History • Ancient

LEICK
Historical Dictionaries of Ancient Civilizations and Historical Eras, No. 9 GWENDOLYN LEICK

M esopotamia, the land between the Tigris and Euphrates

rivers, was one of the greatest cradles of civilization. For
several millennia, it was the site of major city-states, king-
doms, and empires that fought and gradually replaced one
another, including Akkad, Ur, Babylon, the Kassites, and Assyria, in
the earlier periods; followed by the Achaemenid, Seleucid,
Parthian, and Sassanian dynasties. The arts of war were indispensable

HISTORICAL DICTIONARY OF
for survival, but the arts of peace were also practiced in the development
of agriculture, metalworking and trade, the organization of an
administration and bureaucracy, the emergence of religions, and the
development of a more sophisticated state structure.

Historical Dictionary of Mesopotamia provides a ready reference about

the history of a civilization for which there are many gaps in the data.
The many city-states; kingdoms and empires; the famous and lesser-
known rulers; the arts of war and the arts of peace; and the interesting
aspects of everyday life such as food and drink, religion, clothing and

MESOPOTAMIA
jewelry, housing, family relationships—including marriage and even
divorce—and other social relations are all covered. Professors and
students of history, archeology, and social sciences, as well as
researchers who need a reference about the era, will find this
dictionary to be a wealth of information about the people and events
that shaped this ancient civilization’s history.

G W E N D O L Y N L E I C K is senior lecturer at the Chelsea College of Art HISTORICAL DICTIONARY OF

and Design in London. She is the author of Mesopotamia: The Invention
of the City and The Babylonians: An Introduction.

For orders and information please contact the publisher

Scarecrow Press, Inc.
A wholly owned subsidiary of
The Rowman & Littlefield Publishing Group, Inc.
MESOPOTAMIA
4501 Forbes Boulevard, Suite 200
Lanham, Maryland 20706
1-800-462-6420 • fax 717-794-3803
www.scarecrowpress.com
Cover photograph: Molded and glazed brick striding lion from the Processional Way, Babylon,
Neo-Bablonian Period, ca. 604-562 B.C., courtesy of the Oriental Institute.
 Historical Dictionaries of Ancient Civilizations
and Historical Eras
Series editor: Jon Woronoff

1. Ancient Egypt, Morris L. Bierbrier, 1999.

2. Ancient Mesoamerica, Joel W. Palka, 2000.
3. Pre-Colonial Africa, Robert O. Collins, 2001.
4. Byzantium, John H. Rosser, 2001.
5. Medieval Russia, Lawrence N. Langer, 2001.
6. Napoleonic Era, George F. Nafziger, 2001.
7. Ottoman Empire, Selcuk Aksin Somel, 2003.
8. Mongol World Empire, Paul D. Buell, 2003.
9. Mesopotamia, Gwendolyn Leick, 2003.
Historical Dictionary
of Mesopotamia

Gwendolyn Leick

Historical Dictionaries of Ancient

Civilizations and Historical Eras, No. 9

The Scarecrow Press, Inc.

Lanham, Maryland, and Oxford
2003
SCARECROW PRESS, INC.
Published in the United States of America
by Scarecrow Press, Inc.
A Member of the Rowman & Littlefield Publishing Group
4501 Forbes Boulevard, Suite 200, Lanham, MD 20706
www.scarecrowpress.com

PO Box 317
Oxford
OX2 9RU, UK

Copyright © 2003 by Gwendolyn Leick

All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced,

stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted in any form or by any
means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording, or otherwise,
without the prior permission of the publisher.

British Library Cataloguing in Publication Information Available

Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data

Leick, Gwendolyn, 1951-

Historical dictionary of Mesopotamia / Gwendolyn Leick.
p. cm. — (Historical dictionaries of ancient civilizations and
historical eras ; no. 9)
Includes bibliographical references.
ISBN 0-8108-4649-7
1. Iraq–History–To 634–Dictionaries. I. Title. II. Series.
DS70.82.L45 2003
935'.003–dc21 2003000835

∞ ™ The paper used in this publication meets the minimum requirements of

American National Standard for Information Sciences—Permanence of
Paper for Printed Library Materials, ANSI/NISO Z39.48-1992.
Manufactured in the United States of America.
 Contents

Editor’s Foreword Jon Woronoff vii

Conventions ix
Map of Mesopotamia x
Chronology xiii
Introduction xv
THE DICTIONARY 1
Appendix I. Mesopotamian Rulers 139
Appendix II. Museums 149
Select Bibliography 155
About the Author 187

v
 Editor’s Foreword

Mesopotamia was one of the oldest and broadest cradles of civilization.

Unlike Egypt, which was a relatively unified state, it was the site of many
different city-states, kingdoms, and empires, frequently at odds with one
another, and replacing one another as the locus of power—Akkad, Ur,
Babylon, the Kassites, Isin, Assyria—and then tending into the more “mod-
ern” Achaemenid, Seleucid, Parthian, and Sassanian Dynasties. The trans-
fer of power resulted from a superior capacity in warfare, not so different
from our times, and the rise of great leaders such as Sargon of Akkad, Ham-
murabi, Nebuchadrezzar, Darius, and Alexander the Great. All the while,
the Mesopotamians also are known to have been practicing the arts of
peace; developing agriculture, metalworking, and trade; devising forms of
writing; constructing monumental buildings; organizing an administration
and bureaucracy; worshipping various gods; laying down laws; and deter-
mining who was higher and who was lower in society. Not so different from
our times. That is why Mesopotamia remains so intriguing, showing where
we came from and part of how we got where we are, and maybe even giv-
ing us some insight into where we’re heading.
The message would obviously be much clearer if, like Egypt, there had
been a relatively unified state rather than many statelets that tended to wipe
away earlier traces left by predecessors, and if the sands of time—and the
desert—had not covered over so many of their remains. Thus, what we
have been able to uncover, and do know with a reasonable degree of cer-
tainty, is particularly precious. So it is nice to have much of it presented in
a handy form by the Historical Dictionary of Mesopotamia.
The dictionary section helps us sort out the many city-states, kingdoms,
and empires; the famous and less well-known rulers (some far from glori-
ous); the arts of war and the arts of peace; the signs of a maturing civiliza-
tion and high culture; plus aspects of everyday life, including food and
drink, clothing and jewelry, housing and cities, social relations and the for-
mation of families, marriage, and even divorce. The whole time frame is too

vii
viii • EDITOR’S FOREWORD

complicated for a straightforward chronology, but the periods are located in

the chronology and the rulers in Appendix I. The bibliography is very help-
ful in suggesting in some detail where further readings can be found.
Writing this book, with its myriad periods and aspects, was no easy task.
But it was certainly easier for someone, Gwendolyn Leick, who has already
written several books on the ancient Near East, its architecture, literature,
and mythology, as well as a “who’s who” and an introduction to the Baby-
lonians. Dr. Leick has spent nearly three decades studying, lecturing on,
and writing about Mesopotamia. She has also taught at the universities of
Glamorgan, Cardiff, Reading, and in London City, and is a fellow of the
Royal Anthropological Institute. This long and varied experience is the ba-
sis for the latest volume in the steadily growing series of Historical Dictio-
naries of Ancient Civilizations and Historical Eras.

Jon Woronoff
Series Editor
 Conventions

The pronunciation of ancient names is a modern reconstruction and a con-

vention rather than an accurate phonetic rendering. Although cuneiform
writing indicated vowels (unlike ancient Egyptian), it is not clear how they
were spoken at any given period. Consonants were sometimes written in
several different ways, hard or soft, which indicates that there were pho-
netic variations (e.g., Hammurapi as well as Hammurabi). Sumerian may
have had nasal sounds, but this is not clearly indicated in writing.
Conventionally, the vowels of Sumerian and Akkadian words are pro-
nounced as in German, partly as a result of the pioneering work of German
scholars in cuneiform lexicography and grammar. The letter a is therefore
as in far, e as in very, i as in is, o as in core, and u as in full. Diphthongs are
not in evidence, and two successive vowels, as in Eanna, should be pro-
nounced separately, as in theater. Akkadian, as a Semitic language, had a
number of guttural sounds, such as the ‘ayin, the qof, and the throaty h, and
several sibilants (sade, sin, and shin), as well as dental t (tet). These are not
indicated as such in this volume, except for š in Akkadian words, which is
rendered as sh in transcribed names. The accent is generally on the penul-
timate syllable.
The names, order, and dates of ancient rulers are not fixed, due to gaps
in the transmission, damages on the surface of tablets, and insufficient data
for some periods. Dates in the dictionary follow the “middle chronology.”
The use of boldface type serves as a cross-reference to other entries in
the text.

ix
 Chronology

PREHISTORIC PERIODS

Middle paleolithic c. 78.000–28.000 B.C.

Upper paleolithic c. 28.000–10.000
Neolithic c. 10.000–6000
Chalcolithic c. 6000–3000
Hassuna c. 5500–5000
Halaf / Ubaid c. 5000–4000
Uruk c. 4000–3200
Jemdet-Nasr c. 3200–3000

HISTORICAL PERIODS

Southern Mesopotamia:
Early Dynastic I c. 3000–2750
Early Dynastic II c. 2750–2600
Early Dynastic III c. 2600–2350
Dynasty of Akkad c. 2350–2150
Third Dynasty of Ur c. 2150–2000

xiii
xiv • CHRONOLOGY

Old Babylonian period c. 2000–1600

Isin-Larsa Dynasties c. 2000–1800
First Dynasty of Babylon c. 1800–1600
Kassite Dynasty c. 1600–1155
Second Dynasty of Isin c. 1155–1027
Second Dynasty of Sealand c. 1026–1006
Dynasty of E 979–732
Assyrian domination 732–626
Neo-Babylonian Dynasty 626–539

Northern Mesopotamia:
Old Assyrian period 1900–1400
Middle Assyrian period 1400–1050
Neo-Assyrian period Empire 934–610

Achaemenid Empire 539–331

Seleucid Dynasty 311–126
Parthian period 126–227 A.D.
Sassanian period 224–642 A.D.
Islamic period Since 642
 Introduction

The Greek name Mesopotamia means “land between the rivers.” The Ro-
mans used this term for an area that they controlled only briefly (between
115 and 117 A.D.)—the land between the rivers Euphrates and Tigris, from
the south Anatolian Mountains ranges to the Persian Gulf. In modern usage
the geographical definition is the same, but the historical context is wider
and reaches much further back than the period of the Romans. It comprises
the civilizations of Sumer and Akkad (third millennium B.C.) as well as the
later Babylonian and Assyrian empires of the second and first millennium.
Although the “history” of Mesopotamia in the strict sense of the term only
begins with the inscriptions of Sumerian rulers around the 27th century B.C.,
the foundations for Mesopotamian civilization, especially the beginnings of
irrigation and the emergence of large permanent settlements, were laid much
earlier, in the fifth and fourth millennium. Archaeological research is the
main source for these prehistoric periods, but it also plays a very important
part in the process of understanding and interpreting later periods, comple-
menting the written evidence.
The key element in the development of Mesopotamian cultures was the
gradual adaptation to the ecological conditions of the region. The original
homeland for Stone Age man was the Levantine coast. The first experiments
in cultivating cereals and domesticating animals had occurred in this more
naturally fertile region, which received a higher amount of annual rainfall. In
the Neolithic period (c. 10,000–6,000 B.C.), other areas in the lee of mountain
ridges, in Syria and Anatolia, became inhabited, and the first densely occu-
pied settlements with permanent architecture appeared as a gradual shift took
place from hunting and gathering as the main form of subsistence to more
specialized forms of life, either agriculture or nomadic pastoralism. Northern
Mesopotamia (between the south Anatolian Mountain ridge and the latitude
of present-day Baghdad) was situated in the geographical zone in which rain-
fall agriculture was possible. The earliest Mesopotamian settlements, dating
back to the sixth millennium, were found here. Excavations at sites such as

xv
xvi • INTRODUCTION

Tell Brak, Tell Arpachiya, Tepe Gawra, and Nineveh have yielded plentiful
polychrome painted pottery and sometimes substantial buildings.
In contrast, the alluvial plains of the south lie in one the driest and
hottest regions of the world, neighboring the great deserts of Syria and
northern Arabia. The oldest archaeological sites there date from the fifth
millennium and were concentrated in the marshy areas of the south. Their
material remains appears simpler in comparison to the finds of the north.
However, in the late fifth and throughout the fourth millennia, this began
to change as the southern alluvium began to be more densely inhabited.
Making use of previous experience with extensive agriculture, people be-
gan to intensify the exploitation of the fertile river valleys. This demanded
much greater investment in terms of labor and expertise than in the more
temperate climates but offered the potential of achieving substantial sur-
plus yields that could feed large populations. In the following historical
periods, such knowledge was perfected to allow for intensive cultivation
of subsistence crops, especially barley, later also date palm, using sophis-
ticated systems of irrigation, crop rotation, and collective labor deploy-
ment on large parcels of land.
During the height of the Uruk period (c. 3400–3200 B.C.), called after the
old city of Uruk, southern Mesopotamia had close economic links to northern
and eastern neighboring regions. Sites in southern Anatolia, northwest Syria,
and eastern Iran show the same material culture, architecture, and account de-
vices as in Uruk. This city appears to have been the center of administration
for this complex system of trade and exchange, the largest and earliest urban
settlement, with its impressively monumental public buildings and evidence
of early bureaucracy (discussed later). Though it is still a matter of debate to
what extent Uruk exercised political control over the vast area in which Uruk-
style buildings and artifacts have been found, it is clear that the regularized
contact with an urban center made an impact on the peripheral regions and that
the administrative expertise gained during this period was invaluable for the
subsequent development of Mesopotamian economy.
The Uruk “world system” fell apart toward the end of the fourth millen-
nium, and southern Mesopotamia became relatively more isolated. During
the Early Dynastic period (c. 3000–2350 B.C.), many new urban centers de-
veloped. The most efficient exploitation of the cultivated land was achieved
through institutional control over coordinated seasonal tasks, storage, and
distribution of food and seed. The city-state emerged as the most suitable so-
cioeconomic unit in response to these demands, with its productive and ad-
ministrative centers, the temples and palaces. Such city-states were com-
posed of a more or less coherent territory of fields, canals, and villages. The
 INTRODUCTION • xvii

walled city accommodated the majority of the population as well as public

buildings and sanctuaries that embodied the “identity” of the community as
residences of the city gods. City dwellers rather than rural people provided
the bulk of the labor force to sustain the agricultural basis of the Meso-
potamian economy. They were also recruited to maintain the irrigation
works and public buildings. Most of the general workforce labored for sub-
sistence rations in one of the large institutional or, later, also private house-
holds. Of great importance for the efficient management of such complex
land-holding organizations were written records. The achievements of the
Uruk literacy became superseded by a system that allowed phonetic values
to be represented in writing. The scribal skills were taught in a largely ho-
mogenized system, making use of syllabaries, sign lists, and lexical lists. By
the mid–third millennium, cuneiform writing, still primarily pictographic,
was used for several languages with very different linguistic structures (e.g.,
Sumerian, the Semitic Akkadian and Eblaite, as well as Elamite).
The success of Mesopotamian agriculture was its ability to produce enough
surplus not only to feed the laboring masses but to free a large sector of the pop-
ulation from subsistence efforts. There was enough grain to support full-time
craftsmen, bureaucrats and administrators, cult performers, and other profes-
sionals. The early lists of professions from the Early Dynastic period enumer-
ate a great variety of occupations. Prolonged intensive exploitation of the avail-
able resources, however, could lead to conflict over rights to land and water.
The historical records of the Early Dynastic period document violent clashes
between neighboring cities. Mesopotamia was also seen as a breadbasket by
peoples inhabiting less fertile lands. Raids on villages and fields were a con-
stant threat in border regions, and population pressures from such peripheral ar-
eas with limited carrying capacity for expansion, such as the desert in the west
and the mountains of the east, could result in sometimes massive waves of im-
migration. Mesopotamia is marked by the ability to absorb new populations,
but the process was by no means smooth and unproblematic because it de-
manded considerable social adjustment to settled and urban life. Although the
literate sources always stress cultural continuity, the different values of immi-
grant peoples did contribute to changes in the political structure and social
norms. Mesopotamian culture was always heterogeneous. In the third millen-
nium, Akkadian and Sumerian were two of the languages that were expressed
in writing side by side. In later periods, too, ethnic and linguistic differences
within the population continued to exist and some ruling dynasties were of for-
eign origin. The fact that there were always a number of urban centers, with
their own institutional bases and traditions, mitigated the overwhelming influ-
ence of mass immigration and centralizing politics.
xviii • INTRODUCTION

Although cities were the most typical and arguably the most efficient so-
ciopolitical units in Mesopotamia, competition between them could lead to
violent conflicts that at times spread to engulf the whole region. To coun-
terbalance such threats to overall stability, cities could unite to form al-
liances; there is some evidence that this was attempted during the Early Dy-
nastic period. A more lasting solution was the formation of a unified state
governed by a king whose authority was recognized voluntarily or imposed
forcefully by and on all cities. As long as kings respected the prerogatives
of the more powerful religious institutions and provided an efficient and co-
herent military policy toward neighboring countries and raiding tribes at
the borders, they could count on the collaboration of the urban citizenry.
The palace was responsible for the maintenance of infrastructure (espe-
cially canals) and of public buildings (e.g., city walls) and the repair of
sanctuaries. The king could order conscripted labor for the army and civil-
ian projects. He could invest revenue from military campaigns (slaves, trib-
ute in kind, as well as silver and gold) for such purposes as well as for the
endowment of temples. At some periods land, especially in peripheral re-
gions, could be awarded to trusted individuals in perpetuity.
The first unified state was that founded by Sargon of Akkad around
2350 B.C. His inscriptions stress, on the one hand, that he secured access
to far-flung trading sources (e.g., the timber-bearing mountains of the
Amanus or the silver mines of Anatolia) and that he honored the great
gods of “Sumer and Akkad.” His successors had to suppress internal re-
bellions and campaign to secure control over their foreign conquests.
They also interfered in land ownership and redistributed large tracts of
agricultural land to private persons. The Akkad Dynasty was the first ex-
periment with centralization, after its demise the country reverted to the
particularism of independent city-states. Too stringent demands in the
form of taxation and conscription and insufficient investment in public
works, as well as lack of respect toward the old centers of religion, usu-
ally provoked rebellions and insurrection. Determined rulers with a well-
motivated army could repress such challenges to their power for a while
but not forever. Internal unrest often invited foreign aggression, either
from neighboring states or from tribal groups looking for new territories.
Many a Mesopotamian dynasty was brought to an end in such circum-
stances. The strong reaction against repressive states often led to a more
or less prolonged interval between the end of one regime and the imple-
mentation of another.
Toward the end of the third millennium the Third Dynasty of Ur reunited
the country once more and initiated centralization on an unprecedented
 INTRODUCTION • xix

scale: All cities were forced to adopt a standard system of time reckoning,
weights, and measures; all senior appointments were made by the king; and
all local institutions were subject to central control and taxation. This was
sustained by a well-trained army of bureaucrats who supervised all areas of
production. In subsequent periods, the control of the state was relatively
weaker, and Old Babylonian kings relied on personal charisma and the use
of force to command allegiance.
The Kassite Dynasty (1600–1155 B.C.) ruled Babylonia for some 500 years
and seems to have managed to curb the political independence of the old
cities by encouraging smaller economic units, such as small towns and vil-
lages, in the countryside. However, how successful this policy was is hard to
determine because of the lack of written sources for much of this period. The
last 200 years of Kassite rule were also overshadowed by massive immigra-
tion from the east, ecological problems, and foreign invasions. Such natural
and man-made upheavals of the countryside had devastating effects on the
population. Famines and epidemics decimated the densely inhabited urban
quarters and caused cities to be more or less abandoned, sometimes forever.
Throughout Mesopotamian history, there were cycles of prosperity and
economic and political stability, interrupted by ecological depravation and
social unrest. The myths of the flood as a punishment for human “noise”—
a result of overpopulation—articulates that the ancient world was well
aware of how precarious the balance between growth and sustainability
was, despite the unprecedented carrying capacity of the alluvial landscape.
Northern Mesopotamia, whose geographical conditions were more like
those of its western and northern neighbors than the southern alluvial plains,
also had different political and cultural patterns than the south. Small-holding
farmers, as well as large landowners, together with seminomadic pastoralists
were in charge of the agricultural exploitation, as opposed to urban centers.
Tribal organization under the leadership of a patriarchal sheikh was the com-
mon pattern. Cities were primarily trading centers rather than agricultural
producers. Charismatic kingship played an important role in the political de-
velopment. The north also experienced the influx of different ethnicities. Of
great importance were the Hurrians, for instance, who brought their own re-
ligious customs to northern Mesopotamia, as well as an expertise with horses
and metalworking. The kings of Akkad and the Third Dynasty of Ur claimed
hegemony over the north and built temples and public buildings in cities such
as Nineveh and Assur. The Ur administration introduced literacy and sparked
a local development of writing.
The early Assyrian period, from the early second millennium, is mainly
known from texts found in the trading centers of Cappadocia (in modern
xx • INTRODUCTION

Turkey) since the residential levels of Assur have not been excavated. As-
syrian traders brought tin and textiles to Anatolia and brought back silver.
The first important ruler of the north was the Amorite leader Shamshi-Adad
I who operated from a base in the Habur Valley and obtained control over
the Assyrian cities. He became a powerful king whose influence reached
deep into Babylonia, but he did not leave a lasting legacy.
The Hurrians, governed by an Indo-European elite, established their own
state—Mitanni—in the mid–second millennium that was engaged in in-
tense rivalry with the Hittites of Anatolia. In the 14th century, Assyria be-
gan to grow into a strong and expansionist state under such kings as Ashur-
uballit I and Adad-nirari I. They began to intervene in the affairs of
Babylonia, and this started a long period of tenuous relations between the
two countries in which Assyria emerged the stronger. Both countries suf-
fered a decline from the 12th to the 10th centuries B.C., experiencing mas-
sive immigration of tribal groups from the west and ecological disasters.
Assyria recovered more quickly than the south, and a number of energetic
warrior kings established the basis of what was to become the most power-
ful state in the whole of the Middle East.
The Neo-Assyrian empire was built on a highly efficient, well-equipped,
and professional army, a well-trained civil service, and the principle of co-
opting subjugated local rulers as allies. The symbolic center of the state was
the capital city, which housed the royal residence, the administrative center,
the arsenal, and the sanctuaries of the main deities. Different kings preferred
different cities as their capital. The expansionist policies of the Assyrian
kings brought enormous revenue but also exacted constant campaigns to re-
press rebellions and defend dependent regions from outside aggression. The
expansionist imperial regime of Assyria collapsed partly as a result of the
kings’ own policies, such as the practice of dislocating rebellious popula-
tions, and the reliance on punitive campaigns to impose their rule over an
ever widening territory. The efforts to maintain control over Babylonia also
proved to provoke ever fiercer resistance, and in the end it was a Babylon-
ian Median coalition that destroyed Nineveh and the other Assyrian cities
and thus brought Assyrian power to an end.
The Babylonians were quick to claim the inheritance of their oppressors
and became in turn an imperial state that exercised control over much of the
Near East right to the Mediterranean shores. Nebuchadrezzar made Baby-
lon into the most dazzling city of the world. But the imperialist phase was
of short duration, and the Achaemenid rulers claimed sovereignty over an
even larger territory, from eastern Iran to Egypt. Since in Babylonia the col-
lective identity was more heavily invested in religious symbols (the cults of
 INTRODUCTION • xxi

the great gods of Babylonia), the tradition of urbanism found that dynasties
of foreign origin were tolerated as long as their kings conformed to the cul-
tural norms of Babylonian kingship. The country continued to function and
prosper under Persian and later Macedonian rulers. Although most histori-
cal accounts take the death of Alexander as the end point of Mesopotamian
history, there was no sudden end in 332 B.C. Instead, there was a slow de-
cline in some cities, eclipsed by new foundations and centers of power such
as Seleucia, others continued to exist and even flourish, well into the
Parthian period. Only when the whole region became marginalized be-
tween Rome and Persia did the old cities become deserted and the haunts
of jackals and ghosts.

WRITING

Written history in Mesopotamia began in the so-called Early Dynastic period

III (c. 2600–2350 B.C.). At this time, the country was divided into a number of
individual cities with their surrounding territories. The first inscriptions were
little more than the names and titles of men who achieved positions of au-
thority and who dedicated precious objects to the patron gods of their cities. It
appears that many of these persons owed their influence and wealth to mili-
tary success, often at the expense of neighboring cities. Their donations seem
to have been partly an attempt to justify their actions to the deities. The writ-
ten message linked the gift to the donor and his deed and transmitted his name
to posterity. Although writing had been invented in the Uruk period (late
fourth millennium), it then served only administrative purposes and did not
encode speech of any particular language. It was instead a communicative sys-
tem, rather like the mathematical or chemical formulas of our own time, which
are understood rather than read by those accustomed to use them. The archaic
writing had served to record economic transactions within a much wider geo-
graphical context than southern Mesopotamia—including the Susiana in
southwest Iran, southern Anatolia, northeast Syria, and northwest Iran. When
this network collapsed at the end of the fourth millennium, the acquired liter-
ary expertise was adapted not just to suit bureaucratic control but also to be-
come an ideological tool—able to preserve the memory of individuals whose
deeds were giving shape to “history.”
Although it appears that the main centers of scribal education were in
Mesopotamia and that the primary language referent for cuneiform systems
was Sumerian, it could also be used in other linguistic contexts, such as the
Semitic language spoken at the Syrian city of Ebla, or the Akkadian used
xxii • INTRODUCTION

within Mesopotamia itself. In fact, the cuneiform tradition is marked by

bilingualism (Sumerian and Akkadian).
Most scribes at all times were employed as clerks to serve the adminis-
tration of large productive “households” (including temples and palaces),
while a much smaller but important sector was engaged in transmitting the
arts of writing and to compose works that became the cornerstones of
Mesopotamian cultural values: most important, lists of words and signs that
composed the conceptual framework and ordering principles of the lin-
guistic and tangible universe.
The memorialization of kings and their deeds was another genre of writ-
ing, as were compositions concerning the religious domain—hymns, prayers,
myths, and rituals. In time the repertoire expanded to include the recording
of divinatory material (from omen collections to astronomical data) and sim-
ilar “scientific” enquiries (medical texts, technological treatises, etc.). It was
a characteristic of Mesopotamian civilizations to foster an awareness of a
very long historical continuity “from the days of old” to the “distant days” of
the future. The early system of reckoning time by naming a year after a sig-
nificant event no doubt contributed to this pronounced awareness of history
as unfolding in an ordered sequence of dynasties and regnal years. In fact, the
chronological system modern historians use is based on such ancient records
and chronicles.
The writers of king lists and royal inscriptions, annals, and chronicles
throughout the two and a half millennia of Mesopotamian historiography
have also bequeathed us a particular view of their past—one in which kings
either maintain the status quo or enlarge their territories through military
campaigns; found, continue, or challenge dynastic lines; and the main
threat to internal stability is the “incursion” of foreigners, most often of no-
madic origin. Such were the main themes of official inscriptions, and their
ideological purpose was to perpetuate the hegemonic claims of kingship.
The problem is also that in difficult and for modern historians “interesting”
times, writing almost invariably ceased, and the “other side” (the tribal im-
migrants) was illiterate.
The best-documented and historiographically richest period was the time
when Babylonia and Assyria had intense and controversial relations in the
first half of the first millennium. In each country, scribes were at work not
only to record the campaigns of kings but to comment on their actions in a
critical manner according to their “national” bias. In more recent years, his-
torians have also begun to analyze the vast corpus of administrative texts for
their historical relevance. Modern data-processing techniques have been
 INTRODUCTION • xxiii

very useful in dealing with such sources, and in the years to come, the seem-
ingly mundane content of economic archives will become important analyt-
ical tools for the interpretation and understanding of Mesopotamian history.

CHRONOLOGY

Dating in ancient history remains uncertain and conjectural. It rests on a

system of relative chronologies that take into consideration the strati-
graphic sequence of archaeological sites, written sources appearing in such
contexts, references to astronomical events, and links with later, established
chronologies of Greece or Rome. Dates for the first millennium are more
reliable because of the regular astronomical observations recorded by
Babylonian scholars and because of the Assyrian eponym lists that can be
correlated to regnal years of Assyrian kings. All earlier dates are less se-
cure. In fact, there are three different systems that are based on the inter-
pretation of a group of astronomical texts known as the “Venus Tablet of
Ammisaduqa,” which list first and last visibilities of the planet Venus dur-
ing the reign of King Ammisaduqa of Babylon. Three dates are possible for
his accession to the throne: 1702, 1646, and 1583 B.C. This gives a “high,”
“middle,” and “low” chronology. Although many scholars prefer the high
chronology, the middle chronology is used in most of the general historical
works, as in the present volume. There is also a fourth chronology that on
the basis of pottery evidence dates Ammisaduqa to 1550. Dates for the third
millennium are even less clearly established.
 The Dictionary

–A–

ABA-ENLIL-DANA (AHIQAR). High-ranking official under the Assyr-

ian kings Sennacherib and Esarhaddon in the seventh century B.C. Un-
der his Aramean name, Ahiqar, he became famous as the author of a
series of wisdom texts written in Aramaic.

ABI-ESUH (reigned c. 1711–1684 B.C.). King of Babylon in the Old

Babylonian period, son and successor of Samsu-iluna. He had to de-
fend his territories against continuous incursions from Kassite groups
who had begun to settle in the Middle Euphrates region.

ABISARE (reigned 1905–1895 B.C.). King of Larsa, successor of Gun-

gunum. He won a victory against Larsa’s main rival, the city of Isin, in
his 10th year.

ABI-SIMTI. Wife and queen of Amar-Sin (reigned 2046–2038 B.C.) at

Ur. She was the mother of Shu-Sin.

ACHAEMENID EMPIRE. Persian Dynasty (c. 550–330 B.C.), named after

the historically obscure founder Achaemenes. Cyrus II (reigned 559–530)
laid the foundation of the first Persian Empire. He began by defeating the
Median king Astyages, which gave him control over most of Iran. In 593 he
conquered Babylon and thus took possession of the Neo-Babylonian terri-
tories (all of Mesopotamia, most of Anatolia, and Syro-Palestine). His son,
Cambyses II (reigned 530–522) added Egypt. During the rule of Darius I,
who conquered parts of northern India, the Achaemenid Empire reached its
greatest expansion. However, as famously recorded by Greek historians, his
attempts to expand westward into the Aegean were thwarted by fierce op-
position. Darius I was also responsible for the relocation of the capital to

1
2 • ADAD/ADDU/HADAD

Persepolis, where he embarked on an ambitious building program. Subse-

quently, numerous rebellions and internal political rivalry signaled the dis-
integration of the empire. It was Alexander of Mazedon (“The Great”) who
dealt the final blow. He defeated Darius III at Issos in 333 B.C. and there-
after conquered most of the Persian-held territories.

ADAD/ADDU/HADAD. North Mesopotamian weather god, responsible

for the winter rains that ensured a good crop but also for devastating
storms. One of his main centers of worship was Aleppo in northern Syria.
He was one of the most important deities in Assyria where many tem-
ples were dedicated to him. At Assur there was a double sanctuary for
him and his father, Anu. He often appears in royal inscriptions as a war-
rior defending the Assyrian army and he was also invoked in curses.

ADAD-APLA-IDDINA (reigned 1082–1070 B.C.). Eighth king of the Sec-

ond Dynasty of Isin, successor of Marduk-shapik-zeri. According to the
New Babylonian Chronicle, he was a usurper, although he seems to
have been recognized as legitimate and did use the traditional Babylon-
ian royal titles. According to Assyrian sources, he was appointed as ruler
over Babylon by the Assyrian king Ashur-bel-kala, whose daughter he
married. Although his own inscriptions mention mainly peaceful events,
such as temple-building projects, the Babylonian Chronicles record civil
unrest caused by Arameans. There also seems to have been some mili-
tary activity by the Assyrians.

ADAD-NIRARI I (reigned 1307–1275 B.C.). King of Assyria, son and

successor of Arik-den-ili. His reign is historically well documented. His
annals contain much material about his military campaigns and there are
other written sources, such as chronicles, edicts, and letters to other sov-
ereigns. The greatest military achievement of this king was his defeat of
the powerful state of Mitanni (also known as Hanigalbat), whose ruler
Shattuara he took prisoner before he allowed him to return to govern his
country as an Assyrian vassal ruler. When the death of Shattuara trig-
gered an anti-Assyrian revolt, Adad-nirari marched against Mitanni, de-
stroyed numerous cities, and deported parts of the population. He also
extended the southern frontier toward Babylonia, defeated the Kassite
king of Babylon, and collected tribute from tribes and people in the
area. The prosperity and stability of his reign allowed him to engage in
ambitious building projects, building city walls and canals and restoring
temples.
 ADMINISTRATION • 3

ADAD-NIRARI II (reigned 911–891 B.C.). King of Assyria, son and suc-

cessor of Ashur-dan II. The Synchronistic History reports that he de-
feated the Babylonian king Shamash-mudammiq. Hostilities between
the two states ceased when a peace agreement was drawn up between
Nabu-shuma-ukin I, the new Babylonian king, and Adad-nirari in 891.
They also took each others daughters in marriage. The good relations
between Assyria and Babylonia that this alliance initiated were to last
some 80 years.

ADAD-NIRARI III (reigned 810–783 B.C.). King of Assyria, son and suc-
cessor of Shamshi-Adad V. A noteworthy feature of his reign is the fact
that during his early years on the throne, military campaigns were con-
ducted by his generals, perhaps due to the young age of the king. The
first expedition led by Adad-nirari himself (in 805) was directed against
Syria, where he collected tribute from local rulers. The second took him
to Babylonia, where he attacked Der, although he seems also to have
made efforts to restore peace and order by bringing back Babylonian de-
portees and statues of gods kept in Assyria. Although he maintained the
borders of the empire as they had been under Shalmaneser III, toward
the end of his reign Assyria began a period of decline.

ADAD-SHUM-IDDINA (reigned c. 1222–1217 B.C.). Kassite king of

Babylon during the time of Assyrian domination.

ADDA-GUPPI’ (fl. c. 649–547 B.C.). Mother of the Babylonian king

Nabonidus. According to a commemorative stele that her son erected af-
ter her death, she was born in the 20th year of Ashurbanipal (649) and
subsequently rose to a position of influence at the court of Babylon, par-
ticularly under the kings Nabopolassar, Nebuchadrezzar II, and Ner-
iglissar. Nabonidus stresses the fact that she was much devoted to the
moon god, Sin of Harran. This does not prove, however, as often as-
sumed, that she was a priestess of this deity. She lived to a ripe old age
of at least 102 years and died in the ninth year of her son’s reign.

ADMINISTRATION. The necessity of keeping reliable and durable

records of complex economic transactions was the primary motive for the
development of writing in Mesopotamia. The wide network of exchange
relations and central control that characterized the economy of the Uruk
period (mid–fourth millennium B.C.) led to the formation of bureaucratic
structures and systems of bookkeeping. This assigned responsibility of
4 • ADOPTION

particular sectors to administrative units supervised by “heads of depart-

ment” within a hierarchical order. In all subsequent historical periods, this
fundamental structure of the administration remained the same, although
with varying degrees of complexity. All major institutions that engaged in
production needed an administrative apparatus to keep track of wages, ra-
tions, and other costs incurred for employees, as well as of quantities of
goods expended and produced. Hence archaeologists have discovered ad-
ministrative archives of private estates and “firms,” as well as those at-
tached to temples, palaces, and other forms of state organizations. The
more centralized the state’s control over resources became, the greater the
need for administrative records. The greatest concentration of such
sources in the second millennium belongs to the time of the Third Dy-
nasty of Ur with its highly developed system of taxation.
The Neo-Assyrian state archives recovered from the imperial capitals
also number thousands of tablets and give testimony to the efficiency of
Assyrian administration. High officials were often recruited from elite
families. In Assyria a significant proportion were eunuchs.
From the Neo-Babylonian period, there are mainly temple archives
that give details of agricultural production, as well as those from private
companies that sometimes spanned several generations who specialized
in loans and investment in various economic sectors.

ADOPTION. Adoption is known from legal contracts and law codes dat-
ing from the second and first millennia B.C. The most common form was
to take an individual to be a son or daughter, but sibling and parental
adoption was not unknown. Written documents, duly witnessed, stated
the terms and nature of the relationship being entered into, and some-
times the penalties incurred for the repudiation of the contract.
One of the most common reasons for adoption was the desire to secure
support in old age and the provision of a funerary cult for the deceased
adopter. In exchange, the adoptee could inherit property. Such arrange-
ments were generally conducted between adults. Infants or children
could be adopted to legitimize their descent. Sequestered high-status
women (such as the naditu) who were barred from having children could
adopt young women to look after them in old age and to make them in-
dependent of the paternal kin group. Legal tablets show that litigation
over adoption was not uncommon.

AGRICULTURE. Agriculture formed the basis of the Mesopotamian

economy. The first steps toward a managed production of cereals were
 AGRICULTURE • 5

taken as early as the 10th millennium B.C. in Syria, in the area known as
the Fertile Crescent, which receives sufficient natural rainfall for culti-
vation. Wheat and barley were the earliest domesticated cereals; other
plant species used for food were pulses, such as lentils and chickpeas.
In Mesopotamia, the northern area (Assyria) that forms part of the
Fertile Crescent, crops could be grown in the vicinity of the rivers. Far-
ther south, in Babylonia, there was not enough rain to sustain cereal pro-
duction unless the fields were watered through irrigation, but the rich al-
luvial soil accumulated by the rivers Tigris and Euphrates proved to be
much more fertile than in other Near Eastern regions. By the seventh
millennium B.C., the alluvial plains began to be cultivated, and by the
fourth millennium, the first cities appeared in response to the need for an
efficient agricultural administration. The first documents, pictographs
written on clay, concerned the allocation of labor for fields, and the dis-
tribution of the products. By the third millennium, large institutions, such
as temples and palaces, owned and managed the greatest part of arable
land, employing a significant proportion of the urban population who
worked for rations or as sharecroppers. By the second millennium and in
later periods, private ownership of land was relatively more common.
The most important cereal was the salt-tolerant barley. Oil-rich plants,
such as sesame and linseed, were also much used, as were vegetables
such as onions and garlic. The date palm was by far the most essential
tree, as much for its timber, as for its fruit, which was a vital source of
sugars and vitamins.
Fields were planted by teams of oxen (initially two, later four) with a
crew of laborers. For the annual harvest in spring, hired hands aug-
mented the labor force. The produce was stored in special granaries and
storehouses and distributed as rations, sold, and kept for seed. As long as
the fallow principle was maintained, and fields allowed to recover their
fertility after having been irrigated and planted, the land was able to yield
substantial surplus. These rich grain harvests thus provided the founda-
tion of Mesopotamian urban civilization.
With rising populations and pressure from the central government, too
intensive cultivation could drastically affect the carrying capacity of the
land, and the weakened fields could only produce a fraction of the nor-
mal crop, which was vulnerable to pests and diseases. Famines and epi-
demics were therefore not uncommon and are described in various liter-
ary compositions.
Animal husbandry was more important in those regions that boasted less
fertile soil. Sheep and goats could be kept in marginal areas by moving
6 • AKALAMDUG

herds from place to place. Cattle and pigs were generally kept in one place.
While the former could be profitably managed by nomadic and pastoral-
ist groups who moved with their herds in search of pasture, bovines and
pigs were raised by special organizations, such as temples and palaces.
During the time of the Third Dynasty of Ur, the city of Puzrish-Dagan,
not far from Nippur, was the livestock center of the state.
All domestic animals were prized because of their wool and hides, as
well as for their milk. Meat, rarely consumed by the nomads, formed an
important part of the sacrificial repasts in Mesopotamian temples. Vari-
ous Sumerian myths and poems concern the competition between the
“shepherd,” who is portrayed as uncouth and uncivilized, and the
“farmer,” who is the quintessential Mesopotamian, refined and urban.

AKALAMDUG (reigned c. 2600–2580 B.C.). King of Ur. Although his

name does not feature in the Sumerian King List, he was identified as
king of Ur by an inscription on a seal discovered in the “Royal Graves of
Ur,” excavated by Sir Leonard Woolley in tomb No. 1050.

AKKAD (also read Agade). (1) As a toponym, this refers to the yet undis-
covered city in northern Babylonia, said to have been founded by Sar-
gon of Akkad, who made it the capital of the Akkadian Dynasty. The
city’s rise and downfall were the subject of a well-known Sumerian lit-
erary text that blames the sacking of the city by foreign invaders known
as the Guti on royal arrogance. Some archaeologists suggest that the re-
mains of Akkad are to be found in the vicinity of Baghdad. (2) As a ge-
ographical term (during the late third and early second millennium B.C.),
this denoted the northern part of the country, from the point where the
Tigris and Euphrates come closest to the southern part of the Jezirah.
It was used in distinction to the southern part, known as Sumer. From
the time of the Third Dynasty of Ur, “Sumer and Akkad” denoted all
of Babylonia.

AKKADIAN. As a modern linguistic term it refers to various Semitic di-

alects spoken in Mesopotamia over a period of 2,000 years (such as Old
Akkadian, Babylonian, Assyrian). In antiquity, scribes differentiated
between texts written in “the tongue of Akkad” from those written in the
“tongue of the land” (i.e., Sumerian). The earliest texts written in Akka-
dian date from the mid–third millennium B.C. See also LANGUAGES;
WRITING.
 ALEXANDER THE GREAT • 7

AKKADIAN DYNASTY (c. 2340–c. 2154 B.C.). Dynasty founded by Sar-

gon of Akkad. Sargon built on the success of Lugalzagesi of Uruk in uni-
fying “Sumer and Akkad”; having defeated the latter in battle, he estab-
lished his own capital in the as yet unidentified city of Akkad. According
to his own inscriptions, he campaigned widely beyond Mesopotamia and
secured access to all the major trade routes, by sea and by land. His suc-
cessors, Rimush, Manishtusu, Naram-Sin, and Shar-kali-sharri, all
faced considerable opposition from the Sumerian cities that they more or
less ruthlessly suppressed. After the reign of these five kings, a period of
anarchy and disruption followed, probably caused to a great extent by the
Gutian invasion. The much reduced kingdom of Akkad enjoyed greater
stability under the reigns of Elulu (c. 2198–c. 2195), Dudu (c. 2195–2174)
and Shu-Turul (c. 2168–c. 2154).
Various mountain tribes, referred to as the Guti in the Sumerian King
List and other sources, had established themselves in the vicinity of
Akkad, perhaps initially as mercenaries. According to the Sumerian King
List, Akkad was destroyed by Ur-nigin of Uruk who established another,
short-lived dynasty that was in turn terminated by the “Gutian hordes.”

ALEXANDER THE GREAT (fl. 356–321 B.C.). Macedonian conqueror,

son of Philip II of Macedon. He set out to challenge the supremacy of the
Achaemenid Persians in Ionia and ended up with an empire that for the
first time in history linked Europe with Western and Central Asia. He
achieved this by a series of campaigns with a relatively small but highly
disciplined force of fighters in which he provoked pitched battles with the
Persian army fielding many thousands of men. He won his first victory at
the river Granicus (334), which gave him access to the Cilician Gates. He
then confronted the massed forces led by the Persian king Darius III at
Issos (333) and inflicted another defeat on the Persians. Darius escaped to
Babylon while Alexander continued southward to Syria and Palestine,
where most of the cities surrendered voluntarily. He then invaded Egypt
and was enthroned as pharaoh in 331. Darius had meanwhile assembled a
vast army in Babylonia. Another battle was fought near Gaugamela, and
Alexander triumphed again. He then marched to Babylon, where the
satrap Mazeus surrendered. Darius had escaped to Media, and Alexander
set out for Persepolis, the dynastic center of the Achaemenid Empire,
which he looted of its wealth before setting fire to the city.
Darius was assassinated by his own people and Alexander continued
his conquest farther east across the Iranian highland and into Bactria,
8 • AMARNA CORRESPONDENCE

where he married the daughter of the vanquished king in 324. He pressed

on into India, reached Pattala in 325, and, while part of his troops re-
turned by sea, marched back to Persia. The return of the fleet and the
conquest of India were celebrated at Susa, and he took the eldest daugh-
ter of Darius in marriage. Alexander planned the conquest of Arabia and
set out for Babylon, where he made the preparations for a sea-borne in-
vasion. On 31 March 323, he caught a fever from which he was never to
recover. He died on 10 June, not yet 33 years old. His untimely death
sparked intense and prolonged rivalries for his succession and the divi-
sion of the enormous territories he had conquered. See also SELEUCID
DYNASTY.

AMARNA CORRESPONDENCE. Tell el-Amarna is the modern name for

Akhetaten, the city founded by the Egyptian pharaoh Amenophis IV (also
known as Akhenaten) who ruled from 1376 to 1379 B.C. Archaeologists
discovered an important archive of cuneiform tablets, some with Egypt-
ian glosses, which also included documents from the reign of Amenophis
III (reigned c. 1387–1350). The majority are letters and reports, written by
local governors and petty rulers of the Levantine coast that was under
Egyptian control. Of special interest are the 43 missives sent by kings of
independent states, such as Babylonia, Mitanni, and Assyria, which
concern the reciprocal exchange of prestigious commodities such as char-
iots, gold, and various artifacts, as well as princesses.

AMAR-SIN (reigned 2046–2038 B.C.). Third king of the Third Dynasty

of Ur, son of Shulgi. During his nine-year reign, he benefited from the
economic and political stability that his father had established. Although
his royal inscriptions mention various military campaigns against little-
known targets, he gave most of his attention to the building and renewal
of sacred buildings, such as the Apsu temple at Eridu.

AMEL-MARDUK (Biblical Evil-Merodach) (reigned 561–560). King of

Babylon, son and successor of Nebuchadrezzar II. He only reigned for
a short time and was deposed by his sister’s husband, Neriglissar. Ac-
cording to later sources, such as a fragmentary Babylonian epic, he de-
served this fate because he had not listened to his counselors and had
neglected the Babylonian temples.

AMORITES. The word is derived from the Akkadian amurru, which des-
ignated Semitic-speaking tribal groups, who toward the end of the third
 ANTIGONUS MONOPHTALMOS • 9

millennium B.C. settled in increasing numbers in northern and middle

Babylonia. Their influx is thought to have contributed to the downfall of
the Third Dynasty of Ur. Some tribes became assimilated and formed
chiefdoms and kingdoms in Mesopotamia and Syria in the second mil-
lennium B.C. (e.g., Mari, Yamhad, Tuttul), others retained a nomadic or
seminomadic existence as pastoralists. The First Dynasty of Babylon
was founded by an Amorite. The term amurru was also used to designate
the language and at later times the western border of Babylonia.

AMURRU. (1) Original home of the Amorites. (2) Semitic god and tute-
lary deity of the Amorites whose name first appeared in the personal
names of people during the Akkadian period. He had at least three tem-
ples in Babylon. To assimilate this “man of the desert,” he was officially
married to a Sumerian goddess: one myth describes how he wooed and
won the daughter of Numushda, much against the latter’s initial misgiv-
ings about someone belonging to a people “who do not know bread.” In
the Babylonian tradition his wife was Belet-Seri (“Lady of the Desert”).

ANIMAL HUSBANDRY. See AGRICULTURE.

ANNALS. A type of royal inscription that was particularly common in As-

syria, apparently introduced by Adad-nirari I at the beginning of the 13th
century B.C. Written in a literary style, they were yearly reports of the king’s
major activities, primarily of military expeditions and building works. An-
nals are of considerable historical importance as they allowed for greater
precision in establishing the chronological sequence of events in a particu-
lar reign, although the often stereotyped phraseology of the texts reminds us
that they were not considered to be unbiased historical records but served
to underpin the ideological basis of Assyrian kingship.

ANTIGONUS MONOPHTALMOS (reigned 321–301 B.C.). Macedonian

general, chief of cavalry of Alexander the Great, satrap of Phrygia and
later king. In the aftermath of Alexander’s death, he competed with the
other generals for a share in the succession. Antigonus managed to dis-
lodge Seleucus I from Babylon with whom he engaged in bitter warfare
for four years (312–308) that ravaged the country. His brutal behavior to-
ward the Babylonian population was described in the Babylonian
Chronicle. He was finally defeated by Seleucus and killed, 81 years old,
in the battle at Ipsus in Phrygia.
10 • ANU

ANU (Sumerian: An). Mesopotamian god whose written name expresses

the notion of the heavenly deity. The sign dingir could be read as “An”
and function as determinative to introduce the name of any god or god-
dess. An appears in some Sumerian mythical texts as a younger genera-
tion demiurge who orders the universe and decrees the fate of gods and
men. He could also form a cosmic union with a female deity of the earth
(Urash, or Ki) and thus become the source of life.
The lists of divine names, which were first compiled as early as the
late fourth millennium B.C., generally begin with An. In many other texts,
he is also seen as the head of the Mesopotamian pantheon as “the great
An” or “Father An.” His son Enlil eventually assumed some of Anu’s
traits and functions, such as the bestowal of kingship.
In the north Anu had affinities with weather gods and hence associa-
tions with fertility. The cult of Anu revived in the Hellenistic period at
Uruk, where he had a large temple since the Uruk period.

ARABS. Semitic, tribally organized people, subsisting on seminomadic

and nomadic pastoralism and trade. Arab groups were first mentioned
in the first millennium B.C. in Assyrian records. Arab contingents, for in-
stance, fought in the great coalition against Shalmaneser III in 853. An
Arab queen, Samsi, fought against Tiglath-pileser III in 732 but was
forced to pay tribute. Reliefs from Ashurbanipal’s palace at Nineveh
show Assyrian troops doing battle against Arabs on camels in retaliation
for their support of the Babylonians.

