & IDs one of these processes in the spread of agri from Ana to
Europe – 2 lines of movement : through MEDI & through THE BALKANS
 DNA studies have proved there were NE movement from Anatolia to Europe
Evidence against this Anatolian Hypothesis
 Biomolecular research also reveal another major Euro demographic shift of Neolithic pop’s movement from
Eurasia steppe
o Euro prehistory = 3 genetic groups
 Mesolithic Europeans, Early Neolithic incomers from Anatolia, & later Neolithic incomers from
Pontic Steppe
 *** if early Neolith. Euro = Indo-Euro speakers (as Ana theory suggests), then it’s
surprising that the Indo Euro language with stood this major demographic shift
o Unless the later Neolithic incomers were also indo-euro
 After the supposed arrival of Europeans there was a 2nd wave of immigrants  so we should find
evidence of this second time
 Another linguistic point discrediting Renfrew’s theory
o Idea that early Neolithic Euro = Indo-Euro speaking
 Reconstructed Proto-Germanic = mostly Indo-Euro, BUT some non-Indo-Euro influence
 The non Indo Euro side  had less agricultural terminology
 Suggests the non Indo had less experience with farming, had to learn from Euro
(??? So who thinks migration and who thinks natives??? What does that even mean I’m so confused)

OTHER MIGRATION THEORIES (Case Study: Troy)

 Mellaart says:
A break b/w Troy I & II
o Interpreted as some invasion at the end of Troy I  arrival of Luwians
- BUT today we know there’s actually overlap b/w Troy I & 2 = CONTINUITY not discontinuity
Also break b/w EBA II & III
o At the end of Troy IIG  arrival of the Greeks
- BUT today, even though look like a break at the citadel
o 2500-2300 BCE = lower town was still occupied continuously
o A lot of continuity b/w EBA II & III at Troy in ceramic assemblages
o Cemeteries that continue to be used in EBA III too  hard to believe there was a break

(Mellaart & similar theories)

Methodological Issues :
– 3 common assumptions about migration
1) Cultural change (discontinuity) = b/c of migration & ethnic replacement
o Change caused by outside the culture
2) ID b/w material culture & ethnos
3) Violent mass migration mainly how language diffuses
o Also implies invasions considered a Southern phenomenon
 1 & 2 are archaeological issues
o “Red-Black Burnished Ware issue”
 Mentioned in book (by Akkermans & Schwartz) – talking about proto Urians
 Thought about this idea until the 80s
 That this style was associated w/ a specific ethnicity (later texts ID as Urians)
 “Pots & people problem”  What is the relation b/w material culture style & enthno-linguistic or
political groups ? Do pots = people ?
 (early 20th cent.) Early scholarship = find big material change  immigration of new
people
o their idea  changes in material = changes in people
 Mid 20th cent = considered more internal societal developments for changes in material
 Like the theories for the end of the 2nd Urbanization in Syria
o Climate change & the people adopting a worse way of farming
o NOT BASED OF MIGRATION
*** discontinuity does NOT immediately mean migration or invasion (external factors)
*** Serious doubt on assumed ID b/w material culture & ethnic groups
- Evi show ethnic groups could have diverse material styles & a single style could be used by multiple groups
- Ethnic and linguistic aren’t always the same – could have sub-groups of social / economical differences
March 9
Lecture 07.
Nomads & Sedentary People: MBA in Syria
(Liverani chap 11 & 13 / Mieroop 5, 5.1-4, 6.1)
 developments in S Meso & Syria
 focus on Mari archives – example of the new
political structures (nomadic & sedentary) &
developments across Syria

S MESOPOTAMIA DEV – after Ur III

Isin-Larsa Period (2003-1792 BCE)
 2003 BCE = Elamites capture UR & King Ibbi-Sin
 1792 BCE = Hammurabi of Babylon

- Major changes of this period

o Breakdown of political unity into
fragmented city-states like before
 Called “Second in terminate
period of Babylonia” --
Considering periods in
between unification times as
“normal” = misleading
 City-states = heart of Meso
political organization
o Linguistic change = Akkadian popular now
(before Sumerian)
o Ethnic composition = Amorite rise
 South – rise of Larsa & Isin, decline of
Umma & Lagash / North – rise of
Babylon, decline of Kish
 Eshnunna became hegemonic power
 Some structural continuities (b/w Ur 3 & early 2nd
mill.)  Demography, economy, technology
 o Some architectural styles & plans in cities (temples, royal palaces, houses, etc.)
 In South = city centred around palace BUT temples still big & was the decentralized admin
centres distribution
 BUT SOME CHANGES TO THIS SYSTEM
Some changes in the system of S Meso
*** Basic structural diff. b/w the N & S Temples
 Rise in private sector in trade - BA Syria (N)
o Initially = like UR III period  temple giving merchants o Temples = Only cult functions
textiles for copper  A simple layout (in antis)
o Beginning of LARSA DYNASTY  role of temple visible o Palace were more complex = core
BUT marginalized of Syrian state
 Merchants traveled independently, came back to
UR – dedicate their goods to goddess
 Trade = from state controlled to private activity w/ only fiscal relation to state
 Led to family run companies – could still run even when state collapse technically
 Evolution of social relations  maybe b/c of rise of Amorites (Sargon’s origin)
o Amorite = different social structure, king-based society *** Kin relations =
o Palace & temple = closed corporations basis of social
 Palace officials gave posts to own sons / family members structure
 Prevented members from the outside from entering same posts
 Monopolized the admin knowledge = created new type of elite
o Private land given by kings
 Those functionary / admin elites started to own those lands
 Increased autonomy of these families in land ownership
 Bros started to divide property b/w themselves (inheritance, marriage, etc.)
 Some places it wasn’t officially them owning land yet
 See weird contracts of sellers “adopting” buyers to “sell” land to them (have them inherit
the land)
o Palace also hired people to build things
 Paying salaries slowly overtook giving out rations
 from palace & temples to rise of individuals and their autonomy

Political Developments
 2003 BCE = Elamites capture UR & King Ibbi-Sin
 Some former influential cities rose to independence  Isin, Larsa, Eshnunna (buffer
b/w Meso & Elam) *** Ur’s had a core area &
 Little known about area N of Nippur – BUT Kish & some others were independent a periphery area controlled
ISIN by generals
 Dynasty founded by King Ishbi-Erra
- That buffer area lost
o Claim to be heir of Ur empire
after their collapse
o Controlled Ur & Nippur
- Mari, Ashur, Elam
o Ishme-Dagan  tried to expand North already independent
 Failed at Kish powers
o Then successor, Lipit-Ishtar  kept Nippur of S cities (Ur, Uruk, & Eridu) –
then he was expelled
 Shortly after = this dynasty fell & new dynasty started
o Also lost territory to rising dynasty at Larsa
o Then the new dynasty also fell
 Last king = Erra-immiti gave reign to Enlil-bani
 Who lost Uruk (their last city in S)
 went from heir of Ur III to back to a city-state --- & Larsa rose

LARSA
 1961 BCE = founded by Naplanum (Amorite name) before Ur fell
 ~ 1800 BCE = started to rise & expand
o Gungunum took Ur & Lagash from Isin / Suza from Elam
 Took standard title of Ur Kings = “King of Sumer & Akkad”
 Abi-sare stopped Isin from conquering S cities
 Sumu-El campaigned N
o Passed Isin & got Nippur – & he was deified there
o Defeated Kazallu & Kish = Larsa became hegemonic power
 Rim-Sin’s reign = Larsa’s centralization
o Had longest reign (~60 y)
o 1810 BCE = he defeated coalition led by Uruk, Isin, & Babylon
 Captured villages around Uruk
 After More military success around Larsa & regaining Nippur  1800 BCE = Uruk destroyed
o 1793 BCE = defeated Isin
 NOW ONLY RIVAL = Babylon
 Hammurabi became Babylon’s king the next year
o Next 30 years tried to consolidate his power in S
 He concentrated admin stuff in capital & reduced economic independence of earlier city-states
o Laid foundation for Hammurabi’s centralized state
 Hammurabi waited for Rim-Sin to be old before he started to conquer everything
 1763 BCE = got Larsa
 BUT he kept the admin system & relied on people from Larsa to admin S Babylonia
 Ambition of these states were LOCAL
 contrast the maintenance of grand procedures (ie. deified rulers & imperial titles providing sense of continuation)
 Still see legacy of Akkadian kings operating  Akkadian represented success in unification of Meso.
o Amorite dynasties in N tried to reflect Akkadians in their titles / names, etc. (ie. we see 2/3 “Narim Sin”s)
 BUT NOW = Conflicts limited to core areas of city-states
*** Between fall of Ur and Hammurabi’s conquest of S Meso
 There was prominence of Isin
 Period of conflict with Larsa
 Then the unification of Hammurabi (1792 BCE) = Hammurabi to throne

IN SYRIA
MBA (2000-1600 BCE)

 Archaeological chrono in 2 parts

o 2000-1800 BCE = MBA I
o 1800-1600 BCE = MBA II
Tell Mardikh at Ebla
 Stratigraphy sequences there provides most for this chrono
o Mardikh III A = MBA I
o Mardikh III B = MBA II
 Syria = clear break in material culture b/w EBA & MBA
o Ceramics have differences in shape, décor, way of making
o Clay figures have new forms
o House/town plans have changes
MBA I (2000-1800 BCE)
Different regions in Syria
 v. fragmentary evidence
 West Syria
o Many abandoned or reduced in size & prosperity after EBA collapse
o Ebla exception = still considerable resources & power
 built a big wall & gate in early MBA I
o Fragmentary evidence  don’t know that much
 East Syria
o Little evidence for MBA I
o There’s some data for trend of de-urbanization
 Euphrates region = decline of permanent settlements
 Balikh region = pattern of small sites & bigger states
 Hammam el-Turkmam = break in ppl living there in MBA I & some building on acropolis
 Khabur region = de-urbanization in early MBA I  many large sites abandoned
 Tell Brak = see significantly reduction in size
 ONLY lower Euphrates valley does urbanization really continue – BUT STILL signs of reduction
 Period of Shakkanakkus rulers (~2200-2000 BCE) at Mari = construction of royal buildings
o A royal palace from 18th c.
o BUT STILL signs of difficulty  abandon Eastern Palace & 100 y break in text documents
 b/w end of Shakkanakkus & Lim dynasties
 early 19 c. BCE = text sources from Kultepe reveal thriving trade b/w C Ana & Assur region
th

MBA II (1800-1760 BCE) – new diffusion of urban life in Syria

Mari and the era of ARCHIVES
 Politically = appearance of regional political states
o These place produced lots of records
o Ex. Mari, Alahlak, Tell Leilan
 New regional powers & areas:
o Yamhad & Qatna – on the west
o Mari – along Euphrates
o Assyria
o Upper lands – often contested b/w Mari &
Assyria
 Had a bunch of small city-states &
tribes
o Eshnunna still important
o Carchemish & other states in subordinate
position Map of main political states during this half century
MARI AGE (1800-1760)
 known because of Mari archive at Palace of Zimri-Lim – from letters, admin, treaties, etc.
 They cover period of 3 GENERATIONS – first half of 18th c. BCE
 REGION OF MARI = characterised by close contact & interaction w/ 2 types of people
o Nomadic & sedentary = political organization of Mari tribe at the palace
 City scribes made stereotypes of the country nomads as uncivilised etc.
 BUT now we see more subjective view of their relation = that it was a symbiosis relation
o Both economies = based on production
 Both needed each other economically BUT also conflict w/ using the same lands
o Nomads & City people didn’t like each other
 Nomads – a degree of aggression to palaces
 City – tried to subdue the nomads and use them as another work force / military
 MID EUPHRATES & KHABUR VALLEY = Amorites (Northern nomadic people)
o New presences to area  replaced previous Elbaite and Akkadian groups
 Economy = based on sheep, goats, agri *** Mieroop = economy
o Seasonal locations for farming  summer in Euphrates valley & winter in just sheep & goats
semi-arid plateau
 Only one group moved, the others remain in villages to farm
Liverani = economy
 Dimorphic sit. = higher concentration of ppl in summer, lower in winter
 Agri & pastoral cycles fit together & not all land was used (b/c fields
sheep, goats & agri
were rotated biannually)
 Political organization = King-based group structure & smaller subgroups
o 2 groups = Banu-Sim'al & Banu-Yamin
o Mari ruler was from the Banu-Sim’al tribe  subjugating Banu-Yamin was hard
 Caused some wars
 Tribes had own villages with leaders – military & political rep of community to central palace
o Palace gave leaders formal recognition, leaders gave gifts
 THE ENVIRONMENT
o b/w the fertile valley & semi-arid plateau = seasonal farming & nomadic settlements in winter and spring
 so Mari state had a semi-nomadic part & the palace sedentary part
 Along Euphrates & Khabur = network of cities  Cities had hierarchy
o Some had independent rulers, others had palace admin ruling
o Hierarchy changed over time
 Period in Mari archive = show ruling b/w centre of Mari & Shubat-Enlil
 Mari control Mid Euphrates & Lower Khabur
o Terqa, Saggaratum, Qattunan, & Tuttlu
 Shubat-Enlil control Assyria & Upper Khabur – chosen by Shamshi-Adad as his resi.
Political structure of Amorite kingdoms based on 2 things :
1) City with palace & agri fields
 2) Tribal group w/ wider presences in region
o TITLE  “King of Mari & Hana” (Hana = a tribe & geo. region / BUT is general term for “pastoral ppl”)
 Attest to recognizing the 2 components of their state  “King of city & the nomadic tribes”
 Similar meaning in S = “King of Uruk & Amnanum”
o Developed alongside each other & influence each other
 Dev of palace also influenced dev of tribal groups
o Main struggle of palace was controlling those tribes – BOTH had same production economy & needed
each other  BUT using same lands inevitable let to coflicts
 Scribal traditions still v. S – culturally influenced by S  BUT for tribes, could’ve been very different (don’t have
things from them tho)
Palace economy = Argi fields (limited compared to S Meso), Taxes on tribes, Commercial networks across their region
 Lands they own NOT as vast as S Meso people
o So most surplus came from taxing villagers & pastoral people
 Lack of technological, economical resources & less specialists than S Meso
o See this in admin letters written by admins
 They complain lack of specialised workers  they tried to organize sharing these few specialised
workers b/w several diff. palaces
o Sit. got worse under Shamshi-Adad (king of Assyria)
 he constructed new palaces, BUT the older palaces of Mari & Assur had to give up some resources
to build them  so really didn’t help
 ALSO state of constant conflict b/c kings constantly wanted to expand = wasted a lot of resources
o They relied on the nomads to arrive (not scared of them anymore) to help them fight their wars
 The struggles didn’t affect the tribes tho
o While palaces fell left, right, and centre (for a # of reasons)  These tribes started to rule
 Hammurabi destroyed Mari
 Shamshi-Adad’s reign reduced the city of Shubat-Enlil
 Terqa & Tuttul suddenly collapsed
 First 50 ys (1800-1750 BCE) = mid-Euphrates Valley & Lower Khabur dotted with a big network of palaces
 then 100 y later (~1750 BCE) = palaces fell, region became de-urbanised & tribes/pastoral groups started to rule