ARAMEANS. A group of peoples speaking a western Semitic language

(Aramaic). They were originally tribal pastoralists and emerged in the
middle of the second millennium B.C. to form states in Syria and north-
ern Mesopotamia.
They first appeared as “hordes of Ahlamu” in Assyrian annals around
1300 B.C. Tiglath-pileser I (c. 1110) defined them as Arameans (ahlame
armaya). They were much feared also in Babylonia, together with an-
other tribal people known as the Suteans, for raiding and pillaging the
country. Arameans were spread out over large areas of Syria, and divided
into several tribal groupings. They were frequently in conflict with the
Assyrians, either because they raided Assyrian territory or because their
various petty kingdoms had become targets of Assyrian expansion. Some
Aramean groups suffered mass deportation as a punishment.
Nevertheless, their language, Aramaic, became the most widely spo-
ken and understood language in western Asia since the eighth century
 ARCHIVES • 11

B.C. and became the international language of commerce and diplomacy,

not only within the Assyrian empire but also under the subsequent em-
pires, until the early centuries A.D. The Arameans adopted an alphabetic
form of writing in the 11th century that was based on the Phoenician al-
phabet. Because of the perishable nature of the writing material, few
original texts other than those engraved on stone or written on clay bowls
and sherds have survived.

ARCHIVES. Because the majority of cuneiform documents deal with bu-

reaucratic matters, they were often kept together in the form of archives
for future reference. They belonged in the main to the large institutions
of Mesopotamia, the temple and palace, and detail expenditure and in-
come, personnel, hours worked by laborers, as well as legal contracts and
correspondence.
From the third millennium B.C. are examples from Shuruppak, an-
cient Fara, that date from the 24th century B.C. The tablets date just from
a single year and detail the economic dealings of a large organization in-
volving some 9,660 donkeys and 1,200 men. From about the same time
are the archives of Girsu, the capital of the city-state Lagash, which fur-
nished details about the centralized economy of the city-state. Particu-
larly well known are the palace archives of Mari from the 19th century
B.C. They entail the voluminous correspondence between the ruler and
his various dependants and allies and thus form one of the main sources
for the history of the Middle Euphrates region of the period.
From the time of the Third Dynasty of Ur, temple archives, espe-
cially from Ur and Nippur, as well as from provincial centers such as
Puzrish-Dagan, contained often thousands of tablets and reveal the com-
plex workings of these institutions.
With the Old Babylonian period, private archives belonging to pri-
vate entrepreneurs begin to appear, alongside rarities such as the records
of the “cloister” at Sippar, where unmarried and well-born women lived
in seclusion to pray and look after their investments (see NADITU).
Of great historical importance are the state archives from Assyria,
which preserved royal correspondence, especially from the time of the
Sargonids (seventh century). They contain letters from scholars and di-
viners, astrologers and exorcists, as well as those pertaining to the ad-
ministration of the empire.
From the Neo-Babylonian period, no comparable records survive,
but there are important archives from temples such as that of the sun god
at Sippar.
12 • ARMY

During the late period of Mesopotamian history, when Babylonia was

ruled by the Persians and then the Seleucid kings, the main cuneiform
sources come from the archives of large commercial firms, such as the
Egibi or the Murashu families, who managed temple land, lent silver, and
liaised with the crown. The very last archive collections come from the
temple estates of Uruk.

ARMY. Information about military organization comes from pictorial and

written sources. The earliest visual images, from the Uruk period, rep-
resent naked men with their arms tied behind their backs. It is not clear
though whether such scenes refer to local prisoners or captives of war-
fare. Depictions of armed ranks in action can be seen on such monu-
ments as the Early Dynastic “Stele of Vultures” (see EANNATUM) or
the “Standard of Ur.” They show soldiers protected by leather coats,
wearing caps and helmets, and wielding spears. Their leaders ride in
wooden chariots with solid wheels driven by sturdy donkeys. On the un-
usual stele commemorating the victory of Naram-Sin of Akkad over the
Lullubi, his men ascend a steep mountain while the enemies are trampled
underfoot or fall down the precipice. Naram-Sin carries a large bow.
Much more detailed and numerous are the representations on Neo-
Assyrian palace reliefs that were meant to impress local and foreign vis-
itors alike with the efficiency and determination of the Assyrian army.
Scenes of camp life, with portable kitchens, tents, and baggage trains,
showing soldiers at rest, intersperse the more common depictions of an
army on campaign, marching across all manner of territories, or setting
siege to enemy towns. They represent the different divisions, such as the
chariotry, the cavalry, the archers, and the foot soldiers equipped with
short and long spears. Some scenes concentrate on the result of victori-
ous battles: smoking ruins of burned towns, heaps of corpses, and clerks
taking down the number of casualties from a pile of severed hands. Since
wars were also meant to deter insurrections, the palace reliefs served as
a reminder of how the Assyrian king could punish rebels; the accompa-
nying texts explained who was flayed or impaled, beheaded, or other-
wise mutilated and why.
The written sources of the royal inscriptions and annals customarily
dwell on successful conquests and campaigns that brought fame and
wealth to the kings who led them. In the third and much of the second
millennium B.C., such campaigns were waged after the harvest, since the
king only commanded over a limited number of body guards in peace-
time. Sargon of Akkad, however, claimed that “5,400 men ate with him
 ASHURBANIPAL • 13

daily,” which was an unusually large entourage and perhaps constituted

the beginning of a standing army.
In the Old Babylonian period, numbers of fighting men are some-
times recorded; the Mari letters, for example, refer to 10,000 men, and
Shamshi-Adad I boasts of 60,000 under his command. In the Old
Babylonian times fighting men could be conscripted for specific cam-
paigns, or they were part-time professionals who could raise crops on
crown land for their services. On campaign they were provisioned by
the local population.
Since the army played such a vital role in the Assyrian Empire, they
were better organized than in earlier periods, with auxiliary contingents
from subjugated territories. There were career possibilities in the Assyrian
army and senior officers could command a great deal of influence. Some
Assyrian generals were eunuchs. They could lead campaigns when the
king was unable to do so himself. The center of the army since the time of
Shalmaneser III was a huge building known as the ekal masarti (Review
Palace) at Kalhu (Nimrud). This served as arsenal, training ground, and
administrative headquarters. See also WARFARE.

ASHURBANIPAL, Assyrian: Ashur-ban-apli (reigned 668–627? B.C.).

King of Assyria, son and successor of Esarhaddon. Despite rich and di-
verse historical sources it is not possible to establish a generally accept-
able chronology of Ashurbanipal’s reign. Especially the events of his last
years and the date and circumstances of his death remain unclear.
Ashurbanipal succeeded to the throne when his father Esarhaddon died
on campaign in Egypt. Moves by the pharaoh Taharka to regain indepen-
dence had to be repelled by several campaigns that culminated in the fall
of Thebes. After this victory over the Kushite rulers Ashurbanipal con-
solidated the Assyrian hold over the vassal states in Syro-Palestine. In the
northeast, he repelled incursions by Mannaeans but maintained friendly
relations with a number of buffer states in Anatolia.
Relations with Elam and Babylonia proved to be more difficult to re-
solve. While the Assyrian army was occupied with the Egyptian cam-
paign, Elam staged an invasion of Babylonia that was repressed by
quickly dispatched troops. When in the following years Elam experi-
enced a dynastic struggle, a rival faction found asylum at the court of
Ashurbanipal. Hostilities between Assyria and Elam resumed when the
new king Teumman invaded the east Tigris region. The Elamites were
decisively beaten at the banks of the river Ulai, and the decapitated head
of their king was sent to Nineveh.
14 • ASHUR-BEL-KALA

The most serious and traumatic confrontation of Ashurbanipal’s reign

was the rebellion of his brother Shamash-shuma-ukin, who had been cho-
sen by Esarhaddon to be king of Babylon. The anti-Assyrian faction headed
by Shamash-shuma-ukin initiated a bid for independence, supported by
Elamites and Arabs, as well as troops led by the ruler of the Sealand,
which led to a four-year war that was eventually won by the Assyrians.
Relations with Elam continued to be problematic. There were several
pretenders to the Elamite throne, and Ashurbanipal unsuccessfully
backed an Elamite prince who had fled to Nineveh on the throne. In re-
taliation to a coup by Humban-Haltash, the Assyrian king began a war
that was meant to deal with this long-standing enemy once and for all.
As depicted on the reliefs from his Ninevite palace, his army stormed
one city after the other, finally sacking and despoiling the capital Susa.
Ashurbanipal was also victorious in his other campaigns, especially in
battles against the Arabs, who had helped Shamash-shuma-ukin.
The final years of Ashurbanipal’s reign are still obscure due to a lack
of sources from this period. He may have abdicated in 631 and retired to
Harran, or he may have continued to rule Assyria until his death, possi-
bly in 627. He was succeeded by his son Ashur-etil-ilani.
Despite his shadowy end amid growing internal and external threats to
the Assyrian empire, Ashurbanipal was the last great Assyrian soldier-
king who also left a considerable cultural legacy, most famously his li-
brary at Nineveh. The visual arts under Ashurbanipal reached a high level
of refinement, as the numerous sculpted reliefs recovered from the palace
at Nineveh testify. They show the king as chief of the victorious armed
forces and the hunter of ferocious beasts, as in the famous lion hunt scene.

ASHUR-BEL-KALA (reigned 1074–1057 B.C.). King of Assyria, son of

Tiglath-pileser I. He undertook numerous punitive expeditions against
the raiding Arameans, as well as campaigns into Anatolia where the
Urartians had become strong. With the Babylonians he concluded a
peace treaty that was sealed by his marriage to the daughter of Adad-
apla-iddina, whom he had appointed as king over Babylonia. A long in-
scription on the so-called Broken Obelisk, discovered at Nineveh, de-
scribes the king’s prowess in hunting wild animals, his acquisition of a
wide variety of fauna, and his numerous building projects.

ASHUR-DAN II (reigned 934–912 B.C.). King of Assyria, son and suc-

cessor of the undistinguished Tiglath-pileser II, he ended the long period
of decline suffered by the country after the demise of Tiglath-pileser I.
 ASHUR-UBALLIT I • 15

Royal inscriptions once more become abundant. Ashur-Dan began by

turning against his neighbors to the north who had inflicted much dam-
age on his border area. In the west he had to take on the ever menacing
Aramean tribes and restored land and possessions that they had taken
from the Assyrians. He pacified the eastern border region to secure the
trade with the Iranian plateau and beyond. Thereafter he made efforts to
reactivate the ravaged economy by resettling displaced populations to
make uncultivated land productive. Hand in hand with these efforts to se-
cure the agricultural bases, he invested in the chariotry and the armed
forces. He also undertook various building projects, mainly restoration
work on the palaces, temples, and gates of the capital, Assur.

ASHURNASIRPAL (Assyrian Ashur-nasir-apli) II (reigned 883–859 B.C.).

King of Assyria, son and successor of Tukulti-Ninurta II, Ashurnasirpal
built on the success of his predecessors to make Assyria the dominant
power in the Near East. He undertook 14 campaigns, against the north
(Anatolia) and the eastern regions of the Zagros Mountains. Westward he
traveled to the shore of the Mediterranean Sea and initiated good relations
with the economically important Levantine states. In the south he main-
tained peace with Babylonia.
His overall policy was directed less toward further expansion than to
the consolidation of Assyrian influence. His mobile and well-equipped
army could be effectively deployed at short notice to quell insurrec-
tions and to punish rebellious vassal rulers. On the other hand, Ashur-
nasirpal also accepted daughters of local rulers for his royal harem to
cement friendly relationships and was ready to defend loyal subjects by
lending them military aid. With the huge amounts of tribute and taxes,
he had the resources to finance campaigns and grandiose building proj-
ects. In the new capital, Kalhu (modern Nimrud), a whole city was
built, with temples, barracks, and residential quarters, where he reset-
tled people deported from various parts of the empire. The so-called
Banquet Stele describes the inaugurating party where he entertained
and feasted 69,574 people for 10 days.

ASHUR-UBALLIT I (reigned c. 1365–1330 B.C.). King of Assyria. Dur-

ing his lifetime, Assyria’s political situation changed significantly, due to
the defeat of the neighboring kingdom of Mitanni by the Hittites. This
allowed Ashur-uballit to extend his territory to the east and to grow in
importance. He also initiated a close relationship with Babylonia by giv-
ing his daughter in marriage to the Babylonian king.
16 • ASSUR

ASSUR. City in Assyria. The site, known as Qalat Sherqat, lies on a lime-
stone bluff overlooking the river Tigris. It was excavated by the German
Oriental Society, directed for many years by Walter Andrae.
A deep sounding at the site of the Ishtar temples revealed that it had
been inhabited at least since the middle of the third millennium B.C. At
the beginning of the second millennium Assur was involved in profitable
trade with Anatolia, importing and exporting primarily tin obtained
from western Iran, as well as textiles, in exchange for Anatolian copper.
The Amorite chief Shamshi-Adad I (reigning 1813–1781 B.C.) in-
corporated Assur into his kingdom and it became a ceremonial center and
thereafter the capital of Assyria until 883 when Ashurnasirpal II moved
the seat of government to Kalhu. The city remained a ritually important
place as the seat of the eponymous god Assur and served as the burial
site for Assyrian monarchs. The stone stelae, bearing the names of the
“eponym officials” (Assyrian limmu), were also displayed at Assur. This
formed the basis of Assyrian chronology.

ASSYRIA. The heartland of Assyria lies in the northern area of present-

day Iraq, alongside the river Tigris, from the Anatolian foothills to the
range of the Jebel Hamrin. Other important waterways to the east are
the Upper and the Lower Zab, which run from the Zagros Mountains.
To the east extends a steppe-like plateau, known as the Jezirah, which
reaches toward the Habur Valley. Much of this land was fertile, suited
to rain-fed agriculture and especially herding. Major trade routes,
into Anatolia and the Iranian plateau via the Zagros range, as well as
southward to Babylonia and west to the Mediterranean, went across
the country, which contributed toward the development of thriving
economies.
In the sixth millennium B.C., it was densely settled, and several im-
portant sites produced fine hand-painted pottery in the Halaf culture
style. In the fifth millennium, Nineveh was a populous city; the area was
subsequently dominated by the south Mesopotamian Uruk culture.
Assyria did not experience the intense urbanization that took place in
the south during the third millennium. It was incorporated into the king-
dom of Akkad and Naram-Sin built a temple at Nineveh.
Written sources, using a distinct Akkadian dialect known as Old As-
syrian, only begin in the 20th century, when native kings, such as
Ilushuma, established a dynasty. At this time, merchants from Assur be-
gan their lucrative trade with Anatolia, exporting Assyrian textiles and
tin which was obtained from a still unknown source farther east, and im-
 ASSYRIA • 17

porting copper. The relevant tablets all come from the Anatolian site
Kültepe, near present-day Kayseri.
In the 19th century, an Amorite leader named Shamshi-Adad I, ex-
erted his sovereignty over Assyria from his base in the Habur Valley.
During the first half of the second millennium B.C., Assyria was
eclipsed by Babylonia. The country saw the influx of peoples from the
east, especially the Hurrians, and the west, various Semitic speaking
tribes, such as the Amorites. An Indo-European elite, who ruled the
mainly Hurrian population in northeast Syria, formed their own state
(Mitanni) around 1500 and made the Assyrian kings their vassals. This
only changed when the Hittites defeated Mitanni around 1350 B.C.
From the reign of Ashur-uballit I onward, the fortunes of the country
began to revive. During the Middle Assyrian period (1400–1050), As-
syria became one of the great military powers of the Near East. This en-
tailed territorial expansion, mainly toward the north and the west, to form
colonial dependencies that furnished tribute and manpower to the As-
syrian state. Of prime importance for conquest and the maintenance of
peace was the army, which became one of the best trained and equipped
in the world. After the decline of the Hittite empire in the mid–13th cen-
tury, Tukulti-Ninurta I (reigning 1244–1208) engineered the greatest
expansion of the kingdom, including the incorporation of Babylonia.
Large-scale invasions and tribal unrest around 1100 contributed to the
disintegration of the Assyrian power, and it was only in the 10th century
that a new dynasty, with Ashur-Dan III, began to prepare the rise of the
Neo-Assyrian Empire (934–610).
The height of Assyrian power was reached in the seventh century B.C.,
when energetic warrior kings such Ashurnasirpal, Shalmaneser III,
Tiglath-pileser III, Sargon II, Esarhaddon, and Ashurbanipal fought
on all fronts to sustain Assyrian pressure. The Assyrian empire included all
of Mesopotamia (since Babylonia was under direct rule), most of central
Anatolia, Syria including the Levant, and even, for a brief time, Egypt.
The policy of Assyrian kings was to nominate local rulers over their de-
pendencies that had been won by military invasions and impose on them
treaties of loyalty. As long as regular tribute payments and contingents of
auxiliaries were received by the Assyrian authorities, the “vassal” partner
was assured of Assyrian protection. Rebellions and treachery, such as join-
ing anti-Assyrian alliances, were severely punished in raids, the leaders be-
ing gruesomely executed. Repeated disloyalty could be stopped by incor-
porating the country into the Assyrian provincial system, which entailed
the complete loss of political and economic independence.
18 • ASSYRIAN

A further pacifying method, deployed where the latter option was un-
feasible, was to deport a significant sector of the population (the elite and
artisans) to other Assyrian-dominated regions. It has been estimated that
millions of people were systematically displaced.
Such harsh measures fanned the flame of resistance and the Assyrian
kings of the seventh century were forced to campaign relentlessly to keep
their huge empire from falling apart. Their demise was swift. A coalition be-
tween the Babylonians, who resented Assyrian hegemony with great viru-
lence, and the Medes, a new people who had settled in western Iran, spelled
the final defeat in 612 B.C. when Nineveh was reduced to ashes.
The Assyrian elite was much influenced by Babylonia. Ever since
Tukulti-Ninurta I brought important Babylonian tablet collections to As-
sur, the Assyrian intelligentsia immersed itself in Babylonian learning. In
the seventh century, a number of southern scholars were permanently in-
stalled at the royal court.
As far as the visual arts were concerned, Egypt, or rather the tradi-
tional Egyptian colonial outposts along the Syria coast, proved more in-
spirational, as the ivories from Nimrud testify.
The relief sculptures were initially borrowed from the Hittites but the
fine, flowing lines of the classic palace orthostats from Kalhu and Nin-
eveh are typically Assyrian.

ASSYRIAN. East Semitic dialect, a form of Akkadian that was spoken in

Assyria and rendered in cuneiform writing. In accordance with the dif-
ferent historical periods, one distinguishes between Old, Middle, and
Neo-Assyrian. The largest number of Assyrian texts excavated so far
date from the ninth to the middle of the seventh centuries B.C. See also
LANGUAGES.

ASSYRIAN KING LIST. A document written in Assyrian that consists of

a chronologically ordered sequence of 112 Assyrian rulers from the be-
ginning of the second millennium B.C. to Ashur-uballit II (died in 609
B.C.), of which several copies exist from the first millennium. It lists the
name of the king, his father’s name, and the length of his reign, with oc-
casional remarks about particularly noteworthy events. The reliability of
the list is doubtful for the early periods, but it still functions as the basis
of the modern chronological framework for Assyrian history.

ASTROLOGY/ASTRONOMY. Because all celestial observations in

Mesopotamia served divinatory purposes, to discover the hidden mean-
 ASTROLOGY/ASTROMONY • 19

ing of divine messages inscribed in the movements of stars and planets,

the two terms are inseparable. The primarily esoteric purpose did not
preclude very detailed, regular, and “scientific” measurements and cal-
culations.
Astral and planetary phenomena were only one part of a whole range
of observable subjects that included the behavior of animals and human
beings, the layout of cities, malformations of organs or fetuses, prices of
staple commodities, war, famines, and so forth. The principle was that
deviations from a perceived “normality” were inherently “ominous” and
had either positive or negative connotations.
The collection and interpretation of such spontaneously occurring
omens, as opposed to those solicited in specific rituals, was the task of
highly trained scribes. They compiled lists of omens, in series covering
different categories, with a column of text providing the interpretation.
To establish astronomical “regularity,” planetary and astral data were
collected and collated. The scholars aimed to include all possible per-
mutation of phenomena and encoded them in such a way that they could
be meaningfully decoded when unusual celestial events occurred.
The earliest celestial series date from the Old Babylonian period,
from around 1700 B.C. They chart not only unusual astral phenomena but
also weather patterns at the time of observation. The collection of data
kept growing and was put together in a work called Enuma Anu Enlil af-
ter its initial words. Copies were found in the library of Ashurbanipal at
Nineveh. The entries concentrate on omens for the king and the country
(e.g., “If the sun is surrounded by a halo and a cloud bank lies on the
right, there will be a catastrophe everywhere in the country”).
Lunar and solar eclipses were considered as particularly ominous. It
was crucial for the diviners to predict the timing of an eclipse in time for
apotropaic rituals averting any evil influence to be performed. The so-
called “Mathematical-astronomical texts,” (MUL.APIN “The Plough-
Star”) from the last centuries of the first millennium B.C. incorporate
methods whereby such phenomena could be predicted to a high level of
accuracy.
During the Achaemenid period, divinatory practices became less
popular and individual predictions were solicited, which led to the intro-
duction of the horoscope in the Seleucid period, perhaps as a Greek in-
fluence. A Babylonian invention was the assignment of four groups of
zodiacal signs to the Moon, Saturn and Mars.
Astronomical diaries, recording lunar, planetary, meteorological, and
economic data were kept well into the Christian era.
20 • BABA

–B–

BABA (also known as Bau or Bawa). Sumerian goddess of Lagash, called

“Mistress of the Animals” and “Lady of Abundance,” which marks her
as a mother-goddess and patron of life and fertility. She was the wife of
the main deity of Lagash, Ningirsu. She shared his temple at Lagash and
she also had her own sanctuary at Uruku, the sacred precinct of Girsu.

BABYLON. Ancient city on the river Euphrates, south of modern Bagh-

dad. The name is the Greek version of the Babylonian Babili, which
was rendered as “Gate of the Gods,” although the original etymology is
unclear.
The river used to run through the city but has shifted its course, and
the much denuded site was left uninhabited for centuries, while the
baked bricks used in the monuments were reused by local villagers for
their own shelters. There are several scattered tells on an area that used
to be enclosed by a wall of some 20 kilometers length. Due to the high
water table, archaeological levels lower than those of the later second
millennium B.C. are inaccessible. The extensive archaeological site was
excavated by the German Oriental Society since 1899, originally led by
Robert Koldewey; more recently Iraqi archaeologists have been at work
at the sites. The most spectacular remains, such as the restored Ishtar
Gate with its glazed tile reliefs of sacred animals, are in the Pergamon
Museum in Berlin.
Babylon always had the reputation as a sacred site. It was first men-
tioned in an inscription of the Akkad king Shar-kali-sharri, but it is un-
likely that the city’s main temple, the Esagil, was founded by Sargon of
Akkad as a Babylonian Chronicle states. It was the seat of a governor
during the Third Dynasty of Ur but only grew to some importance in
the Old Babylonian period when Sumu-abum made it the capital of his
kingdom. Hammurabi enlarged and fortified the city in the 18th century
B.C. The Marduk temple Esagil and the first ziggurat may also have
been constructed at this time, although there is no archaeological proof
for this.
The Hittite king Mursili I destroyed Babylon in c. 1595 B.C. It was
rebuilt under the Kassite Dynasty, who promoted the cult of the vener-
able Babylonian gods. The city suffered another sacking in c.1174 at the
hands of the Elamites, who also abducted the statues of Marduk and his
consort. It was Nebuchadrezzar I who vindicated this insult by invad-
ing Elam and bringing back the stolen gods. In subsequent centuries
 BABYLONIA • 21

Babylon was under foreign influence and occupation, first by Elam and
then by the Assyrians. While some Assyrian kings wrought havoc in the
“sacred city” (e.g., Sennacherib in 698) others endowed the sanctuar-
ies lavishly. However, it was during the time when Babylonia had re-
gained its independence and became a powerful empire that the city be-
gan to be invested with magnificence. This was largely the work of
Nebuchadrezzar II. He used the enormous revenue generated from
taxes and tribute to embellish the capital, which became the largest and
wealthiest of cities in the Near East.
It was surrounded by a strongly fortified double wall, some 20 kilo-
meters long, pierced by several gates. It was strengthened by huge bul-
warks of baked brick at the places where the Euphrates entered the city.
Nebuchadrezzar built new palaces and decorated the throne room with
glazed brick wall designs, which have also been partially reconstructed
in Berlin.
Of particular importance was the sacred precinct of the god Mar-
duk, with the temple Esagil and the ziggurat, remembered in the Bible
as the Tower of Babel, which took 17 years to complete. It incorpo-
rated the remains of earlier structures under a casing of brick, some 15
meters thick.
A straight, walled street that served military as well as ritual purposes
linked the temple to the western gate. It was used for the annual proces-
sions during the New Year festival, and glazed bricks lined the walls,
showing the symbols of the main deities: the dragon of Marduk, the lion
of Ishtar, and the bull of Adad.
When the Persians took political control of Mesopotamia they did not
destroy the city. In the Seleucid period, a theater was built and a new
market, while older temples continued to flourish. Despite the founda-
tion of a new capital, Seleucia-on-the-Tigris, Babylon remained an im-
portant urban and especially religious center but declined when
Parthian rule isolated Babylonia from the Hellenized world.

BABYLONIA. As a political term, Babylonia became current during the

Kassite period when it was also known by its Kassite name Karduniash.
It comprised the area south of the Jezirah up to the marshes of the Per-
sian Gulf, bordered to the east and west roughly by the rivers Tigris and
Euphrates but with no clearly defined boundaries. In modern works,
Babylonia is also used as a topographic term, more or less synonymous
with southern Mesopotamia, in distinction to Assyria or northern
Mesopotamia.
22 • BABYLONIAN

BABYLONIAN. Linguistic term for an east Semitic dialect of Mesopotamia

since the beginning of the second millennium B.C. There are certain differ-
ences between Old, Middle, and Neo-Babylonian. The Babylonian cur-
sives of cuneiform tablets can be distinguished from the Assyrian exam-
ples by a preference for archaic styles and greater complexity of form. See
also LANGUAGES.

BABYLONIAN CHRONICLES. Several chronicles were written in

Babylon from the middle of the second millennium B.C. onward.
Chronicle P records the dealings of the Kassite Dynasty with their
Assyrian and Elamite neighbors. There are seven Neo-Babylonian
chronicles from the reign of Nabunasir to the Persian conquest in
539 B.C. The Late Babylonian Chronicles follow on after a gap of
some 50 years and cover the Achaemenid Dynasty, the reign of the
successors of Alexander the Great (Diadochi), and the period of the
Seleucids.
The scribes who wrote these documents were primarily interested in
events at Babylonia from a Babylonian point of view and thus often con-
tradict or supplement other sources, like the Assyrian annals and royal
inscriptions. On the other hand, they do not gloss over military defeats
or the fact that Babylonia was governed by foreign kings and thus betray
a genuine interest in history.

BABYLONIAN KING LISTS. Continuing the framework set up by the

earlier Sumerian King List, Mesopotamian scribes composed similar
chronological lists that are not preserved in their entirety. King List A
enumerates the kings from the First Dynasty of Babylon to the rise of
Nabopolassar in 626 B.C.

BAZI-DYNASTY (c.1005–986 B.C.). Short-lived and poorly documented

Babylonian Dynasty featured in Babylonian King Lists as springing
“from the House of Bazi.” Three kings are listed for this period, one of
the most difficult and disruptive times in Babylonian history.

BEER. The earliest evidence for the use of beer comes from Godin-Tepe
in Central Iran, where remains of beer were found in a fragmentary jar
that dates back to the late fourth millennium B.C. In the ancient Near
East, beer was part of the basic nutrition and was apparently consumed
at all times in large quantities and given out as part of the daily rations to
laborers. Since only fresh water was used in its preparation, it was a
 BEROSSUS • 23

healthier drink than the often polluted water from the canals and wells,
as well as being enriched with protein and vitamins and easily digestible.
Its percentage of alcohol is not known. Several myths and narratives de-
scribe drunkenness among gods and mortals. One creation myth derives
the various defects suffered by people, such as blindness and barrenness,
as the result of a competition between two inebriated deities (“Enki and
Ninhursaga”).
Beer was produced mainly from barley. The pounded grain cakes were
molded and baked for a short time. These were pounded again, mixed
with water, and brought to fermentation. Then the pulp was filtered and
the beer stored in large jars. Mesopotamian beer could only be kept for a
short time and had to be consumed fresh. The cuneiform texts mention
different kinds of beer, such as “strong beer,” “fine beer,” and “dark
beer.” Other sorts were produced from emmer or sesame, as well as dates
in the Neo-Babylonian period and later.
Beer was not only part of the rations for workers but offered daily to
the gods. In the temple cult, it was further used at banquets during the
major festivals.

BEL-HARRAN-USUR. Assyrian official in the eighth century B.C. He

was palace herald under King Adad-nirari III and held several other
important offices, such as that of the eponym (limmu) and governor of
Guzana. In a stele discovered north of Hatra, his name appears before
that of the king, which demonstrates that his power in the area was
greater than the king’s. He also mentions in the text that he had founded
a new settlement, called Dur-Bel-harran-beli-usur (literally Fort Dur-
Bel-harran-usur).

BEROSSUS (Babylonian Bel-re’ushu). Babylonian scholar and priest of

Marduk, who lived in the third century B.C. during the reign of Anti-
ochus I. He wrote a “History of Mesopotamia” (Babyloniaka) in Greek,
of which only fragments survive as quotations in much later Greek and
Roman writers.
The work was apparently in three volumes: The first contained a geo-
graphical description of Babylonia and the origin of human life and civ-
ilization, the second was about the 10 kings before the flood and various
later dynasties down to Nabu-nasir (eighth century), and the last volume
covered the period of Assyrian domination to Alexander the Great.
Later classical tradition also claims that he introduced astronomy to the
Greeks.
24 • BITUMEN

BITUMEN. Latin word for naturally occurring semisolid hydrocarbon (pe-

troleum). Bitumen springs were found in several palaces in
Mesopotamia, and the substance (kupru or it.t.u in Akkadian ) was used
primarily for waterproofing vessels and containers, as well as in con-
struction. It also served to attach ax heads and similar tools to their
shafts. Although the Bible reports the Babylonians used “pitch instead of
mortar” (Genesis 11:3), this material was only used when protection
from rising damp was necessary, such as in buildings near waterways or
in large structures such as ziggurats. Coatings of bitumen plaster made
walls watertight, a practice documented in Old Babylonian Ur.

BIT-YAKIN. A Chaldean tribe in southern Babylonia during the first mil-

lennium B.C. They settled in the very south of the country, near the
marshes. The tribe grew rich and influential when they began to control the
access to the Persian Gulf and thus the maritime trade route south.
When Babylonia was under Assyrian occupation in the seventh cen-
tury B.C. the Bit-Yakin made several, at times successful, attempts to
challenge Assyrian hegemony. Their most famous leader, who assumed
kingship in Babylon, was Merodach-Baladan, the archenemy of Sen-
nacherib.

BORSIPPA. Babylonian city (modern Birs Nimrud), southwest of Baby-

lon, which early travelers mistook for Babylon. It was investigated in the
19th century by explorer cum archaeologists such as Austen Layard,
Hormuzd Rassam, and Henry C. Rawlinson, and more recently by an
Austrian team.
The site was occupied from the late third millennium B.C. until the Is-
lamic period. The main attraction of the city, especially during the first
millennium, was the temple of the god Nabu, known as Ezida, which
Hammurabi of Babylon claimed to have restored. Most of the extant ar-
chaeological evidence dates from this time. The Ezida precinct then con-
sisted of a temple and a ziggurat, both within a walled enclosure. A pro-
cessional street led from the temple, through the city gates, toward
Babylon. This was ritually used in the New Year Festival when Nabu,
like all major Babylonian deities, assembled at the precinct of Marduk.

BOUNDARY STONES (Babylonian kudurru). Inscribed stone monu-

ments in the shape of roundly dressed blocks were set up in temples and
perhaps in special chapels to publicize the donation of land by the king
in order to reward loyal subjects.
 BUILDING INSCRIPTIONS • 25

The earliest example dated from the time of Manishtusu (23rd cen-
tury B.C.), but the word kudurru generally denotes boundary stones
from the Kassite to the Neo-Babylonian period (14th–7th centuries
B.C.). The legal documentation was given added protection and valid-
ity by the carved emblems of deities at the top of the stone, as well as
elaborate curses.

BRONZE. From the fifth millennium B.C. onward, the use of bronze spread
gradually over the Near East and was introduced to Mesopotamia around
3000 B.C. It was first produced as an alloy of copper and antimony or
lead, later as an alloy of copper and tin. It was either made by smelting
a mixture of copper ores and tin ores or by melting together metallic cop-
per and tin. Their ratio varied from 6:1 to 10:1 depending on the function
of the objects and the raw materials used. Normally the portion of arsenic
is rather low in Mesopotamian bronze, but it can rise to 4 percent (arsenic
bronze) depending on the copper ore.
Bronze was used for cult objects, tools, weapons, and all kinds of
everyday items. Several bronze objects such as swords or vessels were
found in the Royal Tombs of Ur. After 1200 B.C., it was partially and
gradually replaced by iron. The bronze bands from the temple gates of
Balawat (Imgur-Enlil) with their depictions of scenes from the military
campaigns of Ashurnasirpal II and Shalmaneser III are of major his-
torical importance, as are the bronze artifacts from Urartu and Luristan.

BUILDING INSCRIPTIONS. Since the erection and maintenance of im-

portant buildings such as palaces and temples were the responsibilities
of the Mesopotamian kings, they often commemorated their contribu-
tions. Inscribed tablets made of metal or stone were placed in a box be-
neath the foundations or, in the shape of a cone-shaped peg, inserted into
the brickwork of the walls. The inscriptions could be short, just contain-
ing the name and title of the king and the name of the building, with
sometimes the date, such as in which year of his reign the building was
dedicated. They could also be much longer and furnish information
about important events that took place at the time, such as résumés of
military campaigns (especially in Assyrian inscriptions).
When a building was renewed, the foundation box was searched for,
and a new one could be added to the one discovered. Therefore, many
building inscriptions were addressed to “future kings” who are exhorted
to treat this document with due respect, and terrible curses were heaped
on those who would cast them aside or break them.
26 • BUILDING MATERIALS

Building inscriptions are very valuable sources for the reconstruction

of historical sequences, especially when other written material is not
available, and essential for the identification and dating of an excavated
architectural structure.

BUILDING MATERIALS. Because of the geophysical characteristic of

the alluvial plains of southern Mesopotamia, the most common building
material was clay, in the form of sun-dried mud brick. This was used for
vernacular as well as for monumental structures such as temples,
palaces, and city walls. The mud could be tempered with organic sub-
stances such as chaff and straw, or sand, although in some areas the nat-
ural composition of the soils was such as not to need any tempering. The
mud bricks were laid in mud plaster, sometimes with additions of lime.
Bitumen was widely used for damp- and waterproofing in wet rooms
and near waterways. Kiln-fired bricks were also primarily used to coun-
teract rising damp and water erosion.
Local trees such as the date palm provided timber for the flat roofs, as
well as doorways; for the wider spans in temples and palaces, coniferous
hardwood (e.g., cedar) was imported from Syria and the Levant.
In the marshy regions of the south, reeds provided the building mate-
rial for temporary constructions, such as byres, sheds, and simple
dwellings.
Stone, especially limestone, is more commonly found in northern
Mesopotamia but did not play a major role in architecture. It was used in
Assyria for foundations; engineered structures such as bridges, canals,
and quays; as well as for door sills and column bases. Stone slabs lining
the lower courses of exterior walls (known as orthostats) could be found
in some palaces in northern Syria and Anatolia. This practice was
adapted for interior use by the Assyrians, and many of the carved lime-
stone slabs are now displayed in museums around the world.
The nomadic peoples of Mesopotamia lived in tents made from the
wool of goats and sheep.

BUREAUCRACY. See ADMINISTRATION.

–C–

CAMEL. The home of the one-hump camel (dromedary) was most likely
the Arabian peninsula, from where there are indications for its domesti-
 CHALCOLITHIC • 27

cation as early as the fourth millennium B.C. Depictions of camels from

the Oman Peninsula date back to approximately 3000 B.C.
The two-hump Bactrian camel came from the steppes of Central Asia.
Both kinds are mentioned in Old Babylonian cuneiform texts. In at
least one of them the dromedary occurs as a domesticated animal, but it
is not before the middle of the second millennium B.C. that there is evi-
dence for the widespread use of domesticated camels (dromedaries) for
transportation and warfare. Especially for the stock-breeding nomads of
the Syrian-Arabian steppe, camels meant greater mobility and indepen-
dence from traditional pasture areas.
In the overland trade, camels opened new caravan routes through
territories that had been impassable before due to the lack of water. The
oases along these routes—Palmyra, Djuma Djandal, Teima, al-Ula—
became important trading places and military posts.
Military expeditions such as Nabonidus’ conquest of Teima depended
heavily on the use of camels. Therefore, they were important items
among the booty and tribute from the Arabian Peninsula. Wall reliefs
from Nineveh show Assyrian troops pursuing Arab fighters mounted
on dromedaries. Bactrian camels being presented to the Assyrian
monarch are depicted on the famous Black Obelisk of Shalmaneser III.

CHALCOLITHIC. An archaeological period (literally “copper-stone”

age) that refers to increased use of metallurgy, especially of copper, to-
ward the end of the Neolithic period. In Mesopotamia, the Chalcolithic
lasted approximately from the sixth to the fifth millennium B.C. Pilot
sites in the north are Tepe Gawra and Tell Arpachiya, and Eridu and Tell
Awayli in the south. For southern sites, the term Ubaid period is also
used; and for the north, Halaf period.
In this phase, all the achievements of the preceding period were fur-
ther developed; horticulture and agriculture spread, and more and more
people adopted a sedentary lifestyle. The archaeological evidence points
to increased settlement size, and increased specialization, professional-
ization, and higher labor inputs. All ecological niches and their wild re-
sources (fish, water fowl, game, wild legumes) were exploited, and new
cultigens planted in fields and garden, making use of hydrotechnological
inventions such as field irrigation.
It also saw the introduction of fundamentally new technologies. Particu-
larly striking is the hand-painted, sometimes glazed pottery showing an un-
paralleled degree of perfection. Pottery sets, found in many grave sites,
were probably used in rituals and banquets where status could be displayed.
28 • CHALDEAN DYNASTY

Metallurgy was less developed in Mesopotamia than in neighboring

countries such as Iran. Gold was introduced, and arsenic bronze ap-
peared in the upper Euphrates region in the Ubaid period.
There is some evidence from Tell Awayli of a weaving loom.
Stone was also worked with more sophistication; it was now possible
to work stones with a hardness of 4 to 7 on the Moh’s hardness scale. The
presence of exotic stones, such as lapis lazuli from Badakhshan or
turquoise from Central Asia, points to an interlinking supply system. Ex-
change of goods seems to have been an important factor of Chalcolithic
socioeconomics, as was the practice of seals and sealings documents.
Some scholars propose that Chalcolithic communities were on the way
to forming states (“incipient statehood”), given the whole-scale applica-
tion of traditional inventions, efforts at maximizing energy output, and
increasing full-time sedentarization.

CHALDEAN DYNASTY (626–539 B.C.). Babylonian dynasty founded

by the Chaldean leader Nabopolassar, who brought the period of As-
syrian domination over Babylonia to an end. He made an alliance
with the Medes and successfully launched attacks against the power-
ful Assyrian cities, destroying Nineveh in 612. His successor Neb-
uchadrezzar II fought to win the Syrian and Anatolian provinces for
Babylonia and built the city of Babylon into the most splendid capi-
tal of the time.
There were violent palace intrigues after Nebuchadrezzar’s death, al-
though the situation in Babylonia and the conquered territories remained
relatively stable. The last Chaldean king was Nabonidus, who spent 10
years in an oasis town in northern Arabia and after his return had to sub-
mit to the Persian emperor Cyrus II, who brought Mesopotamian inde-
pendence to an end.

CHALDEANS. Semitic-speaking, tribal peoples in southern Mesopotamia.

The name comes from the Babylonian term for their region, mat kaldu. To-
gether with Aramean tribes, they entered Babylonia between 1000 and
900 B.C. The main tribes were the Bit-Yakin, Bit Amukanni, and Bit
Dakkuri, all occupying their own territory and having their own rulers.
They were prosperous, profiting from the maritime gulf trade that passed
through their land.
The term Chaldean was from then on also used to denote Babylonia,
until well into the Roman period.
 CITIES • 29

CHARIOT. The chariot was an important instrument of war, particularly

during the earlier phases of ancient Near Eastern history. Already for the
Early Dynastic period (c. 2500 B.C.), the military use of chariots is widely
documented. According to visual evidence as on the “Standard of Ur” and
the “Stele of Vultures” (see EANNATUM), those early chariots were
heavy vehicles with two or four solid wheels, drawn by teams of four don-
keys. Their personnel consisted of two men, a driver, and a warrior.
In the second millennium B.C., when horses were introduced by peo-
ples coming from the Central Asian steppes, chariots were adapted to
higher speed by reducing their weight and increasing their maneuver-
ability. This was only possible after the invention of the spoked wheel.
The military successes of the Hittites, Kassites, and Mitanni are mainly
due to the use of quantities of light horse-drawn chariots for attacks. In
Egypt, the two-wheeled chariot was introduced by the Hyksos.
During the first millennium B.C., the military importance of chariots
decreased. As an attack force they were replaced by the cavalry, but they
remained an important vehicle for the military elite and for the king.
Babylonian and Assyrian monarchs used them on campaigns, during
festivals, and on hunting expeditions.

CITIES. Mesopotamian scribes considered urban life as the only form of

civilized communality. A person’s civic identity was that of a citizen of
a particular city with its suburbs and surrounding countryside. Nonurban
sectors of the population defined themselves by tribal allegiance.
Myths describe cities such as Babylon to have been created by the
gods to be their dwelling place. The city was thus intimately connected
to a particular deity whose image resided in the temple; Ur, for instance,
was the seat of the moon god Nannar-Suen, Sippar of the sun god
Shamash, and so forth. The fate of individual cities was linked with the
prestige and popularity of their main deity. Royal patronage of the cult
could sustain a city with a famous sanctuary in periods of economic
hardship or ecological problems. A well-developed temple economy,
more or less independent from central control, could also contribute sub-
stantially to a city’s survival. The city of Uruk, which boasted two an-
cient and important shrines, of the goddess Inanna-Ishtar and the sky
god Anu, respectively, owed much of its longevity and prosperity to the
religious prestige of the city.
Economically the city functioned as a regional center, controlling the
agricultural production of the surrounding fields and organizing the craft
30 • COPPER

and textile manufactory. Temples as well as governmental institutions

(see PALACE) organized the administration.
Since the early third millennium B.C., cities competed over land and
especially water resources and engaged in intense intercity rivalry that
often escalated into warfare. As a result, cities came to be surrounded by
fortified walls and military commanders could achieve positions of
power.
Competing interests of individual cities could be reconciled through
alliances and leagues, which ensured cooperation and mutual support.
They also prepared the way for centralized state formations that subor-
dinated the control of individual cities to a single political entity, con-
trolled by a king (see AKKADIAN EMPIRE; THIRD DYNASTY OF
UR). Such centralized control could only be maintained for limited peri-
ods since the resentment of city leaders fostered rebellions and resist-
ance. It was the Kassite Dynasty that managed to form the first unified
state to endure for centuries; this was no doubt to some degree at the ex-
pense of cities. Small towns and villages became the dominant settle-
ment form during this time.
The old cities benefited in subsequent periods as centers of produc-
tion, sacred centers, and political capitals (see BABYLON; NINEVEH;
URUK). The Babylonian cities survived the demise of the country’s po-
litical independence under the Achaemenid and Seleucid regimes.

COPPER. Copper was the first metal humans learned to work with. The
earliest evidence comes from Cayönü in southeast Turkey (late ninth or
early eighth millennium B.C.) where small items of jewelry were made
from cold hammered nuggets. Large-scale copper production is associ-
ated with the Chalcolithic period. Especially in Anatolia and Palestine,
quantities of copper articles were produced in the fifth millennium. An-
timony and arsenic were often added to the copper to improve its work-
ing properties.
The copper used in Mesopotamia originated from various places, no-
tably Cyprus, Anatolia, Iran, the Levant, Sinai, and Oman.
Copper was melted, cast into easily transportable forms (ingots), and
then shipped. From the fourth millennium on, it was made into beads and
all sorts of everyday items, later also for objects used in the cult such as
statues, musical instruments, or vessels. The coppersmiths fashioned the
metal into objects by casting, chasing, hammering, forging, and engrav-
ing. One of the most famous copper objects from Mesopotamia is the
head of a royal statue found at Nineveh. It dates from the Akkadian pe-
 CREATION MYTHS • 31

riod and is believed to depict either Sargon or Naram-Sin of Akkad.

For a short time during the Early Dynastic period, copper served as
standard but was soon replaced by silver. Copper was also a raw mate-
rial in the production of bronze and of glass. In medicine, it was used to
cure eye diseases.

COURTS. See LAW.

CREATION MYTHS. There is a variety of cosmogonic references in

cuneiform sources that reflect the different theological themes of indi-
vidual cult centers. A common theme is the notion that an undifferenti-
ated and watery universe became separated into distinct pairs of oppo-
sites. At Eridu, home of the water deity Enki, the primordial substance
was composed of the mingled sweet and salty waters that begat a third
creative (female) element, which in turn produced Heaven (Sumerian
An) and Earth (Sumerian Ki). At Nippur, the separation of Heaven and
Earth, the god Enlil presides over the creation of the heavenly bodies
and the organization of the world.
The best-known creation myth is known by its Babylonian name as
enuma elish (“when above”). It builds on earlier cosmogonies and as-
signs the role of creator to Marduk. This text also presents a theme of
intergenerational violence that may have been a north Syrian or Hur-
rian influence. The older divine couples are disturbed by the noise of
their offspring and plot their destruction. The younger gods appoint Ea
to defend them, but he fails and so they invest the son of Ea, Marduk,
with magic powers to meet the challenge. He succeeds to defeat the
primeval but now monstrous creator goddess Tiamat. He slices her body
in half, fixes the upper part to hold up the sky, and fashions the lower
part into the Earth. The rivers Tigris and Euphrates flow from her eye
sockets; her tail becomes a plug to hold back the subterranean waters.
Marduk also fixes the planets and stars on the upper heaven and decrees
their paths. He fashions man from mud mixed with the blood of Kingu,
the general of Tiamat’s army. In gratitude, the gods confer on Marduk
the kingship, and he establishes Babylon as his dwelling place on
Earth.
The Creation of Mankind in older sources is attributed to mother god-
desses who collaborate with a divine culture hero (Ea-Enki) who min-
gles clay with the breath (or the blood) of a god. The destiny imposed on
humankind is the service of the gods, especially the backbreaking tasks
of maintaining the irrigation system, and mortality.
32 • CUNEIFORM

CUNEIFORM. A system of writing in which a cut reed stylus is pressed

into soft clay to leave a wedgelike imprint (Latin cuneus). It was in-
vented in Mesopotamia in the late fourth millennium B.C. Different ver-
sions of cuneiform writing were used to write various Near Eastern lan-
guages: Sumerian, Akkadian, Eblaite, Elamite, Ugaritic, Hittite, and
Hurrian. It was superseded by alphabetic scripts after the mid–first
century B.C.
Archaic cuneiform script had a predominantly pictorial character since
most of the signs originally referred to visible entities. Since the soft clay
made accurate visual representation very difficult, signs became simpli-
fied and individual “strokes” of the stylus replaced curvilinear forms in
the early third millennium. Equally, the large number of signs was re-
duced to some 600.
Different cursive writing styles are associated with different historical
periods. The Neo-Assyrian style is commonly used in assyriological
textbooks because of its comparative clarity.
The original repertoire of logograms (word signs) became extended
through the principle of the “rebus,” which could isolate the phonetic
value of a sign to express syntactic and grammatical relationships that
determine the meaning of a sentence. Special signs known as determina-
tives signaled the context of signs, especially to indicate when they were
to be understood as a name (personal, topographical, theophoric, etc.).
With the adaptation of cuneiform for several languages within the same
culture (Sumerian and the Semitic Akkadian), the system became even
more complex as the logographic value of a sign could be “translated”
into the Semitic idiom and thereby created further phonetic readings.
Due to this inherent difficulty of the writing system, scribal training
was long and arduous, restricting literacy to a relatively small group of
persons. The repercussions of cuneiform writing, however, affected the
whole population because of the widespread use of writing in the ad-
ministration and the judiciary.

CURSES. Like the oath, the utterance of a curse was believed to have the
magic powers that could destroy its victim by an inherent force. In the
Epic of Gilgamesh, the hero Enkidu curses the courtesan who had intro-
duced him to civilization, and only a subsequent, equally elaborate bless-
ing could avert the inevitable actualization of the malediction.
Public monuments could be protected from vandalism, theft, and mis-
appropriation by curses. In such inscriptions, the gods are called upon to
guarantee the effectiveness of the curse. The most common threat was to
 CYRUS II THE GREAT • 33

have the “seed cut off”—meaning to die without living offspring and to
remain “without a name.” Royal grants and other publicly displayed le-
gal decrees (see BOUNDARY STONES; LAW CODES) had curses that
not only safeguarded the stele or actual monument but ensured that the
content of the inscribed stipulations were respected for all times.

CYLINDER SEALS. Cylinder seals are short pieces of semiprecious

stones or more rarely metal, perforated along the axis so as to be sus-
pended from a string and engraved with a decorative pattern or repre-
sentational scene, and sometimes an inscription. When the seal was
rolled over a flattened damp piece of clay, it left an imprint in high relief.
The purpose of such seals was to indicate the authority of the person or
institution who applied the seal impression, rather like a signature on a
modern document.
The practice originated within the complex bureaucracies of the Mid-
dle and Late Uruk period (in the mid–fourth millennium B.C.). The pic-
torial scenes that refer to activities such as weaving, attending to domes-
tic animals, hunting, and apparently ritual actions may indicate spheres
of administrative competence within the Uruk economy. Thousands of
imprints of such cylinder seals have been found on lumps of clay that
were attached to door locks, jars, and other containers.
From the end of the second millennium onward, cuneiform tablets
could also be sealed. The iconography and artistic style of seal engrav-
ing naturally changed over time, which allows specialists to assess seals
and sealings within a chronological and geographical framework.