Political Developments (all Amorite kings) 

MARI
 Had been independent since Ur III
o ON UR
o After collapse of ruler – Ur generals stayed
in power for another cent.
o Then suddenly that end for unknown
reasons & Ur may’ve been abandoned
o Mid 19th c. = new dynasty, from Syria
among a Semitic branch of the Amorites
 Mari as a powerful kingdom was created when
Yahdun-Lim (1810-1795)  moved his capital to
Mari (part of the Banu Sim’al tribe & Lim Dynasty)
o Ended Shakkanakku Dynasty
o Became “king of Mari, Tuttul & Hana”
o Commemorative inscription about his
victory over 7 kings, “fathers of Hana” 
defining moment for the creation of this
kingdom, & mentions a lot of his building
projects
o Yahdun-Lim also solidified Mari’s alliances
w/ Yamhad & Eshnunna
 Shamshi-Adad (Assyrian period) (Amorite origin) later took Mari
o Then he put one of his sons on Mari’s throne
1807-1775 BCE in Syria = NE Syria/NW Meso under Mari, kings of Eshnunna tried to get the E side
 o Mari Eponym Chronicle  describes Shamshi-Adad rise to power as an Amorite heir (the nomadic
people, tribal chiefs)
o He took over Ekallatum (maybe inherited from dad) – made place a temporary capital
o 1807 BCE = he removed Erishum II (greatgrand son of Sargon) from Assur, took title “King of Assyria”
& continued war with Eshnunna (King Dadusha ruling at the time)
o Formed the Kingdom of Upper Mesopotamia
o Gave Assyria to his son Ishme-Dagan in Ekallatum
o And moved home to Shubat-Enlil
o 1795 BCE = his son, Yasmah-Addu appointed to Mari
o The abrupt change b/w being politically fragmented to unified imperialism – hard to make it stick, not v.
sustainable successfully
 SE  2 powerful states to face : Eshnunna & Babylon
 NE  pressures from Zagros Mountain groups
 W  had to face Yamhad
 Shamshi-Adad = (like S Meso king) he followed examples of Akkadian kings 
o used title of “Strong King” or “King of Akkad”, aspired for universal kingship, made and expedition to
the Medi. Sea --- BUT he didn’t quite reach that b/c he never got S Meso & didn’t consider himself just
“King of Assyria”
o He subed authority of the god Assur (national god of Assyria) w/ Enlil
 He gave attention to Nippur’s diety – the one that gave Sargon his power -- & named his capital
Shubat-Enlil
(his king list almost identical to Hammurabi’s & both put Amorite chiefs at the start of their Dynasty  no more stigma
against being Amorite now)
o 1775 BCE = Shamshi-Adad died & his Mari kingdom didn’t survive
 Like the Akkad power, typical personal powers didn’t last more than 1 or 2 generations
 After death, New Dynasty at Mari = Zimri-Lim
o This phase of the royal palace attributed to him
o An ally of Yamhad
o Continued wars w/ Assyria
1761 BCE = (the latest year talked about in Mari Archives) after conquering Larsa, Hammurabi pushed back Assyria &
took Mari – then 2 years later destroyed Mari
 The Archive when Hammurabi came
o They sacked it
o BUT his scribes went through the archives and organized it by topics (in 3 days)
 And they chose all the text that mention Babylon – they shipped this to Babylon, so the actual
archive doesn’t have much on Babylon (but a few remained b/c they were working so fast)
 They were interested in their diplomatic relationship
More political devs in book (got to look there)
 Generally see : continuous war b/w power, shifting alliances & palaces in power
o For Mari  until conquest of Hammurabi
o For Yamhad  until mid 17th c. w/ the end of Archive of Alahlak VII
 And the Hittites put order in Syria
 While Hammurabi brough order in the mid-Euphrates area
 Yamhad & Babylon were powerful – BUT they’re too far from each other to actually engage in any significant
interaction or war
o So just Mari got destroyed

 MAIN POINTS : dimorphic nature of Syrian states (ie. Mari), diff b/w N & S Meso
March 11
Lecture 08.
Political landscape of MBA Anatolia (Capardoni)
(Liverani chapter 12.2 & 12.3)
TOPICS OVERVIEW:
 The political landscape in Anatolian plateau
 main source: epigraphical texts from Kültepe (Kanesh, the ancient name) archive
o Was a private archive --- Unlike the main source for Syria  the archive of the Royal palace at Mari (so
mostly admin texts)
 From Assyrian merchants – from beginning of 2nd mill. moved from Assur to central Ana.
 Mainly talks about the trade happening b/w Assur and central Ana. that’s part of a bigger network
An example of international trade
 Old Assyrian Trade

KARUM PERIOD (K.P.)(when Assyrians traded with Anatolians) OR “Assyrian Colony Period”  Period covers the
“Old Assyrian period” to the 20th-18th centuries
 ~ 2000-1900 BCE = Assyrian merchants from Assur organized large-scale commercial exchange with CENTRAL
ANATOLIA
o Merchants settled in several places called Kārum ( usually the Lower Kārum (p. 213 Liverani)
Town ) a settlement outside the local city
 at Kültepe/Kanesh
- Excavated the clear
fortified city / citadel /
  An Akkadian word = meaning the port in a Meso city, ie. harbour
 In Anatolia = referred to the Assyrian merchant district of their cities
 Kanesh = centre of trade in Anatolia (Kanesh–Assur trade is the only place for good sources on these long
distance trades – they are best way to understand them)
o Very long excavation here (~60ys)
o Stratigraphy here = chrono for the Anatolian plateau for 2000-1500 BCE
 Site is divided into 2 parts  each with own stratigraphy
 Kārum II = the main period of Assyrian merchants in Ana
o Kārum Ia = period after the merchants left
o Kārum II & Ib  period w/ found written
documents

EXTENT OF NETWORK
 trade network in Syria Syrian = covers much of
central Ana where many MBA cities are
 Beycesultan (centre for W Ana) – no arch evidence that they were involved in this trade
o So while the network prob shrank & grew w/ time – it never reached as far as Beycesultan

SOURCES
 The written documents / archives
o Period documented by over “Old Assyrian” 24,000 cuneiform text – by those Assyrian merchants in
Kanesh
 The first occurrence of writing in Ana
o Mostly about the records of long-distance trade
 BUT also show us about Anatolian kingdoms’:
 Institutions
 Economy
 Society
 Some parts of their political/economical history
 Archaeological data
o Many sites looked at was present for the KP
 BUT few ID w/ their ancient names
o A few of the known cities:
 Kültepe  Kanesh
 Bogazkoy  Hattusa
 Alisar-hoyuk  Ankuwa OR Amkuwa
 V. big settlement in central Ana
 Has 2 parts – 1 citadel (upper town),
1 lower town
 Occupied from 4th-1st mill. BCE
 At Level 10 (Karum Period Ib) =
found 67 cuneiform tablets
 Well archaeologically documented
 Acemhöyük
 Occupied since EBA & has 12 stratigraphy levels
o Level 3 & 4 = MBA
 2 Kārum 1b palaces excavated
o Sarikaya in SE – (w/ dendrochronology) ~1777 BCE
 end of Kārum Ib = Destroyed by fire at the
o Hatipler in NW
 No Kārum found OR any cuneiform tablets
 BUT many artifacts found
o Clay bullae w/ short cuneiform inscriptions & seal impressions of Shamshi-Adad I
o Fired animal figurines
 o Objects made from stone, ivory, silver & bronze
 clear that even tho no texts, all that stuff show they were involved in trade/network
- Kanesh provides both Kārum Ia & Ib – the most ancient phases
- Others (Hattuša, Alisar-hoyuk, Acemhoyuk) provide important Kārum Ib levels

KÜLTEPE / KANESH
 Centre of the Kingdom of Kanesh
 2 parts of the site =
o Circular mound / citadel – 550m diameter, 20m height
o Lower town / Kārum – surrounds mound from N, E, and S (like a crescent)
o The W side = a lake
 Mound / Citadel stratigraphy– 18 levels
o Level 10-6 = MBA
o Level 8-7 = ended with fire
 Kārum stratigraphy – 4 levels (all MBA)
o BUT ONLY Level II & Ib gives written sources
Citadel, Level 8-7 (Kārum II & Ib, respectively)
- 3 separate palaces found (picture below)
o Level 8 / Kārum II
 Palace 1 – S part of mound, 90m,
 Most of the stuff, taken out before fire
 Only some pottery left – there was a
cylinder seal & a bullae
 Old Palace – N part, second admin building of
Level 8, 80m
 Was more a complex of 3 buildings
o N part had a mansion and service areas & S had furnaces w/ paved stone
o So had admin & economic functions
o Level 7 / Kārum Ib
 Old Palace  Palace of Waršama
 The architectural plan/kind, earliest one
seen in Ana
o Room around a courtyard
o Built from stone, wood, mudbricks,
and mud
o Wooden post set up at intervals
 Really screwed in fire
o N side had 42 rooms, & from the
thickness of the mudbrick walls,
maybe 2 stories
o Main gate on the W
 Very similar to one at
Alsair & is a prototype for
Hattusa’s
- In the KP = palaces were econ centres
o Merchants brought goods there for storage
o Commercial taxes were instituted
o Therefore, all the store rooms & big courtyards had
important function
- There’s also 2 probable TEMPLES on the mound
o Both around 26x22m
o There were some tablets & pottery from Kārum Ib
o Were abandoned after fire, like the other buildings here
o Maybe from King Anitta
 He wrote about building some temples at Kanesh, so maybe these are the ones
Kārum at Kanes  where locals & the Assyrian pop lived
 Here is where texts are found, in private archives in homes
 Inhabited for ~250 ys
 Kārum II = when Assyrian merchants arrived
o 1927 BCE = Beginning of the trade
o 1836 BCE = fire happened
 Then a gap in sequence, BUT few years
later – settled again
 Kārum Ia = Kārum was in decline
 The foreign merchants who came lived on in the Lower
town & the mound
 Kārum II lower town/city had quarters separated by streets & was also fortified
o Similar to other EBA Ana cities ( but here you can also see stratified society)
o Quarters = buildings close together
 Kārum II buildings  most had 2 sections
o A living room/pantry (where “hearth” is) & archive/storage room (small part)
 Fire destroyed suddenly – they had no time to get things
o Find many letters, some even left unopened yet

EPIGRAPHIC SOURCES
 KP = 22,600 cuneiform tablets – most at Kanesh
o 40 found at the citadel (Level II & Ib)
o The majority found in the private homes (Level II)
o Only 420 from Level Ib in total
o Were many from Assyrian merchants, BUT some to other Ana. traders
 Some other cities had a few texts
o 2 Kārum Ib texts found at Hattusa
o 60 Kārum Ib texts at Alsair
 Archives had private letters sealed in clay
envelopes (to protect during transport)
o Contracts, memos, often refers to local
Ana pops. in the business – so really
tells a lot of MBA Ana.
 Few historical texts found at Kanesh
o 2 copies from Assyrian King, Erishum
II’s inscriptions
o An old Sargonic legend
 Most complete copy reveals 129
eponym names  one for each
year, and to which Assyrian
king they belong – from
Erishum II to Narim Sin
 helps figure out chrono for Ana. & Assyria
 Treaties b/w Assyrian officials & local Anatolian rulers on
trade
 A Kārum Ib letter sent by King Anum-hirbi of Mamma to
King Waršama of Kanesh (talk more below)
 OVERALL, the texts: gives info on organization of trade, on
local pops., on geo-econ/poli. situation of central Ana
- So even tho C Ana didn’t write yet, we can still see the
econ/poli situation throught the trade with Assyrian merchs.