CYRUS II THE GREAT (reigned 559–530 B.C.). King of Persia, son and
successor of Cambyses I. He was the founder of the Achaemenid Em-
pire. Sources for his reign are Herodotus and Ctesias, as well as con-
temporary Babylonian records, especially the Babylonian Chronicle
and his own inscriptions, such as the Cyrus Cylinder.
Cyrus began his career by defeating the Median king, Astyages. Hav-
ing thus gained control over most of Iran, he set out to extend his do-
minions farther west. He attacked the Lydian capital Sardis, and within
five years he had incorporated most of Anatolia into his empire. He then
set out to conquer Babylonia. In 539 B.C., Cyrus crossed the Diyala
River and took the city of Opis on the Tigris, after he had vanquished the
defending Babylonian troops. Soon afterward, Sippar surrendered and
Babylon was taken by his commander, Gibryas, on 12 October. Nabo-
nidus, the king of Babylonia, was taken prisoner and deported to Persia.
34 • DAGAN

Cyrus entered Babylon on the 29th. He declared his son Cambyses II

to be “King of Babylon,” while he himself took the traditional Mesopota-
mian title “King of the Lands.”
According to the Old Testament Book of Ezra, he issued the decree
that allowed the deported Jews to return to Palestine and rebuild the tem-
ple in Jerusalem.
Cyrus made efforts to extend his realm farther east, and it is likely that
he controlled most of Afghanistan and south-central Asia. Within 30
years, he had turned a small kingdom into a vast empire. He died, prob-
ably on the battlefield, in 530 B.C., while fighting against a Central Asian
tribe. His body was taken to Pasargadae, his new royal foundation, and
buried in a stone-built tomb. A funerary cult continued there until the end
of the Achaemenid Empire.

–D–

DAGAN. West-Semitic weather god who was worshipped especially in the

middle Euphrates region within the zone of rain-fed agriculture. He
was the chief deity at Ebla and of great importance in Mari. He was in-
troduced to Mesopotamia by the kings of Akkade in the third millen-
nium. During the Third Dynasty of Ur, the cult of Dagan was centered
at the livestock center Puzrish-Dagan near Nippur. He also had a temple
at Isin during the Old Babylonian period. Eventually Dagan merged
with other weather gods, especially Adad.

DAIIAN-ASHUR. Field marshal of the Assyrian army under Shal-

maneser III (reigned 858–824 B.C.). He was also an eponym official for
many years. In the royal annals of this period, he is often mentioned as
conducting campaigns in the king’s name.

DARIUS I (reigned 522–486 B.C.). Achaemenid king. Darius seems to

have acceded to the throne in mysterious circumstances and had to re-
press internal dissent and quell rebellions in the Persian provinces. His
rock inscription recording his eventual triumph in a cliff face at Behistun
was written in Old Persian, Elamite, and Babylonian. It proved an in-
valuable source for the decipherment of cuneiform.
Darius much enlarged the territories of the empire toward the east. In
the west, he faced revolts by the Ionian cities in Asia Minor and was
 DUR-SHARRUKEN • 35

beaten by the Greeks at Marathon. He also built a new capital at Perse-

polis, as well as palaces at Susa.

DARIUS III (reigned 336–330 B.C.). Achaemenid king who was defeated
by Alexander the Great and lost the Persian Empire to the Macedon-
ian conqueror. Although he escaped from the battlefields at Issos and
Gaugamela, he was killed by one of his own generals.

DEITIES. See GODS.

DUR-KURIGALZU (modern ’Aqar Quf). Babylonian city. The name

means “Fortress of Kurigalzu” since it was Kurigalzu, a Kassite king,
who built his residence there in about 1400 B.C. It served as the capital
of the Kassite Dynasty until their demise in the mid–14th century. Kuri-
galzu surrounded the city, which covered some 225 hectares, with a for-
tified wall. Some of the colorful murals that decorated the walls of the
royal palace, as well as a number of statuary and small ornaments, have
been discovered in its ruins. Kurigalzu also built a temple and a large
ziggurat (69 by 67.60 meters) that still stands to a height of 57 meters
today.
In 1170, the city was put to the torch by the Elamites and thereafter aban-
doned until it became inhabited once more during the Neo-Babylonian
period.

DUR-SHARRUKEN (modern Khorsabad). Assyrian capital, inaugurated

by Sargon II in 707 (the name means “Fortress of Sargon”). Sargon de-
cided to move the center of Assyrian administration and the royal
palaces from Kalhu to a brand new site. The city was therefore planned
from the beginning.
A massive wall of mud brick (14 meters thick and 12 meters high) sur-
rounded the rectangular outline of the city, enclosing an area of 300
hectares. There were seven gates, each dedicated to an Assyrian god. Within
a separate enclosure stood the palace and the administrative complex
known as the “Palace without Rival.” According to the French excavators,
it contained more than 210 rooms, grouped around three courtyards. The
portals were guarded by colossal human-headed and winged bulls made of
stone, and the walls of the palace were lined with relief-covered limestone
slabs that showed the triumph of the Assyrian army and the deeds of Sar-
gon. Numerous administrative tablets have also been found. There were
several sanctuaries at Dur-Sharruken, the most notable was dedicated to the
36 • DYNASTY OF E

god Nabu and decorated with glazed tiles. The city was destroyed in the fi-
nal cataclysm of the Assyrian empire around 612 B.C.

DYNASTY OF E (c. 979–647 B.C.). Little-known Babylonian dynasty at

a time when tribal unrest, famine, and general disorder characterized
Mesopotamian history. Most kings ruled only for a few years at the time,
and Assyria dominated the political fate of the country, insofar as most
kings occupied the throne on the behest of Assyrian rulers if they did not
proclaim themselves direct rulers of Babylonia, such as Tiglath-pileser
III, Sargon II, and Esarhaddon.

–E–

EA. God of the underground waters and the magic arts, the Babylonian
equivalent of the Sumerian god Enki, whose main sanctuary was at
Eridu in southern Mesopotamia. Being the wisest among the gods, he
was also the patron of craftsmen, artisans, and exorcists.
In various Akkadian myths, Ea is sought out for his advice and cun-
ning; he alone realizes that the gods need the services of mankind and
therefore helps his protégé Atra-hasis to escape the flood. Likewise, he
knows how to resurrect the goddess Ishtar, who was doomed to remain
in the underworld.
Ea was one of the most important Mesopotamian gods throughout his-
tory, as the many personal references (e.g., “Ea is my protection”) testify.
From the mid–second millennium B.C. onward, he was primarily ap-
pealed to as a protector against evil demons.

EANNATUM (reigned c. 2454–2425 B.C.). Early Dynastic ruler of the

city-state Lagash, brother of his successor Enannatum I. Eannatum was
probably his official throne name; he was also known as Lumma, an
Amorite name. According to his inscriptions, he fought against other
cities, such as Kish, Ur, and Mari, and also campaigned in Elam. Ean-
natum is best known for his victory over Umma, the neighboring city
that had a long-standing conflict with Lagash over the control of fields
along their respective boundaries. He had a large stone monument put
up, the so-called Stele of Vultures, which depicts the victorious army of
the Lagashites trampling over the fallen foes, while vultures pick their
bones. The text describes the history of the dispute and how the victory
was granted by the will of the god Ningirsu, the patron deity of Lagash.
 ELAM • 37

EARLY DYNASTIC PERIOD. Archaeological term referring to levels of

Mesopotamian sites from the end of the Jemdet-Nasr period (c. 2900
B.C.) to the reign of Sargon of Akkad (c. 2330). There are three subdi-
visions: Early Dynastic (ED) I (2900–2750), ED II (2750–2600), ED III
A (2600–2500), and ED III B (2500–2330).
The first historical records appeared in Early Dynastic III A, brief in-
scriptions from Kish, Ur, and Uruk. Other texts, mainly of administra-
tive purpose, were discovered at Abu Salabikh and Fara (ancient Shu-
ruppak).
The Early Dynastic period saw the emergence of several important
city-states and a marked trend toward urbanization. There was much
competition between individual cities, not only for power and influence
but for water rights and territorial boundaries. The documents found at
Fara refer to large institutional organizations that could command thou-
sands of men for various civic and military tasks. There may also have
been coalitions of cities, as the still poorly documented “Kengi-League.”
Toward the end of ED III, Uruk had achieved prominence under the lead-
ership of Lugalzagesi.

EBLA (modern Tell Mardikh). City in the Orontes Valley in Syria, a land
well known for the fertility of its fields and rich pasture. The history and
economy of Ebla are unusually well known, due to the voluminous
archives discovered by Italian archaeologists. The cuneiform texts were
written in a Semitic language, now simply called Eblaite.
Ebla had been first inhabited during the Chalcolithic period (Mardikh
I 3500–3000). This is followed by Level II, subdivided into phases A, B1
and B2.
The most illustrious period was II B1, when the Royal Palace (with
the archives) was built. The palace was the main institution of the Old
Ebla kingdom, it employed some 4,700 people, entailed numerous work-
shops, such as smithies and textile manufactories. The city was destroyed
in c. 2250, probably by an Akkadian ruler. Ebla revived after an inter-
val (Mardikh III A and B) in the Old Babylonian period and was finally
destroyed in c. 1600. Sources for this period are far fewer.

ELAM. Region in southwest Iran, presently known as Khuzistan. Its geo-

graphical position, at the edge of the Iranian plateau and within the allu-
vial plains of the rivers Karun and Karkeh, tributaries of the Tigris, gave
this area access to the central Iranian highlands, as well as the Persian
Gulf and the southern Mesopotamian plains. During the prehistoric period
38 • ELAM

in the fifth and fourth millennium B.C., there were strong cultural links
with southern Mesopotamian sites.
The inhabitants of Elam called themselves haltami (elamtu in Akka-
dian). They spoke a language that is not connected with any other
known language (Elamite) that they began to write in cuneiform in the
mid–third millennium.
The country is first mentioned in Sumerian inscriptions from the
Early Dynastic period; Eannatum, for instance, reports that he con-
quered Elam (in the 25th century B.C.).
There were several dynasties in Elam, one, dominated by the city
Awan, defeated Ur and thus was included in the Sumerian King List.
Sargon of Akkad (reigned 2340–2284 B.C.) incorporated the Susiana
into his empire where he appointed his own governors. Naram-Sin,
(reigned 2260–2223 B.C.) concluded a treaty with the king of Awan,
which was preserved in the temple of the Elamite god Inshushinak.
According to an Elamite king list, the dynasty of Awan was followed
by that of Shimashki, a city in the mountains of Luristan. The southern
part (Susiana) was under the control of the Third Dynasty of Ur until
c. 2004, when Kindattu, a king of Shimashki, invaded Ur and took Ibbi-
Sin prisoner. Kindattu called himself “king of Anshan and Susa.”
The next phase is known as the period of the sukkalmah (the title of
governors during the Third Dynasty of Ur) (c. 1970–1500). At that time
Akkadian was adopted as the official language although few documents
survive.
The so-called Middle Elamite period (1500–1100) saw the rise of
Elamite power. Under the Igehalkit Dynasty, Elamite became once more
the main written language. King Untash-Napirisha (reigned 1275–1240)
built a new capital, Dur-Untash (modern Choga Zanbil). His grandson
Kiden-Hutran (reigned 1235–1210) raided Babylonia, where he de-
stroyed a number of cities. From then Elam was closely involved in the
history of Babylonia.
A new dynasty (the Shutrukides) was founded by Hallutush-Inshushinak
(c. 1205–1185). The kings continued their raids against Kassite Babylonia,
and Shutruk-Nahhunte I sacked and plundered Babylon in 1185. Among
the booty were several ancient Mesopotamian monuments, such as the stele
of Hammurabi. This success only spurred further campaigns against
Babylonia that resulted in the demise of the Kassite Dynasty in 1155. The
most important Elamite king of this dynasty was Shilhak-Inshushinak
(reigned 1150–1120), who enlarged the territories to the north and the
northwest. The Babylonian king Nebuchadrezzar I (reigned 1126–1105)
 ENKI • 39

launched a successful attack against Elam, where he recovered the abducted

statues of the gods Marduk and his divine consort Sarpanitum.
Elamite history for the next few centuries is obscure due to the almost
total absence of written sources.
During the last phase, the Neo-Elamite period (eighth–seventh cen-
tury B.C.), Elam became closely implicated in the conflict between As-
syria and Babylonia. Elam took advantage of Babylonian weakness
by invading its territories but it also joined in anti-Assyrian coalitions
with Babylonia. They gave asylum to Sennacherib’s archenemy
Merodach-baladan and even kidnapped (and probably killed) the As-
syrian crown prince whom Sennacherib had put on the throne of Baby-
lon (c. 692). When they also assisted Shamash-shuma-ukin in his re-
volt against Ashurbanipal, the Assyrian king vowed vengeance
against Elam. The Elamite king Tepti-Humban-Inshushinak (Teum-
man in the Assyrian annals) invaded Assyrian territory; Ashurbanipal
pursued them and won a decisive victory near the river Ulay. He then
ravaged the Elamite countryside and destroyed Susa, returning with
enormous booty.
The final years of the Neo-Elamite period are not well documented;
internal intrigues and coups continued to upset the political balance as in
the preceding generation.
The Medes finally put an end to Elamite independence around the
mid–seventh century B.C.

ENHEDUANNA. Daughter of Sargon of Akkad. An inscription on a small

limestone disk found at Ur records her dedication as entum priestess of
the moon god Nannar-Suen at Ur. She may have been the first of a long
line of royal princesses who held this prestigious position. Enheduanna
also appears as the author of several literary works, such as the “Sumer-
ian Temple Hymns” and an enigmatic text known as nin-me-šar-ra that
seems to relate to the political tensions between Ur and Uruk during her
period of office.

ENKI (Akkadian Ea). Sumerian god of the “Deep” (Abzu) whose main
sanctuary was at Eridu. He was one of the most important deities, to-
gether with Anu, Enlil, and Inanna, and mentioned in prominent place
in the earliest god lists. He was the son of An and the old mother god-
dess Nammu.
Enki plays a prominent role in Sumerian mythology. On the one hand,
he represents the potential fertility of the groundwater; the “water” of
40 • ENLIL

his penis is said to have filled the Tigris and Euphrates, and his copu-
lations with a succession of nubile goddesses led to the extension of fer-
tility on the primordial land “Dilmun.” His superior intelligence is the
subject of other narratives; he knows how to rescue the doomed Inanna
and advises other heroes in distress. On the other hand, his weakness for
drink results in the loss of the me (divine prerogatives and powers) to
Inanna and in the creation of abnormal human beings.

ENLIL (Akkadian Ellil). Sumerian god, one of the most important

Mesopotamian deities since the early third millennium B.C. His name is
usually taken to mean “Lord (of the) Air/or Wind” and denotes that his
domain was the earth, above that of the “below” (Abzu) ruled by Enki.
Enlil controlled the weather and hence the fertility of the land by wind
and rain. As such, he has characteristics of the weather gods that feature
so prominently in those regions where agriculture depended on annual
rainfall.
In Sumer, Enlil also played a more political role, as the “leader of the
gods” who presides over the “divine assembly.” It was he who conferred
legitimate kingship on a city and its ruler; this was known as ellilutu,
“Ellil-ship,” since the Old Babylonian period.
His main temple was the Ekur at Nippur, one of the most important
sanctuaries in Mesopotamia. In the myths he is described as the one “who
controls the fate” and who is in possession of “Tablets of Destiny,” the se-
ducer of the young goddess Ninlil, who became his wife, and the god
whose repose is continually disturbed by humankind’s clamor. In the
flood myths, it is always Enlil who decides to eradicate all human beings.
In Babylonia, he came to be eclipsed by Marduk who assumed most
of Ellil’s prerogatives and powers.

ENLIL-NADIN-AHI (reigned c. 1157–1155 B.C.). Last king of the Kas-

site Dynasty in Babylon. According to an inscription on a boundary
stone and later historical chronicles, he led a campaign against Elam and
suffered a crushing defeat by Kudur-Nahhunte, which brought the Kas-
site Dynasty to an end.

EPONYM CHRONICLES. These were lists drawn up of the names of

eponyms who gave their name to a year, augmented by a brief comment
on specific events during the year, such as eclipses. The earliest extant
Eponym List only enumerates the officials’ names and covers the years
before and during the reign of Shamshi-Adad I (c. 1813–1781 B.C.). An-
 ERIDU • 41

other fragmentary texts lists eponyms from about 1200. A consecutive

listing covers the years 910–649. Eponym chronicles, together with the
royal annals, form the backbone of Assyrian historiography.

EPONYMS. In Assyria, since the Old Assyrian period, there was a dat-
ing system in which years were named after an important official (As-
syrian limmu). Lists were then kept that enumerated the sequence of
eponyms (see EPONYM CHRONICLES). In the Middle Assyrian pe-
riod, kings held the office in their second regnal year; it then passed on
to senior officials of state in a regular pattern, including provincial gov-
ernors. After a reign of 30 years, the king became eligible once again,
and the cycle began a second time. While this sequence was fixed, indi-
vidual candidates still had to be chosen. Apparently this was done by
some random decision-making process, such as the rolling of dice.

ERESHKIGAL. Goddess of the Underworld. Her name “Lady of the

Great Place” refers euphemistically to the Land of the Dead, which
the Mesopotamians also dubbed “Land of No Return.” According to
the myths, she was the older sister of Inanna, the “Lady of the Heav-
ens,” who desired to extend her influence also “below.” Ereshkigal
punishes Inanna’s incursion into her domain with death but is tricked
to surrender her corpse to the flattery of some transsexual creatures.
In the Old Babylonian period, Ereshkigal lost her sovereignty to the
male deity Nergal. A myth describes how the lonely goddess gladly sur-
rendered her old independence to rule the underworld with Nergal. Her
main sanctuary, and also that of Nergal, was at Kutha.

ERIDU (modern Abu Shahrein). South Mesopotamian city, regarded by

the Sumerian scribes as the oldest city in the world, where “kingship
came first from heaven.” The kings of Eridu, according to the Sumerian
King List, all ruled for phenomenally long periods, the first Alulima for
28,800 years, the second for 36,000 years.
In historical times, it was never the seat of a dynasty. Eridu’s impor-
tance was religious rather than political, as the site of the main sanctuary
of Enki. Numerous Mesopotamian kings contributed to the buildings at
the site that reached its greatest size during the time of the Third Dy-
nasty of Ur. It became deserted in the 18th century B.C. The cult of Enki
continued to be maintained at other shrines, notably at nearby Ur.
The archaeological excavations by the Iraqi Department of Antiquities
revealed a long sequence of buildings, one above the other, which began
42 • ESARHADDON

in the Ubaid period, around 4900 B.C. There are altogether 18 building
levels of what came to be known as the Eunir, the temple of Enki.

ESARHADDON (Assyrian Ashur-ahhe-iddina) (reigned 680–669 B.C.).

Assyrian king, son, and successor of Sennacherib, who had been assas-
sinated in a palace coup. According to Esarhaddon’s own inscriptions,
his father had destined him, though the youngest, to be his heir in view
of the fact that his eldest son had died in Elam. In the ensuing fight for
the throne, Esarhaddon prevailed and was crowned at Nineveh on the
eighth of Adar 681.
The main event of his career was the invasion of Egypt, which had
changed its policy from being pro-Assyrian to fomenting revolts. In 671,
after an abortive first effort three years before, he crossed the desert of
Sinai with the help of Arab camels carrying water for the troops and
fought three victorious battles against the Egyptians. He seized Memphis
and took the son of pharaoh Taharka prisoner.
Esarhaddon had to repress numerous rebellions, such as that of Sidon
in 677. He also had to campaign in Anatolia, where nomadic tribes from
the east, the Cimmerians and Scythians, caused a good deal of trouble in
Assyrian provinces. Toward Babylonia he pursued a policy of appease-
ment and began a program of reconstruction and redevelopment, reset-
tled exiled inhabitants, and restored to them their property. Esarhaddon
also rebuilt the temple precinct of Babylon that had been destroyed by
Sennacherib.
Wary about the difficulties of a peaceful transition of power to his
sons, he drew up a document affirming the succession of his younger son
Ashurbanipal that stipulated that the older brother and crown prince
Shamash-shuma-ukin was to be king of Babylon. All his vassals and
the Assyrian nobility were sworn by oath to honor this proclamation. It
was to be the cause of a bloody war between the brothers that devastated
Babylonia. In 669, Esarhaddon died on campaign on the way to Egypt.

ESHNUNNA (Tell Asmar). Mesopotamian city in the Diyala Valley in the

east Tigris area. The site was inhabited since the fourth millennium B.C.
and grew in importance in the Early Dynastic periods II and III. Esh-
nunna experienced its greatest growth between 2000 and 1800 during the
Isin-Larsa period. After the fall of the Third Dynasty of Ur, it became
the capital of a small independent kingdom called Warum. According to
the archives found at Mari, the kings of Eshnunna also engaged in the
armed rivalries for supremacy that characterize this age. An interesting
 EUPHRATES • 43

document from the last king of Eshnunna, Dadusha, is a collection of

laws regulating commercial activities and social relations. The same king
was eventually defeated by Hammurabi of Babylon in c. 1763 B.C.

EUNUCHS. Eunuchs played a significant role in most ancient Near Eastern

administrations, although the scholarly debate over the meaning of terms
denoting “eunuch” (Sumerian LÚ.SAG; Akkadian ša reši) is still going on.
In the textual material from Mesopotamia, eunuchs are attested from
Old Babylonian times on in various positions, ranking from high palace
officials to servants in private households. The most significant and com-
plex evidence comes from Assyria, and it is no surprise that the classical
tradition attributes the origin of eunuchs to the legendary Assyrian queen
Semiramis. From the Middle Assyrian laws, we learn that the penalty for
adultery and homosexuality was “to turn him into a eunuch.” The Assyr-
ian Palace Edicts from the same time show that eunuchs had access to the
royal court and harem. In the texts from the Neo-Assyrian empire, eu-
nuchs and “bearded ones” are mentioned side by side as terms for state
officials, and they occur without beards on the Assyrian palace reliefs.
As in other civilizations, eunuchs probably came from the elite fami-
lies and were chosen already at an early age for a court career. They be-
came high-ranking officers in the Assyrian army. The “Chief of the Eu-
nuchs” sometimes even led the whole Assyrian army on a campaign
(e.g., Mutarris-Ashur under Shamshi-Adad V). Others held important
offices in the central and the provincial administration. Outside the
palace administration, eunuchs occupied various professions, such as
scribes, musicians, actors, and so forth. It is not known whether all of
them were slaves or whether there were free men among them.

EUPHRATES. Together with the Tigris, the most important river that de-
fined the borders of Mesopotamia. The Euphrates has its source in the
mountains of Anatolia, which receive substantial amounts of snowfall in
the winter. The river was called purattu in Akkadian, a name that sur-
vives in the Arabic form Firat. Its main tributaries are the Balikh and the
Habur. Farther south, the alluvial plains begin, the gradient of the land
becomes very low, and the Euphrates carved out a number of subsidiary
beds and side arms. It was an important means of communication by boat
and less turbulent than the Tigris.
While the upper reaches of the Euphrates were situated in the “Fertile
Crescent,” where rain-fed agriculture was possible, south of present-
day Baghdad began the dry zone. The Euphrates was one of the main
44 • FAMILY

sources of water that was channeled into numerous man-made canals.

While most Mesopotamian cities were situated on side arms of canals,
some lay directly along the main watercourse of the river, such as Nip-
pur and Babylon. Because of the low gradient of the plains and the soft
soil, the river was liable to change courses, sometimes drastically, and
nowadays neither city lies in the vicinity of the stream.

–F–

FAMILY. The basic constituent of Mesopotamian society was the patriar-

chal family. The administrative documents from the major sites recorded
people’s names and affiliation, but it is still difficult to get a clear picture
of the family sizes and patterns of residence at any given period.
From the archaeological record, it appears that extended families, in-
cluding several generations and more than one couple with children,
were common in later prehistoric periods (see CHALCOLITHIC;
URUK PERIOD). This can be deducted from the size of habitations, the
number of fireplaces, and the number of individuals buried beneath the
floor of houses. Such extended families formed productive units, pooling
their labor and sharing resources. On the other hand, nuclear families,
consisting of a couple with their (young) children, also existed, espe-
cially within larger groupings. There is no doubt that the several forms
of family organization developed early, in response to different subsis-
tence activities and social configurations. They persisted into later, his-
torical periods. There is evidence from the Early Dynastic period that
large households (oikos) were common (see SHURUPPAK), which in-
cluded not only the members of the family but also servants and slaves.
They could generate substantial revenues from enterprise, both commer-
cial and agricultural. The land held by such a household could only be
sold if all the male adults agreed, as sale contracts from the Akkad pe-
riod document.
The large state organizations (see PALACE) and the temples em-
ployed people of all ages and gender. Women and their children would
work together in the manufactories of the Third Dynasty of Ur, for in-
stance, producing textiles. Small family units could work on plots as-
signed to them by these organizations for a fixed percentage of the har-
vest. When a family experienced crop failures and could not meet their
obligations, they had to take loans of silver or grain at often usurious
rates. If the loans could not be paid either, the head of the family could
 FESTIVALS • 45

pledge his own labor, and/or that of any of his children or his wife, or, in
a more desperate move, sell them into slavery to raise capital.
Excavations at Nippur have shown how in the Old Babylonian pe-
riod wealthy, professional families lived in spacious houses, with do-
mestic slaves, which in later more difficult times partitioned up and were
occupied by poorer, more numerous families.
In the Neo-Babylonian period family firms, such as the Murashu or
the Egibi, could conduct lucrative banking and investment business that
continued for several generations. Such a practice can also be observed
in the early second millennium import-export family businesses at Ashur.
Some literary texts as well as proverbs allow some insights into the
emotional comfort of family life. In the Old Babylonian version of the
Gilgamesh epic, the “innkeeper” called Siduri advises the hero to seek
solace in the embrace of his wife and delight in the presence of his chil-
dren. The 12th tablet of the epic describes the unhappy fate of the dead
who have no children to offer libations for them, and it praises the lucky
father of many sons who has an exalted position in the netherworld.
Proverbs warn of the disruptive presence of pretty slave girls in the house
and admonish the young to show respect for their elders.

FESTIVALS. Feasts and festivals are celebrated in all cultures; they are de-
fined by their reason or purpose, their rituals, and whether they are cele-
brated at regular intervals of time or occasioned by special events. Fur-
thermore, there is a difference between feasts that are (1) personal and
private (rites of passage such as weddings or funerals), (2) public and royal
(enthronement of kings, victory celebrations), or (3) religious. Overlaps
between these categories could occur in Mesopotamia, where religion per-
meated all aspects of daily life there were no purely “secular” feasts.
1. Private feasts. Sumerian poetry and myths allude to the prepara-
tions and celebrations of marriages. The groom was to ask the
bride’s parents for permission to wed. He then brought wedding
gifts according to his station. The bride, having bathed and adorned
herself in the wedding finery, was received with music into the
house of her groom’s family where the feast was celebrated. There
are also a number of reliefs from the third millennium B.C. that
show people seated on low chairs and drinking beer together
through a straw. Whether such scenes illustrate special occasions or
daily conviviality is not clear. Coming-of-age ceremonies are not
attested in Mesopotamia, and there were no age group associations.
46 • FESTIVALS

2. Victory celebrations and enthronement are also known from liter-

ary sources. Especially the myths associated with the god Ninurta
describe the awe-inspiring march of the victorious troops toward
the main temple, where the spoils of war were dedicated to the
gods. Assyrian inscriptions refer to splendid feasts for the official
opening of a new palace or royal residence; Ashurnasirpal II fa-
mously invited 69,574 to the inauguration part at Kalhu. Other
public festivals related to the agrarian cycle, such the preparation
of the fields, or bringing in of the harvest.
3. A large number of religious feasts were held in Mesopotamia.
The names of many festivals are known, as well as the expenses
they incurred, but the written sources say very little about their
purpose or the rituals performed since such knowledge was taken
for granted. However, texts such as the Neo-Sumerian offering
lists provide some information about the main religious festivals
organized by the temples. Some were fixed and some were vari-
able, and they often concerned the movement of the divine statue
from one temple to another. The timing of feasts could depend on
their agrarian significance (many of the journeys of divine statues
coincided with important seasons), the lunar, the solar, or the
Venus cycle. Processions outside the temple, or between temples,
accompanied by musicians and dancers, and the clergy in their
specific paraphernalia, were the most visible manifestation. The
distribution of extra food and drink allowances to the personnel
and/or the citizens at large, were also important factors.

The best-known festival that originated in Babylon was the New Year
Festival, which lasted 12 days. It was mainly performed in the huge tem-
ple of Marduk called Esagil. The king’s presence was of vital impor-
tance as he guaranteed the divine order decreed by the gods. He may
have played an active part in the playing out of the main events of the
Epic of Creation (see CREATION MYTHS), such as the battle between
Marduk and Tiamat. The king had to make a negative confession (“I have
not sinned, I have not been negligent of your godhead, I have not de-
stroyed Babylon . . .”) and was struck across the face hard enough to
cause tears. Another important aspect was the arrival of all the major
Babylonian deities. On the ninth day began the public phase of this fes-
tival, where all the assembled gods and goddesses, led by the king hold-
ing the hand of Marduk, processed with great pomp along the Festival
Way and embarked on boats to reach the Festival House that was located
 FIRST DYNASTY OF BABYLON • 47

beyond the city walls. The New Year Festival was a public holiday for all
Babylonian citizens who could watch the processions, complete with the
display of war booty and prisoners, and partake of the banquets. It arose
from the traditional barley harvest celebrations of early spring and the
rituals served to confirm the divinely decreed order of the universe after
the potentially dangerous liminal period between the ending of one year
and the beginning of the new.
The New Year Festival was also celebrated in Assyria, where the god
Ashur played the role of Marduk.

FIRST DYNASTY OF BABYLON (c. 1894–c. 1595 B.C.). A historical

period in which the city of Babylon first became the political center of
Mesopotamia. The dynasty was founded by Sumu-abum, an Amorite;
hence, it is also sometimes referred to as the Amorite Dynasty.
At the beginning, the rulers of Babylon only controlled a small terri-
tory around the city since there were several competing political config-
urations in Mesopotamia, such as Larsa, Isin, Eshnunna, and Assyria.
It was the sixth king, Hammurabi (reigned 1792–1750 B.C.), who tri-
umphed over all these rivals. Babylon became the capital of a powerful
kingdom with roughly the same borders as that of the Third Dynasty of
Ur. The administration of the state was modeled on the one set up by
Rim-Sin of Larsa. There was a widespread use of literacy, and the king
was kept informed about all manner of governmental details. It was a
characteristic of Amorite kings to remain approachable to their subjects
and to rule more in the manner of a traditional sheikh than an exalted
king. They were also much concerned with the promulgation of laws and
legal statutes and that justice was upheld in the land. The final legal in-
stance was the king himself.
The Babylonian state was less highly centralized than that of Ur dur-
ing the Third Dynasty. It employed private middlemen to ensure the col-
lection of revenue rather than bureaucrats. Some documents of the time
also mention a special category of semifree citizen, the muškenum,
whose status was neither free nor that of a slave and who were possibly
persons tied to the palace.
The most important rulers of the First Babylonian Dynasty were
Hammurabi and his successor, Samsu-iluna, who ruled for 37 years
(1749–1712 B.C.). During the latter’s reign, the territorial integrity of
the kingdom disintegrated; the south became independent under the
leadership of the Sealand (c.1742), and a new people from the east, the
Kassites, settled in increasing number in the northern and northeastern
48 • FIRST DYNASTY OF ISIN

regions of Babylonia. Economic problems, due to the deteriorating

ecological situation in the south, the loss of access to the sea, and tribal
unrest, contributed to unstable conditions that affected some cities
more than others. Royal edicts, releasing public and private debts, in-
dicate that many people were affected by the inability to meet debt
payments.
The demise of the First Babylonian Dynasty resulted from a surprise
raid by the Hittite king Mursili, who marched down the Euphrates and at-
tacked Babylon. The date of this event is traditionally given as 1595 B.C.,
although more recently a revised date of 1499 has been proposed.

FIRST DYNASTY OF ISIN (c. 2017–c. 1794 B.C.). After the fall of the
Third Dynasty of Ur, the center of power shifted farther north to the
city of Isin, where the erstwhile Ur governor Ishbi-Erra founded a new
dynasty to carry on the traditions of Mesopotamian kingship. Although
the territory controlled by Isin was much smaller than that of the Ur king-
dom, it preserved the institutional structure and the ideological basis of
the former state. One of its rulers, Enlil-bani (reigned 1860–1837 B.C.),
was originally a gardener who was appointed as “substitute king” during
an inauspicious time for the incumbent king who happened to die during
this period. It was at this time that the Sumerian King List received its
final form. Throughout the history of the Isin Dynasty, it vied for su-
premacy with the city of Larsa. Eventually, Isin’s importance declined
until it was swallowed up in the new state founded by Hammurabi of
Babylon.

FOOD. The people who lived in Mesopotamia during the prehistoric peri-
ods (see CHALCOLITHIC; NEOLITHIC) enjoyed a very varied diet
procured from hunting the still plentiful wild sheep and other mammals,
fishing, fowling, and the gathering of legumes, nuts, and wild as well as
domesticated cereals.
Once a predominantly settled and later urban lifestyle was adopted, this
diversity declined, and people relied predominantly on cereal staples
(mainly barley), in the form of porridge or bread. The vitamin and mineral
content of this monotonous diet could be enhanced by vegetables such as
lettuces, gourds, onions, garlic, and pulses that were grown in smaller plots
near the city. Of particular importance as a source of energy and vitamins
was the date palm, which flourishes in the south Mesopotamian climate.
Regular meat consumption (beef, mutton, pork, and game) was the pre-
serve of the wealthy; the poorer members of society consumed fish for pro-
 FORTIFICATIONS • 49

tein, widely available in dried form. A fermented fish sauce was the most
popular condiment in Mesopotamian kitchens.
Dairy products such as clarified butter, cheeses, and fresh and fer-
mented milk were also available, either produced on the great estates of
temples or brought to the market by pastoralists.
Sesame and linseed were used for oil, both for cosmetic and culinary
purposes.
The most popular and nutritious drink was beer, which was available
in different strengths. The wealthy imported wine from Syria and the
Levant.
Sweet dishes were prepared with concentrated date syrup, usually
translated as “honey.” Mesopotamians were also fond of fruit, such as
medlars, apples, apricots, and grapes, as well as nuts.
A cooking manual by a Babylonian master chef has survived from the
17th century B.C. This makes it clear that the preparation of meals in elite
households (and temples) was a complex task. Meat was sautéed,
broiled, and stewed, sometimes undergoing all these stages for one dish.
Sauces were as important as in classic French cooking, being composed
of several different kinds of meat, bones, vegetables, and condiments,
boiled, strained, and reduced. The final presentation involved dumplings
and dough crusts, fresh herbs and onions, with the meat being served
separate from the sauce and vegetables.

FORTIFICATIONS. Since the purpose of fortifications is the protection

of inhabitants and goods inside a building or a settlement, the most
durable materials available were chosen for their construction. In most
areas of the ancient Near East, this was stone. In the alluvial plains of
Mesopotamia, mud brick was used but in sufficient thickness to make at-
tacks difficult. Urban installations were vulnerable because of their
stored grain and other valuables. As early as the Uruk period, towns in
the more exposed regions were surrounded by rectangular defensive
walls, with towers and gates. In the Early Dynastic period when rival-
ries between cities in Mesopotamia became widespread, such installa-
tions became a common feature of all cities. The best known is the city
wall of Uruk, which was nearly 9.5 kilometers long.
The Sumerian text “Gilgamesh and the Agga of Kish” describes the
conflict between Uruk and Kish and the psychological stratagems used
to win access to well-defended cities.
In the Iron Age, technologies of warfare became more advanced as
the machinery and tools for attack became more durable than the earlier
50 • FUNERARY AND BURIAL PRACTICES

bronze weapons. As a result, the fortifications became stronger, with

regularly spaced watchtowers and projection bastions, crenellations,
and gate towers with lateral guard chambers. In the more rocky regions
(e.g., Assyria), fortifications were built on stone outcrops and steep hill-
sides (e.g., at Assur). In the mid–first millennium, Nebuchadnezzar II
built the famous walls of the capital Babylon, an undertaking made
even more challenging by the fact that the river Euphrates ran right
through the city. The walls close to the water had be constructed of
baked brick, in places up to 25 meters thick. According to the descrip-
tions of Herodotus, the walls were wide enough for two teams of horse-
drawn chariots.

FUNERARY AND BURIAL PRACTICES. In the prehistoric periods, a

great variety of burial practices existed side by side: inhumation of the
whole skeleton, partial inhumation and possible secondary burial after
exposure of the body, and cremation. Bodies could furthermore be buried
singly or in groups, in a common plot or cemetery, or beneath the floor
of habitations. Cemeteries are believed to reveal a special claim that a
particular group of people could make of a territory and its resources.
The more or less equal treatment of the mortal remains may reveal an
egalitarian social system, while the burial of children in special plots
may point to elite formation.
Bodies in earth or stone graves could be accompanied by sets of tools,
such as flint knives, or personal ornaments, such as beads. Traces of red
color is also frequently found on bones, indicating some color symbol-
ism. In the Ubaid period, the graves at Eridu contained rich grave gifts,
such as exquisite miniature pottery sets, anthropomorphic clay figurines,
joints of meat, and jewelry. Some people had been buried with a dog that
was given a bone.
In historical times, the variety of burial practices declined. Inhumation
of the whole skeleton became the norm for Mesopotamia. Intramural
burials continued to be popular but populous cities also had cemeteries
outside the city walls, such as at Ur. In early periods, people were placed
flat on the back, with their hands folded across the chest; later a flexed
position, with knees drawn up, became more common. Clay and terra
cotta coffins contained the mortal remains.
The most controversial graves were discovered by Sir Leonard Wool-
ley at Ur. They date form the Early Dynastic period and contained high-
ranking, possible royal personages, surrounded by fabulous gold and in-
laid funerary gifts. The chariots and the oxen used to transport the dead
 GILGAMESH • 51

were also kept in the stone-constructed burial chambers. The presence of

a number of other skeletons, predominantly female, holding musical in-
struments and golden goblets, was interpreted by Woolley as evidence
for ritual sacrifice or collective suicide. It has since become clear that
these bodies were manipulated after death and are to be considered as
secondary burials; the association of their bodies to the main personages
was probably a matter of prestige or of some other significance that
eludes us. Few other royal graves are known; the hypogeum tombs at Ur
did not contain any remains. Assyrian monarchs were buried at Assur,
and a richly equipped tomb of a queen has recently been found by Iraqi
archaeologists.
Cuneiform texts refer to funerary rites and beliefs. The dead were
thought of as dwelling in the underworld, a gloomy and overcrowded
place. Those whose remains were left unburied, and had had no rites
performed for their souls, were doomed to haunt the living as ghosts.
Nomads were also held in contempt by the urban population because
they had no grave cults. Of particular importance were libations of wa-
ter, which the eldest male of a household poured out for the ancestral
spirits on the family altar. The myth “Inanna’s Descent into the Un-
derworld” makes it clear that mourning ceremonies were expected,
which involved the temporary disfigurement by ashes and the donning
of mourning clothes. Inanna’s lover, Dumuzi, is banished to the Un-
derworld for failing to behave in the proper way. The Mesopotamians
did not have eschatological beliefs of a Last Judgment, nor did they ex-
pect to enjoy some form of eternal life as the Egyptians. They did not
expend vast sums on their tombs, nor did they practice embalming.
Their best expectation was to have peace of mind after a customary
burial and to have raised enough offspring to bring libations to stave
off the thirst of death.

–G–

GILGAMESH. (1) Sumerian king of the Early Dynastic period who

appears in the Sumerian King List as a king of Uruk, son of Lugal-
banda. There is as yet no contemporary evidence for his reign, but Gil-
gamesh is mentioned among the deified rulers in the Shuruppak tablets
from the 25th century B.C. (2) Eponymous hero of several Mesopota-
mian literary compositions, the best known of which is the Epic of Gil-
gamesh (see next page).
52 • GILGAMESH

One Sumerian narrative that was not incorporated into the Epic con-
cerns Gilgamesh’s fight against Agga of Kish, whose historicity is as-
sured by a short inscription on a vase discovered at Kish.
The forerunners to the epic are preserved in four Sumerian versions:

• “Gilgamesh and the Land of the Living” describes the journey Gil-
gamesh undertakes with his servant Enkidu. They go to the Cedar
Forest, which is sacred to the god Enlil and protected by a demonic
creature called Huwawa. The heroes cut down the cedar trees and
kill the captured Huwawa.
• “Gilgamesh and the Bull of Heaven” is only preserved on frag-
ments. The goddess Inanna proposes marriage to Gilgamesh.
When he rejects her offer, she sends the mighty Bull of Heaven to
avenge the insult, but the beast is killed by Gilgamesh.
• “Gilgamesh, Enkidu and the Netherworld” begins with an account
of the sacred huluppu tree that Inanna had planted in her garden at
Uruk. She wants to use its wood to fashion a bed and a throne from
it but is unable to fell the tree. Gilgamesh manages to drive out its
demonic squatters (a snake, a lion-headed eagle, and a female de-
mon), and as a token of gratitude the goddess gives him two magi-
cal objects made from the timber. These objects happen to fall into
the underworld, and his servant Enkidu offers to descend in order to
retrieve them. He is given detailed advice as how to behave in the
underworld, but he fails to adhere to it and is therefore doomed to
remain there forever. Gilgamesh manages to persuade the god Enki
to summon the shadow of his servant, who tells him of the condi-
tions in the underworld. Those who have many sons fare well, but
those whose bodies lie unburied have no rest (see FUNERARY
AND BURIAL PRACTICES).
• “The Death of Gilgamesh” is very fragmentary, and it is not clear
whether Gilgamesh’s or Enkidu’s death is described.
The oldest version of the Epic of Gilgamesh dated from the Old Baby-
lonian period. Numerous fragments and excerpts have been discovered
from later periods, in many different parts of the Near East, from Palestine
to Anatolia. The most extensive source is the so-called Ninevite version,
discovered in the archives of Ashurbanipal’s royal palace. It contains
some 1,500 lines and is divided into 12 tablets. Most of the themes of the
Sumerian versions (except for the Agga of Kish story) have been worked
into the epic, as well as other narratives, most notably that of the flood.
 GILGAMESH • 53

Gilgamesh is portrayed as two-thirds man and one-third god, endowed

with supernatural strength. He oppresses the citizens of Uruk so much
that they pray to the sky god Anu to help them. Anu responds by order-
ing the mother goddess to create Enkidu, a wild man who roams the un-
cultivated lands in the steppe where he runs with the animals and frees
them from the hunter’s traps. News of this strange and entirely hairy be-
ing are brought to Gilgamesh, who sends a prostitute to charm him. Her
mission is successful since after a week of ardent love-making Enkidu
tastes human food and finds himself alienated from his former compan-
ions, the animals of the steppe. He follows her to Uruk, where he meets
Gilgamesh who had portentous dreams about him. After a bout of
wrestling, they become the best of friends. Then follows the story of the
expedition into the Cedar Forest, more or less as told in the Sumerian
narrative of the Land of the Living, where they cut down the cedars and
kill the demon Humbaba (= Huwawa).
When they return in triumph to Uruk, the goddess Ishtar appears and
invites Gilgamesh to become her consort. As in the Sumerian tale, he re-
jects her offer with frivolous taunts. The Bull of Heaven, sent down to
avenge her wounded pride, is killed by the heroes. Enkidu now falls sick
and dies, which deeply affects Gilgamesh: He is so overcome with grief
and fear of his own death that he renounces the exercise of kingship.
Dressed only in a lion skin, he roams the wilderness, hoping to find
Utnapishtim, the man who survived the flood and whom the gods had
granted eternal life. He passes mountains and strange lands and eventu-
ally arrives at a garden of precious stones, where the ale wife Siduri
lives. He tells his story, and although she advises him to abandon his fu-
tile quest and enjoy the simple pleasures of human life, she tells him how
to proceed.
Gilgamesh arrives at the river where he finds a ferryman, who after
some pleading agrees to ferry him across. Utnapishtim then tells him the
story of the flood, which only he and his wife survived. He puts Gil-
gamesh to a test to refrain from sleep for seven nights. The hero falls fast
asleep. Utnapishtim gives him clothes that won’t wear out, and Gil-
gamesh decides to return to Uruk, accompanied by the ferryman. As a fi-
nal gift, he presents them with a plant that makes the old young again. It
so happens that a passing serpent eats the plant, shedding its skin as it
slithers away. With empty hands Gilgamesh returns to Uruk. He makes
the ferryman climb the ramparts of the city and survey his domain. The
12th tablet adds the story of the encounter between Gilgamesh and the
spirit of Enkidu, who tells him about conditions in the underworld.
54 • GIRSU

GIRSU (modern Tello). Important city in southern Mesopotamia during

the third millennium B.C. It was initially thought to be the site of Lagash,
but it became clear that Girsu was some 20 kilometers to the north.
During the Early Dynastic periods I and II, Girsu may have been the
political center of Lagash. In later periods, it had a primarily religious
role since it housed the temples of Ningirsu and Bau. Archaeological ex-
cavations by French teams have yielded important cuneiform archives,
numerous cylinder seals, and statuary, among them the Stele of Vultures
by Eannatum and the statues of Gudea.

GODS AND GODDESSES. As in all polytheistic religions, a great num-

ber of deities were worshipped in Mesopotamia throughout the ages.
Most people had names composed with that of a god or a goddess. This
serves as a useful indication of the popularity of a particular deity at a
given time. To what extent the theomorphic element of a person’s name
allows conclusions about his or her ethnic affiliation is less clear.
Already in the Early Dynastic period, scribes attempted to bring
some order into the confusing number of known deities by compiling
lists of divine names. They also introduced a ranking order by beginning
the lists with the major gods, such as Anu, Ea, Enlil, and Inanna/Ishtar,
and ending with more obscure ones. A great number of these names is
only known from such lexical lists that preserved the most ancient entries
while adding new ones.
Each Mesopotamian city had its own patron deity. They resided in
their “homes on earth,” the temples, and received daily offerings of
food, drink, incense, and other gifts, such as textiles and jewelry. The de-
ity did not live in isolation in the temple but enjoyed a family life. Di-
vine couples shared a bed chamber, while their children and servants
were accommodated elsewhere. The statues were also taken on regular
outings, touring the country and visiting each other’s shrines, especially
during the time of the Third Dynasty of Ur. Larger cities also had tem-
ples of other gods; Babylon was known to have had hundreds of temples
at the time of the Neo-Babylonian period.
Most of the great gods had a particular area of responsibility and ex-
pertise. Anu was the patriarchal head of the pantheon and was the lord of
the heavens. Ea-Enki was the god of water, also known for his wisdom
and creative potential. Nannar-Suen (or Akkadian Sin) was the moon
god who was associated with the fertility of cattle, while the sun god
Shamash was the “judge” and safeguarded justice and fairness on earth.
There were also mother goddesses, blessing fields and women with fer-
 GOLD • 55

tility and protecting women in childbirth, healing gods to ward off evil
influences and speed up recovery, and weather gods who brought storms
and rain.
Mesopotamian attitudes to the gods were often ambiguous; they were
feared as much as loved, since gods were considered to be fundamentally
unpredictable and even capricious. Enlil could send just the right amount
of rainfall or cause devastating floods; Ishtar could enhance sex appeal
but also cause impotence. Inversely, a god of pestilence and fever could
also be invoked to combat such afflictions. Many rituals and incanta-
tions, especially from the late second and first millennium B.C., were de-
vised to soothe the hearts of “angry gods” and to harness their divine
powers in the constant battle against malevolent influences.
During the Old Babylonian period, the notion of a “personal god”
developed, who like a guardian angel was responsible for a particular hu-
man being. He (or she, for women) would intercede with higher-ranking
gods and plead the case of the patron. On the other hand, the personal de-
ity was adversely affected by his or her charge’s ritual impurity or sin-
fulness.
Some deities had strong connections with kingship. In the third mil-
lennium B.C., Enlil legitimized the control over the country; in the sec-
ond and first millennium, this was Marduk in Babylonia and Ashur in
Assyria. The goddess Ishtar was also often quoted as lending invaluable
support to a king of her choice (see SARGON OF AKKAD).
Foreign deities could easily be integrated in the Mesopotamian pan-
theon; they could be equated with a similar divine figure (as happened
when the Semitic Eshtar merged with the Sumerian Inanna) or married
to an existing goddess (as in the case of the Amorite god Martu).
In the Seleucid and later Parthian period, some Babylonian gods, no-
tably Nabu and Bel (another name for Marduk), continued to be wor-
shipped. Only the advent of Islam in the seventh century A.D. brought
about the final demise of the ancient Mesopotamian gods.

GOLD. In Mesopotamia gold ornaments first appeared in Ubaid period

sites (fifth millennium B.C.). Like all metals, it had to be brought into the
country from far afield, such as Eastern Anatolia, part of a loose network
of exchange for high-status luxury commodities. It was usually alloyed
with silver in varying proportions.
In the Early Dynastic period, the wealthy city-states of Mesopotamia
could command a whole range of such articles, and gold plays a promi-
nent part in the funerary gifts discovered at the “royal tombs” at Ur.
56 • GUDEA

Gold objects include not just rings and other items of jewelry but cups,
plates, ceremonial daggers, and wiglike headdresses. The metal had been
hammered in thin sheets before being shaped and cut.
Workers of the “shining silver” (KÚ.BABBAR in Sumerian) were
distinguished from other craftsmen working in metal. Their services
were also needed for the fashioning of cult statues that could be covered
with gold foil.
In the mid–second millennium, Egyptian gold came to be imported,
initially as a high-level exchange between pharaoh and the Babylonian
kings, in return for richly worked textiles, inlaid furniture, and war char-
iots (see AMARNA CORRESPONDENCE). For a while gold was so
plentiful then that it replaced silver as the standard of exchange.

GUDEA (reigned c. 2141–c. 2122 B.C.). Sumerian ruler of Lagash. Gudea

is best known as a patron of the arts and as the builder of a new temple
at Girsu. Among the ruins of this temple were found a number of life-
size statues of diorite stone, representing Gudea. Some of these statues
have lengthy inscriptions that refer to the circumstances of the temple
project. He commanded enough resources to furnish the building with
sumptuous materials that had to be procured from far afield. There is no
indication that Lagash was subservient to any other city-state at that
time. Gudea kept peace with his neighbors but undertook raids to Anshan
and Elam which yielded substantial booty. The literary style of his in-
scriptions counts as the epitome of classical Sumerian.

GULA. Babylonian healing goddess, identified with the Sumerian Nin-

isina. Her main sanctuary was at Isin, and her symbol was a dog.