ORGANIZATION OF THE ASSYRIAN TRADE

(p.216 & 217 of Liverani)
 Organized on 2 levels in Anatolia
 o Kārum = 10 main settlement
o Wabartum = 10 minor colonies
o Difference : Kārum had institutional presences & usually associated w/ most important Ana. cities
 Kanesh <-> Assur – only a part of a bigger trade network
o Probably went all the way to Iran & central Asia for tin, & Babylon for textiles
o (side note: Babylonian textiles = top tier, everybody wanted it since the start)
 Purpose of trade for Assyria =
o To make money/profit (silver)
 NOT to get specific things they didn’t have
 UNLIKE In S Meso during Uruk Period / EDP  wanted to provided goods that they didn’t have
o Was done mainly by private individuals
 LIKE trade in S Babylonia  where there was a rise of private trade
o Silver = money – and used it to set some standards “prices” to get things
 (it was the beginning of a monetary idea)
o Assur = was like the centre of the whole trade network
 Transportation of goods --- By Donkey-Caravans
o Assur  Kanesh – ~50 days, & only able in good seasons
 Procedure of trade seen in 3 basic types of texts (ex. p. 215)
o Merchant at Kanesh made contract w/ a cavaneer (literally a delivery person, or a mail person)
 Stated amount of silver merchant was giving to cavaneer,
 stated to whom the silver was going to at Assur (a rep from same company, often relatives),
 and cavaneer’s promise to give the money & return w/ goods
o Merchant at Kanesh writes a private letter to his people at Assur
 Stated how much money is supposed to be there & instructions, what to do/buy with silver
 Usually they invested half in textiles & half in tin
 Put in those clay envelopes
o Merchant at Assur writes private letter back to guy at Kanesh
 Reported how they invested, so like a receipt for Kanesh guy to check if everything’s there
 There were business expenses
o For commercial/travel taxes, for food for donkeys & caravaneer people
o Silver was like the real money & tin was a secondary minor money
o There was some smuggling to avoid taxes
o Still had high profits, even w/ all the expenses
Advantages for the Anatolian side of the trade
 Assyrian merchants had treaties w/ each Anatolian ruler/state (b/c no unification yet)
o Merchants would pay taxes to travel, authority/ruler/king would ensure safety in travel (delivered
murders?? And replaced lost goods)
 Assyrian merchants were legally independent in the Kārums – had their own authorities and institutions
o & they were protected there & on the road
 Anatolian rulers accepted these trade agreements eagerly

ANATOLIAN STATES
(p. 218 of Liverani)
 Beginning of 2nd mill. BCE = plateau
was fragmented
o # of city-states/centres
(fortified), others were
territorial states w/ a capital &
several small villages
o Literary texts say ~30 city-
states – BUT haven’t
excavated/found that many yet
o Minor cities gravitated towards
bigger centres
  During Kārum Ib = land of Mamma became more important
o Kanesh & Mamma had vassal states
 During Kārum II = 20 cities had a Kārum, 15 cities had a Wabartum
o During Kārum I = sources tell us of less that 10 Kārums & 5 Wabartums
 So there was a possible shrinkage of the trade network
 Some important centres disappeared from the trade – maybe because they were too far now
Structure of KANESH
 Kārum II = Surrounded by ~10 villages
 Kārum Ib = kingdom became even bigger with ~20 villages
Political History (p. 220)
 Kārum II = mention several coalitions of some Anatolian kingdoms
 Ex. b/w king of Wahsusana & Kanesh
o Some letters on hostilities b/w cities to slow or stop trade ??
 Kārum II at Kanesh (does he mean evidence from Kanesh about this time???) = balance of power b/w independent
states
o Kārum Ib = see expansionist goals
 19 c. BCE = Old Assyrian trade was stable
th

o Then after the break in evidence b/w Kārum II & Ib, Kārum Ib = when Assy merchs come back, they had a
more complex situation to deal with
 Seen in the letter from King Anum-Hirbi (side note: Anum-hirbi is a Hurrian name)of Mamma
to King Waršama of Kanesh
 The king of a vassal kingdom of Kanesh invaded Mamma’s territory & looted its villages
 Recently exca Old Assyrian letter, from Assur to the Kārum at Kanesh
 Refers to war b/w Zalpa and another Ana state
 BOTH  Shows how Anatolia really had internal conflicts & neighbouring states argued
 If Anum-Hirbi’s letter is a reliable source  it, w/ another reliable source, helps give overall picture of this time
o The other text = a copy of King Anitta of Kushshara inscription, several centuries later
 About his military achievement of expanding into Central & Northern Ana, even invaded Kanesh
 He had 3 campaigns
 Anum-Hirbi’s letter & the copy of King Anitta’s inscription Archives of Kültepe
o Show the expansionistic goals of this time - Gives understanding of
o Explains way the Old Assyrian trade network shrank & collapsed ethnic background of
 There was no stability & peace in both Anatolia & Assyria Kanesh
 Kārum Ia = still has presence of Assyrian merchants - & for the first time,
o But the old organized network probably didn’t exist anymore Indo-Euro elements in
Ana
OVERALL picture from the texts (summary): - 4 different languages
- Kārum II = fragmentation in Anatolia, but a balance of power attested in eponyms on
o wars & conflict the tablets  Hurrian,
- Kārum Ib = larger territorial states w/ expansion goals, even more conflict Hattian (don’t know
OTHER TOPICS learned from the texts where it comes from),
--- Palace & Admin Indo-Euro: Luwian,
 Each city-state  had own palace & king Hittite
o Assyrian texts never give name of local kings - Here we see multiethnic
 Except for Labarsha – used to date a transaction community, unlike
 During Kārum Ib = Assyrian docs were written under supervision of local rulers -- anywhere in NE
better reconstruct Kanesh kings
 City’s also had several diff. functionaries in charge of diff. services
o Workers & craftsmen
o We see mention of ~50 diff titles = so clearly, Anatolian admin was very specialized & structured
 “Chief of the Stairway” = maybe the crown prince
 “rabi sikitim?” = chief of something, had military & trade duties
 “Chief scepter-bearer”, “chief cup-bearer” “chief of tables” = directly attached to service of the
king
 Sargon I of Akkad  originally “chief cup-bearer” of the king of Kish before he became
king --- so clearly this position was a very high office
  Crafts people under “Chief of the workers”
 Each craft had its own chief (“… of the fallow, blacksmiths, etc.”)
--- On Assyrian interaction w/ local population
 Mainly commercial relationships
 1st gen of Assyrians = were men, left family at home, stayed for a bit then when back to Assur
 As more Assyrians came & settled  relationship changed
o The men now had a 2nd marriage w/ an Anatolian woman
 2 rules to this:
 Can’t have 2 wives w/ the same status
 Can’t have both wives in same place
o So Assur wife – took care of house & agri
 When they went back to Assur, usually divorced the Anatolian wife
 Usually that wife would keep the home & furniture & some money
 Assur man would take care of any kids, BUT he might just bring them w/ him back home
o Many local Anatolians improved their position in society by the interactions w/ Assyrian merchants
 Some acted as their creditors or married one of them
o w/ increase of mixed marriages
 Kārum became a mixed social colony – many families w/ Anatolian & Assyrian names
 Kārum Ib = Assyrians left & writing disappeared
o Reintroduced later by the Hittites
 so the texts/letters also gives us understanding of the real lives of the people (on personal matters)

SUMMARY OF CAPARDONI LECTURES

- Rise of urbanization
- How interconnected the whole place is BUT still very different in ID & culture
o Development of writing & how they changed going to diff cultures
- There isn’t really a centre or periphery  Just diff cultures interacting & giving way to new results

March 12
Lecture 09.
New Political Scenario in the 16th-15th cent:
Old Hittite Kingdom & Beginning of the Mittani Kingdom (Giorgieri)
(Liverani chapter 15, 16, 17 / Mieroop 6.3-4, 7.1-4, 8.1)
TOPIC OF LECTURES 9-11 = on the LBA, which shows profound changes in NE history
- Lec 9  on the origins of this change
o Why & how the formation of the Hittite & Mittani Kingdoms
- Lec 10 & 11  analyse 2 specific later phases of LBA
o Age of El Amarna archive (14th c.)
o Age of Hittite Empire (14th-13th c.)

OVERVIEW OF MAIN CHARACTERISTICS OF LBA (1500-1200 BCE)

 Era of the Great Regional States (G.R.S.) = “Club of the Great
Powers” (C.O.G.P)
(from Mieroop)
~1600-1200 BCE = “ NE became united in an international system that
involved the entire region from W Iran to Aegean sea, from W Ana to Nubia.
A # of large territorial states interacted w/ one another as equals & rivals.
Located b/w them, esp. in the Syro-Palesitne area, were smaller states that
owed allegiance to their more powerful neighbours, & often acted as proxies
for them in their comp. The system spanned beyond the confines of the NE: it
incorporated the Aegean world & Egypt, which at this time had its largest
territorial expansion & was actively in the NE to their N & Nubia in their S.
Over these centuries, the major states involved changed in some place, but there was a remarkable consistency in their division
of power over the entire area.

The GREAT KINGDOMS were: Kassite Babylonia | Hittite Ana. | Egypt | & in N Meso/Syria – first the Mittani state, then
Assyria in the mid-14th c. On their east was the powerful kingdom of Elam, and in the Aegean west, Mycenae. In the middle
was the states of Syria & Palestine, which were mostly city-states in extent & organisation & depended on one of the great
powers. ”

*** we’re focusing more on Western part = Hatti, Mittani & Egypt ***

CRISIS & RESTRUCTURING B/W MBA & LBA

 Late-MBA = Fall of the last Amorite Kingdoms: Yamhad & Babylon (map=transition period b/w MBA & LBA)
o Caused by military campaigns of first Hittite kings
(Hattusili I & Mursili I)
o Centrality of power shifted from C-S Meso to N Meso &
the west
 Emergence or rise of new pops. & birth of G.R.S.
o in Hatti = Hittites,
o in Mittani = Hurrians & Indo-Arians,
o in Babylonia = Kassites & Assyria
 Not from violent migrations of new people 
BUT it was emergence of social elites who were
already there = filling the power vacuum
 In Babylon = Amorites ---> Kassites
 In N Meso/Syria = Yamhad ---> Mittani
 & from bring together bigger territorial states that were prev. smaller divided ones
 In Ana = the Hittite kingdom/empire
 In N Meso/Syria = Mittani kingdom
 BUT there’s lack of reliable sources = so problems in knowing about the formation of these new great states
 16th-15 c. BCE = known as the Dark Age b/c only very few written sources
 Direct intervention of Egypt in NE politics in LBA. (map = great powers of LBA)
o Birth of Egypt’s New Kingdom (18 Dynasty)th

 Pharaohs’ military campaigns in Syria to

counteract against expansion of Mittani
 ^ all those factors created = New geopolitical balances
o “2nd International Age” / “Age of el Armarna”
 The 1st International age = Amorite Age
(where there were regional states
controlling minor ones)
 Difference of the 2nd one:
 More specific in formalising
political interactions/more stable
 The system now is in a bigger
region that includes W Ana & Med.
 the COGP dynamic =
 Great states / kings vs. little states /
kings (in Syria)
 More balance of power all over the NE
 Dev. of diplomacy
 Formalisation of alliances
 Horizontal (b/w equal states) & vertical (Systems of subordination b/w states of diff ranks – a
dominate state & a “vassal” state)
 2 diff. political controls:
 Egyptian system
 oCharacterised by lack of a written formalisation of the relationship the pharaohs
had w/ his subjected/vassal states & kings  b/c the pharaoh wasn’t interested in
the internal affairs of his vassal states
 There was only a presences of an Egyptian military garrison that really
officialised their control
o He only cared about getting his tribute & taxes
 vs. Asiatic system (the Hittite system)
o Characterised by written, formal treaties to officialise a state’s subordination
o A reciprocal support of Hittite king (king 1) & the vassal king (king 2)
 King 2  promised military support to king 1 & hist dynasty
 King 1  promised military protection & helps king 2’s dynasty
o So direct involvement in each other affairs
--- on Aegean/Mycenean involvement
- Called “Ahhiyawa” in Hittite sources
- Arch evi for their presence in W Ana (ex.
Ugarit)
o & for certain periods involved in the
politics of Ana

DIFFERENT POLITICAL PHASES IN LBA

from Liverani 
#1 = 17th-16th c.
#2 = phase of coexistence of Mittani & Egypt |
#3 = when Hittite emp. expanded & Mittani fell & a
new Assyrian kingdom
#4 = final phase when the great empires fell

(below: another diagram of the different phases)

*** notice Kassites aren’t really involved in the later
phases – mostly just the western side ***
SOCIO-CULTURAL ASPECTS OF LBA
 Diffusion of using the Light chariot in war
o (much debated) No direct connection b/w invention of these chariots & Indo-Euro culture
o Horses & chariots were usual things in this period  they were prestigious things
 Change in social sit.  birth of military aristo. closely linked to An unsent letter from El Amarna Archive:
ruling dynasties from Amenhotep III to a King Kadashman-Enlil of
o Ex. in Mittani – these nobles called “mariyannu”  word Babylon
from an Indo-euro language
o V. typical of this time = kings would give land donations,
large estates to these nobles
 Affirmation of ideals of a strong & heroic king
o They search for prestige in war & by they build a lot
 Really typical act = create new capitals
 Ex. Dur-Krigalzu in Kassite Babylonia / Akhetaten
(by Amenhotep IV) in Egypt / Tarhuntassa in
Hittite Kingdom / Kar-Tukulti-Ninurta in Assyria
 Greater class division  b/w rich people/court & the normal
people
o Caused a social-econ crisis
- “Karaduniash” = Kassite name for Babylon
 From the expensive things of military & building
- “my brother”  they use a lot of familial
done by the courts terms to address
 All these things caused people to be pretty - We see how horses and chariots were
pessimistic -- cause pessimistic literature ?? BUT prestigious symbols
it seems pess. lit. already came from earlier times
 Internationalism
o Trade, gift exchange, diplomatic marriages – these negotiations were hardly ever simple or peaceful
 They never wanted to appear too complacent or too submissive
o From W to E, common/affirmed international culture (a koine)  spread by the court messengers,
merchants, gifts, and ladies???
o Ex. at Akhetaten = find lots of these kinds of gifts – from metal to ivory objects

FIRST PHASE : THE FORMATION OF LBA (1500-1450 BCE)

BACKGROUD STUFF
 fall of Amorite kingdoms, Hittite OLD Kingdom starts existing
 Other emerging states = Mittani / Kassites in Babylonia / Egypt New Kingdom (17 th-18th Dynasty) begins after
Ahmose I expelled the Hyksos – a Syro-Cannanite Semitic population who came to Egypt and took power, when
the Hurrian pop. grew
 Main Rulers
 In Hatti/Hittite (apparently they’re the same thing, even tho they’re not the same people) = Hattusili I & Mursili I
 In Mittani = none yet
 In Egypt = Ahmose, Amenhotep I *** lack of written sources =
 Some problems with formation of Mittani Kingdom - Don’t know the exact process that
 Little written & archi. sources from them led to formation of Mittani OR Hatti
 Name Mittani comes from a personal name o There is a century gap b/w
General probs w/ Hittite History: King Anitta of Kanesh &
 Historical Chronology Hattusili I
o NO royal list (sacrificial lists for dead rulers only)
o NO dating formula in docs
o They repeat a lot of the same names  hard to attribute which doc goes with whom
o The different chronos from lec 1: High, Middle & Low (for when the fall of 1 st Dynasty of Babylon
happened)
  B/c we got nothing --- Have to used synchronisms w/ Meso history / chrono for the earliest
phases (1600-1400 BCE)  but that means we have to choose the Middle Chrono
 And use Egyptian chrono for later phase (1300-1200 BCE)  and that uses the Low Chrono
 So it just doesn’t match up
 Periodization
o = 3 phases
 Old Kingdom (from Hattusili I to Telipinu)
 Middle Kingdom (from Tahurwaili to Tuthaliya III)
 Empire (from Suppiluliuma I to Suppiluliuuma II)
o English / American = 2 phases (prof’s periodization)
 Ancient Kingdom (Hattusili I to Muwatalli I) (Old Kingdom)
 Empire –
 Early Empire (Tuthaliya I/II to Tuthaliya III) (intermediary phase – Middle Kingdom)
 Empire (Suppiluliuma I to Suppiluliuma II) (the real Empire phase)
--- Tarhuntassa = 2nd Hittite capital founded by Muwatalli II in the mid-14th c.