GUNGUNUM (reigned 1932–1906 B.C.). King of Larsa (“whose name

sounds like the beat of a battledrum,” according to Georges Roux). He
attacked the kingdom of Isin, took Ur and with it the control over the ac-
cess to the Persian Gulf, and gradually extended his influence in south-
ern Mesopotamia to the detriment of Isin.

GUTI. Tribal pastoralists who inhabited the mountainous regions of the

Zagros and the upper valleys of the Diyala River. This northeastern re-
gion was known as Gutium throughout Mesopotamian history.
The Guti (or Gutians) were always described in negative terms in the
cuneiform sources, mainly as the “hordes of Gutium,” “numberless like
locusts,” invaders, and raiders of cities and countryside. They first ap-
 HAMMURABI OF BABYLON • 57

pear in the royal inscriptions of Shar-kali-sharri around 2200 B.C., who

reports to have captured their “king.” On the other hand, Guti mercenar-
ies also served in the Akkadian armies.
According to the Sumerian King List, it was the Guti who brought
the Akkadian Dynasty to an end, and they are said to have furnished 21
kings. The sack of the capital is also blamed on them in the literary com-
position “The Curse of Akkade.” Just how much territory the Guti con-
trolled is uncertain. There is no evidence of destruction in other cities or
of a cultural break. It is most likely that the Guti rulers commanded not
much more than the area around the Diyala River.
Around 2120, they were defeated by Utu-hegal, a king of Uruk who re-
ports that he slew the “Gutium, the dragon of the mountains, enemy of the
gods, who had carried of the kingship of Sumer to the mountains.” The
Guti remained the archetypical enemy of Sumerian civilization, at least in
literature, as, for example, in the “Lamentation over the Destruction of Ur.”

–H–

HAMMURABI OF BABYLON (reigned 1792–1750 B.C.). King of Baby-

lon, the sixth ruler of the Amorite or First Dynasty of Babylon. Ini-
tially, Hammurabi controlled only a rather small territory around the city
of Babylon, including Kish, Sippar, and Borsippa. He gradually ex-
tended his control, gaining possession of some important southern cities
such as Uruk and Isin and forming alliances with other powerful rulers
in the region. At the same time, he built up a centralized administration,
invested in irrigation projects to extend land for cultivation, and strength-
ened city walls. After 30 years, he was ready to deal a decisive blow to
his greatest rival, Rim-Sin of Larsa, who had ruled over most of Baby-
lonia. A year later he also gained control over Eshnunna and thereby the
eastern trade routes leading to Iran and beyond. In 1761 B.C., he con-
quered Assyria. Mari, hitherto an ally of Babylon, was taken in 1760.
By 1755, Hammurabi was the undisputed ruler over all of Mesopotamia.
Numerous letters and administrative documents from his reign are
known. It appears that he built on bureaucratic structures and practices
set up by his predecessors, especially Rim-Sin of Larsa. The redistribu-
tion of new crown land that resulted from conquest was strictly con-
trolled under the so-called ilku system.
Hammurabi is widely known for his “law code,” inscribed on a large
stone stele (see LAW). At the top it bears a scene of the sun god Shamash
58 • HANIGALBAT

investing the king with the insignia of royal power. The lengthy prologue
and epilogue describe the king as the protector and shepherd of his peo-
ple, upholder of justice and peace. Although it is not proven that the laws
were ever implemented, they were much admired in antiquity and often
copied on clay tablets. Hammurabi’s letters and royal inscriptions also
became standard works, and subsequent generations of scribes copied
them assiduously.
Hammurabi remains one of the great kings of Mesopotamia, an out-
standing diplomat and negotiator who was patient enough to wait for the
right time and then ruthless enough to achieve his aims without stretch-
ing his resources too far. After his death, the power of the Babylonian
state began to decline.

HANIGALBAT. See MITANNI.

HARRAN. City in the northern plains of Upper Mesopotamia, in present-

day southeastern Turkey, near Urfa. It was an important trade center, at
a crossing of routes, as its name (KASKAL, harranu) implies, which
means simply “road.”
The city was first mentioned in the cuneiform tablets found among
the merchant archives at Kanesh from the 19th century B.C. The As-
syrians, who called it Huzirina, incorporated Harran into their empire
in the eighth century. After the destruction of Nineveh in 612, it be-
came the last Assyrian capital. Two years later the Medes conquered
and sacked the city.
Harran was also famous as a religious site, the seat of the moon god
Sin. His temple, the Ehulhul (“House of Rejoicing”), was rebuilt several
times by various Assyrian monarchs and finally, with vast expense, by
the Babylonian king Nabonidus. No archaeological evidence of the
temple has been found so far.

HERODOTUS (fl. c. 484–420 B.C.). Greek traveler and historian. He was

born at Halicarnassus in Asia Minor, was exiled to Samos, lived in
Athens, and died in Sicily. He wrote nine books of Histories that chron-
icle the wars between the Greeks and the Persians.
He was interested to show the historical antecedents of the
Achaemenid empire and thus included accounts about Assyrians,
Babylonians, Egyptians, and Syrians. It is not clear how many of the
 HITTITES • 59

places he actually visited in person, although some descriptions are

lively and almost ethnographic reports. His sources about Mesopotamian
history are relatively poor; he often confuses Assyrian and Babylonian
places and personages and includes much fictional material that served
to demonstrate the cultural superiority of the Greeks.

HITTITES. A people speaking an Indo-European language who formed a

powerful state in central Anatolia in the second millennium B.C.
Having penetrated into Asia Minor by several routes since the late
third millennium, they took the name of an indigenous people, the Hatti,
whose main land lay around the bend of the river Halys (Kizilirmak). A
Hittite king called Anitta is mentioned in the tablets found at Kanesh
(19th century), although a Hittite source from the 16th century says that
a certain Labarna was the first king of Hatti.
The expansion of the Hittite kingdom began during the reign of
Labarna’s successor, Hattushili I (around 1680). He moved the capital to
the rocky hillsides of Hattusa and began a series of incursions into north
Syrian territories. They were intensified by his son Mursili I, who took
Aleppo and made a surprise raid down the Euphrates. He sacked Baby-
lon and returned with much booty.
During the reign of his successors, the Hittite kingdom was extended
westward, at the expense of the Hurrian state, and northward into the
territory of the Kaska who inhabited the Pontic region.
The stability of the Hittite state was precarious due to frequent palace
intrigues and assassinations until Telepinu issued an edict around 1525
to regularize the royal succession. Despite his efforts, the Hittites were
not major players until the reign of Suppiluliuma I (reigned c.
1370–1342). He succeeded to incorporate the fertile and wealthy north
Syrian region and to subdue the Hurrian state of Mitanni. He conducted
an alliance with the Kassite kings of Babylon and married a Babylon-
ian princess. However, the Hittite expansion into Syria was much re-
sented by the Egyptians, who had long controlled the Syrian coastal re-
gions. This conflict eventually led to a military confrontation in the
Orontes Valley near Qadesh (c.1265) that resulted in a bilateral treaty.
The Hittite Empire was enlarged further by Tuthaliyas IV, who con-
quered Cyprus. His successors were forced to make alliances at the ex-
pense of territory in order to hold onto their power, which was increas-
ingly threatened by the old enemy, the Kaska people.
60 • HORSES

In the 12th century B.C., the Hittite Empire collapsed in the turmoil of
various invasions and unrest that engulfed Anatolia and all of Syria. De-
scendants of the Hittites continued to survive and eventually to prosper
in southern Anatolia, where a number of small kingdoms retained a pre-
carious independence in the first half of the first millennium, in the face
of Assyrian pressure.
The main languages spoken in the Hittite kingdom were Hittite
(called neshili by the Hittites after the city of Nesha) and Luwian, an-
other Indo-European language. The Hittites wrote their language in
cuneiform; later they developed a hieroglyphic system of writing.

HORSES. While donkeys and other short-legged equids were present in

the ancient Near East since the Paleolithic period, horses were intro-
duced form the Central Asian steppes not before the late third millen-
nium B.C. Their foreign origin is reflected in the Sumerian term
ANŠE.KUR.RA, which means “donkey of the mountains.”
At the beginning, horses were primarily used to pull chariots; the
reins were connected to a ring through the nose. With the influx of peo-
ples from the east, who were more familiar with horses (e.g., the Kas-
sites), technologies improved. Since the 16th century, true bits worn in
the horse’s mouth and made of bronze were introduced, and this much
improved the handling of the animals. They became an important part of
the armed forces as cavalry and to pull chariots. While earlier mounted
warriors had to ride in pairs, allowing one of them to use his bow while
the other controlled both horses, improved reins and bridles could be se-
cured, leaving the hands free. Saddles and stirrups were unknown, but
horses could wear breastplates and various ornaments.
In the beginning of the first millennium B.C., the Assyrians owed
their rapid rise to power to their efficient cavalry units. The Assyrian up-
lands were suitable for horse breeding, and part of their conquests were
motivated by the need to secure a reliable supply of horses and riders
for their army.
The chariotry initially represented a prestige unit; costly chariots con-
stituted a noble royal gift. Only in the first millennium did lightweight
chariots become an integral part of the military organization.
Cuneiform archives from the Kassite period, from Nuzi and Assyrian
sites, contained manuals on horse breeding, horse terminology (replete
with foreign words), and training methods. One text from Ugarit con-
cerns veterinary matters.
 IBBI-SIN • 61

HURRIANS. A people originating from the south Caucasian region who

settled along the northeastern borders of Mesopotamia and southern
Anatolia in the last quarter of the third millennium B.C. Their language
is not related to any of the other known group of languages. It was ag-
glutinative, which means that chains of suffixes and infixes were added
to generally monosyllabic stem words to create meaning. It is not well
known, since only relatively few texts were rendered in a cuneiform sys-
tem of writing, either in Hittite or Mesopotamian contexts.
Hurrian personal names were already recorded in the texts from the
Akkad period, and Hurrians were present in all parts of the Near East for
most of the second and first millennia, especially in southeast Anatolia,
northern Mesopotamia, and eastern Iran. They achieved the greatest po-
litical importance between 1500 and 1200, within the framework of a
kingdom called Mitanni where an Indo-European elite exercised politi-
cal control. After the demise of Mitanni, smaller Hurrian principalities
survived for a while in the Upper Mesopotamia.
Hurrian influence was particularly strong in religious matters. They
are also thought to have brought various Mesopotamian ritual practices
to the Hittite realm, where Hurrian magicians enjoyed high esteem.
Most of the information concerning their social practices and legal
norms come from archives discovered at the site of the city of Nuzi.

–I–

IBBI-SIN (= Ibbi-Suen) (reigned c. 2026–c. 2004 B.C.). Fifth and last king
of the Third Dynasty of Ur. His reign is well documented by royal in-
scriptions and letters sent and received by the court that illustrate the
volatile political situation of this period. Several important Mesopota-
mian cities rebelled against the supremacy of Ur, and from the west
Amorite tribes poured into the country. Despite these problems, Ibbi-Sin
secured his hold on power for some 20 years, by force as well as by
diplomatic means.
This policy produced a measure of relative stability until the down-
fall proved inevitable. This was probably precipitated by a major flood-
ing of the Euphrates and ecological problems in the south that led to
severe food shortages in the capital. One Ur governor, a certain Ishbi-
Erra, had gained control of Nippur and Isin and held Ibbi-Sin to ran-
som over shipments of grain. Finally, the eastern states of Elam and
62 • INANNA

Shimashki attacked and devastated the city of Ur and many other towns
of Mesopotamia. The king was taken captive and died on alien soil.

INANNA. The foremost Sumerian goddess, patron deity of Uruk. Her

name was written with a sign (mùš) that represents a reed stalk tied into
a loop at the top. This appears in the very earliest written texts from the
mid–fourth millennium B.C. She is also mentioned in all the early god
lists among the four main deities, along with An, Enki, and Enlil. In
the royal inscriptions of the Early Dynastic period, Inanna is often
invoked as the special protectress of kings. Also, Sargon of Akkad
claimed her support in battle and politics. It appears that it was during
the third millennium that the goddess acquired martial aspects that may
derive from a syncretism with the Semitic deity Ishtar.
Inanna’s main sanctuary was the Eanna (“House of Heaven”) at Uruk,
although she had temples or chapels in most cities.
During the time of the Third Dynasty of Ur, Inanna’s ritual mar-
riage to the king was much celebrated in poetry. In the context of the
Ur royal ideology, Inanna does not appear as the “Lady of the Battle”
as in Akkadian inscriptions but as the “Lady of Voluptuousness.” The
king is said to be “worthy of her holy loins.” Her lover in many songs
is the “Shepherd” Dumuzi, and the king of Ur identified himself with
this role.
Inanna was the subject of a great number of literary compositions,
hymns, songs, and prayers. Many of these depict Inanna as the embodi-
ment of sexual drive and allure in all its ambiguities; she could “turn men
into women,” and in her entourage appear transsexuals and transvestites.
She was the patron of prostitutes and said to haunt the taverns in search
of male partners. Without her, life cannot continue; one myth recounts
that when she was kept captive in the Underworld, all copulation (and
hence reproduction) came to a sudden end.
Although it was Inanna’s sister Ereshkigal who ruled over the Un-
derworld, Inanna, too, had destructive and dangerous qualities. She
doomed her lover Dumuzi to be her substitute in the Underworld and
tricked the normally wise god Enki into relinquishing many of his di-
vine powers.
Inanna as the “Queen of Heaven” was associated with the planet Venus.

INHERITANCE. Although it is not possible to make generalized state-

ments about the extent of “private property” in Mesopotamia at any one
period, one must bear in mind that the economy of the country depended
 INHERITANCE • 63

on surplus production and astute managerial control over labor expen-

diture and investment on seed and equipment. Therefore, large institu-
tions such as temples or the palace appear as controlling a considerable
share of arable and/or otherwise productive land. The majority of the
population worked as laborers or sharecroppers. They received rations
or kept a percentage of the yield. Land could also be leased or rented.
In some periods, the king distributed large parcels of land to trusty in-
dividuals that then became theirs “forever,” as the kudurru documents
specify.
However, it has also become clear that households, clans, and fam-
ilies could own or at least control access to agricultural land, as early
as the Early Dynastic period. In such case the land was collectively
owned. From the Old Babylonian period onward, privately owned
land was divided into equal shares after the death of the father. Broth-
ers could pool their shares, buy one another out, or simply accept this
practice. It could also lead to litigation, as court cases report. Some
far-seeing patriarchs issued inheritance contracts to avoid such dis-
putes. Daughters did generally not receive a share of paternal property
since they were given a dowry upon marriage. An exception to this
rule were the naditu women of the Old Babylonian period, who did
not marry and who were given a share of the paternal estate to man-
age during their lifetime, after which it was meant to revert to the fam-
ily holding. Some of these women, however, adopted younger naditu
to be their heirs, which was not infrequently challenged by their male
siblings.
The laws of Hammurabi attempt to regularize inheritance in the case
of children from secondary marriages.
Inheritance documents are almost always the preserve of the wealthy.
Poorer families could not afford to pay scribes for their services, but
court cases involving ordinary citizens give some idea of the chattels that
could be passed on to the next generation.
Not just land could be inherited but real estate, draught animals, don-
keys, wagons and boats, as well as other craft or professional equipment.
Items of personal use, such as jewelry, cylinder seals, clothes, mirrors,
and other valuable objects were mentioned. Some lucrative positions at
the temple, for instance, so-called prebends, could be passed on, again a
preserve of the rich. Slaves were a prized commodity and also inherited,
along with “cash” (silver or gold).
Women received furniture, especially beds and stools, as well as cook-
ing implements made of expensive materials (copper, bronze cauldrons,
64 • IRON

grinding stones, pestles and mortars), although men sometimes got the
largest metal objects among the household goods.

IRON. Iron ore deposits occur in Anatolia and northwest Iran. The metal
was probably first worked as a by-product of copper smelting, and rare
small iron objects have been found in Mesopotamian graves since the
fourth millennium B.C. Iron was worked as wrought iron and tempered
by cooling and reheating. It was the Hittites who mastered the technol-
ogy and produced the first tools and weapons.
In Mesopotamia, iron implements and arms were not used in signifi-
cant quantities before the Assyrians introduced them in the eighth cen-
tury B.C. They procured their iron weapons and tools by exacting them as
tribute from their Anatolian provinces. The Iron Age therefore arrived
later in Mesopotamia than in the Levant and Anatolia and coincides with
the Neo-Assyrian and the Neo-Babylonian periods.

ISHBI-ERRA (reigned c. 2017–c. 1985 B.C.). King of Isin. Ishbi-Erra, an

Amorite, served as an officer in the army of king Ibbi-Sin of the Third
Dynasty of Ur. He was entrusted with the command over Isin and man-
aged to assert independence from Ur by exploiting the unrest caused by
the Amorite invasion into Babylonia and the renewed aggression of
Elam. He helped to foster resistance against the supremacy of Ur within
Mesopotamian cities and formed alliances with Ur’s other enemies.
Firmly entrenched at Isin and in control of the neighboring Nippur, he
profited from the destruction of the capital Ur by the Elamites and pre-
sented himself as a legitimate successor of the Ur kings. The Sumerian
King List thus presents Ishbi-Erra as the founder of a new dynasty, the
First Dynasty of Isin.

ISHTAR. An originally Semitic goddess associated with the planet Venus,

the Mesopotamian Ishtar owes much of her personality as described in
myths and hymns to the Sumerian goddess Inanna, with whom she was
identified as early as the mid–third millennium B.C. Like her, she em-
bodies libido and sexual love without being a mother goddess. Only the
topic of the king as lover and even husband of the goddess disappeared
from the repertoire of Babylonian royal inscriptions. In the Epic of Gil-
gamesh, the hero goes so far as to express his revulsion at the idea of
marriage to the goddess. Ishtar’s masculine traits as a warrior goddess
are perhaps more pronounced in the Assyrian royal inscriptions than in
 JEMDET-NASR PERIOD • 65

the Babylonian texts, where her exalted position in Heaven is empha-

sized more. Her main symbol became the star and the rosette, and her sa-
cred animal was the lion.

ISIN (modern Ishan-al-Bahriyat). City in southern Babylonia, 20 kilome-

ters south of Nippur. Archaeological excavations show that the site was
already occupied in the Ubaid period in the fifth millennium B.C. Isin
was well known for its temple dedicated to the healing goddess Ninisina
(“Lady of Isin”), who was later identified with the Babylonian goddess
Gula.
The city had some importance in the Early Dynastic and Akkadian
periods, but the name Isin does not appear in texts before the time of the
Third Dynasty of Ur. Most of the extant structures date from the sec-
ond millennium. The city came to prominence after the fall of Ur in c.
2004, when Ishbi-Erra founded the First Dynasty of Isin in c. 2017.
Isin’s supremacy was continuously contested by other cities, especially
its arch rival Larsa, which eventually conquered the city in c. 1794.
The Kassite kings promoted the cult of Gula and invested in the
restoration and enlargement of her temple. When the Kassite rule was
brought to an end by the Elamites who then exercised control of most of
central Babylonia, Isin’s position in the south provided relative auton-
omy. The Babylonian King List credits an Isin with exercising legiti-
mate kingship as the Second Dynasty of Isin (1158–1027). There are
few sources from this period apart from those of the reign of its most
prominent king, Nebuchadrezzar I, who undertook a successful cam-
paign to Elam and restored national pride.

–J–

JEMDET-NASR PERIOD (c. 3200–c. 3000). A prehistoric period named

after the site Jemdet-Nasr in southern Iraq, which is mainly manifested
by distinct cultural artifacts (pottery, cylinder seals, cuneiform tablets)
in southern Mesopotamian sites. The term is not generally used for
northern Mesopotamian archaeological sequencing.
This phase in the south is distinct from the previous Uruk period lev-
els and shows a degree of cooperation between several southern cities
whose seals are preserved on the tablets.
66 • KADASHMAN-ENLIL I

–K–

KADASHMAN-ENLIL I (reigned c. 1374–1360 B.C.). Kassite king of

Babylonia. He is best known from the diplomatic correspondence with
the Egyptian pharaoh Amenophis III (see AMARNA CORRESPON-
DENCE). One of Kadashman-Enlil’s daughters was given to the pharaoh
as a wife and seems to have pleased him enough for him to demand an-
other. The Babylonian king complains in his letters that “his brother”
did not return the favor of sending him one of his princesses and that his
gifts of gold were disappointingly meager.

KALHU (modern Nimrud). Assyrian city some 30 kilometers south of

present-day Mosul on the river Tigris. Although excavations have shown
that the place had been inhabited in prehistoric times, it only became a
site of some importance when Shalmaneser I (reigned 1274–1245 B.C.)
began to build there. Kalhu became the capital of the Assyrian Empire
under Ashurnasirpal II (reigned 883–859), a role it played for some 150
years until Sargon II moved the seat of government to Dur-Sharruken
(Khorsabad).
In its heyday, Kalhu had a population of up to 100,000 people. Ashur-
nasirpal feted the inauguration of the city with a huge banquet. He and
his successors built vast palaces and temples and surrounded the city
with a wall of 7.5 kilometers. British archaeological teams have un-
earthed not only architectural vestiges but also archives containing royal
correspondence and administrative documents from the time between
Tiglath-pileser III and Sargon, as well as the famous “Nimrud ivories”
that used to decorate furniture and architectural elements in the palaces.
The city was destroyed by the Medes and Babylonians between 612 and
614, although parts of the site, which measured originally some 360
hectares, continued to be inhabited by villagers into the Hellenistic time.

KANESH (Kültepe). Anatolian city in Cappadocia, near Kayseri. Turkish

excavators discovered the remains of a pre-Hittite city that had been in-
habited since the mid–third millennium B.C. It seems to have been the
center of a wealthy kingdom that benefited from the trade routes cross-
ing near the site. Around 2000 B.C., kings with Indo-European names ap-
pear in the cuneiform tablets discovered at the nearby Assyrian trade
colony. Kanesh was called Nesha by the Hittites, who incorporated the
city in their kingdom. It was continuously occupied throughout the sec-
ond millennium and was an independent city during the Neo-Hittite pe-
 KASSITE DYNASTY • 67

riod (10th–8th centuries). Thereafter, Kanesh was conquered and de-

stroyed by the Assyrians.
Kanesh is of importance to historians of Mesopotamia because of the
cuneiform archives found in the karum, as the trade colony was called.
These archives detail the commercial activities of Old Assyrian merchants
who in a time between c. 1920 and 1742 B.C. conducted a lucrative busi-
ness of importing tin and Mesopotamian textiles in exchange for silver
and gold. The karum was destroyed by fire several times and rebuilt
again, until the unstable situation after the death of the Assyrian king
Ishme-Dagan made business impossible and the colony was abandoned.

KARDUNIASH. The name for Babylon and Babylonia during the Kas-
site period. It appears as such in the Amarna archives.

KASSITE DYNASTY (c. 1595–1150 B.C.). According to the Babylonian

King List, the Kassite Dynasty comes after the First Dynasty of Baby-
lon and before the Second Dynasty of Isin. Thirty-two kings are listed,
but the first three (Gandash, Agum I, and Kashtiliash) reigned before the
end of the Babylonian Dynasty and were thus contemporary with the last
Babylonian kings. Most but not all of the kings had Kassite names.
There are few historical sources from the first 200 years.
According to the Babylonian King List, there were 36 Kassite kings
who ruled some 500 years. It was a king named Ulam-Buriash who was
credited with the unification of Babylonia after he defeated the king of
the Sealand. The best-knowm Kassite rulers were Kadashman-Enlil I
(reigned c. 1374–c. 1360) and Kurigalzu II (reigned c. 1332–c. 1308).
The Kassite kings were responsible for a reorganization of the country
into a strongly centralized state. Although they were most scrupulous to
endow the ancient cult places and rebuild temples, the old cities lost
some of their importance during this period as the countryside became
more densely inhabited and smaller political units, such as villages and
towns, proliferated. The Kassite kings donated large tracts of land in per-
petuity to private individuals. Such donations were recorded on large,
cone-shaped stones known as kudurru.
The Kassites made few attempts to enlarge their territory by invading
other countries and generally presided over a peaceful and prosperous pe-
riod; for a while, gold rather than silver became a medium of exchange.
Like other elites of the time, the Kassites were very interested in the
breeding of horses and the new technology of chariots that was to trans-
form military strategy. Generally, the Kassite elite did not impose their
68 • KIDEN-HUTRAN

cultural traditions on their Babylonian subjects. They were keen to demon-

strate their respect for the local customs and religious practices. They en-
couraged scribal activities, and it was under Kassite kings that Babylonian
became the lingua franca for the whole of the ancient Near East.

KASSITES. A people of unknown origin who entered Mesopotamia from

the east, across the Zagros Mountains. They spoke a language that is not
related to any other known language. It is only poorly known from a few
phrases and personal names in cuneiform documents.
The Kassites were first mentioned by the Babylonian king Samsu-
iluna (reigned 1749–1712), and they appear with some frequency as a
menace to the rural population in many Old Babylonian royal inscrip-
tions. They penetrated into Mesopotamia and were concentrated in the
region around Sippar. Many Kassites remained tribally organized even
when they became sedentary. When the Hittite king Mursili I raided
Babylon and thus terminated the First Dynasty of Babylon, a Kassite
ruling elite achieved power over North Mesopotamia, which was gradu-
ally extended to include the whole country with the victory over the
Sealand by Ulam-Buriash in c. 1595 (see KASSITE DYNASTY). When
the Kassite Dynasty came to an end in c. 1155, the Kassites continued to
live as a distinct group in Mesopotamia. Some occupied important posts
in subsequent kingdoms, while the tribal groups in the eastern hills were
still feared as a warlike people at the time of Alexander’s conquest.

KIDEN-HUTRAN (reigned c. 1235–1210? B.C.). Elamite king who

launched two invasions into Babylonia, which at that time was ruled by
local puppet kings appointed by the Assyrian monarch Tukulti-Ninurta
I. In the first attack, Kiden-Hutran conquered Nippur and the city of
Der. Several years later he took Isin and Marad.

KINGSHIP. According to Mesopotamian belief, “kingship came down

from heaven” and was therefore a divinely decreed institution. The notion
that kings were chosen for their office by the gods of the land is expressed
in the royal inscriptions of all historical periods. There were special rit-
uals of coronation that confirmed the ruler’s responsibility toward the
deities and his subjects whose “shepherd” he was meant to be. Kingship
was hereditary in the male line, thus forming dynasties, but persons could
also accede to the throne by violent means or usurpation of the throne.
Some kings of the Early Dynastic period and those of the Third Dy-
nasty of Ur also fulfilled important religious offices, as did the Assyr-
 KISH • 69

ian kings, but they did not hold a supreme priestly office. The Akkadian
kings (e.g., Naram-Sin) and those of Ur assumed the status of a deity;
at least their names were written with the determinative sign that was
usually reserved for divine names. In the third millennium B.C., there was
also a cult for the statues of living and deceased kings.
Babylonian kings during the second millennium B.C. saw themselves
as arbiters of justice. Especially the Amorite rulers were keen to show
an interest in the affairs of all their subjects, while the Kassite and Neo-
Babylonian rulers were more remote. During the annual New Year Fes-
tival, the Babylonian king had his ears pulled and his face slapped by a
priest to remind him that he, too, was a subject of the gods.
Assyrian monarchs saw the defense and enlargement of their country
by military means as their primary duty.
Much of the Babylonian divinatory sciences was dedicated to safeguard
the country and its king. Especially the Assyrian kings surrounded them-
selves with learned advisers skilled in the arts of interpreting the “signs,”
and the king had to undergo a lengthy ritual of purification to avert evil
portents (see ASTROLOGY/ASTRONOMY). In some cases, a “substitute
king” could be officially appointed for a limited period of time so that any
misfortune might befall him rather than the real king (see ISIN).

KISH. City in central Mesopotamia, some 15 kilometers east of Babylon

(several sites: Tell Oheimir, El-Khazneh, El-Bender, and Ingharra). One
of the oldest cities, it was continually occupied from c. 5000 B.C. to the
sixth century A.D.
According to the Sumerian King List, “kingship came down from
heaven again at Kish” after the Great Flood to begin the First Dynasty of
Kish. The text lists 23 kings at Kish with very long reigns (a total of
24,510 years). The penultimate ruler, Mebaragesi, is historically docu-
mented by an inscribed vase that bears this name and title.
The Second Dynasty of Kish, listed after that of Awan, had eight kings
reigning for 360 years. None of these kings are known from written
sources that have preserved the names of other kings of Kish who are not
mentioned in the Sumerian King List; the most important of those is
Mesalim of whom several inscribed objects survive.
During this time, the Early Dynastic period, there were several inde-
pendent city-states; Kish was one of them, although the title “king of
Kish” began to imply sovereignty over all of Sumer and Akkad, and it
was borne by Sargon and his successors during the Akkadian period.
The Third Dynasty of Kish (c. 2450–2350) is said to have been founded
70 • KIZZUWATNA

by a woman, the “innkeeper” Kubaba. Again according to the Sumerian

King List, she was defeated by a ruler of Akshak, but her son Puzur-Sin
regained power and initiated the Fourth Dynasty of Kish, which was
brought to an end by Lugalzagesi, who was captured by Sargon. There-
after, the city was never the seat of kingship again, but it remained an im-
portant center of learning, as it had been since the Early Dynastic period.
The main archaeological discoveries were Early Dynastic houses and
graves from the Early Dynastic period in Ingharra, as well as the terraces
of large ziggurats from the same period. There were also the remains of
a palace and an administrative building. At Tell Oheimir the temple
complex of the god Zadaba dates from the Old Babylonian period, and
in “mound W” a Neo-Assyrian tablet collection from the seventh cen-
tury was discovered.

KIZZUWATNA. A country in southeast Anatolia with a large Hurrian

population, which became part of the Hittite Empire in the mid–second
millennium B.C.

KUDURRU. In the Kassite period the word kudurru designated a monument

of a dressed stone or clay boulder that recorded land donations by the king
to individuals. They were kept in temples, but sealed copies of the wording
were kept in archives. Some had elaborate decoration with divine symbols
or the plan of the estate, and powerful curses were addressed to anyone who
would obliterate the monument or act against the agreed stipulations.

KÜLTEPE. See KANESH.

KURIGALZU II (reigned 1332–1308). Kassite king of Babylon. According

to a Babylonian Chronicle, Kurigalzu was put on the throne by the As-
syrian king Ashur-uballit I to replace the usurper Nazi-Bugash. This did
not stop him from attacking Assyria in later years, an enterprise that did not
succeed and resulted in the loss of Babylonian territories. A campaign
against Elam, however, resulted in victory. Kurigalzu is also known for his
architectural projects, such the restoration of the temple of Inanna at Uruk
and especially the foundation of the Kassite royal city Dur-Kurigalzu.

–L–

LAGASH. Important Sumerian city-state in the third millennium B.C. It

had several urban centers: Lagash itself (modern Al-Hibba), Girsu
 LANGUAGES • 71

(modern Tello), and Nin-Sirara (modern Zurghul). Girsu, excavated by

the French archaeologist Ernest de Sarzec, in the 1880s, was the first
Sumerian city to be discovered. No important architectonic structures
were detected at the time but the team found a large number of
cuneiform tablets, artifacts, and statuary, which provided valuable in-
formation on the Early Dynastic and Neo-Sumerian periods.
Lagash does not feature as a seat of kingship in the Sumerian King
List, but according to the inscriptions of its rulers (who always bore the
title ensi), it enjoyed periods of political independence and prosperity.
The inscription by an ensi called Enhegal dates from the Early Dynastic
period III, around 2570 B.C. Best known is Ur-Nanshe (c. 2494–2465),
who recorded his many building projects, such as the temples of Nan-
she, Ningirsu, and the mother goddess Gatumdug, as well as the city
walls of Lagash. He fought wars against Ur and especially with Umma.
His grandson Eannatum (reigned c. 2452–2425) won the famous vic-
tory over Umma. Ur-nanshe’s dynasty ended with Uruinimgina (previ-
ously read as Urukagina) (reigned c. 2351–2342), who was defeated by
Lugalzagesi.
Little is known of what went on in Lagash during the Akkad period,
but while the Gutians held sway in the north, the city-state enjoyed an-
other period of prosperity and expansion, especially during the reign of
Gudea (reigned c. 2141–2122). It became part of the unified state cre-
ated by the Third Dynasty of Ur and began to decline in the Old Baby-
lonian period.

LANGUAGES. Numerous different languages were spoken in Mesopo-

tamia throughout the ages, although not all of them are represented on
written documents. It appears that the simultaneous presence of several
linguistic groups contributed significantly to the success of urbanization
and the richness of the intellectual culture.
Nonclassifiable languages are Sumerian, which has an agglutinative
structure and was spoken in southern Mesopotamia throughout the third
millennium B.C.; Elamite, current in southwest Iran from the Early Dy-
nastic until the Persian period; Hurrian, spoken in Upper Mesopotamia
and southern Anatolia; and Kassite, the language of the political elite in
the second millennium B.C., which they did not render in cuneiform ex-
cept for some technical terms and personal names.
The second group are Semitic languages: generally known as Akka-
dian in cuneiform sources, which include the different historical stages of
Babylonian and Assyrian. Akkadian includes numerous loan words from
Sumerian. Immigration from the west brought in people speaking West
72 • LARSA

Semitic languages, such as Amorite and Aramean. They were widely

spoken in Mesopotamia in the late third and second millennia B.C. The
written form of Aramaic, using an alphabetic system, became current side
by side with Babylonian and Assyrian, in the first millennium B.C.
Indo-European languages had comparatively less currency in
Mesopotamia. They were spoken by foreign elites, such as the Mitanni
or the Persians. Hittites, Medes, and Parthians also spoke such Indo-
European languages.
There has been some speculation about the pre-Sumerian and pre-
Akkadian language substratum in southern Mesopotamia, which seems
to have left traces in place names, but the evidence is too scant and vague
to allow any conclusions as to what type of language it may have been.

LARSA (modern Tell Senkereh). A city in southern Mesopotamia, some 20

kilometers southeast of Uruk. The site had a long history of occupation,
from the Ubaid period in the fifth millennium B.C. to the Parthian pe-
riods (to 224 A.D.).
The earliest architectural remains belong to a palace built by Nur-
Adad who reigned c. 1865–1850 B.C. The city remained independent af-
ter the disintegration of the Third Dynasty of Ur and vied with Isin for
supremacy. The king lists record the names of the kings of Larsa, from
Naplanum (reigned 2025–2005) until Rim-Sin (reigned 1822–1763),
who was defeated by Hammurabi of Babylon. It was Gungunum
(reigned 1932–1906) who had put an end to the supremacy of Isin, cam-
paigned against Elam, conquered Ur, and took on the ancient title “king
of Sumer and Akkad.” This marks the apogee of Larsa’s power.
Gungunum’s successors, Abisare and Sumuel, also built canals to ex-
tend and improve agricultural exploitation. Long-distance trade flour-
ished. The reign of the last king, the Amorite Rim-Sin, lasted for 60
years. He put in place an administrative network that was to benefit his
rival Hammurabi.
Larsa was an important religious center, and its main temple, the
Ebabbar (“Shining House”), belonged to the sun god Shamash. It
stood in the middle of the city and was already in existence during the
Early Dynastic period III. The temple was then substantially rebuilt
by Ur-Nammu around 2100 B.C. and continued to function well into
the Neo-Babylonian period. The temple also had a ziggurat, and the
main priestess of the Sun (Akkadian entu) had her own residence, the
Giparu, within the sacred precinct. Other temples were dedicated to
Ishtar and Gula.
 LIPIT-ISHTAR • 73

LAW. The Mesopotamian justice system relied primarily on customary law

that was upheld by the assembly of elders or town official or courts.
Judges could be chosen from the local community or be appointed by the
king. Affected parties represented their own case and brought witnesses
as appropriate. Proceedings, or at least the verdicts, were written down,
and numerous tablets have been preserved from most historical periods.
In the absence of witnesses, the accused could be referred to an ordeal,
such as being thrown into a river or canal. The innocence was proved
when the “river refused” the culprit. Defendants and plaintiffs were
made to swear an oath on the divine emblems, such as the sun disk,
which represented the god of justice, Shamash.
As kings were seen as the upholders of law and order, they often is-
sued legal reforms, debt releases, and decrees that were recorded in writ-
ing and are often referred to as law codes, although there is no evidence
that courts ever referred to such edicts. The earliest known royal edict is
by the Sumerian ruler Uruinimgina of Lagash (c. 2351–2342), who
abolished a number of malpractices such as officials overcharging for fu-
neral services. Then follows the Code of Ur-Nammu (c. 2100), of
Lipit-Ishtar, of Eshnunna, and of Hammurabi, all from the early Old
Babylonian period. They are all introduced by the clause “if this and
this happens,” followed by the verdict.
The Code of Hammurabi is the longest extant collection of laws. It
was published toward the end of his reign and represents the first known
effort to produce a coherent set of abstract legal precepts for the whole
country, incorporating diverse local practices and traditional law. There
are several main sections (family law, including subsections on adultery,
incest, divorce, and inheritance; property law and restitution; loan and
hire agreements; and setting standards on charges and wages). It differ-
entiates fines and punishments according to a person’s legal status: free,
slave, and a category in between called muškenum. In contrast to earlier
legal practices, Hammurabi’s Code favors the so-called talionic principle
(“an eye for an eye”) rather than monetary fines, which may express a
preference for tribal customary practice.
The Middle Assyrian laws from the 12th century B.C., among other
matters, regulate the behavior of women and palace staff. There is only
a fragmentary code from the Neo-Babylonian period.

LIPIT-ISHTAR (reigned c. 1934–c.1923). Fifth king of the First Dynasty

of Isin. He is primarily known for his legal and fiscal reform contained
in the “Code of Lipit-Ishtar,” which regulates the participation of the
74 • LUGALBANDA

populace in public work projects and tries to deal with the then increas-
ingly widespread practice of debt enslavement. Otherwise, his inscrip-
tions mainly record building activities. He restored the Giparu, the resi-
dence and chapel of the entu priestess at Ur, a high office to which he
had appointed his daughter.

LUGALBANDA. Legendary Sumerian king. He is mentioned in the

Sumerian King List as the third king of the First Dynasty of Uruk.
There are no historical records to substantiate this claim, but Lugal-
banda, like his father Enmerkar, appears as the heroic king in a number
of literary works written in Sumerian. On the other hand, he is also listed
as a god in lexical lists and received a cult during the Old Babylonian
period at Nippur and Uruk. In the Gilgamesh epic he appears as the fa-
ther of Gilgamesh and the husband of the goddess Ninsun.

LUGALZAGESI (reigned c. 2341–c. 2316). He appears in the Sumer-

ian King List as king of the Third Dynasty of Uruk with a reign of 25
years. According to his own inscriptions, he was initially the ruler
(ensi) of Umma. In the long-lasting conflict between Umma and La-
gash, he inflicted a serious defeat on the rival city and went on to win
supremacy over the whole country as king of Uruk. He was in turn de-
feated by Sargon of Akkad, who brought him as captive to the temple
of Enlil at Nippur.

–M–

MAGAN AND MELUHHA. Geographical terms for regions in the distant

south and southeast of Mesopotamia. Both names first appear in royal
inscriptions of the Akkad period; ships from Magan and Meluhha were
said to have brought goods to the quays of Akkade and other cities. It
has been proposed that Magan referred to the coast of Oman along the
Persian Gulf, rich in copper and dates, and Meluhha in the Indus Valley.
In Neo-Assyrian texts of the first millennium B.C., Magan and Meluhha
probably designated the African coast of the Red Sea (Upper Egypt and
Sudan).

MAGIC. Religion and magic cannot be distinguished as separate concerns

in the context of Mesopotamian attitudes to the “supernatural.” The great
gods were all invoked to combat destructive and malevolent forces by
 MAGIC • 75

lending efficacy to spells and apotropaic rituals. Ea and Marduk, for in-
stance, were seen as “master magicians” whose divine powers were har-
nessed for the combat against evil.
Human beings were under constant threat of falling victim to harmful
influences; any accident, misfortune, illness, or death could be inter-
preted as a demonic attack, witchcraft, or even the “anger” of one’s per-
sonal god. Magic protection, in the form of amulets, unguents, or special
invocations (prayers) acted as a prophylactic.
Once the harm was done, however, and sickness and ill luck would not
go away, the afflicted person would seek professional help from a magi-
cian-healer. The king and the elite could afford to avail themselves of the
services of experienced specialists (ašipu) who had spent many years of
apprenticeship and training, while the less well-off had to be content
with “unlicensed” amateurs. Before any treatment could begin, the cause
of the affliction had to be determined. This was a lengthy process that in-
volved divination to aid diagnosis—to identify which evil spirit or de-
mon was to be blamed. Then followed the exorcism to expel the offend-
ing agent and thereby rid the patient of his torments. Since sinfulness and
ritual pollution could also attract demonic attacks or cause divine anger,
purification rituals could be added for good measure.
Especially the king was in grave danger from evil influences. They
had to undergo time-consuming and uncomfortable ritual treatment to
ward off danger or reverse an ill-fated course of events. The correspon-
dence between some Assyrian kings (e.g., Esarhaddon) and their di-
viners and magician-priests show that there were rivalries between dif-
ferent royal advisers and often a lack of unanimity.
There is a great amount of cuneiform literature on the subject: incan-
tations and spells, as well as instructions for the accompanying ritual ac-
tions and which materials and substances had to be used, how and at
what stage of the proceedings. They are difficult to understand since they
were written for persons with insider knowledge and must have relied on
oral commentaries.
The earliest magic spells date from the Akkadian period and concern
love magic. A Sumerian incantation series that was also translated into
Akkadian (uttukki lemnuti) tried to address all evil spirits and find the
right formula to banish them. The most famous Babylonian magic series
are Maqlu and Surpu (both mean “Burning”), which concern witchcraft.
The texts refer to a seven-day-long ritual combat and cosmic trial of the
“witch” in the widest sense, by a divine assembly. It involved the burn-
ing of specially prepared effigies.
76 • MANISHTUSU

MANISHTUSU (reigned 2275–2261 B.C.). Akkadian king, son of Sargon

of Akkad. Although, like his predecessor and brother Rimush, he had to
suppress widespread rebellions against his rule, he also conducted long-
distance trade, as with Magan, and engaged in building activities. Later,
tradition credited him with the foundation of the Ishtar temple at Nin-
eveh. According to some “historical” omens, Manishtusu was killed by
his courtiers with their cylinder seals.

MAR-BITI-APLA-USUR (reigned 985–980 B.C.). The only king of the

so-called Elamite Dynasty. He may have had Elamite ancestry although
his name is Babylonian.

MARDUK. Babylonian god. The origins of this god are obscure, and even
the etymology of his name is unclear, a matter that already occupied the
minds of Babylonian scholars in antiquity. In later time, his symbol was
the hoe, which may reflect some agrarian connections. More was made
though of a possible solar aspect, as reflected in the popular form of writ-
ing his name as AMAR.UTU, which can be translated as “the bull calf of
the Sun.” Although Marduk’s name appeared in god lists of the Early Dy-
nastic period, he only became a major Mesopotamian deity in the time
of Hammurabi (reigned 1792–1750 B.C.). This can be seen in the literary
texts of this period that allocate Marduk a prominent place at the expense
of Enlil. Many people in the Old Babylonian period and thereafter bore
names composed with Marduk.
Together with Ea and the sun god Shamash, Marduk had great
powers against all kinds of evil forces and is frequently invoked in in-
cantations and magic rituals. In the Kassite period, the cult of Marduk
was also much promoted, and by the time of the Second Dynasty of
Isin, he had become the “lord of the gods” and the “national” deity of
Babylonia.
Marduk and even to a greater extent his son Nabu (the god of Bor-
sippa) were also introduced to Assyria, where chapels and temples were
built for them in all the major cities.
The vicissitudes of Marduk’s statue, which was stolen first by the
Elamites in 1185 and then again by the Assyrians in the seventh century,
echo the political fate of Babylonia. The restoration of the divine statue
and its secure presence in the temple Esagila at Babylon was regarded as
a manifestation of security and stability. This intimate connection be-
tween Marduk, the city of Babylon, and the whole of Babylonia was also
the major theme of the New Year festival. The grandiose restoration
 MARI • 77

works at his temple at the time of Nebuchadrezzar II further empha-

sized the vital links between Babylonia’s economic prosperity and its
status as the greatest power in the Near East to the unrivaled position of
Marduk as the head of the Babylonian pantheon.
Various myths and other literary works describe the rise of Marduk as
the most courageous of the younger gods, who defeated the forces of
chaos and designed and built the universe (see CREATION MYTHS).
One text, known as the Erra epic, elaborates on the disastrous conse-
quences of Marduk’s absence from his shrine.

MARDUK-APLA-IDDINA II. See MERODACH-BALADAN.

MARDUK-NADIN-AHHE (reigned 1100–1083 B.C.). Babylonian king,

the sixth of the Second Dynasty of Isin. He was the brother of the fa-
mous Nebuchadrezzar I and acceded to the throne after the brief reign
of his young nephew, Enlil-nadin-shume, whom he may have deposed.
Marduk-nadin-ahhe pursued his brother’s policy of extending Babylon-
ian influence. While the latter had made successful campaigns against
Elam, Marduk-nadin-ahhe targeted Assyria, which was then ruled by
the energetic warrior-king Tiglath-pileser I. For the first 10 years, the
Babylonians had the upper hand, then followed a period in which attack
was followed by counterattack but eventually Tiglath-pileser launched a
massive invasion of Babylonia, capturing Dur-Kurigalzu, Sippar, Opis,
and Babylon, where he destroyed the royal palace. The final years of
Marduk-nadin-ahhe were made even more troubled by the incursions of
Aramean tribes and a severe famine in his 18th regnal year. The cir-
cumstances of his death are not known; according to Assyrian sources,
he “disappeared.”

MARI (modern Tell-Hariri, in southeast Syria). Important city on the mid-

dle Euphrates, excavated by French archaeologists since 1933. It is of
special importance for the reconstruction of historical events at the be-
ginning of the second millennium B.C., which the rich finds of
cuneiform tablets at the site have made possible. The occupational lev-
els of the city go back to the early third millennium. According to the
Sumerian King List, it was the seat of the 10th dynasty “after the
flood,” between those of Adab and Kish, and was said to have lasted 136
years. The names of the kings are not preserved, but there is some ar-
chaeological evidence from Early Dynastic Mari, mainly temples, the
remnant of a palace, and several inscribed statues of dignitaries.
78 • MARRIAGE

Mari was destroyed by the ambitious Lugalzagesi and subsequently

incorporated into the Akkadian Empire. Then followed a period of in-
dependence under the rule of another dynasty, the so-called Shak-
kanakku (originally the title of Akkadian military governors).
Mari was subject to Ur during the Third Dynasty of Ur, but then be-
gan its most illustrious period, when the city enjoyed its greatest prestige,
from c. 2000 to 1800 B.C. Much of its wealth derived from its improved
irrigation schemes around the river; good relations with the surrounding
pastoralist tribes, which provided wool for flourishing, palace-based
textile workshops; and control over riverine and overland trade.
Mari became a much coveted target of political ambition and Shamshi-
Adad I (reigned c. 1813–c. 1781), the Amorite king of Assyria, managed
to dislodge the local ruler Sumu-yaman, and appoint his own son Iasmah-
Addu, as governor of Mari.
Eventually Zimri-Lim (reigned c. 1775–1761), the son of the dislodged
Mari king Iahdun-Lim who had found exile in Aleppo, defeated the As-
syrians and assumed kingship. Zimri-Lim maintained complex relations
with tribal leaders and other rulers such as Hammurabi of Babylon.
He ordered the complete rebuilding of the palace on a vast scale, cov-
ering some 2,500 hectares. Such a huge edifice was not just a royal res-
idence but comprised the center of administration and textile work-
shops. The walls of some official rooms were decorated with painted
murals, the courts were paved with baked brick, and the whole edifice
was drained by a complex system of underground water pipes. The walls
of this palace are unusually well preserved, up to a height of four meters
because of the sudden and violent destruction it suffered at the hands of
Hammurabi’s soldiers in around 1760 B.C. The city continued to be in-
habited, but on a much reduced scale, into the first millennium B.C.

MARRIAGE. The social structure of Mesopotamian society was patriar-

chal, but women were not considered the legal property of males. They
could own property and engage in business in their own right. Marriage
in Mesopotamia was the socially sanctioned cohabitation between a man
and women for the purposes of procreation. Great value was placed on
female fertility, and barrenness constituted grounds for divorce or for the
husband inviting another women to the household to bear him offspring.
According to the law code of Hammurabi, a childless wife should take
it upon herself to supply such a secondary wife.
The groom’s family would begin negotiations with that of the prospec-
tive bride. The girl was given a share of her father’s wealth as a dowry
 MEDES • 79

(Old Babylonian šeriktum). According to his status, this could range

from a few items of clothing and simple jewelry, as well as household
items such as kettles and mortars, to substantial amounts of silver, fur-
niture, and, in some cases, slaves. Land was not usually part of a dowry
except in cases where there were no male heirs. Dowry lists, of generally
more prosperous women, have survived, especially from the Old Baby-
lonian period. The husband could not lay claim to this dowry; it was
passed onto the women’s children (see INHERITANCE).
The groom presented the father of the bride with the bride-price. Since
virginity was rated highly, it warranted a greater amount than if the bride
had been married before. The groom’s family also contributed to the mar-
riage in the form of a gift (terhatum) (mainly victuals) for the wedding feast.
The husband could also make a personal present (nudunnum) to his wife,
which became her legal property. The marriage was made legal by a con-
tractual agreement between the parties. In wealthy families, this was drawn
up in writing, but oral agreements before witnesses were equally valid.
The wedding feast held at the husband’s father’s house concluded the
marriage.
Although the general pattern of marriage was monogamous, men could
take secondary wives in case of barrenness or residence in another coun-
try (as the Assyrian merchants did in Anatolia). They could also take con-
cubines whose status was below that of the main wife. Numerous clauses
in law codes deal with the inheritance implications of such polygamous
situations.
Divorce was possible on the grounds of maltreatment by husbands (at
least according to the Code of Hammurabi), infertility of the wife, or
simply loss of affection by the husband. It had to be ratified before a
court, which made sure that the repudiated woman had some means of
survival and could force the husband to return her dowry.
Diplomatic marriages, arranged by kings to cement political alliances,
are well attested in Mesopotamia, especially during the second millen-
nium. It was a popular method used by Zimri-Lim of Mari, whose
daughters were married off to various local rulers as virtual spies. Letters
of these unhappy women have been found among the Mari archives. The
Kassite rulers also gave their princesses to foreign potentates, notably
the pharaohs of Egypt.

MEDES. The Medes were a people of Indo-European origin who migrated

into Iran toward the end of the second millennium B.C. By the eighth cen-
tury, they had consolidated themselves into a kingdom with the capital
80 • MERODACH-BALADAN

Ecbatana (modern Hamadan). They became instrumental in the downfall

of the Neo-Assyrian empire in the late seventh century when they
joined Babylon in an anti-Assyrian alliance that resulted in the sack of
Nineveh in 612 B.C. They were to take most of the former Assyrian
provinces and dependencies in eastern Anatolia and northwest Iran. The
Medes were in turn overrun by other Persian groups led by the
Achaemenid king Cyrus II around 550 B.C. Although they lost their in-
dependence, the Median elite continued to exercise much influence at the
new court.

MERODACH-BALADAN (biblical form of the name Marduk-apla-iddina

II) (reigned 721–710). King of Babylon. The career of Merodach-baladan,
originally a tribal leader of the Chaldeans in southern Babylonia, is un-
usually well documented, due to his long struggle against Assyrian su-
premacy. In the Assyrian records, he is depicted as an archenemy and “ter-
rorist” avant la lettre; he was especially loathed by Sennacherib.
According to the Babylonian sources he was a “good” Babylonian king
who maintained the privileges of the cult cities, invested in irrigation, re-
stored temples, and fought against Assyrian oppression. According to the
Bible (II Kings 18 and Isaiah 39), he sent a delegation to the Judean king
Hezekiah, perhaps in the hope of gaining support against Sennacherib.
Merodach-baladan is first mentioned as the “king of the Sealand” in
the annals of Tiglath-pileser III, who fought a campaign against the
rebellious southern tribes. Profiting from the internal problems in As-
syria following the death of Shalmaneser V in 722, he established him-
self as king of Babylon. Sargon II was determined to win back Assyr-
ian control over Babylonia and launched a series of attacks that were
meant to dislodge the Chaldean king from Babylon. He inflicted de-
feats on the Babylonian forces and declared himself king of Babylon,
while Merodach-baladan went to Elam to ask for military assistance
against the Assyrians.
By the time Sargon died in 705, Merodach-baladan had assembled a for-
midable alliance and challenged the new king Sennacherib on two fronts.
The Assyrians managed to defeat the Babylonian allies, and Sennacherib
entered Babylon, where he took captive the wives of Merodach-baladan.
He had these women transported to Assyria, together with other Babylon-
ian nobles and much treasure.
Sennacherib sought to safeguard Assyrian interests by placing a pup-
pet ruler on the Babylonian throne, which he replaced in 700 with his
own son and crown prince, Ashur-nadin-shumi.
 MIDDLE ASSYRIAN PERIOD • 81

Sennacherib launched a final attack against the south, where Merodach-

baladan had taken refuge in the marshes. However, he was not to succeed;
Merodach-baladan had escaped to the Elamite coast, and in the counterat-
tack mounted by Elam, Sennacherib’s son was kidnapped and probably
killed. Merodach-baladan’s end is not known, but he evaded capture by the
Assyrians.

METALS. See BRONZE; COPPER; GOLD; IRON; SILVER; TIN.

MIDDLE ASSYRIAN PERIOD. The term Middle Assyrian has two con-
notations: (1) It is a linguistic term used to refer to the language of doc-
uments written in “Middle Assyrian” as opposed to Old or Neo-Assyrian.
(2) In a historical context it circumscribes the period between c. 1400 and
c. 1050 B.C. that saw the rise of a new Assyrian state after a long period
of decline following the breakup of the Old Assyrian kingdom in c. 1741.
This new era of Assyrian growth happened at a time of great international
competition for political and economic supremacy in the Near East and
the struggle for the control of the fertile valleys of Syro-Palestine. Egypt,
the Hittites, and Mitanni were involved in this rivalry. Assyria only be-
came one of the major players when Mitanni was in the throes of a disas-
trous civil war.
Ashur-uballit I (reigned 1365–1330) emerged as an able and deter-
mined king who soon sent rather cocky letters to the pharaoh, with
princely gifts of horses and chariots, to initiate a royal gift exchange. He
was also keen to establish good relations with the Kassite kings of Baby-
lonia and a friendship treaty was sealed by the marriage of the Assyrian
princess to the son of the Babylonian king Burnaburiash. The Assyrians
duly intervened when a usurper dislodged the son from their union.
Relations between Assyria and Babylonia continued to be tense, and it
was in the Assyrian interest to push the northern frontier of Babylonia
farther south (it had been not far from the city of Ashur at the time of
Ashur-uballit). Due to the more expansionist dynamics of Assyria, they
succeeded to enlarge their territory progressively.
Adad-nirari I (reigned 1307–1275 B.C.) pushed westward, conquer-
ing the Hittite vassal state Mitanni, and took its ruler prisoner to Assur.
The Assyrian presence in the Habur and Balikh Valleys was strengthened
by fortified towns and the setting up of permanent administrative control.
During the reign of Tukulti-Ninurta I (c. 1243–1207), the Assyrians
consolidated their control of the northern and eastern borders by setting
up garrisons and pacifying nomadic tribes. When the Babylonian king
82 • MIDDLE BABYLONIAN

Kashtiliash IV tried to recapture some towns held by the Assyrians,

Tukulti-Ninurta moved his forces southward, inflicted a defeat on the
Babylonians, and assumed Assyrian control over the country that was to
last for some 32 years. Tukulti-Ninurta was assassinated by one of his
own sons, which resulted in a political turmoil and the loss of territory,
including Babylonia.
The situation improved with the accession of Tiglath-pileser I
(reigned 1115–1076). He was able to capitalize on the collapse of the
Hittite Empire and established a strong Assyrian presence in Anatolia.
He led systematic but not altogether successful campaigns against vari-
ous tribal groups, especially the Arameans in Syria who proved a seri-
ous threat, and invaded Babylonia, which was at that time ruled by Neb-
uchadrezzar I.
In the 11th century, persistent guerilla warfare by the Aramean and
Sutean tribes weakened Assyrian military power; there were rebellions in
most of the previously conquered territories, and Assyria was reduced to
its “heartland” around Ashur, Nineveh, and Arbela. After about 1050
B.C., all documentation ceased, and the end of the Middle Assyrian state
remains unrecorded.

MIDDLE BABYLONIAN. This is primarily a linguistic term to differen-

tiate the language from the earlier Old Babylonian and the later Neo-
Babylonian. It comprises texts written between c. 1600 and 900 B.C.

MITANNI. A kingdom in northern Syria, centered around the Habur Val-

ley. It was called Hanigalbat by the Assyrians and Naharina by the
Babylonians. The population of Mitanni was predominantly Hurrian,
but the ruling elite were Indo-European warriors who called themselves
Mariannu and worshipped deities with Vedic names such as Indar,
Uruwana, and the collective Devas. This elite was to intermarry with the
local population as the names of their children testify.
Not much is known about the historical circumstance of the early Mi-
tanni kings of the 16th century B.C., such as Kirta, Shuttarna, and Bar-
ratarna. Shaushtatar (fl. around 1430) was a major figure who greatly ex-
tended the territory of Mitanni by his conquest of Alalakh, Nuzi, Assur,
and Kizzuwatna (Cilicia).
The Mitanni kings were in direct competition with Egypt’s pharaohs
of the XVIII Dynasty over the fertile lands in western Syria. Tuthmosis
III defeated the Mitanni forces at Aleppo and Karkemish, but his succes-
sors preferred to make treaties with the Mitanni kings; Tushratta’s
 NABONIDUS • 83

daughter Taduhepa was given in marriage to Amenophis III. This estab-

lished a balance of Mitanni and Egyptian influence.
Trouble came from within, when a civil war broke out over the suc-
cession of Shuttarna, who had been assassinated. A usurper acceded to
the throne but was soon dislodged by Shuttarna’s younger son Tushratta
(II). The Hittite king Suppiluliuma I backed another descendant of the
murdered king, Artatama II, and later his son Shuttarna III, while the
sons of Tushratta went to find support from Egypt. Suppiluliuma’s forces
invaded the north of Mitanni, plundered the capital Washshukanni, and
Tushratta was murdered by his own son.
The Assyrians who had by this time become a new political player
under their king, Ashur-uballit I (reigned 1365–1330 B.C.) also con-
cluded a treaty of mutual support with Shuttarna III. These rival factions,
backed by military support from their allies, plunged the country into in-
ternal warfare and political chaos.
In the end, it was the Assyrians who gained from this situation; Adad-ni-
rari I (reigned 1307–1275) marched against Washshukanni, took King Shat-
tuara I prisoner to Assyria, and quelled a subsequent revolt by destroying
various towns and deporting parts of the population. Mitanni was reduced to
vassal status, and during the reign of Tukulti-Ninurta I (c. 1243–1207) it
became an integral part of Assyria as the province of Hanigalbat.

MITHRIDATES I (reigned 171–c.139 B.C.). Parthian king who expanded

the Persian control over Media and conquered Mesopotamia in 141 de-
spite fierce opposition by the Seleucid ruler Demetrios II.

MURSILI I (reigned c. 1620–1590 B.C.). Hittite king who greatly enlarged

the power base of the Hittite kingdom by his campaigns in northern
Syria, where he captured the city of Aleppo. He also fought against the
Hurrians. His most famous exploit was the surprise attack on the city of
Babylon, which brought the First Dynasty of Babylon to an end.

–N–

NABONIDUS (Babylonian Nabu-na’id) (reigned 555–539 B.C.). Babylon-

ian king. He was not of royal blood and claimed descent from a scholar
and courtier, Nabu-balatsu-iqbi. His mother, Adda-guppi’, had spent
many years at the Babylonian court. Her devotion to the moon god Sin
was shared by Nabonidus.
84 • NABOPOLASSAR

Nabonidus had been a prominent citizen and an experienced soldier,

and he was no longer young when he became king. It is not quite clear
under what circumstances he acceded to the throne, in the aftermath of
assassination of the designated crown prince.
In his first regnal years, he had to assert Babylonian authority in
southern Anatolia and Syria, and his campaigns there resulted in rich
booty that he used to repair temples throughout the land. He then moved
to Arabia, where he set up Babylonian strongholds in an effort to impose
control over the nomadic population and the lucrative incense trade.
From his headquarters from the oasis city Teima, he was able to direct
the project of rebuilding the temple of Sin at Harran. During his absence
from Babylon, which was to last some 10 years, his son, Belshazzar, was
entrusted with the running of the state.
Nabonidus returned to Babylon in c. 543 B.C. and duly celebrated the
New Year festival, which had not been performed while he was at Teima.
He managed to inaugurate the completed temple at Harran and other build-
ing projects, but by 539, his reign came to an end when the Persian king
Cyrus II invaded Babylonia. Nabonidus, who had marched to meet his
adversary, was beaten in battle near Opis and surrendered. The Persians en-
tered Babylon freely, and Cyrus declared himself king. Nabonidus was
moved to Carmania in southern Iran, where he died. He was the last in-
digenous king of Babylon.

NABOPOLASSAR (Babylonian Nabu-apla-usur) (reigned 626–605 B.C.).

Babylonian king. The first ruler of the so-called Third Dynasty of the
Sealand. He was an official appointed by Assyria when he began his ca-
reer, but during the troubled period after the death of Ashurbanipal, he
declared himself king of the Sealand and rallied Babylonian troops
around him to fight off Assyrian control. Having defeated the Man-
naeans, allies of Assyria, he made an alliance with the Median king
Cyaxares, whose daughter married Nabopolassar’s son Nebuchadrezzar
(II). When the Assyrian king Sin-sharra-ishkun attacked Nabopolassar,
the alliance moved against Nineveh and took the city after a three-month
siege in 612 B.C. The allies then pushed on to Harran, the then Assyrian
capital, and drove out the last Assyrian government in c. 610. Nabopo-
lassar became king of Babylon.
He himself campaigned in east Anatolia and just before his death (in
605 B.C.). Nebuchadrezzar defeated an Egyptian army that contested
Babylonian control over Syria, thus securing large parts of the former
Assyrian empire for Babylonia.
 NADITU • 85

NABU. Babylonian god, whose main shrine, the Ezida temple, was at Bor-
sippa, near Babylon. He was introduced to the Babylonian pantheon around
the beginning of the second millennium B.C., at the same time that Marduk
became prominent. He was first called the “scribe and minister of Marduk”;
later he was known as the son of Marduk. Nabu became the patron of
scribes and the scribal arts, and his symbol was the stylus. Beautifully writ-
ten cuneiform tablets were popular offerings to this learned god.
Nabu’s cult was introduced to Assyria in the 13th century, when
Tukulti-Ninurta I built him a temple at Assur. He endured when other
gods, who had been more closely identified with political power (e.g.,
Marduk), had lost popularity. In the late Babylonian period, he assumed
many traits of other deities, such as wisdom and associations with wa-
ter and fertility. Nabu’s cult lasted well into the Roman period.

NADITU. Babylonian term for a group or institution of women during

the Old Babylonian period who occupied special quarters known as
gagum (the locked house). The best-known naditu women were those
serving at the temple of the sun god Shamash at Sippar due to the vo-
luminous archives that have been discovered at the local gagum. The
etymology of the word naditu is not very clear; translations such as
“barren” or “fallow” have been proposed. It appears that these women
lived in relative seclusion (the laws of Hammurabi are especially se-
vere against them visiting taverns) and that they were not permitted to
have children. Married naditu could provide their husband with a sec-
ondary wife to father progeny. They were given a dowry upon their
entrance to the institution that they were free to administer at their dis-
cretion.
The surviving business documents show that naditu women came
from affluent families, including royal daughters, and that they were ac-
tively engaged in business ventures, such as trade enterprises, or indeed
the ownership of profitable taverns. It was expected that their dowry re-
turned to their paternal families after their death, but some women pre-
ferred to adopt younger naditu in order to secure support in their old age.
As a result of their childlessness and isolation, the life expectancy of na-
ditu was considerably higher than that of ordinary women of the period.
Little is known about the cultic duties of the naditu. They were ex-
pected to contribute to the daily sacrifices, appear at certain cult services,
and, according to some surviving letters, their main function was to pray
for the well-being of the relatives. The main focus of their devotion was
not Shamash but his spouse Aya.
86 • NANNA(R)

The institution did not survive after the Old Babylonian period but was
revived briefly by the Neo-Babylonian king Nabonidus.

NANNA(R). Sumerian moon god whose main temple was the Ekishnugal
at Ur. His cult was particularly prominent at the time of the Third Dy-
nasty of Ur, when his temple and the ziggurat were rebuilt. He was es-
pecially associated with the fertility of cattle whose horns look like the
new moon at the latitude of Mesopotamia.

NARAM-SIN (reigned c. 2260–2224 B.C.). Akkadian king, grandson of

Sargon of Akkad. Like his predecessor Manishtusu, he had to repress
rebellions by the main cities within his realm to assert his centralized
control over the country. He then called himself “king of the four quar-
ters (of the universe)” and began to write his name with a sign generally
only used for gods.
Naram-Sin campaigned widely in all parts of his empire, from the east
(where he famously subdued the mountainous tribes as depicted on a stele
now at the Louvre), the north, and the northwest, where he fought the
Amorites. He even ventured as far south as Magan on the Persian Gulf.
In the later literary tradition (see OMEN LITERATURE), Naram-Sin
was depicted as an unlucky ruler, whose arrogance angered the gods. It
appears, however, that his long reign brought stability rather than dis-
ruption to the country.

NEBUCHADREZZAR I (Babylonian Nabu-kudurru-usur) (reigned 1126–

1105 B.C.). Babylonian king of the Second Dynasty of Isin. He secured
his place in the Babylonian historical tradition by a decisive victory over
Elam, which had been a major threat to Babylonia for some generations.
He not only defeated the Elamite king Hutteludush-Inshushinak but also
recovered the statues of the god Marduk and that of Marduk’s wife
Sarpanitum, which had been taken to Susa. The triumphal return of these
statues may have given rise to the composition of the creation myth
enuma elish. Nebuchadrezzar utilized booty from the Elamite campaign
to rebuild sanctuaries in several Babylonian cities.

NEBUCHADREZZAR II (Babylonian Nabu-kudurru-usur) (reigned 605–

562 B.C.). Babylonian king, son of Nabopolassar. Before his father’s
death, he had managed to defeat the Egyptians at Charchemish. He went to
Babylon to be crowned but quickly returned to Syria. He fought there for
some eight years to enforce Babylonian dominion over the Levant and
 NEO-ASSYRIAN PERIOD • 87

Syria, including Damascus, Tyre, and Jerusalem. He also campaigned in the

east, against Elam, and had to repress rebellions within Babylonia. Even-
tually, he managed to secure Babylonia’s succession over most of the terri-
tory’s once held by Assyria and began to reap the economic benefits.
Much of the enormous revenue was spent on beautifying and protect-
ing the capital Babylon. He built new city walls, double in construction
and with a moat, a new bridge over the Euphrates, new palaces, and the
splendidly decorated Processional Street, which was used for the cere-
monies of the New Year festival. He also rebuilt and enlarged the
precinct and temple of Marduk and began work on the huge ziggurat
Etemenanki.
Nebuchadrezzar’s royal inscriptions contained primarily detailed de-
scriptions of his architectural projects. According to biblical records, he
went mad in his later years, but there are no Babylonian sources to deny
or substantiate this claim.

NEO-ASSYRIAN. The language of the documents written in the Neo-

Assyrian period, which has certain linguistic features that distinguish
it from Old or Middle Assyrian.

NEO-ASSYRIAN PERIOD (934–610 B.C.). This historical phase derives

its name from a linguistic category of the Assyrian language as ex-
pressed in the documents of the time. According to the Assyrian King
List, there was no break between the rulers of the mid–second millen-
nium and those of the first millennium.
The first phase (c. 934–745) was marked by the resurgence of Assyr-
ian assertiveness after the political turmoil associated with the
Aramean invasions in the 12th and 11th centuries. Kings such as Adad-
nirari II, Tukulti-Ninurta II, and Ashurnasirpal II were primarily
concerned to regain control over the old Assyrian-held territories in
northeast Syria and Upper Mesopotamia; local rulers were forced to
submit to Assyrian authority and treated as subjects of the king. They
also began to expand gradually northward into southern Anatolia to se-
cure a hold over the metal resources that were traded in this region.
Equally important were the foothills of the Zagros in the east—prime
horse-breeding country and straddling the trade routes from and to the
Iranian Plateau.
Ashurnasirpal II (reigned 883–859 B.C.) and Shalmaneser III (reigned
858–824) were to consolidate the Assyrian presence in all those regions.
They initiated their systematic exploitation for their resources: manpower,
88 • NEO-ASSYRIAN PERIOD

horses, raw materials, and provisions for the Assyrian army, as well as
regular tribute. Treaties assured the exclusive rights over trade com-
modities. Much of the revenue was used to construct and embellish new
residential and administrative centers. Ashurnasirpal founded a new cap-
ital, Kalhu (ancient Nimrud) and Shalmaneser III concentrated on forti-
fied provincial control points in northern Syria.
Relations with Babylonia were generally good; the two countries
were allied by treaties and fought a common cause in subduing trouble-
some nomads in the western fringes of their realms. Babylonia lent sup-
port against various internal revolts that shook Assyria in the late ninth
century.
This pattern only changed when Shamshi-Adad V (reigned 823–811)
challenged the succession of Baba-aha-iddina. He invaded and ravaged
the country, which plunged it into chaos for the next 10 years. The situa-
tion in Assyria remained difficult. There were rebellions in the provinces,
and kings had to rely on the compliance of their (native) governors.
In the time between 745 and 705 B.C., the Assyrian Empire took shape.
This was the result not only of renewed military expansion but of new
administrative structures that ensured much tighter political and fiscal
control. When Tukulti-Ninurta II (reigned 744–727) acceded to the
throne, Assyria’s prestige in Syria had weakened, and there was a new
powerful state in eastern Anatolia, that of Urartu, which contested As-
syrian influence in Anatolia and the Zagros foothills. In Babylonia,
Chaldean chieftains were asserting their independence and allied them-
selves with Elam against the Assyrians. Tukulti-Ninurta III campaigned
in all these areas. He defeated Urartu, took direct control of Babylon, and
one by one coerced the Syrian polities to submit.
The empire now consisted of the heartland of Assyria, the provinces in
Upper Mesopotamia, northern and southern Syria, with a further ring of
client states ranging from southern Anatolia to the borders of Egypt, with
tight control over the eastern trade routes. Tukulti-Ninurta III was suc-
ceeded by Shalmaneser V (reigned 726–722), who is chiefly known for
his conquest of the Israelite capital Samaria.
He was soon ousted by Sargon II (reigned 721–705), whose accession
was widely contested in Assyria. This triggered a concerted effort among
the imperial dependencies to launch a collective revolt, led by the ruler of
Hamath, which Sargon managed to defeat. He also had to counter the re-
newed threat of Urartu and to contend with the challenge of Merodach-
baladan in Babylonia. By means of incessant campaigns, Sargon suc-
ceeded in holding Tukulti-Ninurta’s empire together; he defeated the
 NEO-BABYLONIAN EMPIRE • 89

Urartians and their Mannaean allies and drove Merodach-baladan into ex-
ile. He even had time to build another vast palatial complex at Dur-Shar-
ruken north of Nineveh. He was killed on a campaign against the Cim-
merians in Anatolia.
The reigns of his successors—Sennacherib, Esarhaddon, and
Ashurbanipal—were also dictated by the need to quell numerous insur-
rections, police the frontiers of the empire, and confront coalitions by the
enemies of the Assyrian imperial state. Although their military machine
was the most formidable in the whole of the Near East, they could not be
employed simultaneously in many different places.
Sennacherib (reigned 704–681) concentrated his efforts on solving
the Babylonian problem in a long drawn-out war that ended in the de-
struction of Babylon. Esarhaddon (reigned 680–669) had to counter
Egyptian interference in the Levant and even mounted a successful
campaign into the Egyptian heartland that culminated in the sack of
Memphis.
His policy of trying to secure the succession of his younger son Ashur-
banipal to the Assyrian throne proved calamitous when the latter became
embroiled in a war against his older brother Shamash-shumu-ukin,
whom Esarhaddon had appointed as king of Babylon. Ashurbanipal was
to prevail in this conflict, and he was also successful in annihilating the
power of Elam, whose provocative and opportunistic policies toward As-
syria had long been a thorn in his side. However, serious problems beset
his later reign; it is not clear when and under what circumstances he died,
and the empire received its mortal blow by a combined onslaught of Med-
ian and Babylonian forces between 612 and 610 B.C. when the cities of
Nineveh, Assur, and the last capital, Harran, were conquered.

NEO-BABYLONIAN. A linguistic term that characterizes the language of

texts written in the first half of the first millennium, from c. 900 to 500 B.C.

NEO-BABYLONIAN EMPIRE (605–539 B.C.). It was founded by the

Babylonian king Nabopolassar (reigned 626–605 B.C.), who with the
help of the Medes brought the Neo-Assyrian empire to its knees by de-
stroying Nineveh and other major Assyrian cities.
His son Nebuchadrezzar II (reigned 605–562), an able military com-
mander, managed to ward off Egyptian claims on the western former As-
syrian provinces in Syria and the Levant, and he maintained control over
the central south Anatolian regions as well. The Iranian regions remained
under Persian rule.
90 • NEO-SUMERIAN

The Babylonian empire was thus the heir to the Assyrian empire and
reaped the economic rewards that were primarily invested in recon-
structing the ancient Babylonian cities, especially Babylon. The empire
weathered the serious internal political problems after Nebuchadrezzar’s
death; his son Amel-Marduk was assassinated by his brother-in-law Ner-
iglissar, who only ruled three years, leaving a minor on the throne, which
triggered further bloody intrigues.
Nabonidus (reigned 555–539 B.C.) emerged victorious from the fray,
and, perhaps in anticipation of Persian ambitions under their new Achae-
menid Dynasty, he moved westward to Arabia, where he built up a
strong Babylonian presence before returning to Babylon. In any event,
his efforts were fruitless. He faced Cyrus II in battle and was defeated.
The Persian king then took possession of Babylon and assumed the
Babylonian throne. This was the end of Babylonian independence.

NEO-SUMERIAN. The language used primarily in the documents from

the Third Dynasty of Ur, which differs in some respects from that used
in older material.

NEO-SUMERIAN PERIOD. This is another way of referring to the time

just before and during the Third Dynasty of Ur, when Sumerian be-
came once more the language of written documentation in private as
well as administrative contexts.

NEOLITHIC PERIOD (c. 9000–5000 B.C.). Literally this term means “new
stone age.” The most prevalent tools were still made of stone, such as flint
and other hard rocks. However, in many other respects the Neolithic pe-
riod in the Near East has justly been associated with technological “revo-
lution,” especially the intensive exploitation of the ecological niches, in-
creasing sedentarization, the invention of pottery, and, most important, the
beginning of agriculture. The most important pilot sites in Mesopotamia
are Jarmo, Umm Dabaghiyah, Tell Hassuna, and Choga Mami, all in
northern Mesopotamia.
All these sites were within reach of montane valleys where wild cereals,
species of wheat and barley, grew naturally. Early settlers had access to
these zones and brought back seeds that were planted in the river plains,
producing new cultivated species, such as six-row cultigens, with shatter-
resistant seed heads. Even artificial irrigation was already employed at this
stage. The investment of labor in such projects tied people more securely
to one place and made them rely more heavily on a relatively limited diet.
 NINEVEH • 91

Skeletons show that teeth were worn down more than in the preceding pe-
riod and that the heavy work, especially the carrying of loads on the back,
deformed neck and vertebrae. Nevertheless, the new food-procuring sys-
tem allowed for greater population expansion and permanent settlements.
The domestication of wild animals was another Neolithic achieve-
ment. The dog already accompanied Paleolithic hunters; now sheep and
goats, bred out of their wild ancestors, appeared. The first domesticated
cattle emerged in the sixth millennium B.C. Most of these animals still
showed a high degree of variability, most likely a result of the mobility
of herding groups who would come into frequent contact with other
groups. Hunting, too, became more professionalized, especially that of
gazelles and onagers, which need coordinated group efforts. Gathering
activities also continued, making use of periodically available wild re-
sources, such as mushrooms, nuts, and wild fruit.
Neolithic craftsmanship is marked by the invention of pottery, hand
shaped rather than wheel turned, but with exquisite painted designs and
increasingly well fired. There is evidence of specialization in craft pro-
duction (e.g., Umm Dabagiyah had a center of stone tool production).
Generally speaking, the Neolithic people had a “broad-spectrum econ-
omy,” making use of a variety of subsistence strategies (agriculture, food
collecting, herding, hunting) without any visible bias to a particular kind
of exploitation. It is also increasingly evident that there was still a high
degree of mobility; people could move from one site to another in a form
of transhumance, inhabiting one ecological sphere for part of the year
and moving on to the next site (winter and summer camps). Such move-
ments also explain the rapid exchange of ideas and technologies over a
wide area, as well as the exchange of goods. This led to the adaptation to
different geographical conditions and to more intense contact between
different groups and lifestyles.
The Neolithic society can be characterized as basically egalitarian and
kinship based, possibly patrilocal and patrilinear.

NERGAL. Babylonian god of the underworld whose main cult center was
at the as yet unidentified city of Kutha. He first appeared in the Akka-
dian period, and, by the second millennium B.C., he had supplanted the
previously female chthonian deities, such as Ereshkigal. He was both a
god of death and epidemics as well as of fertility and vegetation.

NINEVEH (ancient Ninua). City in Assyria, on the left bank of the river
Tigris, now on the outskirts of the modern city of Mosul. The ancient site
92 • NINGAL

comprises the ruin fields of Kuyunjik and Nebi Yunus. It was first dis-
covered in the mid–19th century A.D. and excavated by French, British,
and recently Iraqi teams of archaeologists.
Nineveh is one of the oldest cities in Mesopotamia, but the prehistoric
levels are only known from deep soundings that have revealed succes-
sive layers of pottery since the seventh millennium B.C. The first exca-
vated architectural structure, a temple dedicated to the goddess Ishtar,
dates from the predynastic period. It was rebuilt in c. 2260 by the Akka-
dian king Manishtusu. The Amorite ruler Shamshi-Adad I also left
records of his building activities at the temple some 450 years later. The
temple of Ishtar was thus the main attraction of the city, despite the fact
that some Middle Assyrian kings built palaces there.
Nineveh only became a capital when Sennacherib (reigned 704–
681 B.C.) decided to abandon Dur-Sharruken and moved his residence
and administration to Nineveh. He surrounded the city, planned gener-
ously on 750 hectares with double walls 12 kilometers long, pierced by
15 gates. He was particularly concerned to secure an adequate water
supply to the gardens and parks of the city and built for this purpose a
series of ingenuous canals and aqueducts. His successors Esarhaddon
and Ashurbanipal remained at Nineveh and built additional palaces
lavishly decorated with wall reliefs. The royal archives, which were re-
covered from Ashurbanipal’s palaces at Kuyunjik, have yielded some
24,000 tablets.
Nineveh, with its heterogeneous population of people from all over the
Assyrian Empire, was one of the most beautiful cities in the Near East,
with its gardens, temples, and splendid palaces. The city was besieged by
the Medes and Babylonians in 612 and fell after a three-month siege af-
ter a desperate struggle. Thereafter, only small areas remained occupied
until Roman times.

NINGAL. Sumerian goddess, wife of the moon god Nanna(r)/Sin and

mother of the sun-god Utu/Shamash. Together with her husband, she
was worshipped at Ur and in the Upper Mesopotamian city of Harran.
She was also a goddess of dream interpretation.

NINURTA. Sumerian god, well known since the Early Dynastic period.
He was originally an agricultural and rain deity and was called “the
farmer of Enlil” who “lets the barley grow.” His main temple was the
Eshumesha at Nippur. By the end of the third millennium B.C., he had
become more of a warrior, “the right arm of Enlil,” and some myths de-
 NOMADS • 93

scribe him doing battle against the “hordes of the mountains.” Ninurta
was replaced by Marduk as the “champion of the gods” in the Old
Babylonian period. He continued to enjoy great popularity in Assyria,
where he was both a storm god and a warrior.

NIPPUR (modern Niffar, some 150 kilometers southeast of Baghdad).

Sumerian city with a long history of occupation reaching back to the
seventh millennium B.C. It was never the seat of a dynasty, although in
the third millennium, Nippur seemed to have had an important role in
confirming a dynasty’s legitimacy. Its most important structures were
temples, especially the Ekur (the temple of Enlil) and the Inanna tem-
ple. There were many other smaller temples and chapels in the city.
Many Mesopotamian kings throughout history honored the gods of Nip-
pur by endowing and repairing its sanctuaries and depositing votive gifts.
It also had a reputation as a center of learning, and most of the extant
copies of Sumerian literary works from the Old Babylonian period
were discovered in the Nippur libraries, which belonged to private indi-
viduals rather than institutions.
The city suffered a major environmental crisis in the 18th century B.C.,
precipitated by the shift westward of the Euphrates, which originally
ran right through the town. Nippur revived in the Kassite period, after a
break of almost 300 years. A palace from this time has been found. In
1224, Nippur was attacked and destroyed by the Elamites, and most of
the population left, leaving only the priests to maintain the cult of Enlil.
After centuries of near abandonment, the city prospered once more in
the first millennium B.C. Ashurbanipal rebuilt the temple, and the city
regained its ancient privileges and its importance in the Neo-Babylonian
period and thereafter under the rule of Achaemenids when it was a cen-
ter of commercial activity and especially banking, as documented by the
archives of the Murashu family.

NOMADS. Much of the land in and around Mesopotamia was unsuitable

for agriculture because of the scarcity of waterways and insufficient
rain but provided enough seasonal grass for transhumant herding. The
most important animals for pastoralism were sheep and goats whose
growth period coincides with the renewal of vegetation in the winter
months. The social structures of seminomadic or fully nomadic pastoral-
ism developed to ensure maximum mobility for herds and people while
maintaining internal cohesion. Little is known about these configurations
in antiquity due to the fact that the settled population held nomads in
94 • OATHS

contempt. It appears, however, from documents such as the Mari

archives, that they were tribally organized, patrilinear, and patriarchal.
The relations between the city dwellers in Mesopotamia and nomadic
groups were generally described as problematic in the cuneiform docu-
ments, especially at times when waves of nomadic tribes pushed into the
rural districts, which were normally controlled by the state. Such force-
ful occupations were met by military resistance or even the building of
defensive walls, but neither proved effective. Nomadic immigrations
into Mesopotamia came mainly from the west, the Arabian peninsula and
southern Syria, and to a lesser degree from the Iranian Plateau and the
Caucasian Mountains. The best-recorded periods of tribal incursions
were those of the Amorites in the late third millennium and those of the
Arameans in the 12th and 11th centuries B.C.
Such large-scale and violent incursions were not symptomatic for the
relations between nomads and those settled in Mesopotamia. Mutually
beneficial contacts were the norm; the nomads were allowed to graze
their herds on the stubble after the harvests, thus loosening and fertiliz-
ing the soil; after planting, the animals could nibble off the first shoots
and thus render the plants more hardy and encourage growth. The mar-
kets of the cities supplied the necessary articles such as weapons, tools,
and jewelry for women. There was an ever ongoing process of gradual
sedentarization for some tribal members who would maintain social con-
tact with their kin groups and relay new modes of thinking and living.
Mesopotamian civilization was thus continuously enriched by the ab-
sorption of tribal people.
Camel nomadism only developed in the first millennium, after the do-
mestication of the camel.

–O–

OATHS. A solemnly sworn oath was the most binding of all agreements or
testimonies. It was thought to be irrevocable, and the oath breaker would
automatically be destroyed by the divine power of the oath. As such, they
were only undertaken in serious cases. In Mesopotamian law courts, de-
fendants had to swear an oath or undergo an ordeal when there was no
reliable witness or any other proof of their innocence. In property dis-
putes, litigants could choose between paying a fine or taking the oaths,
most of whom preferred the latter. Oaths were sworn on emblems of
gods who were thus witnesses and protectors of the agreement. Interna-
 OLD BABYLONIAN PERIOD • 95

tional treaties and vassal treaties were also concluded by oaths; here the
parties swore on the deities of their own countries. They often include
self-imprecations detailing what dreadful events should befall those who
will act contrary to any of the clauses of the treaty.

OLD ASSYRIAN. The Assyrian language of documents written in the

first few centuries of the second millennium B.C., especially those dis-
covered in Cappadocia (see KANESH). The inscriptions of Shamshi-
Adad I in contrast were written in Old Babylonian.

OLD ASSYRIAN PERIOD (2000–1500 B.C.). According to the Assyrian

King List, the first 17 Assyrian kings “lived in tents,” which means that
they were little more than tribal leaders or sheikhs who dominated the
region around the cities of Nineveh and Assur. One of these, Kikkiya,
was said to have built a wall around Assur (around 2000 B.C.).
Little historical information exists from the early period, and most doc-
uments concern mercantile enterprises outside Assyria. Assur became the
base for a network of commercial activities that centered on the import of
tin from the east (via intermediaries) and an intense import-export busi-
ness with central Anatolia (trading Mesopotamian textiles against silver
and copper).
There was a break in the succession of Assyrian kings after the reign
of Erishum II when the Amorite leader Shamshi-Adad (I) (reigned
c. 1813–c. 1781), who originated from the west of Assur, acceded to the
throne, having deposed Erishum. During his long reign of 32 years, he
greatly enlarged his territory by attacking Babylonian cities, such as
Sippar and Babylon, seizing control of Mari and the Habur Valley with
Shubat-Enlil. He controlled all the Assyrian cities, such as Ekallate, Nin-
eveh, and Assur, and the Tigris Valley right up to the Zagros and farther
south toward Elam. After his death, most of the conquered territories
were lost, and Assyria remained a small north Mesopotamian kingdom
until it became reduced to the state of a vassal to the powerful Mitanni,
following a raid by king Shaushtatar around 1500 B.C.

OLD BABYLONIAN. Linguistic term to classify the language of Akka-

dian documents written during the Old Babylonian period.

OLD BABYLONIAN PERIOD (c. 2000–1600 B.C.). On the basis of lin-

guistic rather than historical criteria, this period begins with the fall of
the Third Dynasty of Ur when documents began to be written again in
96 • OMENS

Akkadian, until the end of the First Dynasty of Babylon. It also in-
cludes the time of the First Dynasty of Isin and the dynasty of Larsa. It
was dominated by the rise in the empire of Hammurabi and marked by
a different cultural orientation than that of the Neo-Sumerian period.
There were changes in the royal ideology: Kings were now seen as
arbiters of justice and “shepherds” of their people rather than remote
and “divine.” There was also a greater participation of private citizens
in the economic exploitation of the country and a more intensive
growth of rural settlements. Another development of this period was
the shift of political power from the south to the north of Babylonia
and the replacement of Sumerian as the official language of docu-
mentation by Babylonian.

OMENS (historical). The scrutiny of everyday occurrences (e.g., weather

patterns) as well as geographical, astronomical, and even social behavior
for the purposes of eliciting warnings about impending disasters was a
veritable science in Mesopotamia. It was considered as a means of deci-
phering divine communications, which were encoded in a great variety
of phenomena. The written records of earlier Mesopotamian kings were
also studied as relevant case studies for ominous events. Especially the
famous kings of the Akkad period were scrutinized; Sargon of Akkad
was interpreted as a ruler blessed by the gods, but Naram-Sin evoked
more negative associations. See also ASTROLOGY/ASTRONOMY.

–P–

PALACES. In archaeological terms, palaces are distinguished from large

private residences and temples. They differ from the former by their
greater size and number of rooms and by stricter measures of security re-
flected in the plan of buildings. The distinction between temples and
palaces is less clear-cut in the prehistoric periods, but from the third mil-
lennium B.C. onward, certain architectonic features (e.g., niches and shal-
low buttresses) are typically found in temples rather than palaces.
Since the function of a palace in Mesopotamia was that of not simply
a royal residence and a very large household but also an administrative
center, such diverse functions were accommodated around separate court-
yards surrounded by a suite of rooms.
There was also a division between the public and private sector. Re-
ception areas, such as the throne room, were protected by a complex
 PASTORALISTS • 97

route of access and could be splendidly appointed with glazed tiles (as in
Nebuchadrezzar’s palaces in Babylon), wall reliefs (as in the Neo-
Assyrian palaces), or wall paintings (as in Dur-Kurigalzu).
One of the best-known Mesopotamian palaces is the one built by Zimri-
Lim at Mari. There is evidence of careful planning before construction be-
gan, as can be seen by the subterranean drainage channels. There was one
very large and several smaller courtyards. The circulation system allowed
for tight supervision. This palace, as various others in Assyria, had its own
archive, which detailed the substantial economic activities of the palace,
as well as the diplomatic correspondence and the administration of the
kingdom. It is probable that most of the rooms as found in excavations
were for storage purposes and that residential quarters and offices were lo-
cated on upper floor levels. Evidence for the existence of such upper sto-
ries is generally indirect (stairwells, thickness of walls, lighting provisions,
and the amount of rubble found within ground floor rooms).
Palaces in the first millennium B.C., especially in Assyria, also had
pleasure gardens and parkland within their perimeter walls.

PARTHIAN PERIOD (c. 238 B.C.–A.D. 224 ). Parthia was the region in
northern Iran where Indo-European nomads from Central Asia began to
settle in the mid–first millennium B.C. This area was then controlled by
the Achaemenid Dynasty. They began to form their own kingdom in the
Seleucid period, when Arsaces, a leader of the Parni tribe, founded the
Arsacid Dynasty around 238 B.C. He profited from the rebellions in
Parthia and Bactria against the rule of Seleucus II and assumed control
over most of central Iran, with a new capital at Dara.
His successors enlarged the Parthian territory eastward to the Indus and
westward to the Euphrates. Mithridates I (reigned 171–c.139 B.C.) an-
nexed Mesopotamia in 141, occupying Babylon and Seleucia. Having
ousted the Seleucids, the Parthians remained in Mesopotamia while the
region west of the Euphrates was under Roman control. They became
wealthy due to the trade with luxury items along the Silk Road to China.
This northern route contributed to the economic marginalization of south-
ern Mesopotamia.
The Parthians established a new capital in Mesopotamia, Ctesiphon on
the Tigris, which was destroyed by Trajan in A.D. 116. Thereafter, their
power declined, and they were replaced by the Sassanians in A.D. 224.

PASTORALISTS. Nomadic or seminomadic herders of sheep and goats

(in Mesopotamia). See NOMADS.
98 • PERSIANS

PERSIANS. Peoples speaking an Indo-European language who settled in

Iran in the second millennium B.C. By the beginning of the first millen-
nium, they spread westward to the Zagros, where they formed their first
state, the Median kingdom (c. 720–550), with the capital at Ecbatana.
After the elimination of Elam, they became a powerful force in western
Iran, which was instrumental in bringing down the Neo-Assyrian em-
pire. The Medes were in turn ousted by another Persian Dynasty, that of
the Achaemenids (640–88). After the conquest of Alexander the Great
and the subsequent rule of the Seleucids over Iran, new Persian polities
formed, first the Parthians with the Arsacid Dynasty, and then the Sas-
sanians (A.D. 224–642).

POTTERY. Deposits of pottery remains constitute the bulk of archaeolog-

ical tells of Mesopotamia. The term pottery differentiates clay vessels
and other household objects from figurines (called terracotta). The dif-
ferent shapes, decoration, burnishing, glazes, and sizes of pottery, the re-
sult of changes in taste and technology, furnish valuable and often vital
clues to the relative dating of the object and its context. The technique of
pottery sequences was pioneered by the archaeologist Flinders Petrie in
the 1890s in Palestine. It is particularly useful for prehistoric periods, but
pottery sequences are also relevant in later periods.
Pottery was invented in the Neolithic period about 7000 B.C. Such
early pottery was made in a slab construction method and only lightly
fired. The earliest known kiln comes form Yarim Tepe and dates from
6000. The most beautifully fashioned, thin-walled, and hand-painted pot-
tery in the Near East dates from the Chalcolithic period. Decorated with
often centrifugal designs and of elegant shapes, such tableware was in
much demand throughout Mesopotamia and seems to have been used for
banquets and other special occasions that called for the display of valu-
ables. Coil-made pottery dominated until the invention of the slow
wheel, a turntable rotated by hand, which first appeared in Mesopotamia
around 4000 B.C. but mainly to fashion coarse, mass-produced jars.
Exquisite pottery became less important in the historical periods; gold
and other metals replaced fired clay in prestige tableware. The fast
wheel, used to “throw” pottery, was introduced in the late third millen-
nium B.C., again for mass-produced ware.
Potters often worked together in separate quarters of Mesopotamian
cities; they could work for a large organization in teams (as in the time
of the Third Dynasty of Ur) or as private craftsmen.
 PRIESTS • 99

PRIESTS. Mesopotamian temples commanded considerable manpower to

work the agricultural estates, the various workshops, administration,
and general maintenance of buildings and equipment. The service of the
cult, the care for the divine statues residing in inner precincts of the tem-
ple, the daily offerings, and liturgies also demanded considerable per-
sonnel. There was no general distinction between those who worked in
the “secular” sector and those who performed “priestly” functions. In
fact, a number of sacerdotal functions could be carried out on a part-time
basis (so-called prebends). Those who had any contact with the sacred
precincts of the temple had to ensure that they were in a state of ritual
purity, attained by ablutions as well as by the incantation of purificatory
formulas.
Some categories of priests, especially those with intimate contact
with divine statues, had to fulfill specific physical, ethical, and psycho-
logical requirements to qualify for the profession. Like scribes, certain
high-status categories of priests belonged to families where the office
passed from father to son. Literacy was mandatory for most cult spe-
cialists who had to be knowledgeable in liturgical procedures, chants,
and prayers. Highly trained staff performed exorcistic and healing ritu-
als, solicited and interpreted omens, and advised the king. Some classes
of temple personnel wore distinguishing clothes, hats, and other accou-
trements that are depicted on cylinder seals or in Assyrian reliefs. Rit-
ual nudity, as shown on Early Dynastic plaques, was discontinued after
the Akkadian period.
The daily services included musicians, singers, cult performers, and
dancers, both male and female.
A great number and variety of professional titles for temple personnel
has been preserved in the administrative records as well as in lexical
lists, but it is not always clear which function was implied at any given
period. The highest office in the administrative hierarchy during the
Uruk period was that of the EN. In the Predynastic period, this was used
as the title of the city ruler, especially at Ur; in later times, however, it
denoted purely cultic responsibility. Great prestige was given to the of-
fice of the female EN (Akkadian entu) who served the moon god (see
NANNAR) at Ur and who was often of royal blood. During the Old
Babylonian period, the institution of the naditu women flourished, who
lived in a cloisterlike enclosure. The exact function of many other female
cult specialists who appear in administrative, omen, and literary texts re-
mains obscure.
100 • RIM-SIN I

–R–

RIM-SIN I (reigned 1822–1763 B.C.). Babylonian king of Larsa. In the

aftermath of the collapse of the Third Dynasty of Ur, it was at first the
city of Isin that won supremacy in Mesopotamia. Rim-Sin fought long
and hard to challenge Isin’s position from his own power base at Larsa.
He defeated a coalition of other cities led by the king of Uruk, and in his
13th year (1796), he captured Isin, which left him in control over the
whole of southern Babylonia (the north was more fragmented into rival
polities, such as the kingdom of Babylon).
Rim-Sin was thus one of the most powerful rulers in Mesopotamia at
this time, and he also enjoyed an unusually long reign of 60 years that al-
lowed him to implement important administrative and legal reforms con-
cerning land ownership. His reluctance to join in a pan-Babylonian coali-
tion against Elam resulted in Hammurabi’s anger and attack on Larsa in
1764. He took Rim-Sin prisoner to Babylon where he presumably died.

RIMUSH (reigned c. 2284–2276 B.C.). King of Akkad, son and successor

of Sargon of Akkad. According to his own inscriptions he had to repress
widespread revolts in the Sumerian cities at the beginning of his reign.
He also campaigned against Elam, from where he returned with rich
booty. He only stayed on the throne for nine years and was replaced (per-
haps violently) by his brother Manishtusu.

ROYAL INSCRIPTIONS. Mesopotamian kings since the Early Dynastic

period were keen to transmit records of their achievements for posterity.
They furnish some of the most important sources for Mesopotamian his-
tory. The earliest examples of such texts consist only of a few lines to
record the name and title of the king, perhaps with a mention of his most
important conquest. They are generally couched in the first-person sin-
gular as personal testimony.
Since it was a royal responsibility to repair city walls and temple
buildings, the kings commemorated such activities on building inscrip-
tions that were deposited within the architectural structure of the edifice.
The royal inscriptions of kings from the Akkad Dynasty were engraved
on stone monuments and set up in the courtyard of the Enlil temple at
Nippur. Some of them were written in both Sumerian and Akkadian
and enumerate the campaigns of the kings, as well as their building ac-
tivities, and they include lengthy references to the gods of Sumer and
Akkad, who were said to have entrusted kingship to the rulers.
 SARGON II • 101

Such ideologically weighted passages were already formulated by

some Early Dynastic rulers. The royal inscriptions of the Akkad kings
were studied by later generations of scribes, and extant examples are
mainly Old Babylonian copies of the originals. They were to serve as
models and inspiration for future generations of scribes who had to com-
pose royal inscriptions.
Not all such texts became part of the scribal tradition. The beautifully
worded inscriptions of Gudea, the ruler of Lagash, for instance, were
deposited in the temples of Girsu and left there. The kings of the Third
Dynasty of Ur preferred a different style in which the king was ad-
dressed in the third person. Such texts are known as “royal hymns.”
The Assyrian kings, too, gave a special form to the genre and devel-
oped annals that were royal inscriptions composed annually to record the
mainly military achievements of the monarchs. Annals are also written in
the first person. Other Assyrian royal inscriptions were engraved on
palace wall reliefs to accompany the visual representations. They deal not
only with conquest but also with civic projects, such as the building of
aqueducts, or the royal hunt. The Assyrian inscriptions abound in detail
and observations and can comprise hundreds of lines of texts.
The Neo-Babylonian examples concentrate on the kings’ architectural
projects, such as the works in Babylon under Nebuchadrezzar II or at
Harran by Nabonidus.

–S–

SAMSU-ILUNA (reigned 1749–1712 B.C.). Babylonian king of the First

Dynasty of Babylon, son and successor of Hammurabi. He managed to
hold together the substantial kingdom created by his father despite
mounting internal and external pressures. In his ninth year, he had to do
battle against the Kassites and also faced a general revolt led by the king
of Larsa, Rimush II, whom he defeated. Otherwise, the country enjoyed
a measure of stability, as the many administrative and legal tablets from
his 38-year reign document.

SARGON II (reigned 721–705 B.C.). Assyrian king who acceded to the

throne in unclear circumstances after the death of Shalmaneser V. His
succession was not uncontested, though he was backed by the citizens
of Assur. There were also rebellions from Assyria’s vassals, and in
720 Sargon faced a coalition of Syrian contingents at Qarqar, which he
102 • SARGONIDS

defeated. He then marched south toward the Egyptian border where he

stationed a garrison at Gaza. He was less successful in Babylonia
where the Assyrian army was beaten by the Elamite allies.
Sargon’s northern campaigns against Urartu and the Mushki (i.e., the
Phrygians under their king Midas) took up several years. Midas, who had
been accused of fomenting rebellions against Assyria, was forced to a
peace treaty, and the Urartians were beaten in battle. Sargon also sacked
the city of Musasir, as the wall reliefs in the palace of his new city, Dur-
Sharruken (Sargon’s Fort), illustrate.
Sargon could then concentrate on sorting out Babylonia; he chased
Merodach-baladan into exile and assumed direct rule over the country.
Sargon died on another campaign in Anatolia. His grandiose new foun-
dation “Sargon’s Fort” was abandoned by his successors.

SARGONIDS. The Assyrian Dynasty founded by Sargon II in 721 B.C.,

which also included his son Sennacherib, his grandson Esarhaddon,
and Ashurbanipal.