OLD HITTITE KINGDOM

 outline of this phase in the intro of Telipinu’s Edict (~1500 BCE) (6.2 in Mieroop)
o OMI Old Kingdom kings
o Made this edict to reorganize the admin of the state & to give a new rule for successions
o At the beginning of Edict = he gives long historical background w/ history of the previous kings
 Doing this is characteristic of Hittite Druidical?? Texts (like their treaties)
 So they explain the facts/background to explain why the edict or treaty is being made
o “Tabarna Telipinu” = typical start for Hittite kings – “these are the words of Telipinu”
 Tabarna = a title of Hittite kings, probably from Luwian word Tabar , “to rule"
 About during the reign of Hattusili I
o There were lots of conflicts & conquest for the establishment of the state
o He is the first king we have direct evidence from – he starts the Hittite textual tradition
 Testament of Hattusili I (2 docs)
o He adopts his nephew Mursili as his own son
o Also a long intro explaining the troubling royal family drama – esp. issues from his sons, relatives trying
to assassinate, no one listened to him
(from Liverani)
 Unification of Anatolia didn’t just need a sequences of wars & victories, or even destructions. It also had a strong
political component, made of kinship ties and a common symbolic and ideological heritage.
 On a kingship level, 2 parallel processes were taking place:
o Sons of the Hittite king, sent to the conquered cities to be governors
 According to Telipinu there were local revolts & wishes for independence
o Hittite king also married princesses from the cities he conquered & had members of the conquered royal
fams living at his court
o  Aim of trying to do these things = to create a more unified environment BUT there were problems
 Factions w/in Hittite court & royal fam fought over power & succession
 As political unification of the land was taking place – the Hittite court just became a competition for the throne
o This became a constant feature of any ruling Hittite fam: family management of power, divided among
family members
 Caused major problems & internal conflict  one of the reason the whole state ended

 what Liverani gets wrong = “existence of a mythical Labarna (one of Hattusili’s sons)”
Image: clay Cruciform seals written on w/
Anatolian Hieroglyphs
- Has the names of Hittite kings
- The names of the deceased kings =
NOT actually Hittite
o BUT the descendants of
Labarna I  he became
king by marrying (married
Tawananna) into the fam
o “Labarna” &
“Tawananna” became titles
for king & queen later
- The start of the Hittite royal
dynasty starts with Huzziya I
o Then Labarna I, then
Hattusili I – who was the
son of Tawananna’s
brother, but Labarna I
maybe adopted him
- Anyway, he’s a real person & came
before Hattusili I

March 16
Lecture 10.
Continue from Lecture 9 (Giorgieri) 1:36
HATTUSILI I & MURSILI I
--- in the Tale of Zalpa
- 2 most important first kings of the Hittite state
- The text is a mix of history & legend
o About the Queen of Kanesh, her 30 sons getting
married and she put them in a basket to float
down the Halys River towards Zalpa
Once they ended up in their homeland & they
married their 30 sisters???
o End of text didn’t survive
- The text deals w/:
o Problems of kingship & inheritance system
o The role of Zalpa & Kanesh in the new dynasty
of Hattusa
 o Also talked about Huzziya & Labarna (more on him from Edict of Telipinu)
o & war b/w Zalpa & Hattusa
- Don’t know if, in the time of these kings, Hattusa was already the capital or not ( it seems so in this Tale )
o OR if they ruled elsewhere & Hattusili I moved to Hattusa
 & changed his name to “Hattusili” to match the city – only a guess, don’t really know

Hattusili I began the Hittite written tradition

 We have military campaign accounts, edicts, & a letter by Hattusili
o so Hattusili I = true founder of the official Hittite kingdom
 from the Annals of Hattusili I  Akkadian & Hittite version
- both preserved on tablets & are later copies
o don’t know which version is the original
- about 6 years of his reign – BUT don’t know the exacting 6 years w/in his reign
- text is probs just a selection of the most important events of his rule, not about everything
o or maybe extracts from a longer tradition
- an excerpt from the annal p. 258 in Liverani

Hattusili I & Mursili I (adopted son)

 they affirmed Hittite state on the international level
 they had military campaigns in Syria & Meso
o To get prestige & resources
o BUT had unstable control of these areas afterwards
 Even w/ their internal political conflicts – the first rulers were able to assert their international prestige
o Hattusili I = initiator of international policy against Syrian states, esp against the Yamhad kingdom & their
capital Halap
o Mursili I = destroyer of Halap & Babylon  to gain prestige & goods BUT no stable political control of
these areas
 On the basis of Hattusili’s Annals & several other sources – on the conflict b/w Hittites & the Hurrians in N Syria
o Clear there once existed a bigger historical tradition on these things
o ONLY the Annals are ok – The other sources are often v. bad condition & hard to tell if they belong to the
same context on the Syrian campaigns
 We do see glimpse on the Kingdom of Yamhad being the ruler of the majority of that area
 & maybe there was some coalition/co-op b/w Yamhad & the Hurrians

2 DIFFERENT PHASES IN POLITICS OF HATTUSILI I

1. When Hattusili I entered the political sphere in N Syria & political horizon of those urban centres – looks like
Hittites only wanted booty (2nd year of his reign)
2. 1 year later, he looked west and went against Arzawa (Hurrian) – BUT the powers of N Syria/Hurrians attacked
 He seemed a little shock from this & maybe the Hittite’s survival was pure luck
 Seen in the Annals
o In Hittite version he calls
Arzawa “the Hurrian enemy”
 Hurri = “enemy”
o In the Akkadian version they’re
called “Hanigalbat”
 BUT he learned from this & established control over central Anatolia & adjacent areas  built solid base for
renewal of Hittite military power
 & when he entre N Syria again  he was better prepared
o He eliminated Halab, the centre of the Kingdom of Yamhad & last imperial power of the Old Babylonian
world
o He then conquer its allied cities & weakened Halab’s role as a dominate power
o He left the permeant destruction of Yamhad to Mursili I
 Seen in an edict of Hattusili, for Mursili when he was named heir
 o saying Halap will be
destroyed
o FROM TIMES OF
MURSILI
 Don’t have many texts about his reign
 BUT it looks like the situation in Hatti was peaceful & Mursili was obliged to assert authority over
the places Hattusili conquered
 Needed to get Halab fully if they wanted to significant impact N Syria
 Though sources are rare – Halab is def NOT the only Old Babylonian dynasty he ended
 Edict of Telipinu – talks a little about Mursili’s reign or military actions
o He fought & destroyed Aleppo, Babylon & the Hurrians

On the Hittite attack on Babylon

 Don’t know the cause
 Have v. little sources – only indirect sources from Babylonia
 Don’t know the name of king of Babylon that was defeated at the time
o We just know that at least
by the time of King
Samsu-ditana (stated in
Babylonian Chronicle),
“the Hittites marched
against Akkad”

Hittite military expedition in the

Babylonian tradition = are indirect &
later sources
 Marduk = city diety of Babylon
o A literary/fictional text
o Talks about the god’s trip
from Babylon to other
places
o Took this journey when
Babylon was conquered &
the god was taken from
the city  typical act to
take away city deity of a
conquer city
o “A king of Babylon arose & led me to Babylon” = probs King Agum-Kakrime
 Agum-Kakrime inscription = uses late-Babylonia, so prob fake BUT regardless about important event : the
recovery of cult statues of Marduk from the Hittites

FALL OF THE AMORITE DYNASTY OF BABLYON = Complex phenomenon

 Actual consequences of the Hittite military expeditions unknown
 External causes?:
o In Babylonian sources  the Amorite dyn. continued for a certain period of time, then the Kassite dyn.
took over
 Neither the Babylonian nor Hittite sources explicitly say Mursili’s attack on Babylon ended the
first dynasty there (the Amorite one)
 BUT ALSO: some Babylonian sources ignored the Hittite attack on Babylon:

 Internal causes:
 oStrong fiscal pressure led to revolts
oIn the reign of the last Baby kings
 They launch some campaigns (like in Terqa)
 BUT in the south their power was fragile
 In cities, local “headmen” authorized hiring on crown estates & three were autonomous military
cadres (some were Kassites) established in the rural lands
 These cadres – some lived in cities & were mercenaries for the kings, but were overall a
disruptive force
o So when the Hitties came = there wasn’t much opposition
 OVERALL = fall was complex
o The addition of the Hittites into the problem – they were prob supported by the Kassites or the kings of
Hana
o A doc from Terqua
 Hittites attacked Babylon – maybe to counter any possible influence of the last kings of Amorite
dynasties in Syria

RELATIONSHIP B/W HURRIANS & THE HITTITES (Ancient Hittite Kingdom = end 17th c. – beginning of 16th c.)
 Evidence in Old Hittite texts of conflict b/w first Hittite rulers & rulers of Hurrian kingdoms in N Syria/Meso
o There were also some alliances – ie. Hattusili w/ Tuniptessup of Tikunani
 Not sure if the Hurrian “Kingdom of Mittani” existed yet
o BUT it was first mention a century after this period  in Egyptian text of Thutmosi I
o BUT there is mention of “Hanigalbat” in the Akkadian version of the Annals
 “Hurri” (in Hittite version) = a geographic & ethnic term
 An area b/w Syria & N Meso – partly overlaps w/ Mittani & Hanigalbat  but those 2 are
political terms of an actual state
 Hanigalbat may be an anachronism they put in b/c they were writing in a later time
 So at the time it was written Hanigalbat was a thing, BUT in the time of the actual event it
prob wasn’t
 BUT whatever was there, may be connected to the later Mittani/Hanigalbat state
o Hattusili also sent a letter to the Hurrian king, Tunip-tessup of Tikunani (below)
 They had a joint campaign against the city of Hahhum
 Hattusili often refers to himself as a lion & Hurrians as foxes

 Hittite sources never explicitly mention Mittani

o BUT they use “king of the Hurrian troops”  expression also used in the Idrimi Inscription (problematic
15th c. text) in a singular form for the Mittani king Parattarna & the plural for his ancestors
 The continuation of this expression from 16 th to 15th century = argument for saying Mittani
kingdom did exist during the Old Hittite Kingdom
o Another expression they used “Son of the Storm God”
 From Old Hittite sources = Seems to be no unitary Hurrian political power identifiable w/ state of Mittani
 From de Martino
o Presence of a # of Hurrian Kings & mention of different titles for the Hurrian chiefs shows:
 Hurrians were military active against the Hittites & didn’t belong to one single political entity
BUT were either rulers of Hurrian polities OR chiefs of mercenary Hurrian troops
THE HURRIANS & THE KINGDOM OF MITTANI
CHRONO OF THE HURRIANS

Hurrians in MBA in Syria

 MBA = they weren’t just in Upper Meso, BUT also Syria & SE Ana
o Forming the Kingdom of Mittani

PROBLEMS IN THE STUDY OF MITTANI/HURRIAN

 v. little written & archaeological sources from the Hurrians themselves
 Must use external sources
 Name “Mittani” (older name “Maitani”) = came from a personal name, “Maitta” found in some documents,
unknown origin (maybe Indo-Aaryan)
o Maybe the founder of the state
 Problem of when it formed
o Did it exist during the early Hittite kings OR was it formed around second half of 16 th c. – follow fall of
Amorite state of Yamhad by Mursili
o The first attested “Mittani”  in an inscription during Thutmosi I (1494-1492)
 Problem of the chono of Mittani’s earliest rulers = ???
 Problem of the Indo-Aryan origin of Mitanni dynasty  who founded it?
o LIGUISTIC EVIDENCE for it in the NE during LBA
 Indo-Aryan names of
Mittanian kings
 Indo-Aryan gods in the
Mittani pantheon
 Their gods mentioned in treaties b/w Hittite king Suppilulium I & Mittani king Sattiwaza
o The Mitra-gods, Varuna-gods, Indra, the Nasatya-gods
 & in an admin text from Taidu
o Mention Uaruna – a goddess
  A lot of terms related to horse training:

 The term “mariyannu” = “noble, charioteer”

Height of Mittani Kingdom (~mid-15th c. BCE)

reign of Saushtatar

 Wassukanni = the first capital

o V. little archaeological remains for
the Mittani period of this place
 b/c the Assyrians who took
over covered everything w/
their own stuff
 so unlikely to find any
archive from the Mittani

 The Hurrian language, what the population spoke = wouldn’t have had this many Indo-Aryan terms
o Their appearance in these texts are probably fossilized words

The problems stated by de Martino & von Dassow

--- 2 hypothesis:
1. Mittani already powerful state at the end of 17th c./beginning of 16th c. – so before the Tutmose Inscription
2. Mittani emerged from the political vacuum in Syria after the destruction of Yamhad

Possible candidates for Mittani: The Hurrian kingdoms before Mittani

  Kingdom of Anum-Hirbi from
Old Assyrian period
o Had letters to the king of
Kanesh
o He controlled Hashum,
Alalah (?) & Zalpa
o Probs the main centre of
Hurrian culture during
MBA, W of the
Euphrates
 Kingdom of Pisenden (Hurrian
name) w/ capital Kunsum
o In the archives of
Susarra = the oldest
attestation of
“mariyannu”

 *** Prof agrees w/ suggestion of de

Martino – explaining emergence of
Mittani state ***

The Mittani kings adopt title of “King of

the Hurrian troops”
- Shows how important military was
in their state

 “Maitta” found in archive of Nuzi

Problem of the “Indo-Aryan” character of the Mittani

& the role of the military technology of horse-drawn war chariots
(in Mieroop, p. 261)
 from Anthony
 When Kingdom of Upper Meso fell  Groups of Hurrian speakers may have entered the territory from the
mountains on the east
o They probs brought some cultural elements we usually associate as Indo-Euros – even tho Hurrian itself
NOT Indo-Euro language.
o Later Hurrians = honoured the Indian gods  Mithra, Varuna, and the divine pair Nasatya
 Much speculation  if Hurrians were subjected to an Indo-Euro military upper class
o Some Mittani rulers, the Hurrian state of northern Syria of later 2 nd mill = had Indo-Euro names & their
charioteers designated w/ the word mariyannu (word maybe w/ the Vedic word for “young man”)
  Don’t know exactly about the military class BUT they were men trained for war, esp as charioteers
 Hurrians MAY BE responsible for major tech innovation during the “Dark Age” = use of horse & chariot
o ~1500  = all NE armies used chariots w/ donkeys (while before only used infantry)
o In a 14th c. Hittite manual for training chariot horses :
 Starts w/ = “Thus speaks Kikkuuli, the horse-trainer, from the land of Mittani”
 & the text has a lot of Hurrian vocab & words related to an ancient Indic dialect
 Very detailed instructions about horses – clearly very precious
- Hurrians may have spread horsemanship & domestication of horses throughout the NE
o Invented in area called “Sintashta”
*** everything is much debated tho obvi ***

 view of is de Martino & von Dassow complete different

 VON DASSOW = Regardless of where chariots were invented & what language those people spoke  all claims
are unfounded
o 2 interconnected approaches to the study of Mittani should be excluded from the beginning:
 The approach trying to explain the kingdom’s origin & successful growth by referencing the
arrival of a new populations, esp. an Aryan one
 THEIR RESPONSE: Mittani was NOT the creation of an Aryan population just coming in
from SW Asia
o A small amount of Indo-Aryan vocab & nouns was incorporated into Hurrian
BUT no one in Mittani actually spoke that Indo-Aryan language
o No evidence that say there was a dominate Indo-Aryan speaking pop
o INSTEAD the kingdom identified as “Hurrian” & are king of Mittani attested by
sources as “King of Hurria/of the Hurrian troops” – even tho some rulers had
Indo-Aryan names doesn’t mean they had to be actual Aryans
 & the approach of explaining the phenomena as a result of the development of new military tech,
the horse chariots
 THEIR RESPONSE: their success NOT a result of the innovation of horse-drawn chariots
in war
o It was NOT a Mittani invention  it was a development shared by all the
contemporary states of their time
o Evidence does NOT suggest it originated from Mittani
o Even tho military success did help them grow – it wasn’t because of any
innovation
 DE MARTINO = just because they had a powerful army & there was a presence of military chiefs/nobles as a king
element of this unified Hurrian state  does NOT mean it was the process of Indo-Aryan origin
o The adoption of Indo-Aryan names was probably a secondary thing
 The first Mittani king w/ an Indo-Aryan name was Suttarna – who was NOT the founder of the
kingdom
*** prof agrees w/ them ***
 Anthony said the invention of the war chariot was at the end of the 3 rd. mill in the Sintashta region
o BUT there’s evidence that it was also known at the same time in the Carpathian mountain area & in NE
o Some Old Babylonian period sources say chariots were used in war in the NE before the end of the MBA
o & the Hittites already had chariots in the Old Kingdom period at the end of the 17 th c.
 clearly chariots used in war was not something brought by Indo-Aryans NOR by the Mittani
 there are also horse terms that are of Kassite origin – the Kassites could’ve be horse experts too
 BUT must also acknowledge that the Mittani Hurrians did contribute to the success of the 2-wheeled light war chariot in
the Syrian-Ana area – NOT invented it BUT made it popular
March 18
Lecture 11.
The Mittani Kingdom & the Age of Amarna (Giorgieri)
 more on Anatolia, Syria, Upper Meso
(7.1-3, 8.1, 8.3) 1:50

- The rise of Mittani  dated following the fall of Yamhad

o First Mittani kings of the second half of the 16th c. ONLY attested by name on stele

SECOND PHASE OF LBA (1500-1350 BCE)

 Characterised by:

- After Tuthaliya I/II = Hittite kingdom had another crisis

- Arzawa = major kingdom in Anatolia that rises
 Main Rulers:
o Mittani: Parattarna, Sauštatar, Artatma I, Šuttarna II, Tušratta
o Egypt: Tuthmosi I, Tuthmosi III, Amenhotep II, Tuthmosi IV, Amenophi III
o Hatti: Tuthaliya I/II
o Babylonia: Kurigalzu, Kadashman-Enlil I

EVOLUTION OF THE MITTANI KINGDOM

 mid-15th c. under Sauštatar =
was the biggest

 second half of 15th c. = W

side under Egyptian control

 second half of 14th c. = more

of W side conquered by Hittite
king Suppiluliuma I
- He put an end to Mittani
empire

 the smallest territory is after

the death of Tushratta, who was
the last great Mittani king
- Mittani became a buffer
state b/w Hittite &
Assyria
First kings of Mittani
 only known by name
 Kirta = maybe first king??? Don’t know anything
o Possibly he’s ID w/ someone named “Krt”, the main character of an Ugaritic poem BUT doubtful
 Šuttarna I
o On a dynastic seal legend “Šuttarna, son of Kirta, King of Maitani”  used by Sauštatar later to seal his
own letters & such
o Probably on a doc from Terqa
 Parattarna (maybe I) = the first king we actually know well
o There aren’t any direct documents from him – ONLY indirect
sources:
 In a date formulae on docs from Terqa
 On the Idrimi inscription
 Image: Statue & Inscription of Idrimi
o Idrimi probably from the royal family of
Halab/Aleppo
o Then he went to a desolate region, where
he joined the Sutean pastoralists (nomads)
 Stayed for 7 years w/ the Habiru
(“outcasts”)
 (side note: 7 is a special number,
& there seems to be importance of
the number in the text  so probs
this text was not historical
accurate & more of a tale)
 (side note: “Habiru” –Mieroop
8.1– there’s issues about who they
were  maybe were “the
Hebrew” from Genesis BUT
normally this idea reject
 PROBS was a social class
who left their
communities b/c of
financial/political
pressures & came together
in areas outside of state
control
 The caused some
problems = were bandits
BUT also some were
mercenaries)
o Then for 7 years, “Parattarna, the powerful
king of the Hurrians…”
 (side note: Calls Parattarna “king
of the Hurrians” & also “king of
the Umman-manda” = not sure
who those people are)
o Then he send a letter to Parattarna
 Kind of an offer of subjugation, swore oath to him
 THEN he became king of Alalah – under the authority of Parattarna
 On some treaties from Alalah
 Image: treaty b/w King Idrimi of Alalah & the King Pilliya of Kizzuwatna
o Treaty b/w vassal kingdoms of Mittani
 About the extradition of fugitives
 o Typical example of treaties in this period (beginning of the 15 th c.)

 Image: treatly b/w Niqmeqa (Indrimi’s son) of Alalah & Ir-Addu of Tunip
o It was made under the authority of the Mittani/Hurrian king

 so Parattarna = first well attested Mittani King

 Sauštatar = 2 docs from Alalah & another from Tell Bazi & a letter by a Mittani king to Nuzi (an important city
of the kingdom of Arrapha, a vassal of Mittani)
o In the Nuzi archive = see a letter w/ the seal of possibly Sauštatar
 NOT sure b/c they used family dynastic seals, so it wouldn’t’ve said his name exactly but his
ancestors
 The letter mentions Sauštatar as the Mittani king that conquered Assur
o In an oath of allegiance of Mittani king Šattiwaza (son of Tušratta) to Suppiluluma I
 When Suppiluluma conquered Mittani he made a treaty w/ Šattiwaza
 The text mentions Šattiwaza’s great-great-grandad, Sauštatar – who took Assyria & set up a palace
in the city of Washshukkanni
o In a doc from Alalah = During his reign  controlled Kizzuwatna & Alalah
 On the issue of border territory of king Niqmepa of Alalah & Šunaššura of Kizzuwatna -- &
Sauštatar was the judge in the matter
o In a dating formula from Terqa = his name is seen as “Sausadatra”
o Under him – Mittani reached MAX
 BUT ALSO under him started the crisis of the kingdom
 Area of Kizzuwatna was lost

MITTANI POLITICAL CONTROL OF TERRITORIES – how they exercised control

 structure & mechanisms of their government
- have to distinguish b/w the actual Mittani land (“Mittani” or “Hanigalbat”) & the foreign lands they controlled
(“the lands of the land of Mittani”)
  According to von Dassow  3 models of Mittani government in the empire:
o FIRST – a subordinate state had its own king but was subject to Mittani (ie. Alalah, Kizzuuwatna,
Arrapha)
 so like a vassal & established by a treaty
o SECOND – state was self-governed
 So the relationship was b/w the collective body & the sovereign (ie. Basiru (Tell Bazi)
 (??? No idea what that means)
o THIRD – state was subordinate like a province
 So not a polity anymore (ie. Halab, which was a district/“halsu” of the Empire)
o ANOTHER MODEL – the local king was co-ruler w/ the sovereign (ie. Terqa)
o In all the models = Mittanian rule was interwoven w/ local rule
 They could co-op in resolving legal disputes
 disposition of territorial rights & citizenship right was subject to Mittani authority
 Documents of Mittani kings = very few (maybe 10-15 docs)
o Not found in the capital, Washshukkanni – b/c the Assyrian period built over everything
o The second capital, Tai’de (Taidu)  there was a small Mittanian admin archive
 About the allotment of beer to people
o The few Mittani texts we have = all written in Akkadian

15TH C. EXPANSIONISTIC GOALS OF MITTANI KINGS INTO SYRIA = conflict b/w Mittani & 18th dynasty
pharaohs of Egypt
 synchronisms are uncertain
 Hypothetical synchronism:
o MITTANI Parattarna I (controlled Alalah/Mukish & Kizzuwatna) – EGYPT Thutmosi I (1479-1425)
o MITTANI Sauštatar (conquest of Ashur, sovereignty over Arrapha) – HITTITE Tuthaliya I/II – EGYPT
Thutmosi III (1479-1425) / Amenohotep II (1428-1402)
 Many Egyptian docs talk about the campaigns of pharaohs into Syria
o Thutmosi I = *** EGYPT – for the first time,
 in his 4 /5 year of reign had campaign,
th th makes direct impact on history
 made a stele in Karkemiš, of the NE
 hunted elephants in Niya (very N of Syria)
o Thutmosi III =
 16 campaigns in Syria-Palestine,
 22nd year of reign defeated coalition of Mittani allies at Megiddo,
 other campaigns b/w 24th & 28th year of reign,
 33rd year of reign defeated Mittani troops near Aleppo & made a stele near Karkemiš
o Amenophi II
 Expedition against Mittani in his 3rd, 7th & 9th year of his reign
 Hittite Tuthaliya I/II = went into Mittani territory  annexed Kizzuwatna & conquest of Halab

EGYPT & THE EAST

- There was already a relationship since the 3rd mill.
o There are Egyptian things found in Ebla
- During the Middle Kingdom of Egypt (12th Dynasty = 1958-1773)
o Some Egyptian expeditions into Palestine & an Egyptian presence on the Lebanese coast in Byblos (for
commercial stuff)
- Campaigns of 18th dynasty pharaohs = as far as the Euphrates & Aleppo
o Egypt controlled the Levantine coast as far as Sumur
o Their zone of influence = b/w Tunip & Qadeš
- At the time of Amenhotep III = influence all the way to Ugarit
Egyptian control of Syrian territories
(in Liverani)
 Divided into 3 levels:
o Areas under direct Egyptian control
o (more widespread type) allowing smaller
kings to continue to rule & signing a treaty w/
them
 A spoken oath/treaty, NOT written
 Egyptian pharaohs NOT interested in local affairs –
just wanted their tribute

HITTITE MIDDLE KINGDOM / EARLY EMPIRE

Tuthaliya I (or II) = a new era of the Hittite Kingdom (Early Hittite Empire/Middle Hittite Kingdom period)
  He came to the throne after period of major dynastic internal conflict
o BEFORE HIM = Huzziya II was king  murdered by Muwatalli I who became king  murdered by
Kantuzili & Himuili (probably all relatives)
 The next in line was = Tuthaliya I /maybe II & maybe a “Hattusili II”  BUT nobody now
believes there was a Hattusili II
 The start of Hurrian influence on the Hittite kingdom after the annexation of Kizzuwatna (which had big Hurrian
culture)
o His queen, Nikkal-mati, his son, Ašmu-nikkal, and later queen of Tuthaliya II/III Šatandu-hepa = are
Hurrian names
o Hurrian queens that brought Hurrian traditions over
 Founder of new kingdom (Liverani p. 301)
o Reorganized admin structure of the state
o Annexed Kizzuwatna (a treaty w/ Sunassura of Kizzuwatna) & got Halab (treaty of Hittite Mursili II w/
his cousin Talmi-Šarruma of Halab)
o Signed the first treaty w/ Egypt
 He is the one who gave Hittite state a temporary rising moment
o This caused peace b/w Egypt & Mittani

EL AMARNA LETTERS/ARCHIVE (~50 year period in the 14th cent.)