SARGON OF AKKAD (reigned c. 2340–c. 2284 B.C.). King and founder

of the Akkadian Dynasty. Sargon became the subject of a whole vari-
ety of cuneiform texts where he is generally portrayed as an exemplary
ruler. He was described as destined by the gods (especially Ishtar) to
conquer the “four corners of the universe” and presiding over peace and
prosperity. Some of these accounts also credit him with a mysterious
birth (by a priestess) and a miraculous Moses-like rescue from abandon-
ment in a basket in the river. He was said to have journeyed very far and
to have settled disputes in Anatolia. Much of this is fictional, but even
the evidence of his royal inscriptions, which were copied in the Old
Babylonian period, is confusing, and the chronology of events referred
to in his royal inscriptions remains problematic.
It appears that Sargon began his career as a courtier of King Ur-
Zababa of in Kish. His rise to power was triggered by his victory over
Lugalzagesi of Uruk. He then gained control over all the other Sumer-
ian cities but based himself at Akkad, presumably a new foundation. He
always called himself “king of Akkad.” During his long reign, he claims
to have led various campaigns abroad: He subdued Elam to the east and
moved westward, conquering Mari and other cities in Upper
Mesopotamia and southern Anatolia. Sargon promoted the use of the Se-
mitic language Akkadian in his inscriptions. His daughter Enhedu-
anna was appointed priestess of the moon god at Ur.
 SCRIBES • 103

SASSANIAN DYNASTY (A.D. 224–651). A Persian dynasty named after

an ancestral figure called Sasan. King Ardashir I (reigned A.D. 224–241)
founded a new, sometimes called Neo-Persian empire, after he had de-
feated Artabanus V, the Parthian king of the Arsacid Dynasty in 224. His
territory stretched from the Euphrates to the Indus River. The Sassanians
revitalized what they considered to have been the cultural traditions of the
Achaemenid Dynasty to formulate a truly Persian national identity.
Zoroastrianism was the official religion, and the fire cult was vigor-
ously promoted. Ardashir and later his son, Shapur I (reigned A.D.
241–272), also attacked Roman possessions in Armenia, Anatolia, and
Syria, but following the counterattacks, they had to be content with the
same western frontier as that of the Arsacid Empire, and their only non-
Iranian province remained the district of the Tigris and Euphrates as far
as the Mesopotamian desert, while the west and the north remained un-
der Roman control. Under their rule, southern Mesopotamia became a
peripheral outpost, marginalized because of border conflicts with Rome
and later Byzantium, and with a dwindling population.
The Sassanian royal house was beset by internal rivalries resulting in
intrigues and assassinations. The long struggle against Rome had ex-
hausted the treasury and the vitality of the dynasty. The final blow came
from the Arabs. The battle of Kadisiya in A.D. 637 brought victory to the
Islamic Arabs and marked the end of the last Zoroastrian dynasty in Iran.

SCRIBES. Since the invention of writing in the late fourth millennium

B.C., scribes were instrumental in the development of the administrative
structures that made Mesopotamian cities economically competitive.
Literate bureaucrats became a mainstay of Mesopotamian institutions,
forming a kind of civil service sector that operated in large temple es-
tates, the palace, and, to a lesser extent, for the private businesses. Cen-
tralized states, such as the Third Dynasty of Ur or the Neo-Assyrian
Empire, were particularly reliant on their services.
One of their main responsibilities was accounting. Scribes had to keep
track of daily expenditure (on rations for the laborers, equipment, mate-
rials, etc.), tally the income from diverse sources, and keep annual
records that showed the balance of each account. In Assyria, scribes also
accompanied the army on campaign; several reliefs show how they
counted severed heads or hands for the battle statistics or itemized trib-
ute payments. Scribes formed part of the personnel within a hierarchi-
cally structured labor organization. They underwent more or less lengthy
training, and relatively few assumed positions of authority.
104 • SEALAND

Apart from the bureaucratic function, scribes were concerned with the
classification of knowledge. They composed lists of signs and lexical
lists that constitute an attempt to provide reference works for scribal
training and at the same time codify the material and intellectual reper-
toire of Mesopotamian civilization. They were also concerned to pre-
serve important oral traditions, such as myths, proverbs, songs, and eso-
teric wisdom. As such, scribes became guardians of a literary tradition
that was accorded the value of antiquity and the weight of authority. This
gave the highly trained scribes considerable influence at court, for in-
stance, since they were able to underpin ideological changes or, indeed,
to resist them. A number of literary works are now thought to have been
inspired by political motives of the time (see CREATION MYTHS;
ROYAL INSCRIPTIONS).
As an intellectual elite Mesopotamian, a scribe had the most leverage
in connection with esoteric knowledge, such as divination (see
OMENS), magic, and astrology/ astronomy. This is particularly evi-
dent in the late Neo-Assyrian Empire.
In the late period, the prestige of scribes seems to have been higher than
before. Although at the time of the Third Dynasty of Ur, King Shulgi had
boasted of having a solid scribal education, as did Ashurbanipal much
later, literacy was not a requirement for the exercise of kingship. While
in previous centuries most scribes, except for the purposes of bureaucratic
responsibility, remained anonymous, from the Neo-Babylonian period
onward, scribes wrote their names and pedigree on the tablets they copied
or composed. From such “colophons,” it appears that many came from
scribal families who had practiced the arts of writing for generations. One
of the most famous of these scribal ancestors was Sin-leqqe-unninni, the
reputed author of the Gilgamesh epic.

SEALAND (Babylonian mar tamtim). The name for the southern-most re-
gion of Babylonia, including the extensive marshlands of the gulf. The
region was important for its access to the sea and seaborne trade and the
marshes were a well-known refuge for political adversaries. In the first
millennium B.C., the Sealand was controlled by the Chaldean tribes.

SEALAND DYNASTIES. There were two: (1) The first Dynasty of the
Sealand was established during the lifetime of Samsu-iluna (reigned
1749–1712 B.C.) in the Old Babylonian period to the detriment of
Babylonia’s sea trade; little is known about this dynasty, which was
founded by Iluma-ilum. (2) The Second Sealand Dynasty lasted from
 SELEUCUS I NICATOR • 105

1026 to 1006 B.C. and was founded by Simbar-Shipak (reigned

1026–1010). He controlled much the same area as the Second Dy-
nasty of Isin and was recognized as a legitimate king in Babylon. Af-
ter his reign, rulers followed each other in quick succession due to
palace intrigues.

SECOND DYNASTY OF ISIN (1155–1027 B.C.). After the Elamite at-

tacks on Babylonia, which brought the Kassite Dynasty to an end, the
center of power shifted southward again where a new dynasty was
founded by Marduk-kabit-ahheshu in c.1155 at Isin. There were 11 kings
altogether, though only some of them are known from contemporary
sources. The most outstanding ruler was Nebuchadrezzar I (c. 1126–
c. 1105), who defeated Elam and returned the abducted statues of Mar-
duk and his consort Sarpanitum. Another successful and long-reigning
king was Marduk-nadin-ahhe (reigned 1100–1083 B.C.), a contempo-
rary of the Assyrian king Tiglath-pileser I, although the end of his reign
was overshadowed by famine and unrest caused by intensified tribal
immigration by the Arameans. This was to remain a source of instabil-
ity until the demise of the Second Dynasty of Isin during the time of its
last king, Nabu-shumu-libur (reigned 1034–1027).

SELEUCID DYNASTY (305–141 B.C.). Dynasty founded by Seleucus I

Nicator, who was one of the generals in the army of Alexander the
Great. In the struggles over the succession to Alexander’s empire, Seleu-
cus obtained most of the Asiatic territories, all of Persia, Bactria, and
Mesopotamia, and he introduced a new dating system in Babylonia that
began on 3 April 311. Greek became the language of administration.
The capital was a new foundation, Seleucia-on-the-Tigris. He and all of
his successors were engaged in constant, often violent, confrontations
with the Ptolemies, another Macedonian dynasty who ruled from Egypt.
The object of these fights were the fertile and wealthy regions in Syria and
Palestine. The Seleucids lost Mesopotamia to the Parthians in 141 B.C.

SELEUCUS I NICATOR (reigned 305–281 B.C.). Macedonian general who

accompanied Alexander the Great on his campaign to India. After
Alexander’s death in 321, he assumed the office of regent after the murder
of Perdiccas. When the empire was partitioned, he became satrap of Baby-
lonia. He was dislodged by Antigonus, fled to Egypt to Ptolemy I, and
eventually returned to Babylon after 315. He then campaigned to gain
control over the Iranian provinces. His coronation as king of Babylonia
106 • SEMIRAMIS

was hotly contested by Antigonus, who continued to raid and devastate the
country, but he was finally defeated in 301 at Ipsus in Syria.
Seleucus now controlled the former satrapy of Syria and half of Ana-
tolia and thus commanded an empire of almost the size of Alexander’s
(with the exception of Egypt). He founded several new cities, including
the new capital Seleucia-on-the-Tigris, initiated a new dating system and
the era of the Seleucids, made Greek the official language, and pro-
moted Hellenistic culture in Mesopotamia.

SEMIRAMIS (Assyrian Sammu-ramat). Assyrian queen, wife of Shamshi-

Adad V (reigned 823–811 B.C.), mother of Adad-nirari III. This woman
achieved remarkable fame and power in her lifetime and beyond. Accord-
ing to contemporary records, she had considerable influence at the Assyr-
ian court; she was able to erect her own inscribed monuments in the cere-
monial center of Assur. She even accompanied her husband on a military
campaign, a most unusual undertaking for an Assyrian queen. After the
death of Shamshi-Adad, she assumed the office of regent for five years
while Adad-nirari was a minor.
Semiramis became the subject of legendary tales, and Herodotus cred-
its her with building the embankments in Babylon. According to Diodorus
Siculus, she was semidivine, nourished as an infant by doves, of excep-
tional beauty, and became the wife of the Assyrian king Ninus. She then
had the most extraordinary career, founding Babylon and a world empire
that stretched from Egypt to India, to return eventually to Nineveh, where
she changed into a dove, having handed her empire to her son Ninyas.

SENNACHERIB (Assyrian Sin-ahhe-eriba) (reigned 704–681 B.C.). As-

syrian king. Despite the plentiful and varied sources for his reign, the se-
quence of events is still disputed. Sennacherib, whose name (“Sin has
compensated [for dead] brothers”) suggests that he was not a first-born,
was groomed for royal succession by his father Sargon II, and was en-
trusted with administrative duties from an early age. Even so, his suc-
cession after Sargon’s sudden death on campaign was not unproblematic
and unleashed a series of revolts. The Egyptian pharaoh incited the kings
of Sidon, Ascalon, and Judah to rebel against Assyrian rule, an uprising
that was put down by Sennacherib’s general.
Merodach-baladan had meanwhile returned to Babylon and assembled
a large force of Chaldean, Aramean, Arab, and Elamite troops. Sen-
nacherib marched to Babylonia, defeated the coalition, appointed a new
ruler, Bel-ibni, and led a punitive campaign against the Bit-Yakin tribe in
 SHALMANESER III • 107

the marshes. He then replaced the unreliable Bel-ibni with his own son and
continued to rout the southern tribes with the help of a fleet of Phoenician-
built ships he had transported by land and river to the Persian Gulf.
While he was busily engaged in the south, the Elamites invaded north-
ern Babylonia and kidnapped his son, the regent in Babylon. This led to
another series of clashes between Elamite Babylonian coalitions and the
Assyrians, while the son of his old foe Merodach-baladan had assumed
the throne of Babylon. Sennacherib set siege to the city, which held out
for 15 months, and vented his fury on the “holy city.” This deed was not
only abhorred as sacrilege by the Babylonians but also caused much con-
sternation in Assyria where the gods of Babylon were held in high esteem.
Sennacherib is also remembered for his ambitious building program at
Nineveh, which he made into his capital. He was very interested in en-
gineering and personally supervised the construction of aqueducts and
transport of the colossal human-headed bulls that guarded the palace
gates. He was also very fond of plants and collected a great variety of
species from all over the empire to grace the gardens of Nineveh. He died
a violent death, perhaps at the hand of one of his own sons.

SHALMANESER III (reigned 858–824 B.C.). Assyrian king, son and

successor of Ashurnasirpal II. Having inherited the vast empire his fa-
ther had built, he was hard-pressed to maintain Assyrian hegemony in the
face of widespread revolts. He relied on diplomacy coupled with the
show of force when deemed necessary and thus managed to expand As-
syrian influence even further.
The most persistent problems were in Syria. Here a coalition of local
rulers was formed who assembled their troops for a violent confrontation
with Assyrian forces. This alliance was commanded by the leader of the
influential tribe Bit-Adini. Shalmaneser defeated them, and Bit-Adini
became an Assyrian province.
Some time later, though, he faced a much more serious contingent of re-
bellious polities led by the kings of Hamath and Damascus. Here, too, he
claimed victory in a great battle at Qarqar on the Orontes in 853, but the
coalition was to continue its resistance activities for some years after that.
Shalmaneser was on friendly terms with Babylonia and supported its
king Marduk-zakir-shumi when he faced a rebellion by his own brother.
Shalmaneser used the opportunity to show his strength to the Aramean
and Chaldean tribes and made a tour of the major Babylonian temples.
He also campaigned in Anatolia, especially against Urartu. In his capi-
tal Kalhu, he built temples, a ziggurat, and a large fortress.
108 • SHAMASH

SHAMASH. Babylonian sun god. According to the personal names from

the Akkad period, the sun deity, as in other Semitic cultures, may have
originally been female. In Mesopotamia, Shamash became identified
with the Sumerian sun god Utu, whose shrine was at Larsa.
In the Old Babylonian period, Shamash came to be seen as the
supreme arbiter of justice—Hammurabi on the stele with his law code
is seen to receive the symbols of kingship from the sun god. At this time,
the main sanctuary of the sun god was at Sippar, where he resided in the
Ebabbar, the “shining house,” to the detriment of the temple at Larsa.
In the Babylonian hymns and prayers, Shamash is not only invoked to
safeguard the rights of individuals but to guard all those on a journey,
such as merchants and soldiers, and to combat evil in the many
apotropaic and curative rituals and incantations.
The wife of Shamash was Aya, who was the patron of a special cate-
gory of cloistered (naditu) women during the Old Babylonian period.

SHAMASH-SHUMA-UKIN (reigned 667–648 B.C.). Assyrian king of

Babylon. He was the eldest son of King Esarhaddon of Assyria, who
had appointed his younger son, Ashurbanipal, to be his successor while
he destined Shamash-shuma-ukin to rule Babylon. If this arrangement
was meant to secure brotherly unity between the two countries, it did not
work out this way. Ashurbanipal’s position was much stronger, and he
treated his older brother like any other vassal ruler, making him swear an
oath of allegiance and maintaining a policy of noninterference as long as
there was no trouble.
Shamash-shuma-ukin was no doubt under pressure from the citizens of
Babylon to push for a speedy return of the divine statues that his grand-
father Sennacherib had removed from their sanctuaries, but Ashurbani-
pal prevaricated. Neither did he come to punish the raids by nomadic
tribes that Babylonia suffered at this time.
Shamash-shuma-ukin decided to find support elsewhere and sought
allies among Arab and Chaldean tribes and from Elam. Babylonia be-
came split into a pro-Assyrian faction, which comprised the old cities in
the south and the rebellious party led by the Chaldeans. Although
Ashurbanipal seems to have been reluctant to intervene with arms,
clashes between Assyrian and rebel forces went on for several years.
The Babylonian side was weakened by mutiny among the Elamite
troops and by the capture of the Chaldean leader Nabu-bel-shumati.
Ashurbanipal then brought down his full force and set siege to Babylon,
which was taken after two years, having caused terrible deprivation and
 SHAR-KALI-SHARRI • 109

suffering to the inhabitants. Shamash-shuma-ukin probably died in the

final assault in his palace.
The conflict between the brothers and the renewed destruction of
Babylon did much to incite hatred against Assyria.

SHAMSHI-ADAD I (reigned 1813–1781 B.C.). Amorite king of Assyria,

who usurped the throne of Assur. Shamshi-Adad built up a powerful
kingdom that stretched from the foothills of the Zagros to the valleys of
the Habur and Balik in Syria and included much of northern Babylonia.
He captured Mari, where he put one of his sons in charge; the archives
in the Mari palace furnish much detail about Shamshi-Adad’s maneu-
vers. Like his younger contemporary, Hammurabi at Babylon, he was
one of those Amorite rulers who were very skillful in the use of diplo-
macy and the making of alliances, backed up by a shrewd and decisive
deployment of force. Unlike Hammurabi, who inherited and built up a
well-functioning administrative apparatus, Shamshi-Adad, despite em-
ploying Babylonian scribes, relied primarily on his personal connections
and judgment. It was therefore not surprising that the large territory he
had held together disintegrated rapidly after his death.

SHAMSHI-ADAD V (reigned 823–811 B.C.). Assyrian king. He fought

for four years to sustain his succession after the death of his father Shal-
maneser III. He was perhaps even helped in this by the king of Baby-
lon, Marduk-zakir-shumi. When there were problems in Babylon after
the death of his ally, Shamshi-Adad responded in a particularly brutal
way: He invaded Babylonia and ravaged the countryside, having taken
the new king Marduk-balassu-iqbi to Nineveh, where he was flayed.

SHAR-KALI-SHARRI (reigned c. 2223–2198 B.C.). Akkadian king, son

of Naram-Sin. According to the surviving inscriptions from his reign,
Shar-kali-sharri devoted much of his time to defending the Akkadian
empire from external and internal threat. Soon after his accession, he
had to drive back the Elamites who had invaded the region north of
Akkad and besieged the town of Akshak. Elam, though repulsed from
Akkad, continued to grow in strength and influence. The Gutians also
conducted persistent raids into the valleys of the Tigris, which abated
after Shar-kali-sharri managed to capture their king Asharlag. In the
west, he campaigned against the Amorites and pushed them back be-
hind Jebel Bisri. His most important building project was the recon-
struction of the temple of Enlil at Nippur.
110 • SHULGI

Shar-kali-sharri abandoned the use of the divine determinative that his

father Naram-Sin had introduced. Despite his efforts and successful mil-
itary campaigns, he was not able to protect his state from disintegration,
and after his death, written sources dried up in a time of increased anar-
chy and confusion.

SHULGI (reigned c. 2094–c. 2047 B.C.). Sumerian king of the Third Dy-
nasty of Ur. He was the second king of this dynasty founded by his fa-
ther Ur-Nammu and concentrated on setting up a solid framework for
the efficient and unified administration as well as defense of a central-
ized state that encompassed all of Mesopotamia. He created a standing
army that was able to respond rapidly to any foreign threat and a host of
bureaucrats to supervise the implementation of new tax regulations, as
well as the state-owned and -managed production and distribution of
agricultural and artisanal goods.
Scribal training had to be intensified to meet the demand for literate
personnel. All records were written in Sumerian. Shulgi also introduced a
new official calendar to replace the many different, local systems of reck-
oning time. There were also standardized weights and measures. Tem-
ple estates also came under the supervision of state-appointed officials.
To legitimize such radical reforms, which curtailed the economic in-
dependence of the Sumerian cities to an unprecedented degree, Shulgi
elevated kingship to a divine office and, like in the times of Naram-Sin
of Akkad, wrote his name with the divine determinative and ordered a
cult of his statues. He was enthusiastically lauded by royal hymns, which
describe his intimate relations with the great gods of Sumer (he was the
“brother” of the sun god, and the “husband” of Inanna), as well as phys-
ical and intellectual qualities.
In his foreign policy, Shulgi used diplomacy (especially dynastic
marriages) as well as military campaigns. His greatest success was the
conquest of Anshan (in western Iran), which became part of his empire.
Shulgi may have died a violent death in a palace revolt; he was suc-
ceeded by his son Amar-Sin.

SHURUPPAK (modern Fara). Sumerian city in southern Mesopotamia. It

was inhabited from the Jemdet-Nasr period (c. 3000 B.C.) until the end of
the Third Dynasty of Ur (c. 2000). The city knew its greatest extent
(some 200 hectares) in the Early Dynastic period. From this time of Early
Dynastic III (mid–third millennium) come a large quantity of administra-
tive tablets with details about extensive land management involving thou-
 SIN-LEQQE-UNNINNI • 111

sands of workers, as well as literary works and lexical tables. There is also
evidence of relationships and collaborative projects with other Sumerian
cities, such as Uruk, Adab, Nippur, and Lagash. In the Sumerian tradi-
tion, Shuruppak was the home of the flood hero Utnapishtim.

SHUTRUK-NAHHUNTE I (reigned c. 1185–1155 B.C.). Elamite king,

probably the founder of a dynasty known as the Shutrukides. Having
consolidated his rule over Elam, he launched a carefully prepared attack
against Babylonia. He took Sippar, Kish, and Babylon, deposed the
last Kassite king Zababa-shum-iddina, and imposed heavy tribute on
the population. He returned to Elam with enormous booty, which in-
cluded several ancient monuments, such as the stele with Hammurabi’s
laws and statues of Akkadian kings. In Babylon, he appointed his own
son Kudur-Nahhunte as king.

SILVER. Since there were no metal deposits in Mesopotamia it had to be

imported from outside. The most important sources were in Anatolia, in
Cappadocia and the Taurus Mountains, referred to as the “silver moun-
tains.” In Mesopotamia, silver was used for luxury objects and jewelry
since the Uruk period and became a standard of value and medium of
exchange in the late third millennium B.C. It could be fashioned into
rings, rods, or coils and had to be weighed for each transaction. Coins
were only introduced in the late first millennium.

SIN. Akkadian name of the moon god whom the Sumerians called Suen
or Nannar. In writing this was expressed by the number 30, the days of
the lunar month. He was also addressed as the “fruit that renews itself”
(after the waning of the moon) and the “horned bull.” Like Nanna, he
was closely associated with the fertility of cattle but also of women, as
his epithet “midwife” suggests.
Apart from the ancient moon sanctuary at Ur, there was an important
temple of Sin at Harran.
Although Sin was always popular throughout Mesopotamian history,
as the many personal names composed with Sin prove, he never assumed
the status of Enlil or Marduk, except for the time when the Babylonian
king Nabonidus heavily promoted his cult in the sixth century B.C.

SIN-LEQQE-UNNINNI. Babylonian master scribe and incantation

priest in the Kassite period. In the Mesopotamian scribal tradition, he is
reputed as the author of the Gilgamesh epic.
112 • SIPPAR

SIPPAR (modern Abu Habbah and Tell ed-Der). Babylonian city on the
river Euphrates. The site was occupied since the Uruk period in the
fourth millennium B.C. and was not abandoned before the Parthian pe-
riod, in the second century A.D. Most of the excavated monuments date
from the Old Babylonian and Neo-Babylonian periods. Sippar was in
fact composed of two towns that eventually grew together. One was
dominated by the temple of a goddess called Anunnitum, the other by
the larger sanctuary of the sun god Shamash.
Apart from a single reign of an antediluvian king (according to the
Sumerian King List), Sippar was never the seat of a dynasty. Its main
prestige derived from the cult of the sun god and the commercial activi-
ties, which were favored by the location of the city in central Babylonia,
along the navigable Euphrates, and in close proximity also to the Tigris.
Merchants of Sippar traveled north and westward to Anatolia and Syria,
as well as east to Iran. Sippar, like Nippur and Babylon, was one of the
privileged cities that enjoyed special tax status and whose citizens were
exempt from conscription.
Most of the written documentation from the Old Babylonian period
was found in the “cloister” of the so-called naditu women, who were
placed there by their fathers in order to “pray continuously” but who
were also free to invest their shares of paternal property. The tablets from
the Neo-Babylonian period come mainly from the Shamash temple. An
important library has recently been discovered by Iraqi archaeologists.

SLAVERY. In Mesopotamia, slaves were mainly used in a domestic con-

text and not in large-scale public projects as in the Roman Empire. The
cuneiform sign for slave denotes a person “from the mountains,” which
means a foreigner.
They could be prisoners of war, captured on campaigns against the
peoples on the periphery of Mesopotamia, where skirmishes between the
nomadic tribal populations and the sedentary people were often used as
a pretext by Mesopotamian rulers to conduct military expeditions that
were little more than slave raids. The men and women thus captured
could be sold or distributed as personal gifts to individual retainers.
There was also commercial slavery, with slave markets in the major
cities, although it is not clear how these slaves were procured in the
first place.
Once acquired, slaves were marked with a special tonsure and skin
mark, and they became the property of their owner, to be passed on to his
 SUMERIAN • 113

heirs, hired out, or sold as a chattel (see INHERITANCE). Any children

of slaves were also slaves.
Only wealthy households could afford to have slaves, and only very
affluent families had more than one or two. Male slaves worked in all
kinds of capacities, in the fields or workshops; they could also be trained
as scribes and work as secretaries and clerks. Any profit they managed
to make was theirs to invest, and there is evidence that some wealthy
businessmen had started out as slaves.
The position of female slaves was slightly different; they worked
in the house, fields, or textile workshops, but they were also used as
concubines—proverbs warn against the disruptive influence of a
pretty slave girl in the house. In the Old Babylonian period, a barren
woman could select a slave girl to bear her husband children on her
behalf who were then treated as her own offspring. Slaves could be of-
ficially freed or adopted into a family.
Not all slaves were foreigners or the descendants of captured persons.
It was possible for Mesopotamian citizens to sell their children into slav-
ery and to enslave themselves and/or their wives to their debtors. The du-
ration of their bondage was in proportion to their debt and ended when
the amount originally owing had been earned in labor. When the pres-
sures of usurious loans were too high and debt slavery became too wide-
spread (as in the late Old Babylonian period), kings could decree
amnesties to release people from debt slavery.

SUMER. Modern name for the country in southern Babylonia (south of

Nippur) that the Sumerians called kengi. The Akkadian inscriptions
speak of Sumer (šumerum) and (the northern) Akkad as constituent of
the “country.” Although Sumer was never a coherent political unit, it was
linked by cultural and economic practices and norms and the acceptance
of urbanism. Already in the fourth millennium B.C. (Uruk period), such
links can be surmised from the way the city seals appear in administra-
tive texts and lists.
In the Early Dynastic period, there was great rivalry between indi-
vidual cities and competition over water rights that led to armed clashes.
On the other hand, there is also evidence of collective action, which
could mobilize large numbers of people in common tasks.

SUMERIAN. Language spoken in southern Mesopotamia until the begin-

ning of the second millennium B.C. It was expressed in writing since the
114 • SUMERIAN KING LIST

Early Dynastic period (earlier forms of cuneiform were not meant to re-
flect a particular idiom). Sumerian texts were written in the “main dialect”
(emegir), and a secondary dialect was used for female speakers in the
texts (emesal). It is not related to any other known languages. Its structure
is agglutinative and ergative, and it differs greatly from the Semitic lan-
guages (e.g., Akkadian) that were current in Mesopotamia since the ear-
liest written records.
Most Sumerian sources date from the late third millennium B.C., the
time of the Third Dynasty of Ur, when Sumerian was the official lan-
guage for all documents. From the Early Dynastic period, there are im-
portant text collections from Abu-Salabkih and Shuruppak. Most of the
extant copies of Sumerian literary texts (myths, prayers, hymns, humor-
ous dialogues, fables, proverbs, and royal inscriptions) date from the
Old Babylonian period. Sumerian probably became extinct as a spoken
language by the mid–second millennium, but it continued to be trans-
mitted in writing as part of advanced scribal training until the very end
of cuneiform literacy.

SUMERIAN KING LIST. A compilation of dynasties and the names of

kings by a Babylonian scholar at the time of the First Dynasty of Isin. It
begins in remote antiquity and the divine institution of kingship and ends
with the reign of Sin-magir (1827–1817 B.C.). The Sumerian King List
chronicles the transfer of hegemony (“kingship”) from one city to another
and thus obscures the reality that several dynasties existed at the same time.

SUPPILULIUMA I (reigned c. 1370–1330 B.C.). Hittite king. He was re-

sponsible for the expansion of the Hittite Empire into Upper
Mesopotamia and Syria. Most important was his defeat of the kingdom
of Mitanni, previously the most powerful state in this area. He sacked
the Mitanni capital, Washshukanni, and appointed the Mitanni crown
prince as his vassal ruler. He then asserted his authority over other Syr-
ian states by attacking Aleppo, Amurru, and Alalakh, but he conducted
a peace treaty with the Babylonian king (possibly Kadashman-Enlil I),
whose daughter he married.

SYNCHRONISTIC HISTORY. This designates a chronicle work from

the Neo-Assyrian period, written around 800 B.C. during the reign of
Adad-nirari III. It concerns events after the destruction of Babylon by
Sennacherib and lists Assyrian and Babylonian relations in two
columns so that synchronicities become apparent.
 TAXATION • 115

–T –

TAXATION. Compulsory contributions toward public services are a fea-

ture of all complex societies. Mesopotamia had two kinds of levies that
could be imposed by the main institutional bodies: the temple, the state
(see PALACE), or the city. First there were the contributions in labor
(corvée duty) or armed service (military duty). Both are well attested
since the third millennium B.C. The former could be seen as a legacy of
previous social systems where maintenance tasks were performed col-
lectively. Corvée workers were essential for highly labor-intensive jobs
such as the clearing and dredging of canals and other irrigation installa-
tions, as well as the construction of city walls and public buildings. This
workforce was primarily constituted of young men. They also formed the
main contingent of fighters in case of military campaigns and for defense
(see WARFARE).
Taxes in kind levied by temples on their sharecroppers were generally
a tenth of the yield (“tithe”). Temples were themselves subject to taxa-
tion to the state at times when there was a strong centralized government,
as during the time of the Third Dynasty of Ur.
That the city ruler could demand payments in silver for all kinds of
professional activities is made clear in royal inscriptions of Uruin-
imgina of Lagash from the 24th century B.C. He was at pains to reduce
the exorbitant sums paid to officials for divorces, the brewing of beer, or
the burial of the dead.
In the Akkad period, King Naram-Sin introduced a country-wide tax-
ation scheme in which contributions were levied on provinces (city-states)
and collected at the capital for distribution. Tax was payable on crops, live-
stock, trade, and craft production. Payments in kind and in silver had to
be accounted for, stored, and distributed as required. The administration
of the tax system made considerable demands on the bureaucratic structure
of the state. The detailed workings of the system can best be studied in the
documents from the time of the Third Dynasty of Ur.
During the Old Assyrian period, merchants doing business in Anato-
lia paid taxes to the city of Assur on leaving with their export goods
(e.g., 10 percent on the textiles) and on arrival at Kanesh, the trade
colony, where the tax payments were used for the maintenance of the
colony.
In the Neo-Assyrian Empire, taxable services extended to any lucrative
trade, and there were variable rates for different commodities. Tax collec-
tors could be accompanied by soldiers to enforce people’s contributions.
116 • TELL

Just as individual kings could invent new taxes and new sources of rev-
enue, they could also reduce the tax burden and exempt temples or cities
from payments. Such pronouncements are known from a number of rulers
and usually as a reaction to massive rises of insolvency and debt slavery.

TELL. Arabic word that denotes a mound-shaped hill composed of accu-

mulated layers of debris of habitation, partially eroded by the elements.

TEMPLES. Mesopotamian temples combined several important functions.

Cities were primarily identified by their tutelar deities, and the temples
were the houses of the gods in a specific place. They provided continu-
ity across time. Rising above the plains, they served as landmarks that
could be seen above the low-rise skylines of Mesopotamian cities. In
temples the gods were worshipped with sacrifice and rituals, and a large
staff looked after the daily services (see PRIESTS).
Temples were also very large households and owned extensive tracts
of agricultural land. They were therefore important economic entities.
The yields of the fields and pastures, as well as the products of work-
shops attached to the temples, were primarily used to “feed the gods.” In
fact, they also sustained a large number of people attached to the temple
as lifelong or temporary personnel.
Temples, much like monasteries in the Middle Ages in Europe, were
also centers of learning and scribal training. A great number of cuneiform
tablets were discovered in temple ruins. The forecourts also served to ad-
minister justice before the symbols of such deities as Shamash, Marduk,
or Enlil (see LAWS).
Mesopotamian temples were thus complex institutions that played a
vital role in Mesopotamian society since a substantial proportion of citi-
zens either depended on the temples entirely for their livelihood or had
regular involvement in their economic and/or cultic activities. Temples
were able to give loans at lower rates than the private sector and took cer-
tain responsibilities toward the destitute.
The relationship between the state and the temples was marked by mu-
tual dependence. The king derived much of his legitimacy from divine ap-
proval that was ratified by the consent of the leading temple authorities
(e.g., those of Assur or Babylon). It was a royal duty to repair and main-
tain the architectural fabric of the country’s major sanctuaries, and they also
received a share of wartime booty. In turn, temple estates could be taxed
and more or less heavily supervised. In some periods major appointments
at the top end of temple hierarchies were made by the king.
 THIRD DYNASTY OF UR • 117

Temples were sometimes a source of economic and social stability at

times when there was political upheaval or during periods of foreign oc-
cupation (such as in the Achaemenid or Seleucid periods).
Architecturally temples can be distinguished from other monumental
structures by the elaborately recessed facades and the furnishings in the
cult rooms, which included one or several niches for the divine statues
with an altar in front of it. The entrance to the cult room was placed in
the long wall of the rectangular chamber, with the image placed against
the short wall (the “bent axis approach”) or, as often in Assyria, with the
doorway in the short wall opposite the god’s statue (“direct axis”). Like
palaces, the temples were composed of one or several courtyards, sub-
sidiary buildings grouped around them, and they had strong perimeter
walls. Major temples could also boast a ziggurat. Because the building
and restoration of the sacred “house” was a potentially dangerous under-
taking due to the possible anger of the disturbed gods, temple architec-
ture was inherently conservative. The solution most frequently adopted
was to rebuild directly on the razed walls of the previous building while
incorporating the rubble within a platform above which the renewed
structure arose. Only when a sanctuary was severely dilapidated could
any deviations from the original plan be considered.
All such undertakings, even minor restoration work, could only begin
once positive and unanimous omens had been received through divina-
tion. Due to the practice of interring inscribed pegs or tablets within the
brickwork or beneath the wall, we can ascribe successive restoration
phases to particular kings who also mentioned their building activities in
their year names or annals.

THIRD DYNASTY OF UR (c. 2112–2004 B.C.). A dynasty founded by

Ur-Nammu who expelled the Gutian kings and united the country in a
single state that reached from the Persian Gulf to the region of Sippar.
His son Shulgi (reigned 2094–2047 B.C.) expanded the influence of Ur
to include western Iran (the Susiana and Anshan), and his grandson
Amar-Sin annexed Assyria. Shulgi also implemented strong centraliza-
tion in terms of administration and taxation and standardized weights
and measures across his whole domain. The workings of the Ur bu-
reaucracy are well known due to many thousands of tablets that survive
from this era.
The Ur empire was threatened by the intensified influx of Amorite
tribes, and Shu-Sin, the successor and brother of Amar-Suen, built a huge
wall in an attempt to stave them off. The Ur state disintegrated during the
118 • TIGLATH-PILESER I

reign of Ibbi-Sin; his governor Ishbi-Erra, installed at Isin, declared in-

dependence from Ur, and in 2007, the Elamites destroyed the capital and
deported the king.

TIGLATH-PILESER I (Assyrian Tukulti-apil-eshara) (reigned 1115–

1076 B.C.). Assyrian king of the Middle Assyrian period. He was one
of the most important Assyrian kings of this period, not only because of
his wide-ranging military campaigns—especially in Anatolia, where he
subjugated numerous peoples—but because of his building activities, es-
pecially at Assur, and his encouragement of the scribal arts. He estab-
lished a library at Assur and collected numerous tablets on all kinds of
scholarly subjects. He also issued a legal decree, the so-called Middle
Assyrian laws, and laid out parks and gardens stocked with foreign and
native trees and plants.
A persistent problem of Tiglath-pileser’s 39-year-long reign was the
Arameans, who caused disruption throughout the Syrian dependencies
of Assyria. There was also a serious conflict with Babylonia when Neb-
uchadrezzar I began to make incursions into Assyrian-held territory.
Tiglath-pileser retaliated by attacking Babylonian cities. He conquered
Babylon and destroyed the palace of King Marduk-nadin-ahhe.

TIGLATH-PILESER III (reigned 744–727 B.C.). Assyrian king who suc-

ceeded Ashur-nirari V, probably in the course of a palace coup at Kalhu.
He repressed all resistance to his rule and set about regaining Assyrian
influence in the Near East. He was a tireless campaigner, leading his
powerful army for every year but one of his 17-year-long reign. He be-
gan by subduing Aramean tribes in Babylonia, where he garnered gen-
eral support on a grand tour of the major sanctuaries. He spent the next
few years campaigning in Anatolia, where he punished a disloyal vassal
of Arpad and strengthened his position in the Taurus region by building
fortresses. Most important was a direct attack on the powerful kingdom
of Urartu, which left Assyria without their interference.
After these successes in the north, he directed his attention to the west,
marching down the Syrian coast to capture Gaza. Most Syrian rulers
were made to pay tribute, but they formed a strong opposition to
Tiglath-pileser, under the leadership of Rakhianu of Damascus, which
took several years and many armed confrontations to subdue.
In the east, Tiglath-pileser stabilized his borders along the Zagros,
forcing the Mannaeans to pay tribute. When a rebellion broke out in
Babylonia, after the death of Nabonassar, he intervened directly by cap-
 TRADE • 119

turing the Babylonia pretender to the throne and declared himself the
rightful king of Babylon, and he took part in the ceremonies of the Baby-
lonian New Year festival.

TIN. Tin was essential for the production of bronze, which is an alloy of
copper and tin. It was always a very precious commodity and, like all
metals, had to be imported to Mesopotamia. The first experiments in cas-
ing true tin bronze occurred in the late Uruk period, as isolated finds
from Tepe Gawra document. A flagon discovered at Kish and dating
from the Jemdet-Nasr period (beginning of the third millennium B.C.)
is one the earliest tin bronze objects. Finds from the Ur cemetery suggest
that tin bronze was preferred for metal vessels, while silver bronze was
used for weapons. Actual tin artifacts are so far only known from finds
in some early Old Babylonian tombs.
No cuneiform sources reveal the place of origin of tin, only its sites
of distribution. It is likely that tin was mined in eastern Anatolia during
the third millennium and exported from there to many distant places. In
the early second millennium, however, Assyrian merchants brought tin
to Anatolia, where it was traded for locally produced silver. It has been
suggested that at that time tin came from much farther east, from
Afghanistan, perhaps because Anatolian mines had become exhausted.
Mari also was an important station of distribution in the early Old Baby-
lonian period. In the later second and in the first millennium, eastern
Anatolia once again supplied tin, as Hittite and Assyrian sources seem
to indicate.

TRADE. Mesopotamia’s primary source of wealth was surplus-producing

agriculture. But the geophysical conditions of the land made it also sin-
gularly devoid of mineral or metal resources. Since mountainous regions
to the north (Anatolia) and the east (Iran) were inversely endowed, this
stimulated active exchanges of goods since the Paleolithic period, when
worked and unworked flint and obsidian from Anatolia were distributed
widely across the ancient Near East. Due to the considerable mobility of
human groups, moving either from camp to camp in a form of trans-
humance or as nomads, raw materials and technologies were dissemi-
nated relatively quickly right through the Chalcolithic period. Such in-
formal but effective networks of exchange and distribution became con-
siderably more organized and centralized in the Uruk period.
The urbanization of Mesopotamia allowed for a concentration and spe-
cialization of crafts that relied on regular supplies of raw materials and a
120 • TRADE

skilled workforce. The far-flung outposts of the Uruk culture in western

and southwestern Iran and southern Anatolia, with their warehouses and
literate personnel, were responsible for the smooth movements of goods in
and out of southern Mesopotamia. Gold, copper, silver, and minerals such
as hematite and lapis lazuli, as well as other hard stones, were worked into
jewelry, artifacts used for ritual purposes, and the display of status.
With the emergence of wealthy Mesopotamian city-states in the Early
Dynastic period, the demand for such commodities rose to new heights,
as the fabulous equipment of the so-called Royal Graves at Ur show. Of
particular importance was gold and lapis lazuli. Two literary texts writ-
ten in Sumerian (from the time of the Third Dynasty of Ur) describes
how the city of Uruk began its trade with the fabled city called Aratta,
situated in the Iranian highlands, and the main center of the lapis lazuli
import from its source in Badashkan (Afghanistan). The king of Uruk
wishes to beautify the temple for the city-goddess Inanna and asks her,
who is also worshipped at Aratta, to induce its ruler to send “gold, silver
and lapis lazuli,” as well as skilled artisans. In one text, he sends an army
to force Aratta into submission; in the other, the two cities begin a form
of contest that leads to regular contacts and the delivery of grain to the
famished Arattians. Diplomacy and exchange between friendly polities
as well as military aggression were employed by Mesopotamian rulers to
ensure the supply of precious metals and stones.
In centralized states, such as the Akkadian Dynasty or the Third Dy-
nasty of Ur, long-distance trade was supervised and regularized by the
state. Sargon of Akkad boasts of having ships from Magan and
Meluhha moor at his capital, and foreign merchants thronged the streets.
The government invested in quays, warehouses, tow paths for the river
traffic, as well as the maintenance of overland roads and rest houses, as
Shulgi, the king of Ur, reports. Mercantile activities were duly taxed and
became an important source of revenue.
As the countries around Mesopotamia also developed their own strati-
fied states and affluent elites, demand grew for luxury items produced in
Mesopotamia. These were textile goods (woolen cloth, finished garments,
embroidered robes), leather ware, wooden and inlaid furniture, bronze
weapons, highly crafted metal, and stone artifacts and jewelry. Such prod-
ucts were exported all over the Near East, including Egypt, during the
second millennium and then again during the Neo-Babylonian period.
While the state could be instrumental in opening trade routes through
warfare or diplomacy and by maintaining infrastructure, the actual busi-
ness of import and export was left to merchants who had their own in-
 TRADE • 121

stitutional body, the karum or “quay.” The word derives from the mer-
cantile quarter of Mesopotamian cities, which were usually just beyond
the city walls, at a convenient landing place by the main waterway. Each
karum had its own regulatory body who would liaise with a state official.
There are at present very few texts from any karum within Mesopotamia,
and the most important source of mercantile documents comes from an
Assyrian trade colony in Anatolia (see KANESH), which flourished in
the early second millennium B.C.
The business was run by Assyrians who raised capital at home to buy
tin from an as yet unclear source outside Anatolia, which they trans-
ported to Cappadocia on donkeys, a journey lasting some three months.
They also exported Assyrian textiles, which were much in demand. In re-
turn they imported silver. The cuneiform tablets detail the administra-
tive organization of the karum, the initial investments, profits, and ex-
penses incurred for transport, gifts, and taxes (which had to be paid at
Assur and at the local palace in Anatolia).
The volume of trade and the trade routes at any given time depended
on a variety of factors, such as internal and external political stability,
economic prosperity, and competition over primary resource areas. It fell
markedly during the difficult centuries of tribal unrest and political up-
heaval between the 12th and the 9th century B.C. but flourished in the
early Old Babylonian period, the mid-Kassite period, and during the
Neo-Assyrian and Neo-Babylonian imperial expansion.
Within Mesopotamia, the rivers and canals were the most important
means of transporting bulk items as well as passengers. Cities on the Eu-
phrates, such as Sippar, Mari, or Babylon, had access to Syria and the
Mediterranean in the west, importing wine, aromatics, ivory, and copper
from Cyprus. Those on the Tigris and its sidearms (Nineveh, Assur, Es-
nunna) were better placed for the eastern and northern highlands and
their resources in silver and precious stones.
Seaborne shipping from the Persian Gulf went eastward to the mouth
of the Indus and westward to the Arabian Peninsula and the Sudanese
coast, bringing gold, precious stones, and pearls, known as “fish-eyes.”
The southern city of Ur was for a long time the most active trade city,
due to its proximity to the gulf. Maritime trade only declined when the
Parthians blocked access to the sea to encourage the northern east-west
link, later known as the Silk Road.
The domestication of the camel in the late second millennium B.C.
opened up trade traffic across the Arabian Desert, especially for the in-
cense and aromatics export.
122 • TRIBUTE

TRIBUTE. Tribute is the enforced delivery of goods, services, or people

imposed on a country or region after a military defeat. In contrast to
booty and plunder, which is amassed by soldiers during warfare, tribute
payments are meant to be maintained over a period of time, usually as
long as the victorious country is able to assert its power. They serve to
acknowledge the superiority and hegemony of the victor.
The earliest evidence for this practice in Mesopotamia dates from the
first emergence of a centralized state during the Akkad period. Naram-
Sin (reigned c. 2260–2224 B.C.) claims to have received tribute from the
rulers of Subartu (later Assyria) and other unspecified “highlands,” but
in Mesopotamia such practices were not very common until the imperial
expansion of Assyria in the late second and first millennium.
The Assyrians had a system of provinces and vassal states. While
provinces were taxed by Assyrian officials, vassal kings had to raise the
equivalent contribution as rent for their thrones and raise it from their
people. The Assyrian administration at the capital kept careful watch
over the regularity and extent of these payments. Refusal or inability to
deliver was punished by retributive military action.

TUKULTI-NINURTA I (reigned 1244–1208 B.C.). Assyrian king of the

Middle Assyrian period. He was one of the most famous Assyrian sol-
dier kings who campaigned incessantly to maintain Assyrian posses-
sions and influence. He reacted with spectacular cruelty to any sign of
revolt and crushed a coalition of kings in Anatolia, the so-called Nairi.
He subdued the Zagros region to the east and spread terror in the Van
region.
In Babylonia, he took the Kassite king Kashtiliash V and his family
prisoners and declared himself king of Babylon, which began the first pe-
riod of direct Assyrian rule over Babylonia. This produced a strong Baby-
lonian influence over Assyria as Tukulti-Ninurta was keen to benefit from
the learning and cultural sophistication of the subdued nation. He built a
new palace, called Kar-Tukulti-Ninurta, but also invested in grand re-
building programs of temples at Assur and Nineveh. According to an As-
syrian chronicle, Tukulti-Ninurta was assassinated in his new palace.

TUKULTI-NINURTA II (reigned 744–727 B.C.). See NEO-ASSYRIAN

PERIOD.

TUMMAL CHRONICLE. An Old Babylonian chronicle that lists kings

who contributed to the rebuilding of the Tummal, the temple of Ninlil
 UR • 123

at Nippur. The account begins with the Early Dynastic king Mebara-
gesi of Kish.

–U–

UBAID PERIOD (c. 5500–4000 B.C.). Prehistoric period named after the
site Tell el-Ubaid, near Ur. It was the time when the first settlements ap-
peared in the alluvial plains of southern Mesopotamia, with houses built
of rammed earth. The characteristic pottery was hand shaped and hand
painted. The goods deposited in Ubaid cemeteries, as well as the archi-
tectural evidence, seem to point to social stratification. See also ERIDU.

UMMA (modern Djokha). Sumerian city in south Mesopotamia. It was

situated along a network of canals, which linked the major rivers Eu-
phrates and Tigris. Umma was a city-state of some importance in the
Early Dynastic period. Its history is known primarily from tablets
found at Lagash and Girsu that document a long conflict over border
territories. Some kings of Umma have left inscribed votive objects but
are otherwise unknown.
A certain Enakale attacked Eannatum of Lagash in the 25th century
B.C. and thereafter concluded a treaty and erected a dike to delineate the
border. This seems to have been respected for some time until the war
flared up again under his successors, and it only came to an end with Lu-
galzagesi (reigned c. 234–c. 2316) who attacked and destroyed Girsu,
before conquering other Sumerian cities.
When Lugalzagesi was in turn defeated by Sargon of Akkad, Umma
became part of the Akkad state. The city continued to prosper until the
end of the third millennium B.C. The main deity of Umma was the god
Shara.

UR (modern Tell Muqayyar). Important Mesopotamian city in southern

Babylonia. It was situated on the Euphrates and had access to the Per-
sian Gulf.
Ur has a long and continuous history of occupation, which began in
the Ubaid period (c. 4500 B.C.) and ended around 450 B.C. It was the seat
of the moon god Nanna(r), or Sin. The earliest levels were not substan-
tially excavated and are mainly known from pottery and tools. During
the Uruk period, a monumental building with cone mosaic decoration
was erected.
124 • UR

Ur began to develop into a major city in the third millennium B.C., dur-
ing the Early Dynastic period. The Sumerian King List records two
dynasties at Ur. The First Dynasty was more or less contemporary with
the period of the so-called Royal Graves of Ur, excavated by Sir Leonard
Woolley. The elaborate burial gifts demonstrate the considerable wealth
of the elite. Of the four kings mentioned by the King List, only Mesan-
nepadda is known from brief inscriptions on objects found in the graves.
The question whether the other personages buried in the graves, both
male and female, were sacrificial victims or secondary interments is still
debated. According to the Sumerian King List, the Second Dynasty of Ur
had four kings whose names are not preserved.
During the Akkad period, Ur formed part of the empire founded by
Sargon of Akkad whose daughter, Enheduanna, served the moon god
as the highest-ranking priestess. It was one of the cities that rebelled
against Naram-Sin.
The apogee of Ur’s importance was the Third Dynasty of Ur
(c. 2100–2000), when the city became the capital of a large and prosper-
ous empire. Most of the extant architectural structures and cuneiform
tablets found at Ur date from this period. Ur-Nammu, the founder of the
dynasty, built a large ziggurat that has been partially restored. His suc-
cessors continued his building works in the sacred precinct that included
the temples of Nanna and Ningal, as well as the residence of the entu
priestesses. Although the city was destroyed by the Elamites in 2007, the
temples plundered and torched, and the inhabitants massacred, it was
soon inhabited again.
In the Old Babylonian period, Ur was an important center of learn-
ing, and from this time a number of residential building have been exca-
vated that give a good impression of the densely built urban fabric of a
Mesopotamian town. The “heirs” of Ur, the kings of Isin and Larsa,
were keen to show their respect to the gods of Ur by repairing the dev-
astated temples. Despite the ecological problems experienced by the
south toward the mid–second millennium, Ur continued to function, and
the Kassite kings were also eager to contribute to the moon god’s tem-
ples. So did subsequent rulers: Nebuchadrezzar I rebuilt the giparu and
revitalized the office of the entu priestess.
Assyrian kings and governors also invested in the sacred precinct at
Ur, and finally Nabonidus, with his well-publicized devotion to Sin, or-
dered the reconstruction of the ziggurat. The city began to decline during
the Achaemenid period, and records cease after the end of the fourth
century B.C.
 UR-NAMMU • 125

URARTU. Kingdom in eastern Anatolia and western Iran, with a central

area between Lake Van and Lake Sevan. Its history is known from rock
inscriptions in Urartian, a late dialect of Hurrian, as well as Assyrian
annals and letters.
Urartu began with a confederation of Hurrian tribes in the ninth cen-
tury B.C. and reached its greatest territorial expansion around 800 B.C. un-
der king Menua (reigned c. 810–c. 785 B.C.).
The Urartians were skilled at building massive fortifications and im-
pressive hydraulic projects, such as aqueducts, dams, and canals, some
of which are still in use to this day.
The Urartian expansion conflicted with Neo-Assyrian imperial aspi-
rations. Tiglath-pileser III waged several campaigns against Urartu and
laid (an ultimately unsuccessful) siege to Tushpa in 735, which resulted
in the mutual recognition of their borders and areas of influence. Such
agreements did not last very long at the time when political allegiances
were rapidly changing. The Assyrians were keen to secure their access to
the northern trade routes and their supply of metal, horses, and man-
power.
Urartu was also under pressure from Caucasian nomads, such as the
Cimmerians, who ravaged their countryside. It was Sargon II in 714
who mounted the biggest military expedition against Urartu, which is
vividly described in his annals of the eighth campaign. He marched
across the ragged mountain at the head of his troops and managed to take
the Urartian camp by surprise. He went on to sack one of their sacred
sites, the temple of Musasir. The Urartians were not broken by these at-
tacks, however, and under Rusa II the kingdom regained much of its
power and influence. He also moved the capital from Tushpa to
Toprakkale near Van.
Rusa’s son Sarduri III submitted to Ashurbanipal in c. 636 and was
defeated by the Cimmerians and Elamites. It was the combined and re-
peated onslaughts of the Cimmerians and the Medes who brought the
Urartian kingdom to an end, following the disappearance of the Assyrian
empire after 610 B.C.