- Amarna = Akhetaten founded by Amenhotep IV
o He put his dad, Amenhotep III’s letters in the archive too
 350 letters – corresponding w/ the great kings of:
o Babylonia, Assyria, Mittani, Arzawa, Alashia, Hatti
o Rest of the letters are from Syria & Canaan – b/w pharaoh and the vassal Syrian kings
 The great kings called each other “brothers”, when addressing each other in the letters (part of the culture of
reciprocity & equality diplomatic relation of this time)
 Main topics = marriage negotiations, exchange of gifts, issues of prestige & interest
 Characteristic of these letters
o Constant delay of marriages – b/c they want more gifts/guarantee the gifts
 Gifts were the most important argument of these things
 Once they got the gift, they stopped talking
o Relations b/w the great kings was based on reciprocity
 b/w the great kings & vassal kings = based on redistribution
o constant bickering/complaining about the gifts they got & about not being treated as equals
 letters were a surrogate for war
 o Gifts had a symbolic value & an economic (gold from Egypt was in great demand)
 Tribute was what subjugated vassal kings would give
--- THE MITTANIAN DOSSIER
 examples of letters from Tušratta to Amenhotep III & IV
- “brotherhood” &
“love” are
common themes
brought up

- Each letter
arrived w/ gifts

- Pharaoh probs
wanted to get the
marriage over w/
BUT Tušratta
wanted to keep up
these letters so
he’d keep getting
gifts
- About the previous Egyptian gift at the Syrian court

- Again,
talking
about
how
much
gold
Egypt
has is

common point brought up

- Gold was not given in coins BUT in objects

OR things covered in gold
o & the would melt down the gold to
see how much there actually was
 o Common topic in the letters to Egypt
 Complaining they didn’t send enough

March 23
Lecture 12.
Continuation of Lecture 11 & The Hittite Empire
(Liverani chapter 18 / Mieroop 8.2, 8.3)

 talking about more examples of letters found in the Amarna

Archive
- Second phase of Amarna Age = after 1350 BCE  when
the Hittite Empire & the Middle Assyrian kingdom
become part of the “great powers” – Mittani also stops
being a great power
o A letter from Suppiluliuma I to Amenhotep IV
 Shows that now the Hittites were
significant enough, powerful enough, to
write to the Egyptian pharaoh & be
considered equals

Fall of Mittani (~1350 BCE) – CAUSES:

 The military campaigns of Suppiluliuma I against
Tušratta
o 2 campaigns into Syria – took all the lands Mittani had west of the Euphrates
 The founding of the Assyrian kingdom under Aššur-uballit I
o After a period of subordination to the Mittani (~1450-1350 BCE)
o Assyria got involved in the royal family drama & sided against Tušratta’s party
o Eventually conquered the Mittani territory east of the Euphrates
- Mittani just becomes a small buffer state that the Hittites & Assyrians fight over
o The capital Waššukkani gets conquered by the Assyrians & Tai’de (Taidu) becomes the capital of
“Hanigalbat”
- OVERALL: Hittite revival under Suppiluliuma I & Assyria getting out of subordination under Assur-uballit I =
Mittani Kingdom fell

Can reconstructing the Hittite campaigns & what happened to Mittani

 from historical intro of the treaty w/ Šattiwaza (Mittani king)
& from the “Annals/Deeds of Suppiluliuma”

Campaigns of Suppiluliuma’s
 1st campaign = initatially attack Wassukkanni BUT then changed direction & occupied the Mittani territory west of
the Euphrates  ie. Alalah, Halab, Qadeš
 The 2nd campaign = conquered Karchemish & put his son, Piyassili to rule
 CHRONO of the campaigns are uncertain
o BUT some letters from the Amarna archive talks about the Hittite army’s arrival  the letter from
RibAdda of Byblos to the Pharaoh
o Some letters found in the archive of King Idadda of Qatna

Mittani royal family: 2 parties

 Tusratta [Team 1] vs. Artatma II & son, Šuttarna III (supported by Assyria) [Team 2]
o Team 2 = w/ Assyrian support, occupied the centre of the Kingdom & gave Assyria the nobles who
supported Team 1
o Probably from some conspiracy  Tusratta was murdered
  Suppilulima (probs worried about the rise of Assyria) = decided to support Šattiwaza (Tusratta’s son who fled to
Hittite court)
o He married his daughter w/ Šattiwaza & help him take back the kingdom

--- The Hittite Empire (1350-1190 BCE)

 main phases of the Hittite Empire period  2 phases of LBA: 3rd & 4th
 how Hittite rulers managed to maintain their vast empire
- At the time of max. expansion = the whole of Anatolia & W Syria

THIRD PHASE OF THE LBA (1350-1300 BCE)

 Characterized by:
o Fall of Mittani kingdom b/c of Suppiluliuma I
o Hittite Empire max expansion under Suppiluliuma I & Mursili II
o Birth of Middle Assyrian Kingdom – b/c Mittani fell
o Part 2 of “Age of El Amarna”: Egypt, Hatti, Assyria, Babylon
 Main Rulers:
o Mittani: Tušratta
o Egypt: Amenhotep IV, Tutankhamun
o Hatti: Suppiluliuma I, Mursili II
o Babylonia: Burna-Burrias II
o Assyria: Assur-uballit I

FOURTH PHASE OF THE LBA (1300-1190 BCE)

 Characterized by:
o BIG expansion of Middle Assyrian Kingdom
o Hittite-Egypt conflict
 Battle of Qadeš 1275 – b/w Muwatalli II & Ramses II
o Then Hittite-Egypt peace
 Treaty in 1259 – b/w Hattusili III & Ramses II
o Hittie-Assyrrian conflict = for previously Mittani territory
o Internal dynastic crisis of the Hittites  after Hattusili III usurpt the throne
o End of 13th – beginning of 12th c. = Age of crisis  big political change
 Collapse of Hittite state – b/c of dynastic issues, econ-social issues, famine
 Incursion of thee “Sea People”
 Assyria & Babylon shrink
 Arameans expand
 Birth of Neo-Hittite states (IRON AGE)
 Main Rulers:
o Egypt: Sethis I, Ramses II, Ramses III
o Hatti: Muwatalli II, Hattusili III, Tuthaliya IV, Suppiluliuma II
o Assria: Adad-nirari I, Salmanassar I, Tukulti-Ninurta I

Archives at Hattusa
- How we know about the Hittites & their culture
- The temple of the Lower town & the citadel have archives
- Many letters & treaties w/ all the great polities of the time (Egypt, Babylon, Assyria) & the vassal kingdoms in
Syria

AN OUTLINE OF HISTORY OF HITTITE EMPIRE KINGS (chart below)

Suppluliuma I – date of accession is not certain
 Traditionally  1380 or 1370 BCE
o Then date was changed to be later – maybe 1320 BCE – BUT this is actually too late
o NOW settle on 1350 BCE
 Questions on if he’s the son of Tuthaliya III ?
 Came to the throne after that conspiracy
o Something about Tuthaliya the younger, the appointed king was murdered by Suppiluliuma
 Created appanage kingdoms that his sons ruled
 Annexed territory of the former Mittani kingdom in Syria  starts conflict w/ Egypt
 There was a plague in Hatti  it killed him & the son that succeeded him
o Plague continued into Mursili II’s reign
Mursili II
 ~1330 BCE
 Had to reorganized Syrian territories b/c of
all the rebellions – Karkemish became the
main political centre in Syria, for Hittite
control
 More conflict w/ Egypt
o Continued into the reign of the next
successor, his son Muwatalli
 Had 2 sons = Muwatalli II & Hattusili III

Muwatalli II
 Ended the conflict w/ Egypt
 Moved the capital from Hattusa to
Tarhuntassa
o City hasn’t been discovered yet
BUT it was moved maybe for
strategic & religious reasons
o (side note: each. Hittite king had a
person god who protected them –
Muwatalli’s god was a Luwian
storm god
 So similar to what
Akhenaten did w/ founding
Amarna for his god Aten)
 Move of the capital to S  divided empire
into 3 parts
o S = Muwatalli at Tarhuntassa
o N = his bro, Hattusili at Nerik
o E = Piyassili (Suppi’s son) at
Karkemish
o LATER  caused problems in the
stability of reign

Mursili III (son of 2nd rank, Muwatalli)

 Originally NOT “Mursili”  its his chosen king
name
 Don’t know why a 2nd rank son was appointed
o BUT Muawtalli’s other son Kuruntiya,
was too young probably – so he chose
Mursili instead
 Moved capital back to Hattusa
o This move caused issues w/ his uncle,
Hattusili III
Hattusili III
 Usurp throne from nephew & exiled him in Syria – where Mursili fled to Egypt to ask Ramses for help
 At this time = Hittite had conflicts w/ Assyria
o Assyrian kings tried to expand by conquering previous Mittani land as their province
o The Euphrates = became the boarder b/w Hittite & Assyrian territory
 He established peace w/ Ramses II
 His usurpation cause a big bad dynastic crisis = big struggle of power among the royal fam
o He named his son, Tuthaliya IV as successor

Tuthaliya IV
 Came to the throne w/ a lot of family problems 
o especially w/ his cousin Kuruntiya who was problem now old enough for the throne = a coup d’état
 Tuthaliya was able to retake throne
o There was a conspiracy made by Hesni, his bro
 Conqured Cyprus
 Building projects in Hattusa -- so even with all the problems they weren’t poor

Suppiluliuma II (son of Tuthaliya IV)

 Reigned after his brother, Arnuwanda III
 Hittite power grew weaker
o BUT collapse probably due to BA collapse = climate change, had to rely on Egypt for grain & sea-people

 text composed by Mursili II for the plague

- For all the NE = everything was made by
the gods
o & if one was good/pure towards
the gods – they receive good
things
o If one was not pure towards the
gods – they get bad things
- For Mursili II = he believe some sin from
his dad caused the plague =
USURPTING THE THRONE
o ACTUAL CAUSE = probably
Egyptian prisoners who were
sick & brought it to Hattusa
 From the Amarna
letters  there was a
pandemic in the NE
region
- By writing this poem/text/prayer  to
ask the gods to stop the plague since he
himself did nothing wrong & it was his
dad’s fault
- He had also asked an oracle to ask the god -- & apparently he was correct
o Since everyone, including his dad, swore and oath to Tuthaliya the younger
o His dad broke that oath – wronged Tuthaliya & everyone in Hatti was damned
Who is Suppiluliuma II?
 Probably not the actual son of Tuthaliya III
 His wife, Henti = probably the actual daughter of Tuthaliya III, who adopted him as a son
o Tuthaliya & Suppiluliuma made some joint campaigns together
 In Mursili II’s prayer to the gods
o He calls Suppiluliuma = “My father”
o & Tuthaliya III = “My grand-father”
  So this dynastic line came through the queen, Henti
 still he was the founder of the Empire
- Created a new system of control

METHODS OF POLITICAL CONTROL

 they had different methods
o Vassal treaties = Suppiluliuma established this system * annexed Kizzuwatna (modeled after Tuthaliya
I/II)
 Written treaties are v. typical
 Hittite kings married their daughters to local kings
 Ie. Suppiluliuma had 3 daughters and married one of them to king Šattwaza of Mittani
 w/in the “Land of Hattin”  find a similar system
o Basis of this system = written documents of exact agreements
 “Binding” an obligation, instruction, treaty, things that regulated the obligations of the
people/officials = royal instructions (“ishiul”)
o OTHER PART OF IT = the oath people swear to the king (Hittite = “lingais” / Akkadian = “mamitu/niš
ili.”)
 for the foreign territories = just have a lot of treaties
o The Hittite corpus of treaties = BIGGEST corpus of treatise in the NE
 The most common type  vassal treaties

The structure of Vassal treaties

 Usually in these historical
documents – a NARRATIVE
o About the relationship
b/w the Hittites & the
conquered territory
o TO JUSTIFY  Hittite
king had the right to
conquer that place
 o *** so it is propagandistic ***
 They are bilateral texts
o They state the obligations/responsibilities of the vassal kings
o & the responsibilities of the Hittite king towards the vassal king too
 He guarantees the local king’s reign & his succession
o SO IT’S MUTUAL BENIFICAL
 They also list the gods who witness the making of these treaty/agreements
o A formula of the divine witnesses
o They punish those who violate the oath