UR-NAMMU (reigned 2113–2096 B.C.). King of Ur, founder of the Third

Dynasty of Ur. He was a governor of Ur during the reign of Utuhegal of
Uruk but made himself independent after his successful expulsion of the
Gutians. He asserted his authority over other Sumerian cities, such as
Lagash, to form a strongly centralized state, with the capital at Ur. He
initiated ambitious building programs, such as the ziggurat at Ur, as well
126 • URUINIMGINA

as at Uruk. He also ordered the construction of new canals, rebuilt the

city walls of Ur, planted date palm orchards, and did much to enhance
the economic and military security of the country. For such efforts he
was lauded in a Sumerian hymn that also extols his dedication to the god
Enlil of Nippur. Ur-Nammu was also the subject of other literary works,
such as a text in which he visits the Netherworld. He was portrayed on a
stone stele that shows him making an offering to a deity.

URUINIMGINA (previously read Urukagina) (reigned c. 2351–c. 2342 B.C.).

Sumerian ruler of Lagash. During his reign, Lagash experienced years
of prosperity. Uruinimgina initiated a series of reforms that curtailed exces-
sive taxation and exorbitant fees charged by officials to the population for
their services. He also claims to have put an end to the custom of women
having more than one husband. He was the last independent ruler of Lagash
in the Early Dynastic period, having suffered a defeat by Lugalzagesi
of Uruk.

URUK (modern Warka). Important Mesopotamian city in the southern

plains, situated along the old course of the Euphrates. Uruk was occu-
pied from the late fifth millennium B.C. until the Muslim conquests in the
seventh century A.D. It has been excavated almost continuously by Ger-
man teams of archaeologists since the late 19th century, but only about a
fifth of the vast ruin field have been explored in depth.
During the fourth millennium B.C., Uruk encompassed two settle-
ments, each with a distinct series of habitation. In the historical period,
they were associated with Inanna (the site of the Eanna temple) and
Anu (also known in antiquity as Kullab), respectively. Uruk experienced
rapid growth in the mid–fourth millennium that lasted until c. 3000 B.C.
Huge architectural monuments were put up in rapid succession and built
in a variety of techniques. The wall surfaces were decorated with char-
acteristic patterns, often made from clay cones embedded in plaster.
These structures, which have been designated as “temples,” show a con-
cern for symmetry and monumentality.
During this period, known as the Uruk period, writing on clay tablets
was invented to deal with a complex system of distribution and exchange
that linked southern Mesopotamia to southern and western Iran, Upper
Mesopotamia, and southeast Anatolia. Uruk was at this time the only
large urban center, and it may have been the hub of the administration
of the Uruk network, if not the actual capital of a “pristine” state, as has
been suggested.
 URUK PERIOD • 127

By c. 3100, this system disintegrated, and there was upheaval at Uruk,

as various large buildings were demolished.
In the Early Dynastic period when the process of urbanization had
spread right across southern Mesopotamia, Uruk became the seat of sev-
eral dynasties. At that time it became surrounded by a huge wall of some
10 kilometers in length that was attributed to Gilgamesh, who is listed
as a king of the first Uruk dynasty in the Sumerian King List.
By the mid–third millennium, Lugalzagesi had assumed the throne of
Uruk and conquered all the Sumerian city-states. He was defeated by
Sargon of Akkad. However, building at the sacred precincts of Inanna
and Anu continued under the Akkad kings and during the Third Dynasty
of Ur, whose rulers claimed a special affinity with the ancient city.
After the fall of the Ur state Uruk went into decline, although the Kas-
sites initiated some rebuilding at the Ishtar temple. The city revived in
the first millennium, when the newly refurbished and enlarged temples
controlled vast agricultural areas of production.
The intense economic activities at Uruk continued well into the Se-
leucid and early Parthian periods. Important tablet collections, of ad-
ministrative as well as scholarly content, date from this late period. The
city fared better under the Parthians and Sassanians than other
Mesopotamian cities, but it was finally abandoned at the time of the
Arab invasion of A.D. 634.

URUK PERIOD (c. 4000–3200 B.C.). A prehistoric period in Mesopotamia

named after its most important archaeological site, Uruk. It is in turn di-
vided into several phases (Early, Middle, and Late), as suggested by the 18
successive layers of the Uruk site Eanna. The fully fledged Uruk culture
sets in at level X (c. 3800) when mass-produced thick-walled clay bowls
with “beveled rims” make their first appearance. Cylinder seals were in-
troduced in the time of level VII (c. 3600), and monumental architecture
dates from the Middle Uruk period l levels VI–IV (c. 3500–3300). The
buildings of level VI, such as the so-called Stone Cone Temple, were
erected on large platforms and were of impressive size (28 by 19 meters).
Those of level V (“Lime Stone Temple”) were even bigger (62.5 by 11.30
meters), and the walls had elaborately articulated facades.
At this stage, writing appeared, in pictographic form, to facilitate
the increasingly complex economic activities at Uruk itself and in those
centers farther afield that belonged to the Uruk sphere of influence. The
text on these “archaic” tablets can be understood but not read; they do
not appear to express any particular language. The tablets are tallies,
128 • UTU

receipts for goods and services, allocations of fields and labor, calcula-
tions of yield, and so forth. The earliest lexical lists were also com-
posed at this time.
The Uruk phenomenon is still much debated, as to what extent Uruk
exercised political control over the large area covered by the Uruk arti-
facts, whether this relied on the use of force, and which institutions were
in charge. Too little of the site has been excavated to provide any firm
answers to these questions. However, it is clear that at this time, the ur-
banization process was set in motion, concentrated at Uruk itself. Other
cities in Mesopotamia were coming into existence, as the city seals on
the archaic tablets demonstrate. There was an unprecedented amount of
coordination and collaboration in respect to the organization of agricul-
tural labor and the distribution of goods and services over a large area.

UTU. The Sumerian name of the sun god (see SHAMASH).

–W–

WARFARE. Violent confrontations between groups of people usually arise

from disputes over access to resources such as water, game, and ex-
ploitable territories. While there is little evidence from the prehistoric pe-
riod for organized military action, the presence of walls around settle-
ments (as in Jericho), caches of slingshot, and human skeletal remains
with marks of wounds indicate that warlike practices were not uncom-
mon. Seals from the Uruk period show naked captives with their arms
tied behind their backs being prodded along—they had been interpreted
as prisoners of war.
During the first half of the third millennium B.C., Mesopotamia was
divided into competing city-states, and there is documentary and visual
evidence for intercity warfare. The best-known conflict is that between
Lagash and Umma, which fought for generations over some fields at
their mutual borders. The texts describe that hostile actions were per-
ceived as an insult to the local gods who were said to lead the troops of
their city to battle. The famous “Stele of Vultures” (now in the Louvre)
depicts the god Ningirsu marching at the head of a tight formation of hel-
meted soldiers carrying spears and shields (see WEAPONS). They tram-
ple over the naked bodies of their dead enemies.
The victorious party could inflict punishment on the defeated, setting
fire to buildings and looting temples and palaces. They could also im-
 WARFARE • 129

pose a treaty that stipulated, as in the case of Umma, where the new
boundaries are and what financial and material reparations were to be
made. Spoils of war were deposited in the temple of the city god.
When the country became unified under the rule of the Akkadian Dy-
nasty, this was first of all the result of superior military force against
other Mesopotamian cities. The royal inscriptions of Sargon of Akkad,
for instance, enumerate the number of battles he won and the cities he
forced to submit to his hegemony. He also emphasizes that “5,400 men”
daily ate at his table, which may indicate a sizeable bodyguard if not a
corps of soldiers.
The Akkadian kings also initiated sorties and campaigns abroad, to
Elam in the east, Syria in the northwest, and Upper Mesopotamia. Such
raids were meant to inspire fear in the population, impressing upon them
the superiority of the Akkadian power. It brought not only booty from
sacked towns and villages but also more formal recognition of Akkadian
rights over trade routes and tribute payments. Furthermore, conquered
territories could be distributed to deserving individuals.
The increased use of warfare since the mid–third millennium helped
to strengthen the role of kings as leaders of the armed forces, who had a
special mandate from the gods (the Akkadian kings stressed the support
of Ishtar) to defend their realm and to enrich it by aggressive sorties
abroad. It appears, though, that most of the fighting was against other
Mesopotamian cities keen to shake off the yoke of Akkad. In fact, the
pacification of rebellious cities became a main theme in the royal in-
scriptions of Naram-Sin.
Another threat against the stability of a unified country was the un-
controllable influx of tribal groups in search of land. This was met with
organized resistance and the punishment of tribal leaders although the
evasive “guerilla tactics” employed by many tribal immigrants often
proved undefeatable.
In the mid–second millennium B.C., “international” conflicts arose be-
tween “great powers” (e.g., Egypt, Mitanni, the Hittites, and Assyria)
over the control of “colonial” territories, especially Syria and the Levant.
Not only were these regions agriculturally productive and populous, but
they gave access to the flow of commodities to and from the Mediter-
ranean, Anatolia, and the east. These often intense rivalries were to lead
to large armies marching across vast distances to do battle far away from
their homeland. The local rulers became implicated as vassals, having to
support garrisons of their occupying forces. Such wars continued to af-
fect the Near East throughout the first millennium B.C., abated briefly
130 • WARFARE

during the Achaemenid period, and flared up again when the Seleucids
clashed with the Ptolemies and the Romans with the Parthians.
The greatest military power in Mesopotamia was Assyria. The expan-
sion of the Middle Assyrian and the Neo-Assyrian Empires demanded
constant campaigning to secure Assyria’s access to vital raw materials,
especially metals, horses, and manpower. The Assyrian army was re-
cruited from subdued territories as well as the mainland, well equipped,
and trained by experienced military personnel. The king was the overall
commander, and the most successful Assyrian kings (such Tiglath-
pileser III, Sargon II, Adad-nirari I and II) were indefatigable cam-
paigners who year after year led their troops to punish rebellious vassals,
conquer new lands, and fight against troublesome tribal groups. They
could also be represented by a chief commander, who was not infre-
quently a eunuch.
The technology of warfare underwent several important changes. In
the third millennium B.C., the main body of the soldiers fought on foot,
using spears and axes, although archery contingents also played a role.
The king and other commanding officers rode in sturdy boxlike chariots
driven by donkeys. In the second millennium, horses began to play an in-
creasingly important part. Chariots became much lighter and easier to
maneuver. Chariot teams driven into the serried ranks of foot soldiers
provided a better view of the action and generally made an impressive
and frightening impact. They were to become the elite troops of the
mid–second millennium.
The foot soldiers armed with spears were augmented by mounted
archers and spear men by the Assyrians in the first millennium. Their
armies also included siege engines and battering rams to break down city
walls. They used soldiers from subjugated areas for specialist tasks, such
as fighting in mountainous terrain, the desert (on camels), the marshland,
or on ships. There were also ritual specialists, diviners to be consulted
about the right timing of attacks, priests, bureaucrats to count prisoners and
casualties, cooks, baggage trains, musicians, and women camp followers.
Psychological warfare was not unknown, as the epic “Gilgamesh and
Agga of Kish” as well as other Sumerian literary texts document. Exag-
gerated boasts about the strength of one’s troops, terrible threats, and in-
timidation were meant to secure the submission of the other party. Severe
punishments meted out to rebellious subjects was another favored tech-
nique, much employed by the Assyrians. The walls of royal palaces were
covered with propagandistic depictions of the might and invincibility of
the Assyrian forces and dreadful fate awaiting traitors. Impaling, flaying,
 WEIGHTS AND MEASURES • 131

and gouging out of eyes were some of the more gruesome Assyrian pun-
ishments meant to dissuade their subjects from insurrection.

WEAPONS. In the prehistorical periods, it is not possible to differentiate

between tools and weapons, due to the multipurpose design of early
equipment. Bows and arrows can be used to shoot at game animals but
also at other human beings; hammers and axes, too, can be applied to all
manners of materials, as well as other people’s heads. The much in-
creased specialization and Mesopotamia’s organization into competing
city-states in the third millennium B.C. contributed to the professional-
ization of soldiers.
Texts and visual depictions, as well as grave goods, show the military
equipment of the period. Fighting men were protected by tight-fitting
(leather?) caps, cloaks, and shields. They used stone-headed maces and
bronze daggers for hand-to-hand combat. Projectile weapons, such as
spears and arrows, were made of stone, bone, and wood. Kings and
members of the elite were given ceremonial weapons made of gold when
they were buried. They may have also played a role in courtly ritual and
display and could be offered to gods as votive gifts.
In the second millennium B.C., improvements in molding techniques
led to elaborately worked and decorated daggers and axes as well as
mass-produced bronze arrowheads. Bows underwent several changes in
design; it seems that composite bows, made from layers of different ma-
terials to improve strength and elasticity, were invented already in the
third millennium.
Of great importance was the introduction of chariot troops in the
mid–second millennium. Cavalry units were first used effectively by the
Assyrians.
Assyrian reliefs give the best and most detailed evidence for weaponry
of the first millennium. Soldiers wore pointed helmets, coats of mail,
shin guards, and long as well as round, bronze-coated shields. The in-
fantry had spears and daggers, while cavalry units were armed with
spears or bows and arrows.

WEIGHTS AND MEASURES. While there is considerable evidence for

weights from diverse historical periods in the form of weight stones of
various shapes, other measuring standards have to be deducted from ar-
chitectural remains and the written evidence. Most cities had their own
standards, but centralized states since the Akkadian Dynasty began to
impose unified weights and measures to be used throughout the country.
132 • WOMEN

A similar system was adopted by the Third Dynasty of Ur and remained

in use throughout all subsequent periods. Such measures were also used
for teaching purposes in scribal education. Since the basic mathematical
system was sexagesimal, basic units were divided or multiplied in a sex-
agesimal manner.
The measurements for length were based on the human body. The ba-
sic was the forearm or cubit (Akkadian ammatu)—about 50 centimeters.
A “foot” was 2/3 of a cubit, a “palm” 1/2, and a “finger” 1/30 of a cubit.
Larger units were the “rod’’ consisting of six cubits and the “cord” of 120
cubits. A mile (Akkadian beru) was 180 cords or 21,600 cubits (10,692
kilometers). Surfaces were measured by “garden plots” (Akkadian
musaru) = c. 35 square meters; there were also multiples called iku = 100
musaru and buru = 18 iku = 6 hectare. The capacity measure was the
SILA (Akkadian qu) = c. 1 liter.
Different names and proportions were used for solid and liquid matter,
and the terminology changed in different epochs. The basic weight unit
was the mina = c. 500 grams, subdivided in shekels (Akkadian šiqlu)
=1/60 of a mina, and a “grain” (Akkadian še) = 1/180 of a mina. The
multiples were the talent (Akkadian biltu) = 60 minas.

WOMEN. There is documentary, visual, and archaeological evidence for

the role women played in Mesopotamian society through the ages. In
many early textual sources, however, the gender of persons mentioned is
not always clear. It appears that in the Uruk period there was, at least
ritually, a complementarity between male and female; the highest male
office (EN) had a female equivalent (NIN), and both are depicted as of-
ficiating side by side at important functions. During the Early Dynastic
period, women could also occupy highly prestigious offices, as the grave
goods in the “Royal Tombs” at Ur and inscribed votive gifts demon-
strate. According to the Sumerian King List, there was even a female
ruler of Kish.
It seems, though, that female status at high levels diminished progres-
sively after the Early Dynastic period. There were some remnants of in-
fluential positions, such as that of the entu priestess of the moon god at
Ur, which was often held by daughters of the ruling king. Princesses and
queens owed their social rank to their relationship with the king and es-
pecially some queens could at times hold the balance of power after their
husband’s death (see SEMIRAMIS). Royal daughters, on the other hand,
could be married off to secure political alliances and to provide an infor-
mal intelligence system.
 WOMEN • 133

Written documents also shed some light on the legal position of

women in Mesopotamia. They could hold and acquire property, slaves,
and other valuables; invest their dowries as appropriate; engage in busi-
ness ventures of various kinds; and begin litigation. They were not, how-
ever, able to be witnesses in legal disputes. Of particular interest are the
documents that belonged to the naditu women at Sippar, who lived in
seclusion and engaged in business activities and performed various cul-
tic duties at the temple.
Marriages were generally monogamous and arranged by parents;
girls married earlier than men and, when widowed, could marry again.
Since Mesopotamian society was patriarchal, women could instigate di-
vorce only in cases of gross neglect and cruelty, and male adultery was
not a justifiable reason. Women could be divorced on grounds of barren-
ness, refusal to perform marital duties, and when they became “hateful”
to their husbands. This was less easy if they had borne children. Female
adultery was punished with great severity, according to the Code of Ur-
Nammu, with the death penalty (while the male lover was spared). In
Hammurabi’s law code, the accused adulterous couple was bound to-
gether and thrown in the river; if the river “accepted” them and they
drowned, it was both proof of guilt and punishment.
Most legal documents referring to women (in marriage contracts, di-
vorce settlements, inheritance suits, or business affairs) concern women
of the affluent groups of society. Some high-status women, such as the
privileged cloistered naditu women, even employed their own female
secretaries. These texts make it clear that such women could dispose of
considerable wealth, deriving from their dowries, their husband’s gifts,
or their own enterprise at their own discretion.
While the main contribution of all women was to bear and raise chil-
dren, they also formed part of the workforce in Mesopotamia. The names
of thousands of “ordinary” women are known from the administrative
texts of large institutions, such as temples and palaces where they were
employed in a great variety of occupations. They performed domestic
work, such as the endless grinding of grain at millstones; backbreaking
towing of barges along canals; reed cutting and other heavy agricultural
work; domestic chores; and, importantly, in the textile workshops. They
also performed services in the temples, ranging from administrative du-
ties to praying, dancing, or singing. Altogether, working women (and
their children) were an integral and important part of Mesopotamia’s ur-
ban society. This is also documented by the numerous professional titles
preserved in the lexical lists.
134 • WRITING

Women laborers were paid half the rations of men’s, generally 30 liters
per month (six days were deducted from her productivity to take account
of menstruation).
Women could also engage in business. Most commonly they were
tavern keepers, where they sold different varieties of beer, lent small
sums of silver, and provided some form of entertainment. They were of-
ten partners in business with their husbands; in Old Assyrian Assur,
they oversaw the trade activities at home while their men folk were
abroad, and sometimes they produced some of the merchandise them-
selves (e.g., textiles) for a share of the profits. Similar practices are also
known from the Old- and Neo-Babylonian periods.
Women’s movements and opportunities appear to have been more re-
stricted in Assyria, where they were also under the obligation to wear a
veil in public.
In Mesopotamian literature, women were active both as authors (see
ENHEDUANNA), composing hymns, prayers, and love songs (as dur-
ing the time of the Third Dynasty of Ur), and as performers in cultic or
courtly settings. The most prominent female personage in literary texts is
the goddess Inanna-Ishtar whose ambition, vitality, and independence
is matched by charm, sex appeal, and ingenuity. In Sumerian love songs,
she embodies the much admired libidinous powers of female sexuality,
while some later Babylonian texts place more emphasis on the destruc-
tive aspects of her personality.
Fear of seductive women is also much in evidence in the omen litera-
ture, especially in antiwitchcraft incantations.

WRITING. Writing was first invented to provide a durable record for eco-
nomic transactions that transcended simple barter. In the Neolithic per-
iod, small tokens of different shapes, or with marks on them, were used
for a simple form of accounting.
In the fourth millennium B.C., when Uruk became a major center for
distribution and exchange, the greater complexity of administration de-
manded more sophisticated recording systems, and small clay tablets
were used, imprinted with abstracted pictorial representations and signs
for numbers. They could be used, for example, to compute projected
yields, as proof for delivered goods, expenditure of labor and rations.
This form of writing was in use throughout the considerably large sphere
of influence of the Uruk culture. It provided a medium for information
that could be understood by bureaucrats with some basic training, but it
did not attempt to record sentences in a particular idiom.
 YEAR NAMES • 135

This step happened after the breakup of the Uruk period, and the origi-
nal pictographs were also used to refer to the phonetic value of the depicted
subject; thus the picture of a bee could be used to represent the notion of
“to be” in English.
The language of the earliest readable texts was Sumerian, and the
Sumerian syllabary became the primary referent when the same signs
were used to express other languages, such as Elamite or Akkadian.
This extended use complicated the writing system considerably and re-
quired an extended period of scribal education. This was facilitated by
the lists of syllables and signs, with columns for pronunciation. There
were also lexical lists, divided into subject categories such as “wood,
trees, and wooden objects,” “metal and metallic objects,” living beings,
professional, geographical terms, divine names, and so forth. Such syl-
labaries and lexical lists were not only transmitted throughout
Mesopotamian history but also used as basic reference texts in such for-
eign cultures when cuneiform was adopted to express local languages.
By the end of the second millennium B.C., west Semitic peoples in-
vented new systems of writing that were more suitable for the linguistic
peculiarities of their languages and quicker to learn. One such experi-
ment was the cuneiform syllabary of Ugarit, a wealthy trading kingdom
in northwest Syria. Farther south, under the influence of Egyptian hi-
eroglyphics, another form of writing was invented that singled out those
hieroglyphs with consonantal values. Few records exist, except for
some rock-cut inscriptions, but the idea of representing the main con-
stituents of Semitic languages, the consonantal roots, were developed in
different forms.
Since the Arameans were a populous people who spread across the
whole of the Near East, Aramean writing became the most widespread.
Aramean, written on parchment or some similar flat surface with ink,
was used by Assyrian officials alongside cuneiform since the eighth cen-
tury. It was adopted as the main official script by the Achaemenids and
remained in use well into the Roman era.

–Y –

YEAR NAMES. During the Akkad Dynasty, a system of dating was in-
troduced in which years were named in hindsight after a significant
event, such as the appointment of a senior official or priest, a military
campaign, or the inauguration of an important building. The current year,
136 • ZIMRI-LIM

as well as those in which nothing special occurred, was called “year af-
ter such and such happened.” Lists of year names were collected and col-
lated with the regnal years of kings. This system was used throughout
southern Mesopotamia for centuries but not in Assyria, where they used
the eponym dating. The lists of year names, as well as year names
recorded in administrative records, are an important source of historical
information, especially for those periods in which written documentation
is sparse.

–Z–

ZIGGURAT. This loan word, derived from the Akkadian ziqqurratu, des-
ignates architectural structures that resemble stepped pyramids in out-
line. They were built solidly, with no internal chambers, from mud brick,
with sometimes an outer mantle of baked brick. Ziggurats had religious
significance; they were usually part of a temple complex and had a
chapel at the top-most platform. This was reached by a series of ramps
and steps. No ziggurat is preserved well enough to allow a valid recon-
struction. Assyrian ziggurats were usually directly attached to a “low
temple,” while Babylonian ziggurats were free-standing. In general, all
these structures provided a lofty stage, a kind of ladder for the gods to
come closer to Earth and for the priests to draw nearer to the heavens.
They also formed landmarks that were visible from afar.

ZIMRI-LIM (reigned c. 1775–1761 B.C.). King of Mari in the Old Baby-

lonian period. When Shamshi-Adad I conquered Mari, Zimri-Lim,
then a child, went into exile to the kingdom of Yamhad, whose daugh-
ter he married. After the death of Shamshi-Adad, he returned to claim
the throne. He was skillful at using his contacts with Yamhad and other
Syrian polities to extend his influence in Middle Babylonia and formed
alliances with other rulers, such as Hammurabi of Babylon. He main-
tained good relations with the nomadic tribes around Mari and estab-
lished a profitable network of trade along the Euphrates and beyond.
The wealth thus generated he invested in building a vast and sumptu-
ously appointed palace. The reign of Zimri-Lim is unusually well doc-
umented thanks to a surviving archive in the palace that details his
diplomatic and military activities. He was defeated by Hammurabi
when the latter attacked and sacked the palace in c. 1761 B.C.
Appendix I: Mesopotamian Rulers
Appendix II: Museums
Select Bibliography
 Appendix I
Rulers of Mesopotamia

The numbers indicate regnal year. Dates for all of the third and much of the
second millennium are provisional. Several dynasties or individual reigns
were contemporary with others.

EARLY DYNASTIC PERIOD

Kish
Mebaragesi c. 2650 ?
Agga c. 2600 ?
Mesalim c. 2550 ?

Ur
Meskalamdug c. 2620 ?
Akalamdug c. 2600 ?

Lagash
Enhegal c. 2570
Lugal-saengur c. 2550
Ur-Nanshe c. 2494–2465
Akurgal c. 2464–2455
Eannatum c. 2454–2425
Enannatum I c. 2424–2404
Enmetena c. 2403–c. 2375
Enannatum II c. 2374–c. 2365
Enentarzi c. 2364–c. 2359
Lugalanda c. 2358–2352
Uruinimgina c. 2351–2342

139
140 • APPENDIX I

Uruk
Lugalzagesi c. 2341–2316

AKKADIAN EMPIRE

Akkad
Sargon c. 2340–2284?
Rimush c. 2284–2276
Manishtusu c. 2275–2261
Naram-Sin c. 2260–c. 2224
Shar-kali-sharri c. 2223–c. 2198
[Gutian rule]

NEO-SUMERIAN PERIOD

Uruk (2nd Dynasty)

Utuhegal c. 2119–2112

Lagash
Gudea c. 2141–c. 2122

Third Dynasty of Ur
Ur-Nammu c. 2113–c. 2096
Shulgi c. 2094–2047
Amar-Sin c. 2046–c. 2038
Shu-Sin c. 2037–c. 2027
Ibbi-Sin c. 2026–2004?

OLD BABYLONIAN PERIOD

First Dynasty of Isin

Ishbi-Erra c. 2017–c. 1985
Shu-ilishu c. 1984–c. 1975
 RULERS OF MESOPOTAMIA • 141

Iddin-Dagan c. 1974–1954
Ishme-Dagan c. 1953–c. 1935
Lipit-Ishtar c. 1934–c. 1923
Ur-Ninurta c. 1923–c. 1896
Bur-Sin c. 1895–c. 1874
Lipit-Enlil c. 1873–c. 1869
Erra-imitti c. 1688–c. 1861
Enlil-bani c. 1860–c. 1837
Zambiya c. 1836–c. 1834
Iter-pisha c. 1833–c. 1831
Ur-dukuga c. 1830–1828
Sin-magir c. 1827–c. 1817
Damiq-ilishu c. 1816–c. 1794

Dynasty of Larsa
Naplanum c. 2025–c. 2005
Emisum c. 2004–c. 1977
Samium c. 1976–c. 1942
Zabaya c. 1941–c. 1933
Gungunum c. 1932–c. 1906
Abisare c. 1905–c. 1895
Sumuel c. 1894–1866
Nur-Adad c. 1865–1850
Sin-iddinam c. 1849–c. 1843
Sin-eribam c. 1842–c. 1841
Sin-iqisham c. 1840–1836
Silli-Adad c. 1835
Warad-Sin c. 1834–c. 1823
Rim-Sin I c. 1822–1763
Rim-Sin II c. 1741–?

First Dynasty of Babylon

Sumu-abum c. 1894–c. 1881
Sumula’el c. 1880–c. 1845
Sabium c. 1844–1831
Apil-Sin c. 1830–c. 1813
Sin-muballit c. 1812–c. 1793
Hammurabi c. 1792–c. 1750
142 • APPENDIX I

Samsuiluna c. 1749–c. 1712

Abi-esuh c. 1711–c. 1684
Ammiditana c. 1683–c. 1647
Ammisaduqa c. 1646–c. 1626
Samsu-ditana c. 1625–c. 1595

OLD ASSYRIAN PERIOD

Puzur-Ashur I? Early 20th century

Shalim-Ahhe c. 1970?
Ilu-shuma c. 1960–c. 1939
Erishum I c. 1939–c. 1900
Ikunum? (Early 19th century)
Sargon I(?) (Early 19th century)
Puzur-Ashur II(?) (Mid–19th century)
Naram-Sin (Late 19th century)
Shamshi-Adad I c. 1813–c. 1781
Ishme-Dagan c. 1780–c. 1741

Mari
Yaggid-Lim c. 1820–c. 1811
Yahdun-Lim c. 1810–c. 1795
Sumuyaman c. 1794–?
(Shamshi-Adad)
(Yasmah-Adad)
Zimri-Lim c. 1775–1761

MIDDLE BABYLONIAN PERIOD

Kassite Dynasty
Gandash c. 1729–?
Agum I (Early 18th century)
Kashtiliash I c. 1660–?
Burnaburiash I c. 1530–1500?
Karaindash c. 1413–?
 RULERS OF MESOPOTAMIA • 143

Kadashman-Harbe? (Late 15th century?)

Kurigalzu I (Early 14th century?)
Kadashman-Enlil I c. 1374–c. 1360
Burnaburiash II c. 1359–c. 1334
Karahardash c. 1333
Nazi-bugash c. 1333
Kurigalzu II c. 1332–c. 1308
Nazi-Maruttash c. 1307–c. 1282
Kadashman-Turgu c. 1281–c. 1264
Kudur-Enlil c. 1263–c. 1255
Kudur-Enlil c. 1254-1225
(Tukulti-Ninurta c. 1225)
Enlil-nadin-shumi c. 1224
Kadashman-Harbe II c. 1223
Adad-shum-iddina c. 1222–1217
Adad-shum-usur c. 1216–1187
Marduk-apla-iddina I c. 1171–c. 1159
Zababa-shum-iddina c. 1158
Enlil-nadin-ahi c. 1157–1155

Second Dynasty of Isin

Marduk-kabit-ahheshu c. 1154–c. 1141
Itti-Marduk-balatu c. 1140–c. 1133
Ninurta-nadin-shumi c. 1132–c. 1127
Nebuchadnezzar I c. 1126–c. 1105
Enlil-nadin-apli c. 1104–c. 1111
Marduk-nadin-ahhe c. 1110–c. 1083
Adad-apla-iddina c. 1082–c. 1070
Marduk-ahhe-eriba c. 1069–c. 1048
Marduk-zer-x(?) c. 1046–c. 1035
Nabu-shum-libur c. 1034–1027

Second Sealand Dynasty

Simbar-Shipak c. 1026–c. 1010
Ea-mukin-zeri c. 1009
Kashshu-nadin-ahi c. 1008–1006
144 • APPENDIX I

Bazi-Dynasty
Eulmash-shakin-shumi c. 1005–c. 989
Ninurta-kudurri-usur I c. 988–c. 987
Shirikti-Shuqamuna c. 986
[Elamite ruler]
Mar-biti-apla-usur c. 985–c. 980

MIDDLE ASSYRIAN PERIOD

Ashur-rabi I (?) (Early 15th century)

Ashur-nadin-ahhe I (Mid–15th century)
Enlil-nasir II c. 1432–c. 1427
Ashur-nirari II c. 1426–c. 1420
Ashur-bel-nisheshu c. 1419–c. 1411
Ashur-rem-nisheshu c. 1410–c. 1403
Ashur-nadin-ahhe c. 1402–c. 1393
Eriba-Adad I c. 1392–c. 1366
Ashur-uballit I c. 1365–c. 1330
Enlil-nirari c. 1329–c. 1320
Arik-den-ili c. 1319–c. 1308
Adad-nirari I c. 1307–c. 1275
Shalmaneser I c. 1274–c. 1245
Tukulti-Ninurta I c. 1244–c. 1208
Ashur-nadin-apli c. 1207–c. 1204
Ashur-nirari III c. 1203–c. 1198
Enlil-kudurri-usur c. 1197–c. 1193
Ninurta-apil-Ekur c. 1192–c. 1180
Ashur-dan I c. 1179–c. 1134
Ninurta-tukulti-Assur c. 1133?
Mutakkil-Nusku c. 1133?
Ashur-resh-ishi c. 1133–c. 1116
Tiglath-pileser I c. 1115–c. 1076
Ashared-apil-Ekur c. 1076–c. 1075
Ashur-bel-kala c. 1074–1057
Eriba-Adad II c. 1056–c. 1055
Shamshi-Adad II c. 1054–c. 1051
Ashurnasirpal I c. 1050–c. 1032
Shalmaneser II c. 1031–c. 1020
Ashur-nirari IV c. 1019–c. 1014
 RULERS OF MESOPOTAMIA • 145

Ashur-rabi II c. 1013–c. 973

Ashur-resh-ishi c. 972–c. 968
Tiglath-pileser II c. 967–c. 934

NEO-BABYLONIAN PERIOD

Dynasty of E
Nabu-mukin-apli c. 979–c. 945
Ninurta-kudurri-usur c. 944
Mar-bit-ahhe-iddina c. 943–c. 906
Shamash-mudammiq c. 905–c. 896
Nabu-shuma-ukin c. 895–c. 871
Nabu-apla-iddina c. 870–c. 855
Marduk-zakir-shumi c. 854–c. 819
Marduk-balassu-iqbi c. 818–c. 813
Baba-aha-iddina c. 812–?
[six unknown kings]
Marduk-bel-zeri?
Marduk-apla-usur?
Eriba-Marduk c. 770–c. 761
Nabu-shuma-ishkun c. 760–c. 748
Nabu-nasir 747–734
Nabu-nadin-zeri 733
Nabu-shuma-ukin II 732
Nabu-mukin-zeri 731–729
(Tiglath-pileser 728–727)
(Shalmaneser 726–722)
Marduk-apla-iddina 721–710
(Sargon 709)
[Succession unclear for several rulers]
(Esarhaddon)
Shamash-shum-ukin 667–648
Kandalanu 647–627?

NEO-ASSYRIAN PERIOD

Ashur-resh-ishi II c. 972–c. 968

Tiglath-pileser II c. 967–c. 935
146 • APPENDIX I

Ashur-dan II c. 934–912
Adad-nirari II 911–891
Tukulti-Ninurta II 890–884
Ashurnasirpal II 883–859
Shalmaneser III 858–824
Shamshi-Adad V 823–811
Adad-nirari III 810–783
Shalmaneser IV 782–773
Ashur-dan III 772–755
Ashur-nirari V 754–745
Tiglath-pileser III 744–727
Shalmaneser V 726–722
Sargon II 721–705
Sennacherib 704–681
Esarhaddon 680–669
Ashurbanipal 668–?
Ashur-etil-ilani 630?/626?
Sin-shar-ishkun 622?–610
Ashur-uballit III 609

NEO-BABYLONIAN PERIOD

Chaldean Dynasty
Nabopolassar 626–605
Nebuchadnezzar II 604–562
Amel-Marduk 561–560
Neriglissar 559–557
Labashi-Marduk 556
Nabonidus 555–539

ACHAEMENID PERIOD

Cyrus II c. 559–530
Cambyses II 530–522
Darius I 522–486
Xerxes 486–465
Artaxerxes I 465–244/3
 RULERS OF MESOPOTAMIA • 147

Darius II 423–405
Artaxerxes II 405–359
Artaxerxes III 359–338
Artaxerxes IV 338–336
Darius III 336–330

HELLENISTIC PERIOD

Alexander the Great (reigned in Babylon since 331–321)

Antigonous Monophthalmos 321–301
Seleucus I Nicator (reigned in Babylon since 301)–281
Antiochus I Soter 281–261
Antiochus II 261–246
Seleucus II 246–226
Antiochus III the Great 223–187
Seleucus III Philopator 187–176
Antiochus IV Epiphanes 176–164
Antiochus V Eupator 164–162
Demetrios I Soter 162–150
Antiochus VI Sidetes 164–129

PARTHIAN PERIOD

Phraates I ruled Babylonia since 129–127

Artabanus c. 127–123
Mithridates II the Great c. 123–88
(Romans occupy Mesopotamia)
Phraates III 70–58 B.C.
 Appendix II
Museums with Mesopotamian Collections

An asterisk indicates large or important collections.

A Worldwide Directory of Museums with Near Eastern Collections, can be
found on the website of Akkadica <www.akkadica.org> under “Museum
Links,” Brussels 2002.

Belgium
Musées Royaux d’Art et d’Histoire
Parc du Cinquantaine, 10
B-1000 Bruxelles

Canada
Montreal Museum of Fine Arts
1379 Sherbrooke Street West
Montreal, Quebec H3G 2T9

Royal Ontario Museum

100 Queen’s Park
Toronto, Ontario M5S 2C6

Denmark
The National Museum of Denmark
Department of Classical and Near Eastern Antiquities
Ny Vestergarde, 10
Dk-1220 Copenhagen

France
Ecole pratique des hautes études
45-47, rue des Ecoles
F-75005 Paris

149
150 • APPENDIX II

Musée du Louvre*
34, Quai du Louvre
F-75058 Paris

Germany
Staatliche Museen, Vorderasiatisches Museum*
Pargamonmuseum
Berlin-Mitte

Uruk-Warka Sammlung
Ruprechts-Karl Universität
Hauptstrasse 126
Heidelberg

Hilprecht Sammlung
Friedrich-Schiller Universität
Kalaische Straße 1
07745 Jena

Archäologische Staatssammlungen, München

Museum für Vor- und Frühgeschichte
Archäologische Museen
Karmeliterstrasse 1
60311 Frankfurt am Main

Iraq
The Iraq Museum*
The General Directorate of Antiquities
Baghdad

Israel
Bible Lands Museum
Granot, 25
Jerusalem 93706

The Israel Museum

Hakiriya
Jerusalem 91710
 MUSEUMS WITH MESOPOTAMIAN COLLECTIONS • 151

Italy
Museo Archeologico
Via della Colonna, 38
I -50121 Florence

Vatican Museum
00120 Vatican City

Netherlands
National Museum of Antiquities
Rapenburg 28
NL-2301 Leiden

Russia
State Pushkin Museum of Fine Arts
Oriental Department
Volchonka, 12
121019 Moscow

State Hermitage Museum

Oriental Department
Dvortsovaya Naberezhnaya, 34
191186 St. Petersburg

Syrian Arab Republic

Aleppo National Museum*
The Directorate of Aleppo Antiquities
Aleppo

The National Museum of Damascus*

The General Directorate of Museums and Antiquities
Damascus

Turkey
Museum of Anatolian Civilisations
Hisar cad.
Ulus
Ankara
152 • APPENDIX II

United Kingdom
City Museums and Art Gallery
Department of Antiquities
Chamberlain Square
Birmingham B3 3DH

Royal Museum of Scotland

Chambers Street
Edinburgh EH1 1JH

Liverpool Museum
William Brown Street
Liverpool L3 8EN

British Museum*
Department of Western Asiatics
Great Russell Street
London WC1 3DG

The Manchester Museum

University of Manchester
Oxford Road
Manchester M13 9PL

The Ashmolean Museum

Department of Antiquities
University of Oxford
Beaumont Street
Oxford OX1 2PH

United States
Kelsey Museum of Ancient and Medieval Archaeology
University of Michigan
434 South State Street
Ann Arbor, Michigan 48104

The Walters Art Gallery

600 North Charles Street
Baltimore, Maryland 21201-5185
 MUSEUMS WITH MESOPOTAMIAN COLLECTIONS • 153

The Semitic Museum

Harvard University
Cambridge, Massachusetts 02138

Oriental Institute Museum*

University of Chicago
1155 East 58th Street
Chicago, Illinois 60637-1569

Peabody Museum
Yale University
New Haven, Connecticut 06520

Metropolitan Museum of Art*

1000 Fifth Street
New York, New York 10028-0198

University Museum of the University of Pennsylvania*

33d and Spruce Street
Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19104

National Museum of Natural History

Smithsonian Institution
Washington, D.C. 20560
 Select Bibliography

The history, archaeology, societies, and material cultures of ancient

Mesopotamia are discussed in a great number of academic specialist
journals, books, monographs, and edited volumes. Such publications go
back to the late 19th century when the cuneiform tablets discovered in
Mesopotamian archaeological sites began to be copied, transcribed, and
translated. Now the main centers of assyriological scholarship are in
Germany, Britain, France, and the United States. The Netherlands, Bel-
gium, Austria, Italy, the Scandinavian countries (notably Finland), Rus-
sia, and the Czech Republic also have specialist departments at their uni-
versities, and more recently Japan has also begun to make contributions,
especially in Sumerian studies. Equally important is the work done by
archaeologists and assyriologists in the Middle East, in Iraq, Syria,
Turkey, and Israel. The majority of scholarly publications are written in
German, English, or French.
The sources in this bibliography are a selection of works on various top-
ics, meant as a starting point for references, as well as giving examples of
recent contributions and debates, primarily using sources in English. More
comprehensive bibliographies can be found in most of the works quoted
here, as well as in specialist library databases of universities. Some depart-
ments also have websites giving information of archaeological excavation,
and, increasingly, cuneiform sources are also available online. Databases
can be accessed through keywords such as Mesopotamian archaeology,
Babylon, Assyria, Sumer, Assyriology, Ancient Near East, and so on.
A number of reference works and general source books summarize cur-
rent knowledge on the topics covered in the book. The most exhaustive and
scholarly encyclopedia is the Reallexikon der Assyriologie and Archäologie
(with articles in German, French, and English). The first volume was pub-
lished in Berlin in 1928. It is a work in progress (up to letter N) and now
published by Walter de Gruyter (Berlin and New York). Less comprehensive

155
156 • SELECT BIBLIOGRAPHY

and more accessible is the five-volume collection of essays Civilizations of

the Ancient Near East (1995). For Mesopotamian history, the Cambridge
Ancient History (Vols. I, II, III/1, III/2, IV, VI [rev. ed.] [1972–1994]) pro-
vides authoritative accounts, although some earlier editions are now out-
dated. Concise historical overviews are provided by The Ancient Near East:
c. 3000–300 B.C. (1995) and The Ancient Near East: A History (2d ed.,
1998). Also very useful is the Cultural Atlas of Mesopotamia and the An-
cient Near East (1990). Historical reference works are Who’s Who in the
Ancient Near East (1999) and a recent edition by the British Museum Dic-
tionary of the Ancient Near East (2000).
For peoples of ancient Mesopotamia, there is The Sumerians (1963), The
Babylonians (1995), The Babylonians: An Introduction (2002), and Peoples
of Old Testament Times (1973).
Other subjects are covered here in alphabetical order.

Agriculture
Breckwoldt, T. “Management of Grain Storage in Old Babylonian Larsa.” Archiv
für Orientforschung 42/43 (1995–1996): 64–88.
Charles, M. “Irrigation in Lowland Mesopotamia.” In “Irrigation and Cultivation in
Mesopotamia, part 1.” Bulletin on Sumerian Agriculture 4 (1988): 1–39.
Civil, Miguel. The Farmer’s Instructions: A Sumerian Agricultural Manual. Aula
Orientalis Supplements 5. Barcelona: Ausa, 1994.
Ellis, Maria de J. “Agriculture and the State in Ancient Mesopotamia.” In Introduc-
tion to the Problems of Land Tenure. Philadelphia: Babylonian Fund, University
Museum, 1976.
Englund, Robert K. “Regulating Dairy Production in the Ur III Period.” Orientalia
64, no. 4 (1995): 377–429.
Hesse, B. “Animal Husbandry and Human Diet in the Ancient Near East.” In Civi-
lizations of the Ancient Near East, ed. Jack M. Sasson. New York: Scribner, 1995,
203–22.
Jacobsen, Thorkild. Salinity and Irrigation Agriculture in Antiquity. Bibliotheca
Mesopotamica 14. Malibu, Calif.: Undena, 1982.
Jas, R. M., ed. Rainfall and Agriculture in Northern Mesopotamia (MOS Studies):
Proceedings of the Third MOS Symposium, Leiden 1999. Istanbul: Nederlands
Historisch-Archaeologisch Instituut te Istanbul, 2000.
Klengel, Horst, and Johannes Renger, eds. Landwirtschaft im alten Orient: Aus-
gewählte Vorträge der XLI Rencontre Assyriologique Internationale Berlin 4.–8.
1994. Berlin: Reimer, 1999.
Liverani, Mario, and Wolfgang Heimpel. “Observations on Livestock Management
in Babylonia.” Acta Sumerologica 17 (1995): 127–44.
 SELECT BIBLIOGRAPHY • 157

Powell, Michael A. “Salt, Seeds and Yields in Sumerian Agriculture: A Critique of the
Theory of Progressive Salination.” Zeitschrift für Assyriologie 75 (1985): 7–38.
Redman, Charles. The Rise of Civilization: From Early Farmers to Urban Society
in the Ancient Near East. San Francisco: Freeman, 1978.
Walters, Stanley D. Waters for Larsa: An Old Babylonian Archive Dealing with Ir-
rigation. Yale Near Eastern Researches. New Haven, Conn.: Yale University
Press, 1970.
Zeder, Melinda A. Feeding Cities: Specialized Animal Economy in the Ancient Near
East. Washington, D.C.: Smithsonian Institution Press, 1991.

Archaeology
Burney, Charles. From Village to Empire: An Introduction to Near Eastern Archae-
ology. Oxford: Phaidon, 1977.
Curtis, John, ed. British School of Archaeology in Iraq: Fifty Years of Mesopotamian
Discovery: The Work of the British School of Archaeology in Iraq 1932–1982.
London: British School of Archaeology in Iraq, 1982.
Henrickson, Elizabeth, and Ingolf Thuesen, eds. Upon This Foundation: The
“Ubaid” Reconsidered. Carsten Niebhur Institute publications 10. Copenhagen:
Museum Tusculanum, 1989.
Larsen, Mogens T. The Conquest of Assyria: Excavations in an Antique Land
1840–1860. London: Routledge, 1994.
Lloyd, Seton. Foundations in the Dust: A Story of Mesopotamian Exploration. Rev.
ed. London: Oxford University Press, 1980.
———. The Archaeology of Mesopotamia: From the Old Stone Age to the Persian
Conquest, rev. ed. London: Thames & Hudson, 1985.
Millard, Allan. “The Bevel-Rimmed Bowls: Their Purpose and Significance.” Iraq
50 (1988): 49–57.
Moorey, Peter R. S. Ur “of the Chaldees”: A Revised and Updated Edition of Sir
Leonard Woolley’s Excavations at Ur. Ithaca, N.Y.: Cornell University Press,
1982.
———. Ancient Mesopotamian Materials and Industries: The Archaeological Evi-
dence. Oxford: Clarendon, 1994.
Oates, Joan. Babylon, rev. ed. London: Thames & Hudson, 1986.
Russell, John M. The Final Sack of Nineveh: The Discovery, Documentation, and
Destruction of King Sennacherib’s Throne Room at Nineveh, Baghdad. New
Haven, Conn.: Yale University Press, 1998.
Woolley, Charles Leonard. Ur Excavations: Vol. 2. The Royal Cemetery. London:
British Museum, 1934.
———. Ur Excavations: Vol. 4. The Early Periods. London: British Museum, 1955.
Wright, Rita P., ed. Gender and Archaeology. Philadelphia: University of Pennsyl-
vania Press, 1996.
158 • SELECT BIBLIOGRAPHY

Young, Gordon D. Mari in Retrospect: Fifty Years of Mari and Mari Studies.
Winona Lake, Ind.: Eisenbrauns, 1992.
Young, T. Cuyler, and Louis D. Levine, eds. Mountains and Lowlands: Essays in
the Archaeology of Greater Mesopotamia. Bibliotheca Mesopotamica 7. Malibu,
Calif.: Undena, 1977.
Young, T. Cuyler, P. E. L. Smith, and P. Mortensen, eds. The Hilly Flanks and Be-
yond: Essays on the Prehistory of Southwestern Asia Presented to Robert J.
Braidwood November 15, 1982. Studies in Ancient Oriental Civilization No. 36.
Chicago: Oriental Institute of Chicago, 1983.