Examples of 2 treaties:
 treaty of Hattusili III & Ramses II = the Silver Peace Treaty 1259 BCE
- The treaty that started the long era of peace b/w the 2 states
- There are cuneiform docs in Akkadian & an Egyptian hieroglyphic translation
- The original was written on silver tablets for the Hittite kingdom & monumental inscription of it in Egypt
o Ramses’ inscription talks about his “victory at the Battle of Qadeš, where he defeated the Ηittites”
 BUT he actually lost (probably) = its propo
 That’s why he accepted the deal to make a treaty
o Hattusili also needed to get some international legitimacy/prestige – b/c he was an usurper
 So he needed this treaty too

 bronze tablet treaty b/w Tuthaliya IV & cousin Kuruntiya (both having claim to be
king of Tarhuntassa/Hatti)
- Only bronze tablet treaties we have  their drafts of the final treaty though
- Found outside of Hattusa, buried – maybe b/c those 2 had big conflict so they
said fuck you & buried the treaty (damnatio memoriae?)
--- prof thinks they didn’t have this conflict  Kuruntiya used the title “Great King”,
something the Hittite kings didn’t use anymore & he was maybe allowed to use it?
March 25
Lecture 13.
A New Era Begins:
Changes & Innovations in the socio-political / technological landscape
of Anatolia & Syria in the Iron Age (Balza)
(10.1, 10.2, 10.3)

--- on next 4 classes

 General representation of political and cultural history specifically the first few centuries (1st millennium BCE) of
the Iron Age in Anatolia and Syria
 Neo Hittite states + the cohabitation between Luwians and Arameans
 End of the Hittite Empire: Memory and tradition of Hittite empire and post-Hittite period
o Continuities b/w Hittite & Neo-Hittite cultures
 Karkemish and Sam’al: Languages, Writings, Art and Performance of Politics (archeological sites)
o Use of monuments and artistic production for construction of political power

--- Required Readings

INTRO
Situation of WA at the Beginning of
12th c. BCE
→ Hittite empire sudden collapse
 Questions:
o Where we are
o What happened at the beginning of 12th c.
o What were the most important geo-political
changes (compared w/ what happened in the
LBA)
o How the new socio-political sit. affected
technological & economic sphere
Where were we?
Anatolia
 1190/80 BCE = Hittite kingdom controls almost the
whole of Ana & large part of Syria
o Hittite king controlled the entire central plateau →
most of W/SW Ana, large part of N Syria including Kadesh-on-the-Orontes up to the Euphrates
river 
 o Carchemish marked the border of the Hittite possession in Syria
 Suddenly ~1180 = last Hittite King, Suppiluliuma II disappears from written records
o We have found public documents written in cuneiform = give us info on the activities of this king
but after a certain moment all the info stops
o Also, drafting of cuneiform docs in Anatolia stops abruptly
o Hints the kingdom & capital Hattusa collapsed
 Don’t know why
 From this moment on a “Dark Age” begins in Anatolia → lasts for a few centuries (11th-8th c. BCE)
o ~8th c. = When enough written information is again available  political LS of Anatolia is
completely different  
The map shows political LS of the 13th cent. 
 The green area in Syria = Egyptian
possession of land in Syria
 The orange area = directly controlled by
Hittites, the core of the state
 The yellow area & the pale green (around
western anatolia) = controlled by Hittite
kings but in different ways 
o ie. by the way of governors linked to
the Hittite state 
o or by establishing treaties of the
areas to the state. Almost like the
creation of vassal state connected
to the main state

Syria and Levant

 Beginning 12th c. BCE = small local
kingdoms were tributaries of the Hittite
Great King or the Egyptian Pharaoh
 After the disappearance of the Hittite King → Hittites are no longer able to control these Syrian
provincial areas. 
o At the same time = Egyptians move backwards and abandon all their possessions in the Levant.
 Population movements → arrival of the “sea-peoples”, the fall of th Hittite empire & few other critical
factors (climate change causing famine) = disrupted the entire political system of the area
o This leads to the local states and the city states of the area to disappear
 At the beginning of IA = history of this area is poorly known but after a few centuries a completely new
socio political scene appears
→ changes & transformation at the beginning of 12th c. = huge impact in ANE & WA

What happened at the beginning of the 12th century?

 The ultimate contributor (the last straw) to the fall of the state = arrival
of new people/invaders
o The “sea-people”
o BUT they succeed to destroy → b/c these places were already
in a state of decline & they just pushed it over the edge
--- Are there any key elements that are capable of explaining the origin of the
radical changes?
Taking a step back to answer this question
 Shortly after 1200 BC = the socio-econ & political systems collapse
o Ultimately because of the arrival of external groups
 “Sea people” = probably already known in the 13th c. -- BUT in 12th
century is when they came to settle in the area
o Their presence in the 1190s/1180s became more problematic
 Letters from Ugarit (Ras Shamra)
o Written documentation portrays the danger of the sea peoples 
o Some letters exchanged b/w city states of the
coastal regions of Syria
 info on the movement of the sea people &
the threat represented by their presence in
the area
o Site of Ugarit 
 Was also important in the prev. Cents. = 
important commercial center 
 During the LBA = city was controlled by the
Hittite kings
 Archeological excavations in early 20th c. =
uncovered some archives which contain
hundreds of cuneiform texts → some letters
exchanged b/w the Ugarit Kings & other
kings -- dealing w/ problem of sea people 
o 2 letters:
o From King Alashiya, of Cyprus to the King Ammurapi, of Ugarit
 TOPIC : problem of the sea people
 The letter is written in Akkadian
 See atmosphere of fear from the
elites/local rulers 

o o From King Ammurapi back to King

Alashiya
 Ugarit’s army in the Hittite land  →
probably trying to help the Hittite
King’s war against the invaders
 According to some scholars:
o After these last few letters → king of Ugarit
disappears from written docs & probably, city
of Ugarit is destroyed
Who are the “SEA PEOPLES”?
 We do not have info about them
o We know the name of some groups that
compose the larger group of “sea people” 
o BUT historians don’t know the ethnic character
nor their origin
 Even though we know some names, we do not have
much other information on these people
o The most known of these people are Pelesets =
arrived on the coast of Syria & founded a series
of cities and gave the name Philistines to the
region
 The Philistines mentioned in the old
testament in the beginning of the
formation of Israel and Juda → 
Philistines were presented as the
danger/threat
o The other groups are lesser known
Student questions about the narrative:
 Until some decades ago, the narrative was = sea
people arrived & destroyed all the states of the region 
o This destruction, according to some scholars →
determined by the military superiority of the sea
people -- probably already knew iron metallurgy
& were in the more favourable military position than the armies of the NE that use bronze
weapons 
o BUT this narrative is no longer effective
 Likely the sea people came from the W Aegean BUT modern day historian believe that the impact of the
sea peoples on WA caused the destruction of the political system
o NOT b/c the sea people were in some way superior militaristically BUT b/c the states of WA
already weak OR in some sort of crisis for other reasons
 ie. a climate crisis because of some climate fluctuations in the area, b/w 13th and 12th c.
BCE, the palatial/admin system was too heavy to support → not enough food
o Yes the sea people destroyed a lot of the cities of the region and their arrival resulted in the
withdrawal of Egypt from Levant, & their arrival coincided with the downfall of the state → BUT
they were just the final piece of the puzzle

 The

changes that came w/ the crumble of central admin & econ structure of NE in LBA
o Disappearance/interruption of BA writing systems 
 Ie. Linear B, Hittite cuneiform (cuneiform used in Ana), Ugaraitic, Akkadian
 o This represents the general crisis
 ^^^ With the formation of new states = Neo-Hittite states in Anatolia and Northern Syria
o As well as the creation of some other state → ie.
Israel and Judah, the creation of sites and cities
by the Philistines
SUMMARY: After the sea people & downfall of the states of the
area → new political scenario appears w/ the emergence of new
peoples & new states
 Sometimes these states are connected to a clear ethnic
cult
o ie. Israel, juda, philistines, Phoenicians
 Sometimes these states present a mixed culture, a
culture that is made by at least 2 ethnic elements, the
indo-euro ethnic elements and the Semitic elements
o ie. Neo-hittite states
o The indo euro is reped by the Luwian &  the
Semitic element is represented by the Aramaic

 
 Student question: These ethnic groups were present
before the invasion of the sea peoples?
o Philistines are one of the sea peoples
o As for the questions of the Israelites, it is complicated because according to the bible, the
Israelite tribes from which Israel originates arrived from Egypt at a certain moment
o According to some historians, the state of Israel and Judah started at the beginning of the Iron
age but the people of these states were already in this area during the bronze age.
o The Semitic people that compose the state of Israel and Judah were already in the Levant and
this area during the bronze age
o But during the BA these people belonged to tribes and semi nomadic groups that were
marginalized by the state of the time, so when the Hittite and Egyptian states controlled the area,
the semi nomadic groups and tribes lived in the border areas in the areas at the fringe of the
state, these people succeeded in emerging and creating some cities and states only after the
disappearance of the palatial states
o It is not a simple question to answer/take a position on
 Student question: Were these semi nomadic Hebrew tribes related to the Canaanite or the late
phoenicians. In Ugarit there are a lot of scribes that suggest that the Hebrew religion were a monlettric
variant of the Canaanite religion
o Difficult to say. Starting from the function that the Hebrew culture is local culture, I think that it is
normal that a culture (a complex system of values, traditions, religions, culture) starting from the
function that the Hebrew culture originated in this area, it is possible that this culture shared
some elements with other cultures or systems of the same area. The traditions/iconography
there are many aspects that are shared by all the peoples who lived there
o Difficult to take a position on this topic, it is possible that previous elements of religion, culture,
literature converged in the creation of Hebrew culture.
o Consider also that important elements of the formation of the hebrew culture of the iron age is
represented by the deportation of the elite growth of Israel and Judah in babylon in the 7th and
6th century BCE

End of an era & the LBA crisis

 After collapse & DA, when archeological
records are again enough to allow historical
reconstruction =  presented with completely
new scenario
 o In the BA = some large cities w/ thousands of inhabitants

o In the IA = small fortified towns w/ few people & different public buildings 

 What type of climate changes?

o Cooler, arid phase = determined a series of years of food shortages/production → serious
consequences on demographic situation & the organization and management of land

Why were the states already weak enough for the sea people to collapse? 
 Climate change & famine
o also proven by archeological records 
o & texts in the area of the time testify to these
problems 
 Ex: inscription of Pharaoh Merneptah
(successor of Ramses II), second half of
13th c. BCE
 Claims he kept “land of Hatti”
alive by sending wheat
 (note: Egyptian shipment were
particularly important, since
grain to Anatolia was hard b/c of
pirates & sea people)
o Climate crisis → food crisis → cultural crisis
o BUT = first sign of grain shortage in Hatti
already in mid-13th c. BCE
 Letter to Ramses II by Hittite queen Puduhepa (wife of Hattusili III)
 Asks him to quickly take over,
once he got the dowry, because
“I have no grain in my land”
 This queen wrote a series of
letters to the Egyptian court
 Around this time of the state
treaty b/w Egypt and Hattis
(1258 BCE) ⇒ marriage b/w the
daughter of Hattusili III & the
pharaoh
 One of these letter contains references to food shortages in Hatti
 Plague & disease
o During 14th c. BCE = Suppiluliuma I’s army brought a plague from Syria back to Ana 
 Similar problems = all over WA b/w end of 13th & beginning of 12th c. BCE
 All the bad shit
o dryness = famine, 
o disease = death, 
o lack of resources = palaces losing control of trade routes, harder for caravans to cross safely →
& the palaces & elites continually demanding more & more - wanted quick easy solutions
 Caused enormous gap b/w the ruling elite & rest of the pop = had ideological impact
 o King started depicting himself as a hero NOT as a good father to the people
o Everyone stop seeing him as a protector & insurer of justice
 PEOPLE JUST LEFT
o So many people left that palaces tried to have
network to catch these people/escapees
o The moved to areas outside palace control =
the stepps & mountains
 That’s where pastoral groups were --
palaces hated them b/c they robbed
caravans & protected the escapees
 Tribal group = alternative to living in the unjust palace
admin state system 
o They needed to constantly move & hide 
o They essentially became “habiru”

 That is when the sea people arrived

What are the most important geopolitical

changes with respect to the previous
period?
 The West (Ana, Cyprus, Syria, Levant) = v. affected by the invaders → experienced radical change --
disappearance of peoples, ie. Hittites
o New technological, ideological, social innovations leading to new ethnical, political, & linguistic
influences
 The East (Meso -- Assyria & Babylonia) = NOT affected by invaders → BUT the demo-econ crisis just
continues for centuries 
o Tho -- its political & cultural trait (ie. dynastic lines) also continue all the way to IA

Conclusion:

 All their measures were not efficient to restore the situation to protect their towns
  For example the movements of semi nomadic groups and tribes from the marginal areas to the other
area

The Fate of the Hittites

o Ramses III’s inscription report at the beginning of the 12th c. (~1190/1180) = this passage
testifies that the land of Hatti, including all its land in Syria → destroyed by the passage of the
sea people & by other factors outlined earlier but he claimed victory over these people
o (other source on the Sea People: letters from Ugarit = attests to the franticness of everyone
trying to defend from these people)

Hypothetical reconstruction of the end of the Hittites:

 Historians and archaeologists don’t know how & when Hittites state came to an end
o Until some decades ago -- the hypothesis = at a certain moment, invaders came from the
outside, other people attacked the capital city & burned it to the ground
 Starting from the publication of an article in 2001 by the director of the archeological excavation of
Hattusa → historians started to reconstruct a different scenario
o Today historians believe in general = Hattusa was abandoned by the last King, the army & by the
Hittite elite 
o Why the king abandoned the capital = NOT clear. 
 Probably the King decided to leave the city to escape some danger OR to guide his army
against some other enemy → difficult to say
 REGARDLESS = when the king left → the Hittite king took with him not only the army
and the functionaries, the scribes, the entire court BUT also the most valuable items
stocked in the capital palaces - treasures & also the most important written text
o Only at this moment some enemies/ invaders arrived & destroyed it
 so the invaders burned the capitol which was already left by the elite, the common people
remained in the city
  These are the hypothesis of the end of the Hittite empire = it remains unclear who are the peoples that
arrived at Hattusa at ~1180 and destroyed the city
o Some scholars some years ago suggested that the sea people arrived into the core of the Hittite
state → BUT it is not support by evidence 
 Probably the sea people settled on the coastal regions & did not continue/did not arrive in
the central anatolian plateau
o According to some other scholars, these invaders = Phrygeans, who in the IA founded a
kingdom in anatolia in central western part of anatolia

Questions:
 The main sources we have on the sea peoples are the Egyptian sources, what about the Assyrian and
Babylonian sources?
o There are some sources that mention their fall but not the reason behind it
o Consider also, at the end of the 13th century beginning of the 12th, the Hittities and the
assyrians have some military problems so the frontier between Hatti state, the Hittite state and
the Assyrian state were represented by the Euphrates river with the assyrian always trying to
pass the river to arrive to the mediterranean coast; but when the Hittites states fall, the assyrian
didn’t success in reaching the coast
o So the situation is not clear, maybe in Assyria there was some sort of crisis, not linked to the sea
people but other elements or factors but the situation at the moment is difficult to reconstruct
o Some Assyrian sources mention the weakness of the Hittite state, we do not have a clear clue
on the role of the sea people and the activities of the sea people in this situation
 Question about Phoenicians, were they unscaved by the collapse?
o The Phoenician cities developed in the near east after the Late bronze age
o Their elements emerged in the Iron age after the downfall of the Hittite state

How deep the new socio-political scenario affected the technological and
economical sphere? [Not Covered in class 1]

March 26
Lecture 14.
The Neo-Hittite states and the Cohabitation between Luwians and Arameans (~10th cent. BCE)
(Balza)
(11.2)

- Google docs

March 26
Lecture 15.
Memory & Tradition of the Hittite Empire in the post-Hittite period (Balza)
- Google docs
April 8
Lecture 16.
Neo-Hittite Kingdoms: Some insights on material culture of Karkemish & Sam’al (Balza)
--- from last class
Topic: transmission of memory & culture  from Hittite empire to N-H states period
 J. Assmann – a German scholar who dealt w/ culture & memory
 Thinking about memory & transmission in the post-Hittite period
 In C Ana plateau, that bridges the 3 rd & 2nd mill. BCE = the lack of docs prevents us to construct cultural &
collective memory – or “communicative memory” as Assmann says
 After fall of Hattusa – the territories that were subjected to the Hittites, reorganized
o Also the officials/governors that were sent to the provinces at the very end, just before the fall – probably
took power & the N-H states formed
- In the new system = the Hittite traditions/lit/art/official & admin titles  may have converged together under the
new conditions, constantly overlapping  constructing culture
o So some of the old culture, reused in the “new” IA culture
o Some of these new aspects of N-H states highlighted by scholars:
 Singer – “more evident now that the architectural, sculptural and inscriptional traditions of the
Neo-Hittite states were directly derived from those of the Hittite Empire, without a considerable
gap between them”
 Aro – “One of the most interesting phenomena = the continuity of certain Hittite artistic features
combined with the exclusive use of the Hieroglyphic Luwian language and writing system instead
of the digraphic system [cuneiform and hieroglyphic] of the Empire Period Hittites” (…) “They
[i.e. the Luwian-speaking Hittites] carried on the Hittite heritage combining it not only with
the Hieroglyphic scribal tradition but also with many feature from local Syrian and Hurrian artistic
traditions”
 “Indeed, the Neo-Hittite city-states with their urban planning, buildings with portal
figures, reliefs orthostats and Hieroglyphic Luwian inscriptions can be regarded as a
continuation of this style further developed by the Luwian-speaking Hittites”

 examples of continuities b/w 2nd & 1st mill. BCE

- Even when it seems different, it’s not that clear cut
Kulamuwa Inscription
 D. Bonatz – examined how N-H polities formed their
ideology & reconstruct tradition
o He focuses on “negative historical discourse” that
some IA sources have  ie. the Kulamuwa
Inscription
 From Zincirli/Sam’al, 830 BCE
 o “negative historical discourse” = author presents themselves as more capable – indirect way of talking
about past events
 Like  “I did this, not even my ancestors could…”
o Replaced the older Hittite Emp per. way of thinking about history – a formula that simply stated
 H. Cancik = diff view on N-H historiography
o “Luwische Hitoriographie” = finds formulas/topoi in N-H inscriptions that go back to 13 th c. Hittite
cuneiform & hiero texts

Hattusili III’s Apology/Autobio – in cuneiform

--- “neither my fathers, nor grandfathers, nor ancestors did
this”

Yalburt Inscription
 End of Hittite era, in Hattusa
 See the same expression used to write history

CONCLUSION:
- How could N-H scribes know ancient texts? Which texts did they know?
- How could we pinpoint the channels Hiero & Cuneiform Hittite written tradition was preserved to the N-H
scribes?

‘The Neo-Hittite evidence of continuity can thus be interpreted not only as cultural heritage from the Empire
period, but also as persistence of a (hieroglyphic?) scribal and artistic culture that for centuries had been
deeply-rooted in the area. Rulers, scribes and officials of the Empire administration may have continued their
activity, independently from a central power that no longer existed, using the traditional means. Additionally, the
visibility of the ancient hieroglyphic inscriptions and of the ancient reliefs may have played an important role in
the persistence of political administrative traditions and cultural features of the Empire period. In our opinion
therefore, the greatest problem is not whether there is continuity between the first phase of the Neo-Hittite
period and the last phase of the imperial period, but rather when, or even up to when the memory of the
Empire is preserved and when traditions begin to change. Indeed, as time passes and with the influx of other
cultures, the memory of the Empire fades and a new era begins.’ (Balza / Mora 2015, p. 433)

2 MOST IMPORTANT IA NEO-HITTITE SITES IN N SYRIA & SW ANA

Karkamiš
Intro
 On the right bank of Euphrates, on border b/w Turkey
& Syria
o Near modern Karkamiš & Jerablus, 100 km NE
of Aleppo
 Settlement on outcrop dominating important ford over
the Euphrates – on intersection of the main commercial
routes connecting Upper Meso to Med coast, & Ana
plateau to Syria & S Meso
History of Site
 In IA = around a century after Hittite fall (~1100)
Assyrian king, Tiglath-pileser I was crossing the Euph
& encountered Ini-Teshshup, “king of the land of
Hatti”
o Some think this “land” could be Karkamiš 
so first mention of Karkamiš = in IA inscription
of Tiglath-pileser I
  IA Karkamiš = essentially a city-state, rich & powerful b/c of its strategic geographical location on the Euph
o Sources in this phase are NOT only
external – there’s actually little
Assyrian sources for IA Karkamiš
 After Tiglath-pileser’s meeting
w/ Ini-Teshshup  no
references until the time of
Aššurnasirpal II (~870 BCE)
 This period finds
Luwian hieroglyphic
inscriptions &
fragments = they
mention names of local
kings/rulers allowing
for some reconstruction
 EIA (11th-10th c. BCE) – some important king names
 Ini-Teshshup
 Sapaziti, & son Ura-Tarhunta & Tuthaliya
o These kings seem to be contemporary w/ a 4-gen line of
high ranking officials = “House of Suhi”
 This line dated to ~10th c. BCE
o Mid-9th c. BCE = available sources say Karkamiš was under
King Sangara
 He appears in records of Assyrian kings,
Aššurnasirpal II & Shalmaneser III (870-845 BCE)
 End of 8th c. BCE = Karkamiš annexed into Assyrian Emp
o At collapse of Assyrian Emp = sources say the last stand of Assyria supported by Egypt, against
Nebuchadnezzar, took place in Karkamiš
o 605 BCE = finally defeated by Babylon
 Even after Assyrian Emp fell = Karkamiš was probably occupied & lived in
o But until end of 19th c. CE  it was only known for the roman period structures
Sam’al (Zincirli)
 Ancient name “Sam’al” = North
o Semitic-speakers from south must’ve called it this around MBA
 The fortified city guarded a major pass over the Amanus Mountains = it divided interior N Syria from Med Sea &
the Cilician Plain in the west
o Therefore  this city controlled trade traffic from inland Syria/Meso, west towards Med
 Originally settled in EBA (3rd mill.) & occupied in MBA
o No evi of LBA & EIA occupation
o Looks like it was abandoned during Mittani & Hittite period & most of the N-H period
 10th c. BCE = new IA dynasty = King Gabbar (mentioned in written docs)
o His descendants greatly expanded & fortified city
 9 -8 c. BCE = Sam’al incorporated into Neo-Assyrian Empire
th th

o Controlled by Assyrians through native vassal kings – continued dynasty of Gabbar

o BUT end of 8th c. = Sam’al became a province & local dynasty was removed for an Assyrian governor
 After Assyrian Emp fell = city abandoned

THE SIMILARITIES OF THE TWO SITES

- Few examples of artistic production from these sites & some examples of architectural structures
o To show = the similarities b/w these 2 sites in artistic & architectural production
o The similarities are interesting when considering how different the 2 sites are in ethno-linguistic PV
 Karkemish = linked to Hittite emp since 2nd mill. BCE
 Written docs in Anatolian Hieroglyphs (the one associated w/ Luwian)
 Sam’al = location for a complete new EIA dynasty (Gabbar)
 Written docs from Sam’al are Semitic speakers, using Aramaic alphabet
 o STILL THEY SHARE MANY ARTIST PRODUCTIONS
Their Schematic Topography & Architecture
Sam’al/Zincirli
 (10th-7th c. BCE) = Double outer walls, 3 city-gates,
o Central/inner fortified citadel w/ 2 doors – an external door & internal
door on S side

Karkamiš
 map of Karkamiš (10th-8th c.
BCE)
o citadel mound on the lower Euph river
 the top centre area = where the official stuff is

The Official Buildings

The hilani
 ~10th c. BCE = palatial buildings in Syira-Hittite area called Hilani
o Term is attested in Neo-Assyrian sources (from Tiglath-pileser III
era, ¾ of 8th c. BCE)
 Designated a particular archi typology – widespread in Syria, then adopted
in Assyria
o Neo-Assyrian royal inscriptions tell  hilani = a Syrian word for a
type of portico in the “country of Hatti” – the geographical use, meaning Karkamiš & N Syria
o In Assyrian sources = BIG IA buildings found in N Syria  decorated façade w/ colonnaded portico & a
recurring plan
 ^ interpreted as the hilani of the N-A texts
 Typical elements of “hilani” building
o Portico w/ columns on the front elevation, leading
into large & shallow atrium
o An audience hall
o Row of smaller rooms behind/around the audience
hall
--- Examples from Sam’al
 the Plan of Hilani J & K of Zincirli (in the blue square)
- See the portico w/ 3 columns
- The big, middle rectangle = audience hall
- & several rooms at the top, behind the hall
 the Plan of Hilani III of Zincirli
- See portico at the bottom w/ 2 columns
- The big, middle rectangle = audience hall
- Smaller rooms all around it
 the Column base w/ 2 winged sphynxes  from portico
of Hilani III ^
- What the base of a portico column could look like
- Typical iconography of the time
--- Example from Karkamiš
 map – shows a hilani at the bottom (bottom blue circle)
 - Show these 2 sites have similarities

Royal Statuary
 Production of royal statues also a similarity
 Statues of kings/rulers  show reoccurring themes, iconography
 Important aspects:
o LOCATION: usually outside, in urban places, in the areas of the gates & citadel
 Connects to FUNCTION
 Traditionally = located in temples/in presence of the gods – to speak to the gods
 In IA = being outside temple – now speaking more to people than the gods
--- Example from Sam’al
 the Statue of a King of Sam’al
- Typical statue for N-H, 1st mill. BCE kings in N Syria
--- Example from Karkamiš
 the Head of a statue of a King of Karkamiš
- Similar iconographical characteristics
o The face of this head & the statue from
Sam’al = v. similar
 a base of a statue w/ human figures
- Similar figure to the base of the Sam’al statue
- The head + the base maybe part of a colossal
statue of one of the kings of Karkamiš
- Probably erected near the King’s Gate

 Putting up statues in spaces connected w/ gates of

Syrian citadels & cities of EIA = connected to
strong symbolic value of monumental gates
o The spaces always linked to a fundamental social
activity, like trade

The Reliefs
 10th c. BCE (beginning of IA II) =The peak of sculpture in N Syria & S Ana
 Decorated monumental gates & the most important buildings
 Most common themes:
o To celebrate local pantheon
o Military victories of the local king
o The “royal hunts”  hunting deer & lions
o Admin activities & activities of high
officials
--- Examples from Sam’al
 on the S Gate – war scenes
- knight w/ enemy’s head
 on Outer gate of citadel, W side – war scenes
- soldiers on a chariot

 on the S Gate – hunting scenes

 banquet scenes

--- Examples from Karkamiš

- see same themes depicted
 Long Wall of Sculptures
- celebration of a military triumph
- reliefs on it:
o images of the main gods, the king & queen
o chariots in procession trampling over defeated enemies
o soldiers w/ enemy heads or w/ prisoners

 Herald’s Wall
- 13 slabs decorated wall located on the ceremonial wall b/w the Water Gate & King’s Gate
- Relief of a hero taming wild animals
- Relief of a winged sphynx w/ 2 heads
- Mythological scenes

April 13
Lecture 17.
The Hurrian-Hittite Cultural Symbiosis: Religion & Mythology
1) The Hurrian Pantheon

FORGET ABOUT THESE TWO LECTURES

April 15
Lecture 18.
The Neo-Hittite states and the Cohabitation between Luwians and Arameans (~10th cent. BCE)
sdfd