Art and Architecture

Amiet, Pierre. Art in the Ancient World: A Handbook of Style and Forms. London:
Faber & Faber, 1981.
Barnett, Richard D., and W. Forman. Assyrian Palace Reliefs and Their Influence
on the Sculptures of Babylonia and Persia. London: British Museum Publica-
tions, 1960.
Collon, Dominique. First Impressions: Cylinder Seals in the Ancient Near East.
London: British Museum Publications, 1995.
Crawford, Harriet E. W. The Architecture of Iraq in the Third Millennium B.C.
Mesopotamia 5. Copenhagen: Akademisk Forlag, 1977.
Curtis, John E., and Julian E. Reade. Art and Empire: Treasures from Assyria in the
British Museum. London: British Museum Publications, 1995.
Frankfort, Henri. The Art and Architecture of the Ancient Near East. 4th ed. Har-
mondsworth: Penguin, 1970.
Gates, M. H. “The Palace of Zimri-Lim at Mari.” Biblical Archaeology 47 (1984):
70–87.
Gunter, Ann C., ed. Investigating Artistic Environments in the Ancient Near East.
Washington, D.C.: Arthur M. Sackler Gallery, Smithsonian Institution, 1990.
Hallo, William W., and Irene Winter, eds. Seals and Seal Impressions: Proceedings
of the XLV Rencontre Assyriologique Internationale. Bethesda, Md.: CDL, 2001.
Johansen, Flemming. Statues of Gudea, Ancient and Modern. Mesopotamia 6.
Copenhagen: Akademisk Forlag, 1978.
Porada, Edith. Ancient Art in Seals. Princeton, N.J.: Princeton University Press, 1980.
Strommenger, Eva, and Manfried Hirmer. The Art of Ancient Mesopotamia. Lon-
don: Thames & Hudson, 1965.
Veenhof, Klaas R., ed. Houses and Households in Ancient Mesopotamia: Papers
Read at the 40e Rencontre Assyriologique Internationale, Leiden, July 5–8, 1993.
Istanbul: Nederlands Historisch-Archaeologisch Instituut te Istanbul, 1996.
Westenholz, Joan E. “The King, the Emperor, and the Empire. Continuity and Dis-
continuity of Royal Representation in Texts and Language.” In The Heirs of As-
syria: Proceedings of the Opening Symposium of the Assyrian and Babylonian
Intellectual Heritage Project Held in Tuärminne, Finland, October 8–11, 1998,
 SELECT BIBLIOGRAPHY • 159

ed. Sanno Aro and R. M. Whiting. Helsinki: Neo-Assyrian Text Corpus Project,
2000, 99–126.
Zettler, Richard, and Lee Horne, eds. Treasures from the Royal Tombs at Ur.
Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania, Museum of Archaeology and Anthro-
pology, 1998.

Astrology/Astronomy
Brown, David. Mesopotamian Planetary Astronomy-Astrology. Groningen: Styx,
2000.
Galter, Hannes D., ed. Die Rolle der Astronomie in den Kulturen Mesopotamiens.
Beiträge zum 3. Grazer Morgenländischen Symposium 23.–27. September 1991.
Graz: Kult, 1993.
Hunger, Hermann, ed. Astrological Reports to Assyrian Kings. Helsinki: Helsinki
University Press, 1992.
Koch-Westenholz, Ulla. Mesopotamian Astrology: An Introduction to Babylonian
and Assyrian Celestial Divination. Copenhagen: Carsten Niebuhr Institute of
Near Eastern Studies, Museum Tusculanum Press, 1995.
Rochberg, Francesca. Babylonian Horoscopes: Transactions of the American Philo-
sophical Society 88, Part 1. Philadelphia: American Philosophical Society, 1998.
Rochberg-Halton, Francesca. Aspects of Babylonian Celestial Divination: The Lu-
nar Eclipse Tablets of Enuma Anu Enlil. Horn, Austria: Berger, 1988.

Chronology
Aström, Paul, ed. High, Middle or Low? Acts of an International Colloquium on
Absolute Chronology. 3 vols. Gothenburg: Aströms, 1987–1989.
Bickerman, Elias. Chronology of the Ancient World. London: Thames & Hudson,
1980.
Gasche, H., J. Amstrong, and S. W. Cole. Dating the Fall of Babylon: A Reappraisal
of Second-Millennium Chronology. Chicago: University of Ghent and the Orien-
tal Institute of the University of Chicago, 1998.
Grayson, Albert K. “The Chronology of the Reign of Ashurbanipal.” Zeitschrift für
Assyriologie 70 (1980): 227–45.
Jacobsen, Thorkild. The Sumerian King List. Chicago: Chicago University Press, 1939.
Michalowski, Piotr. “History as Charter: Some Observations on the Sumerian King
List.” Journal of the American Oriental Society 103 (1983): 237–48.
Na’aman, N. “Statements of Time-Spans by Babylonian and Assyrian Kings and
Mesopotamian Chronology.” Iraq 46 (1984): 115–24.
———. “Chronology and History of the Late Assyrian Empire.” Zeitschrift für As-
syriologie 81 (1991): 242–67.
Parker, Richard A., and Waldo Dubberstein. Babylonian Chronology, 626 B.C.–A.D.
45. 3d. ed. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1956.
160 • SELECT BIBLIOGRAPHY

Sollberger, Edmond. “The Tummal Inscription.” Journal of Cuneiform Studies 16

(1962): 4–47.

Collections of Essays in Honor of

Individual Scholars and on Symposia
Archi, Alfonso, ed. Circulation of Goods in Non Palatial Contexts in the Ancient
Near East. Rome: Ateneo, 1984.
Cameron, Averil, and Amélie Kuhrt, eds. Images of Women in Antiquity. Rev. ed.
London: Routledge, 1993.
Cogan, Mordechai, and Yisrael Epha’al, eds. Ah, Assyria . . . Studies in Assyrian
History and Ancient Near Eastern Historiography Presented to Hayim Tadmor.
Jerusalem: Magnes, 1991.
Cohen, Mark E., Daniel C. Snell, and D. B.Weisberg, eds. The Tablet and the Scroll:
Near Eastern Studies in Honor of William W. W. Hallo. Bethesda, Md.: CDL,
1993.
Dandamayev, Mohammed, et al., eds. Societies and Languages of the Ancient Near
East: Studies in Honor of I. M. Diakonoff. Warminster: Aries & Phillips, 1982.
Dietrich, Manfried A. and Ostwald Loretz, eds. Mesopotamica-Ugaritica-Biblica:
Festschrift für Kurt Bergerhof zur Vollendung seines 70. Lebensjahres am 7. Mai
1992. Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchner, 1993.
———. Dubsar anta-men: Festschrift für Willem H. Ph. Römer zur Vollendung seines
70. Lebensjahres. Muenster: Ugarit, 1998.
Ellis, Maria de J., ed. Essays on the Ancient Near East in Memory of J. J. Finkel-
stein. Hamden, Conn.: Archon, 1977.
George, Andrew, and I. L. Finkel, eds. Wisdom, Gods and Literature: Studies in As-
syriology in Honour of W. G. Lambert. Winona Lake, Ind: Eisenbrauns, 2000.
Goedicke, Hans, and J. J. M. Roberts, eds. Unity and Diversity: Essays in the His-
tory, Literature and Religion of the Ancient Near East. Johns Hopkins Near East-
ern Studies. Baltimore, Md.: Johns Hopkins University Press, 1975.
Güterbock, Hans G., and Thorkild Jacobsen, eds. Studies in Honor of Benno Lands-
berger. Assyriological Studies 16. Chicago: Oriental Institute, 1967.
Haex, O. M. C., H. H. Curvers, and P. M. M. G. Akkerman, eds. To the Euphrates
and Beyond: Archaeological Studies in Honour of Maurits N. van Loon. Brook-
field, Va.: Balkma, 1989.
Leichty, Erle, Marie de J. Ellis, and Pamela Gerardi, eds. A Scientific Humanist:
Studies in Memory of Abraham Sachs. Philadelphia: University Museum, 1988.
Lieberman, Stephen J., ed. Sumerological Studies in Honor of Thorkild Jacobsen on
His Seventieth Birthday, June 7th 1974. Chicago: University of Chicago Press,
1976.
Marks, John H., and Robert M. Good, eds. Love and Death in the Ancient Near
East: Essays in Honor of Marvin H. Pope. Guildford, Conn.: Four Quarters,
1987.
 SELECT BIBLIOGRAPHY • 161

Mauer, Gerlinde, and Ursula Magen, eds. Ad bene et fideliter seminandum: Fest-
gabe für Karlheins Deller zum 21. Februar 1987. Kevelaar: Butzon & Becker,
1988,
Postgate, J. Nicholas, ed. Societies and Languages of the Ancient Near East: Stud-
ies in Honour of I. M. Diakonoff. Warminster: Aris & Phillips, 1982.
Rochberg-Halton, Francesca, ed. Language, Literature and History: Philological
and Historical Studies Presented to Erica Reiner. New Haven, Conn.: American
Oriental Society, 1987.
Sasson, Jack M., ed. Studies in the Literature of the Ancient Near East Dedicated to
S. N. Kramer. New Haven, Conn.: American Oriental Society, 1984.
Soldt, W. H., ed. Veenhof Anniversary Volume: Studies Presented to Klaas R. Veen-
hof on the Occasion of His Sixty-fifth Birthday. Istanbul: Nederlands Historisch-
Archaeologisch Instituut te Istanbul, 2001.
van Driel, G., et al., eds. Zikir Šumim: Assyriological Studies Presented to F. R.
Kraus on the Occasion of His Seventieth Birthday. Leiden: Brill, 1982.
Wunsch, Cornelia, ed. Mining the Archives: Festschrift for Christopher Walker on
the Occasion of His 60th Birthday, 4 October 2002. Dresden: ISLET, 2002.

Crafts and Material Culture

Barber, E. J. W. Prehistoric Textiles: The Development of Cloth in the Neolithic and
Bronze Ages with Special Reference to the Aegean. Princeton, N.J.: Princeton
University Press, 1991.
Forbes, Robert J. Metallurgy in Antiquity. Leiden: Brill, 1950.
———. Studies in Ancient Technology. 8 vols. Leiden: Brill, 1955–1964.
Hartman, L., and A. Leo Oppenheim. On Beer and Brewing Techniques in Ancient
Mesopotamia According to the XXIIIrd Tablet of the Series HAR.ra.hubullu. Sup-
plement, Journal of the American Oriental Society. Baltimore, Md.: American
Oriental Society, 1950.
Herrmann, Georgina, ed. The Furniture of Western Asia: Ancient and Traditional.
Papers presented at the Institute of Archaeology, University College London,
28–30 June 1993. Mainz: Zabern, 1996.
Hodges, H. Technology in the Ancient World. Harmondsworth: Penguin, 1970.
Levey, Martin. Chemistry and Chemical Technology in Ancient Mesopotamia. Am-
sterdam: Elsevier, 1959.
Liebowitz, H. A., B. A. Nakahi, and E. Stern. “Furniture and Furnishings.” In The
Oxford Encyclopedia of Archaeology in the Near East 2, ed. Eric M. Meyers. Ox-
ford: Oxford University Press, 1997, 352–58.
Moorey, Peter R. S. Materials and Manufacture in Ancient Mesopotamia: The Evi-
dence of Art and Archaeology: Metals and Metalwork, Glazed Materials and
Glass. Oxford: B.A.R., 1985.
———. Ancient Mesopotamian Materials and Industries: The Archaeological Evi-
dence. Oxford: Clarendon, 1994.
162 • SELECT BIBLIOGRAPHY

Muhly, James D. Copper and Tin. New Haven. Conn.: Connecticut Academy of
Arts and Sciences, 1973.
Oppenheim, A. Leo, et al. Glass and Glassmaking in Ancient Mesopotamia: An Edi-
tion of Cuneiform Texts Which Contain Instructions for Glassmakers with a Cat-
alogue of Surviving Objects. Corning, N.Y.: Corning Museum of Glass, 1970.
Peregrine, Peter. “Some Political Aspects of Craft Specialization.” World Archaeol-
ogy 23 (1991): 1–11.
Postgate, J. Nicholas, and Marvin A. Powell, eds. Trees and Timber in Mesopotamia.
Bulletin of Sumerian Agriculture. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1992.
Potts, Daniel T. Mesopotamian Civilization: The Material Foundations. New York:
Athlone, 1997.
Simpson, E. “Furniture in Ancient Western Asia.” In Civilizations of the Ancient
Near East, ed. Jack M. Sasson, New York: Scribner, 1995, 167–71.
Szarzynska, Krystyna. Sheep Husbandry and Production of Wool, Garments and
Cloths in Archaic Sumer. Warsaw: Agade, 2002.
van de Mieroop, Marc. Crafts in the Early Isin Period: A Study of the Isin Craft Archive
from the Reign of Isbi-Erra and Su-Ilisu. Leuven: Departement Oriëntalistik, 1987.
Waetzoldt, Hartmut. Untersuchnungen zur neusumerischen Textilindustrie. Rome:
Centro per le Antichità e la Storia dell’Arte del Vicino Oriente, 1972.

Daily Life
Averbeck, Richard E., Mark W. Chavalas, and David B. Weisberg, eds. Life and
Culture in the Ancient Near East. Bethesda, Md.: CDL, 2003.
Bottéro, Jean. “The Cuisine of Ancient Mesopotamia.” Biblical Archaeology 481
(1985): 30–47.
———. Textes Culinaires Mésopotamiens. Winona Lake, Ind.: Eisenbrauns, 1995.
———. Everyday Life in Ancient Mesopotamia. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University
Press, 2001.
Collon, Dominique. “Clothing and Grooming in Western Asia.” In Civilizations of
the Ancient Near East, ed. Jack M. Sasson. New York: Scribner, 1995, 503–15.
Dayagi-Mendels, Michael. Perfumes and Cosmetics in the Ancient World.
Jerusalem: Israel Museum, 1989.
Ellison, R. “Diet in Mesopotamia: The Evidence of the Barley Ration Texts (c. 3000–
1400 B.C.).” Iraq 43 (1981): 35–45.
Greengus, Alan. “Old Babylonian Marriage Ceremonies and Rites.” Journal of
Cuneiform Studies 20 (1966): 55–72.
Milano, Lucio, ed. Drinking in Ancient Societies: History and Culture of Drinking
in the Ancient Near East. Papers of a Symposium held in Rome, 17–19 May 1990.
Padua: Sargon, 1994.
Nemet-Nejat, Karen R. Daily Life in Ancient Mesopotamia. Westport, Conn.:
Greenwood, 1999.
Powell, Marvin A., ed. Labor in the Ancient Near East. New Haven, Conn.: Amer-
ican Oriental Society, 1987.
 SELECT BIBLIOGRAPHY • 163

Snell, Daniel D. C. Life in the Ancient Near East. New Haven, Conn.: Yale Univer-
sity Press, 1999.
Stol, Martin. “Private Life in Mesopotamia.” In Civilizations of the Ancient Near
East, ed. Jack M. Sasson. New York: Scribner, 1995, 485–501.

Geography
Adams, Robert McC. Heartland of Cities. Chicago: University of Chicago Press,
1981.
———. Land behind Baghdad. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1965.
Adams, Robert McC., and Hans J. Nissen. The Uruk Countryside: The Natural Set-
ting of Urban Societies. Chicago: Chicago University Press, 1972.
Butzer, K. W. “Environmental Change in the Near East and Human Impact on the
Land.” In Civilizations of the Ancient Near East, ed. Jack M. Sasson. New York:
Scribner, 1995, 123–51.
Horowitz, Wayne. Mesopotamian Cosmic Geography. Winona Lake, Ind.: Eisen-
brauns, 1987.
Jacobsen, Thorkild. Salinity and Irrigation Agriculture in Antiquity. Bibliotheca
Mesopotamica 14. Malibu, Calif.: Undena, 1982.
Lees, G. M., and N. L. Falcon. “The Geographical History of the Mesopotamian
Plain.” Geographical Journal 118 (1952): 24–39.
Levine, Louis D. Geographical Studies in the Neo-Assyrian Zagros. Toronto: Royal
Ontario Museum, 1974.
Liverani, Mario, ed. Neo-Assyrian Geography. Rome: Università di Roma, Istituto
di studi del vicino oriente, 1995.
Milano, Lucio, S. de Martino, F. M. Fales, and G. B. Lanfranchi, eds. Landscapes,
Territories, Frontiers and Horizons in the Ancient Near East. Papers presented to
the XLIV Rencontre Assyriologique Internationale, Venice, 7–11 July 1997. 3
vols. Padua: Sargon, 1999.
Nützel, W. “The Climate Changes of Mesopotamia and Bordering Areas.” Sumer 32
(1976): 11–24.
Wagstaff, John M. The Evolution of Middle Eastern Landscapes: An Outline to A.D.
1840. London: Croom Helm, 1985.
Weiss, Harvey P. The Origins of Cities in Dry-Farming Syria and Mesopotamia in
the Third Millennium B.C. Guildford, Conn.: Four Quarters, 1986.

General Introductions
Jacobsen, Thorkild. Towards the Image of Tammuz and Other Essays on Meso-
potamian History and Culture. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press,
1970.
Oppenheim, A. Leo. Ancient Mesopotamia. Portrait of a Dead Civilization. 2d. ed.
Chicago: Chicago University Press, 1977.
Postgate, John Nicholas. The First Empires. Oxford: Elsevier-Phaidon, 1977.
164 • SELECT BIBLIOGRAPHY

Roaf, Michael. Cultural Atlas of Mesopotamia and the Ancient Near East. Oxford:
Facts on File, 1990.
Sasson, Jack M., et al., eds. Civilizations of the Ancient Near East. New York:
Scribner, 1995.
Soden, Wolfram von. The Ancient Orient: An Introduction to the Study of the An-
cient Near East. Grand Rapids, Mich.: Eerdmans, 1994.

Historiography
Abusch, Tzvi, P. A. Beaulieu, H. Huehnergard, P. Machinist, and P. Steinkeller, eds.
Historiography in the Cuneiform World: Proceedings of the XLV Rencontre As-
syriologique Internationale. Bethesda, Md.: CDL, 2001.
Dentan, Robert C., ed. The Idea of History in the Ancient Near East. New Haven,
Conn.: Yale University Press, 1954 (reprint: 1983).
Finkelstein, Josef J. “Mesopotamian Historiography.” Proceedings of the American
Philosophical Society 107 (1963): 461–71.
Grayson, Albert Kirk. Assyrian and Babylonian Chronicles. 2 vols. Locust Valley,
N.Y.: Augustin, 1970.
———. Babylonian Historical-Literary Texts. Toronto Semitic Texts and Studies 3.
Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 1975.
Tadmor, Hayim, and M. Weinfeld, eds. History, Historiography and Interpretation
Studies in Biblical and Cuneiform Literatures. Jerusalem: Magnes, 1983.
van de Mieroop, Marc. Cuneiform Texts and the Writing of History. London: Rout-
ledge, 1999.

HISTORY

General
Bottéro, Jean, Elena Cassin, and Jean Vercoutter, eds. The Near East: The Early
Civilizations. 3 vols. London: Weidenfeld & Nicolson, 1965–1967.
Diakonoff, I. M. Early Antiquity. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1991.
Hallo, William W., and William K. Simpson. The Ancient Near East: A History. 2d.
ed. New York, London: Harcourt Brace, 1998.
Kuhrt, Amélie. The Ancient Near East, c. 3000–330 B.C. London: Routledge, 1995.
Leick, Gwendolyn. Who’s Who in the Ancient Near East. London: Routledge, 1999.
———. Mesopotamia: The Invention of the City. London: Penguin, 2001.
Nissen, Hans. The Early History of the Ancient Near East 9000–2000 B.C. Chicago:
University of Chicago Press, 1988.
Postgate, John Nicholas. Early Mesopotamia: Society and Economy at the Dawn of
History. London: Routledge, 1992.
Roux, Georges. Ancient Iraq. Harmondsworth: Penguin, 1966.
 SELECT BIBLIOGRAPHY • 165

Prehistory
Adams, Robert McC. Heartland of Cities. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1981.
Adams, Robert McC., and Hans Nissen. The Uruk Countryside. Chicago: Univer-
sity of Chicago Press, 1972.
Algaze, Guillermo. The Uruk World System: The Dynamics of Expansion of Early
Mesopotamian Civilization. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1993.
Bartl, Karin, Reinhard Bernbeck, and Marlies Heinz, eds. Zwischen Euphrat und
Indus: Aktuelle Forschungsprobleme in der Vorderasiatischen Archäologie.
Hildesheim: Olms, 1995.
Charvát, Petr. On Peoples, Signs and States: Spotlights on Sumerian Society, c. 3500–
2500 B.C. Prague: Oriental Institute, 1997.
———. Mesopotamia: Before History. London: Routledge, 2002.
Henrickson, Elizabeth, and Ingolf Thuessen, eds. Upon This Foundation: The
“Ubaid” Reconsidered. Carsten Niebuhr Institute Publications 10. Copenhagen:
Museum Tusculanum, 1989.
Huot, Jean-Louis, ed. Préhistoire de la Mésopotamie. Paris: Centre National de la
Recherche Scientifique, 1987.
Johnson, Gregory. “Late Uruk in Greater Mesopotamia: Expansion or Collapse?”
Origini (1988–1989) 14: 595–613.
Maisels, Charles Keith. The Emergence of Civilization: From Hunting and Gathering
to Agriculture, Cities, and the State in the Near East. London: Routledge, 1990.
Matthews, Roger. “Defining the Style of the Period: Jemdet Nasr 1926–28.” Iraq 54
(1992): 1–34.
———. Cities, Seals, and Writing: Archaic Seal Impressions from Jemdet Nasr and
Ur. Materialien zu den frühen Schriftzeugnissen des Vorderen Orients 2. Berlin:
Gebrüder Mann, 1993.
Pollock, Susan. “Bureaucrats and Managers, Peasants and Pastoralists, Imperialists
and Traders: Research on the Uruk and Jemdet-Nasr Periods in Mesopotamia.”
Journal of World Prehistory 6 (1992): 297–336.
———. Ancient Mesopotamia: The Eden That Never Was. Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press.
Stein, Gil. “On the Uruk Expansion.” Current Anthropology (1990) 31: 66–69.
Strommenger, Eva. Habuba-Kabira: Eine Stadt vor 5000 Jahren. Mainz: Philip von
Zabern, 1980.

Early Dynastic Period

Charvát, Petr. On Peoples, Signs and States: Spotlights on Sumerian Society, c. 3500–
2500 B.C. Prague: Oriental Institute, 1997.
Cooper, Jerrold J. Reconstructing History from Ancient Inscriptions: The Lagash-
Umma Border Conflict. Sources from the Ancient Near East 2/1. Malibu, Calif.:
Undena, 1983.
166 • SELECT BIBLIOGRAPHY

———. Sumerian and Akkadian Royal Inscriptions: Vol. I. Pre-Sargonic Inscriptions.

Winona Lake, Ind.: Eisenbrauns, 1986.
Hansen, D. P. “Royal Building Activity at Sumerian Lagash in the Early Dynastic
Period.” Biblical Archaeology 55 (1992): 206–11.
Jacobsen, Thorkild. “Primitive Democracy in Ancient Mesopotamia.” Journal of
Near Eastern Studies 2 (1943): 159–72.
———. “Early Political Development in Mesopotamia.” Zeitschrift für Assyriologie
52 (1957): 91–140.
Katz, Dina. “Gilgamesh and Akka: Was Uruk Ruled by Two Assemblies?” Révue
d’Assyriologie 81 (1987): 105–14.
Maekawa, Kazuya. “The Development of the é-mí in Lagash during Early Dynas-
tic III.” Mesopotamia 8–9 (1973–1974): 77–144.
———. “Female Weavers and Their Children in Lagash: Pre-Sargonic and Ur III.”
Acta Sumerologica 2 (1980): 81–125.
Martin, Harrriet P. Fara. A Reconstruction of the Ancient Mesopotamian City of
Shuruppak. Birmingham: Martin and Associates, 1988.
Matthews, Roger. “Fragments of Officialdom from Fara.” Iraq 54 (1991): 1–15.
Pollock, Susan. “Of Priestesses, Princes and Poor Relations: The Dead in the Royal
Cemetery of Ur.” Cambridge Archaeological Journal 1/2 (1991): 171–89.

Akkadian Period
Cooper, Jerrold S. Sumerian and Akkadian Royal Inscriptions: Vol. I. Pre-Sargonic
Inscriptions. American Oriental Society Translation Series I. Winona Lake, Ind.:
Eisenbrauns, 1986.
Foster, Benjamin. Umma in the Sargonic Period. Hamden, Conn.: Archon, 1986.
Frayne, Douglas. Sargonic and Gutian Periods (2334–2113 B.C.): Royal Inscriptions
of Mesopotamia. Early Periods. Vol. 2. Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 1993.
Gelb, Igance J., and Burkhart Kienast. Die altakkadischen Königsinschriften des
dritten Jahrtausends v. Chr. Stuttgart: Steiner, 1990.
Glassner, Jean-Jacques. La chute d’Akkade: l’évenement et sa mémoire. Beiträge
zum Vorderen Orient. Berlin: Reimer, 1986.
Liverani, Mario, ed. Akkad: The First World Empire: Structure, Ideology, Tradi-
tions. Padua: Sargon, 1993.
Michalowski, Piotr. “New Sources Concerning the Reign of Naram-Sin.” Journal
of Cuneiform Studies 32 (1980): 233–46.
Tinney, Stephen. “A New Look at Naram-Sin and the ‘Great Rebellion.’” Journal
of Cuneiform Studies 47 (1995): 1–14.

Sumerian History
Civil, Miguel. “Šu-Sin’s Historical Inscriptions: Collection B.” Journal of Cunei-
form Studies 21 (1967): 24–38.
Crawford, Harriet E. W. Sumer and the Sumerians. Cambridge: Cambridge Univer-
sity Press, 1991.
 SELECT BIBLIOGRAPHY • 167

Edzard, Dietz Otto. Gudea and His Dynasty: Royal Inscriptions of Mesopotamia.
Early Periods 3/1. Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 1997.
Falkenstein, Adam. The Sumerian Temple City. Monographs of the Ancient Near
East I/1. Malibu, Calif.: Undena, 1954.
Foster, Benjamin. “A New Look at the Sumerian Temple State.” Journal of the Eco-
nomic and Social History of the Orient 24 (1981): 225–34.
———. Administration and Use of Institutional Land in Sargonic Sumer. Meso-
potamia 9. Copenhagen: Akademisk Forlag, 1982.
Hallo, William W. “A Sumerian Amphyctyony.” Journal of Cuneiform Studies 17
(1960): 112–41.
———. “Women of Sumer.” In The Legacy of Sumer, ed. Denise Schmandt-Besserat.
Malibu, Calif.: Undena, 1960, 23–40.
Katz, D. “Gilgamesh and Akka: Was Uruk Ruled by Two Assemblies?” Révue
d’Assyriologie 81 (1987): 105–14.
Kramer, Samuel Noah. History Begins at Sumer. 3d ed. Philadelphia: University of
Pennsylvania Press, 1981.
Pollock, Susan. “Of Priests, Princes, and Poor Relations: The Dead in the Royal
Graves of Ur.” Cambridge Archaeological Journal 1 (1991): 171–89.
———. “Women in a Men’s World: Images of Sumerian Women.” In Engendering
Archaeology: On Women and Prehistory, ed. Joan Gero and Margaret Conkey.
Oxford: Blackwell, 1991, 366–87.
Schmandt-Besserat, Denise, ed. The Legacy of Sumer. Bibliotheca Mesopotamica 4.
Malibu, Calif.: Undena, 1976.
Steinkeller, Peter. “The Date of Gudea and His Dynasty.” Journal of Cuneiform
Studies 40 (1988): 47–53.

Third Dynasty of Ur
Buccellati, Giorgio. Amorites of the Ur III Period. Naples: Istituto Orientale di
Napoli, 1966.
Flückiger-Hawker, Esther. Urnammu of Ur in Sumerian Literary Tradition. Frei-
burg: Université de Fribourg, Vandenhoeck and Ruprecht, 1999.
Frayne, Douglas R. Ur III Period (2212–2004 B.C.): The Royal Inscriptions of
Mesopotamia. Early Periods 3/2. Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 1997.
Kärki, Ilmari. Königsinschriften der dritten Dynastie von Ur. Helsinki: Societas
Orientalis Fennica, 1986.
Klein, Jacob. The Royal Hymns of Shulgi, King of Ur. Philadelphia: American Phil-
osophical Society, 1981.
———. “Shulgi King of Ur: King of Neo-Sumerian Empire.” In Civilizations of the
Ancient Near East, ed. Jack M. Sasson, New York: Scribner, 1995, 843–58.
Kramer, Samuel Noah. “The Ur-Nammu Code: Who Was Its Author?” Orientalia
52 (1983): 453–56.
Michalowski, Piotr. “The Death of Shulgi.” Orientalia 46 (1977): 220–25.
Moorey, P. R. S. “Where Did They Bury the Kings of the Third Dynasty of Ur?”
Iraq 46 (1984): 1–18.
168 • SELECT BIBLIOGRAPHY

Steible, Horst. Die neusumerischen Bau-und Weihinschriften. Teil 2, Freiburger Al-

torientalische Studien 9/2. Wiesbaden: Steiner, 1991.
Steinkeller, Peter. “The Administrative and Economic Organization of the Ur III
State: The Core and the Periphery.” In The Organization of Power: Aspects of Bu-
reaucracy in the Ancient Near East, eds. McGuire Gibson and Robert D. Biggs.
Chicago: Oriental Institute of the University of Chicago, 1987, 19–42.

Old Babylonian Period

Batto, Bernard F. Studies on Women at Mari. Baltimore, Md.: Johns Hopkins Uni-
versity Press, 1974.
Frayne, Douglas R. Old Babylonian Period (2003–1595 B.C.): The Royal Inscrip-
tions of Mesopotamia. Early Period. Vol. 4. Toronto: Toronto University Press,
1990.
Dalley, Stephanie. Mari and Karana: Two Old Babylonian Cities. London: Long-
man, 1984.
Gadd, Cyril J. “Hammurabi and the End of His Dynasty.” In Cambridge Ancient
History 2. 2d ed. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1973, 176–227.
Gasche, Hermann, J. A. Armstrong, and S. W. Cole. Dating the Fall of Babylon.
Chicago: University of Ghent and the Oriental Institute of the University of
Chicago, 1998.
Harris, Rivkah. “The Process of Secularization under Hammurapi.” Journal of
Cuneiform Studies 15 (1961): 17–24.
———. Ancient Sippar: A Demographic Study of an Old Babylonian City (1994–
1595 B.C.). Istanbul: Nederlands Historisch-Archaeologisch Intituut te Istanbul,
1975.
Horsnell, Malcolm J. A. The Year Names of the First Dynasty of Babylon. Vol. II.
Hamilton, Canada: Mcmaster University Press, 1999.
Jacobsen, Thorkild. “The Reign of Ibbi-Suen.” Journal of Cuneiform Studies 7
(1953): 36–47.
Stol, Marten. Studies in Old Babylonian History. Leiden: Nederlands Historisch-
Archaeologisch Instituut, 1976.
Stone, Elizabeth. “Economic Crisis and Social Upheaval in Old Babylonian Nip-
pur.” In Mountains and Lowlands: Essays in the Archaeology of Greater
Mesopotamia, ed. T. Cuyler Young and Louis D. Levine. Bibliotheca
Mesopotamica 7, Malibu, Calif.: Undena, 1977, 267–89.
———. “The Social Role of the Naditu Women in the Old Babylonian Nippur.” Jour-
nal of the Economic and Social History of the Orient 25 (1982): 50–70.
———. Nippur Neighborhoods. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1987.
van de Mieroop, Marc. “The Reign of Rim-Sin.” Révue d’Assyriologie 87 (1993):
47–69.
Young, G. D., ed. Mari in Retrospect. Winona Lake, Ind.: Eisenbrauns, 1992.
 SELECT BIBLIOGRAPHY • 169

Yuhong, W. A Political History of Eshnunna: Mari and Assyria during the Early
Old Babylonian Period. Changchun: Institute of History of Ancient Civilizations,
Northeast Normal University, 1994.

Middle Babylonian Period

Brinkman, John A. A Political History of Post-Kassite Babylonia. Rome: Biblical
Institute, 1968.
———. “‘The Monarchy of the Kassite Dynasty’ in Le Palais et la royauté.” In XIX
Rencontre Assyriologique Internationale, Paris 1971, ed. Pierre Garelli. Paris:
Geuthner, 1974, 409–15.
———. Materials and Studies for Kassite History: Vol. I. A Catalogue of Cuneiform
Sources Pertaining to Specific Monarchs of the Kassite Dynasty. Chicago: Ori-
ental Institute of the University of Chicago, 1976.
———. “Kassiten.” Reallexikon der Assyriologie und Archäologie 5 (1980): 464–73.
Frame, Grant. Rulers of Babylonia: From the Second Dynasty of Isin to the End of
the Assyrian Domination (1157–612 B.C.): Royal Inscriptions of Mesopotamia.
Early Period, vol. 2. Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 1995.
Lambert, Wilfred G. “The Reign of Nebuchadnezzar I: A Turning Point in the His-
tory of Mesopotamian Religion.” In The Seed of Wisdom. Essays in Honor of T. J.
Meek, ed. W. S. MacCullogh. Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 1963, 3–13.
Sassmannhausen, L. “The Adaptation of the Kassites to the Babylonian Civiliza-
tion.” In Languages and Cultures in Contact: At the Crossroads of Civilization in
the Syro-Mesopotamian Realm: Proceedings of the 42 Rencontre Assyriologique
Internationale, ed. Karel van Lerberghe and Gabrielle Voet. Leuven: Peeters,
1999, 409–24.
Sommerfeld, Walter. “The Kassites of Ancient Mesopotamia: Origins, Politics, and
Culture.” In Civilizations of the Ancient Near East, ed. Jack M. Sasson. New
York: Scribner, 1995, 917–30.
Stein, Peter. Die mittel-und neubabylonischen Königsinschriften bis zum Ende der
Assyrerherrschaft. Jenaer Beiträge zum Vorderen Orient 3. Wiesbaden: Harra-
sowitz, 2000.
Ward, William A., and Martha Sharp Jonkowsky, eds. The Crisis Years: The 12th
Century B.C. Dubuque, Iowa: Kendall/Hunt, 1992.

Amarna Period
Cohen, Raymond, and Raymond Westbrook, eds. Amarna Diplomacy: The Beginnings
of International Relations. Baltimore, Md.: Johns Hopkins University Press, 2000.
Moran, William L. The Amarna Letters. Baltimore, Md.: Johns Hopkins University
Press, 1992.
170 • SELECT BIBLIOGRAPHY

Neo-Babylonian Period
Beaulieu, Pierre-Alain. The Reign of Nabonidus King of Babylon 556–539 B.C. New
Haven, Conn.: Yale University Press, 1989.
———. “King Nabonidus and the Neo-Babylonian Empire.” In Civilizations of the
Ancient Near East, ed. Jack M. Sasson. New York: Scribner, 1995, 969–80.
Borger, Rykele. “Der Aufstieg des neubabylonischen Reiches.” Journal of
Cuneiform Studies 19 (1965): 59–78.
Brinkman, John A. “Babylonia under the Assyrian Empire 745–c. 627.” In Power
and Propaganda: A Symposium on Ancient Empires, ed. Mogens T. Larsen.
Copenhagen: Akademisk Forlag, 1979, 223–50.
———. Prelude to Empire: Babylonian Society and Politics, 747–626 B.C. Philadel-
phia: University Museum, 1984.
Dandamayev, Mohammed. “The Neo-Babylonian Society and Economy.” In Cam-
bridge Ancient History, 3.2. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1988,
252–75.
Frame, Grant. Babylonia 689–627 B.C.: A Political History. Istanbul: Nederlands
Historisch-Archaeologisch Instituut te Istanbul, 1992.
———. “The ‘First Families’ of Borsippa during the Early Neo-Babylonian period.”
Journal of Cuneiform Studies 36 (1984): 67–80.
Funk, Bernhard. “Babylonien im 7. und 6. Jahrhundert.” In Gesellschaft und Kultur
im alten Vorderasien, ed. Horst Klengel. Berlin: Akademie Verlag, 1982.
Gadd, Cyril J. “The Harran inscriptions of Nabonidus.” Anatolian Studies 8 (1958):
35–92.
Sack, Ronald H. “Nebuchadnezzar and Nabonidus in Folklore and History.”
Mesopotamia 17 (1982): 67–131.
———. “The Nabonidus Legend.” Révue d’Assyriologie 77 (1983): 67–131.
———. Neriglissar—King of Babylon. Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchner, 1994.
Saggs, Henry W. F. The Greatness that was Babylon. London: Sidgwick & Jackson,
1962.
Stein, Peter. Die mittel-und neubabylonischen Königsinschriften bis zum Ende der
Assyrerherrschaft. Jenaer Beiträge zum Vorderen Orient 3. Wiesbaden: Harra-
sowitz, 2000.
Wiseman, Donald J. Nebuchadrezzar and Babylon: The Schweich Lectures of the
British Academy. London: Oxford University Press, 1985.

Old Assyrian Period

Dercksen, Jan G. The Old Assyrian Copper Trade in Anatolia. Istanbul: Nederlands
Historish-Archaeologisch Instituut te Istanbul, 1996.
Grayson, Albert K. “The Early Development of the Assyrian Monarchy.” Ugarit
Forschungen 3 (1971): 311–19.
———. Assyrian Royal Inscriptions. Vol. I. Wiesbaden: Harrasowitz, 1972.
 SELECT BIBLIOGRAPHY • 171

———. Assyrian Rulers of the Third and Second Millennia B.C. (to 1115 B.C.).
Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 1987.
Larsen, Mogens T. Old Assyrian Caravan Procedures. Istanbul: Nederlands
Historisch-Archaeologisch Instituut te Istanbul, 1967.
———. The Old Assyrian City State and Its Colonies. Mesopotamia 4. Copenhagen:
Akademisk Forlag, 1976.
Orlin, Louis L. Assyrian Colonies in Cappadocia. The Hague: Mouton, 1970.
Özgüç, Tahsin. Kültepe-Kaniš II: New Researches at the Trading Center of the An-
cient Near East. Ankara: Türk Tarih Kurumu Basimevi, 1986.

Middle Assyrian Period

Grayson, Albert K. “Assyria: Ashur-Dan II to Ashur-nirari V (934–745 B.C.).”
In Cambridge Ancient History, 3.1, 2d ed. Cambridge: Cambridge University
Press, 1982, 253–59.
———. Assyrian Royal Inscriptions 1. Wiesbaden: Harrasowitz, 1972.
———. Assyrian Royal Inscriptions 2. Wiesbaden: Harrasowitz, 1976.
Munn-Rankin, M. “Assyrian Military Power 1300–1200 B.C.” In Cambridge An-
cient History, 2.2, 2d ed. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1975, 274–79.
Saporetti, Claudio. The Status of Women in the Middle Assyrian Period. Sources and
Monographs of the Ancient Near East 2/1. Malibu, Calif.: Undena, 1979.
Schaudig, Hanspeter. Die Inschriften Nabonids von Babylon und Kyros’ des
Grossen samt den in ihrem Umfeld entstandenen Tendenzschriften: Textausgabe
und Grammatik. Münster: Ugarit, 2001.
Weidner, Ernst F. Die Inschriften Tukulti-Ninurtas I und seiner Nachfolger. Archiv
für Orientforschung Beiheft 12. Graz: im Selbstverlag des Herausgebers, 1959.
Wiseman, Donald J. “Assyria and Babylonia c. 1200–1000 B.C.” In Cambridge An-
cient History, 2.2, 2d ed. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1975, 469–70.
———. “Babylonia 605–539 B.C.” Cambridge Ancient History, 3.2, 2d ed. Cam-
bridge: Cambridge University Press, 1991, 229–51.
———. Nebuchadnezzar and Babylon. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1985.

Neo-Assyrian Period
Fales, F. M., ed. Assyrian Royal Inscriptions: New Horizons in Literary, Ideologi-
cal, and Historical Analysis: Papers of a Symposium Held in Cetona (Siena),
26–28 June 1980. Rome: Isitituto per l’Oriente, Centro per le antichità e la storia
dell’arte del vicino Oriente, 1981.
Grayson, Albert K. “Assyria 668–635 B.C.: The Reign of Ashurbanipal.” In Cambridge
Ancient History, 3.2, 2d ed. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1991, 142–61.
Landsberger, Benno, Simo Parpola, and Hayim Tadmor. “The Sin of Sargon and
Sennacherib’s Last Will.” State Archives of Assyria Bulletin 3 (1989): 1–51.
172 • SELECT BIBLIOGRAPHY

Lanfranchi, Giovanni, and Simo Parpola. The Correspondence of Sargon: Part II.
Letters from the Northern and North-Eastern Provinces. State Archives of As-
syria 5. Helsinki: Helsinki University Press, 1990.
Levine, Louis D. “Sargon’s Eighth Campaign.” In Mountains and Lowlands. Bib-
liotheca Mesopotamica 7, ed. Louis D. Levine and T. Cuyler Young. Malibu,
Calif.: Undena, 1977, 135–51.
Liverani, Mario. “The Growth of the Assyrian Empire.” State Archives of Assyria
Bulletin II, no. 2 (1988): 81–98.
———. “The Ideology of the Assyrian Empire.” In Power and Propaganda: A Sym-
posium on Ancient Empires. Studies in Assyriology, vol. 7, ed. Mogens T. Larsen.
Copenhagen: Akademisk Forlag, 1979, 297–317.
Luckenbill, Daniel D. The Annals of Sennacherib. Chicago: University of Chicago
Press, 1924.
———. Ancient Records of Assyria and Babylonia. 2 vols. New York: Greenwood,
1968.
Luukko, Mikko, and Greta van Buylaere, eds. The Political Correspondence of
Esarhaddon. State Archives of Assyria, vol. 16. Helsinki: Helsinki University
Press, 2002.
Malbran-Labat, Florence. L’Armée et l’Organisation Militaire de l’Assyrie. Paris:
Droz, 1982.
Melville, Sarah C. The Role of Naqia/Zakutu in Sargonid Politics. State Archives of
Assyria 9. Helsinki: Neo-Assyrian Text Corpus Project, 1999.
Millard, Alan Ralph. Eponyms of the Assyrian Empire 910–612 B.C. State Archives
of Assyria 2. Helsinki: Neo-Assyrian Text Corpus Project, 1994.
Na’aman, N. “Chronology and History in the Late Assyrian Empire (613–619 B.C.).”
Zeitschrift für Assyriologie 81 (1991): 243–67.
Oates, Joan. “Assyrian Chronology 613–612 B.C.” Iraq 27 (1965): 135–59.
Oded, Bustang. Mass Deportations and Deportees in the Neo-Assyrian Empire.
Wiesbaden: Reichert, 1979.
Paley, Samuel M. King of the World: Ashur-nasirpal II of Assyria 883–859 B.C. New
York: Brooklyn Museum, 1976.
Parpola, Simo. “A Letter from Šamaš-šumu-ukin to King Esarhaddon.” Iraq 34
(1972): 21–34.
———. “The Murder of Sennacherib.” In Death in Mesopotamia: 26th Rencontre
Assyriologique Internationale, ed. Bendt Alster. Copenhagen: Akademisk Forlag,
1980, 171–82.
———. The Correspondence of Sargon II: Part 1, Letters from Assyria and the West.
State Archives of Assyria 1. Helsinki: Helsinki University Press, 1987.
Parpola, Simo, and Kazuko Watanabe. Neo-Assyrian Treaties and Loyalty Oaths.
State Archives of Assyria 2. Helsinki: Helsinki University Press, 1988.
Pongratz-Leisten, Beate. Herrschaftswissen in Mesopotamien: Formen der Kom-
munikation zwischen Gott und König in 2. und 1. Jahrtausend v. Chr. Helsinki:
The Neo-Assyrian Text Corpus Project, 1999.
 SELECT BIBLIOGRAPHY • 173

Porter, Barbara N. Images, Power, and Politics: Figurative Aspects of Esarhaddon’s

Babylonian Policy. Philadelphia: American Philosophical Society, 1993.
Postgate, John Nicholas. “The Land of Assur and the Yoke of Assur.” World Ar-
chaeology 23 (1992): 247–63.
———. Neo-Assyrian Royal Grants and Decrees. Studia Pohl, Series Maior 1. Rome:
Pontifical Biblical Institute, 1969.
———. Taxation and Conscription in the Assyrian Empire. Studia Pohl, Series Maior
3. Rome: Biblical Institute Press, 1974.
Reade, Julian. “The Neo-Assyrian Court and Army: Evidence from the Sculptures.”
Iraq 34 (1972): 87–112.
Saggs, Henry W. F. The Might That Was Assyria. London: Sidgwick & Jackson,
1984.
Starr, Ivan. Queries to the Sungod: Divination and Politics in Sargonid Assyria.
State Archives of Assyria 4. Helsinki: Helsinki University Press, 1990.
Tadmor, Hayim. “The Campaigns of Sargon II of Assyria.” Journal of Cuneiform
Studies 12 (1958): 22–40, 77–100.
Thomas, F. “Sargon II, der Sohn Tiglath-pilesers III.” In Mesopotamica-Ugaritica-
Biblica: Festschrift für Kurt Bergerhof zur Vollendung seines 70. Lebensjahres
am 7. Mai 1992, ed. Manfried Dietrich and Oswald Loretz. Neukirchen-Vluyn:
Neukirchner Verlag,1993, 465–70.
Waetzold, Hartmut, and Harald Hauptmann, eds. Assyrien im Wandel der Zeiten: 39
e Rencontre Assyriologique Internationale, Heidelberg 6–10, Juli 1992. Heidel-
berg: Heidelberger Orientverlag, 1997.
Yamada, Shigeo. The Construction of the Assyrian Empire: A Historical Study of
the Inscriptions of Shalmaneser III (859–824 B.C.) Relating to his Campaigns in
the West. Boston: Brill, 2001.
Zawadzki, Stefan. The Fall of Assyria and Median-Babylonian Relations in the Light
of the Nabopolassar Chronicle. Pozna’n: Adam Mickiewitz University Press, 1988.

Elam
Carter, Elizabeth, and Matthew W. Stolper. Elam: Surveys of Political History and
Archaeology. Berkeley: University of California Press, 1984.
Hinz, Walther. The Lost World of Elam. London: Sidgwick & Jackson, 1972.
Waters, Matthew W. A Survey of Neo-Elamite History. State Archives of Assyria
Studies, vol. 12. Helsinki: Neo-Assyrian Text Corpus Project, 2000.

Achaemenid Period
Briant, Pierre. Histoire de l’empire perse: De Cyrus à Alexandre. Paris: Fayard, 1996.
Cook, John M. The Persian Empire. London: Dent, 1983.
Curtis, John. Ancient Persia. London: British Museum Publications, 1989.
174 • SELECT BIBLIOGRAPHY

Dandamayev, Mohammed A. A Political History of the Achaemenid Empire. Lei-

den: Brill, 1989.
Herzfeld, Ernst. The Persian Empire: Studies in Geography and Ethnography of the
Ancient Near East. Wiesbaden: Steiner, 1968.
Klengel, Horst. “Babylon zur Zeit der Perser, Griechen und Parther.” Forschungen
und Berichte, Staatliche Museen zu Berlin 5 (1962): 40–53.
Kuhrt, Amélie. “The Cyrus Cylinder and Achaemenid Imperial Policy.” Journal for
the Study of the Old Testament 25 (1983): 83–97.
Sancisi-Weerdenburg, Heleen, ed. Achaemenid History Workshop. Vols. 1–8. Lei-
den: Nederlands Instituut voor het Nabije Oosten, 1987–1994.
Wiesehöfer, Josef. Ancient Persia from 550 B.C. to 650 A.D. London: Tauris, 1996.
Young, T. Cuyler. “The Early History of the Medes and the Persians and the
Achaemenid Empire to the Death of Cambyses.” In Cambridge Ancient History.
Vol. 4, 2d ed. Cambridge: University of Cambridge Press, 1988, 24–46.

Seleucid Period
Cohen, Getzel M. The Seleucid Colonies: Studies in Founding, Administration and
Organization. Wiesbaden: Steiner, 1978.
Sherwin-White, Susan, and Amélie Kuhrt, eds. Hellenism in the East: The Interac-
tion of Greek and Non-Greek Civilizations from Syria to Central Asia after
Alexander. London: Duckworth, 1987.
———. From Samarkhand to Sardis: A New Approach to the Seleucid Empire. Lon-
don: Duckworth, 1993.
Tarn, William W. Seleucid-Parthian Studies. London: Milford, 1930.
Wagner, Jörg. Seleukia am Euphrat/Zeugma. Wiesbaden: Reichert, 1976.

Laws and Legal Systems

Driver, G. R., and John C. Miles. The Assyrian Laws. 2 vols. Oxford: Clarendon, 1935.
———. The Babylonian Laws. 2 vols. Oxford: Clarendon, 1968.
Greengus, Samuel. “Legal and Social Institutions of Ancient Mesopotamia.” In Civ-
ilizations of the Ancient Near East, ed. Jack M. Sasson. New York: Scribner,
1995, 469–84.
Jas, Remko. Neo-Assyrian Judicial Procedures. State Archives of Assyria V.
Helsinki: Neo-Assyrian Text Corpus Project, 1996.
Joannès, Francis. Rendre la Justice en Mésopotamie. Les Archives judiciaires du
Proche-Orient ancien IIIe-Ier Millénaires avant J.-C. Saint-Denis: Presses uni-
vérsitaires de Vincennes, 2000.
Kwasman, Theodore and Simo Parpola, eds. Legal transactions of the royal court
of Nineveh. Helsinki: Helsinki University Press, 1991–2002.
Malul, Meir. Studies in Mesopotamian Legal Systems. Neukirchen-Vluyn:
Neukirchner, 1988.
 SELECT BIBLIOGRAPHY • 175

Roth, Martha. Law Collections from Mesopotamia and Asia Minor. Atlanta: Schol-
ars Press, 1995.
VerSteeg, Russ. Early Mesopotamian Law. Durham, N.C.: Academic Press, 2000.
Westbrook, Raymond. “Cuneiform Law-Codes and the Origin of Legislation.”
Zeitschrift für Assyriologie 79 (1989): 201–22.
Yaron, Reuven. The Laws of Eshnunna. Leiden: Brill, 1969.

LITERATURE

Akkadian Literature
Cagni, Luigi. The Poem of Erra. Sources from the Ancient Near East. Vol. I. Mal-
ibu, Calif.: Undena, 1977.
Cooper, Jerrold S. The Curse of Agade. Baltimore, Md.: Johns Hopkins University
Press, 1983.
Dalley, Stephanie. Myths from Mesopotamia. Oxford: Oxford University Press,
1989.
Foster, Benjamin. Before the Muses: An Anthology of Akkadian Literature. 2 vols.
Bethesda, Md.: CDL, 1996.
———. The Epic of Gilgamesh. New York: Norton, 2001.
———. From Distant Days: Myths, Tales and Poetry of Ancient Mesopotamia.
Bethesda, Md.: CDL, 1995.
George, Andrew. The Epic of Gilgamesh: The Babylonian Epic Poem and Other
Texts in Akkadian and Sumerian. London: Allen Lane, 2001.
Goodnick-Westenholz, Joan. Legends of the Kings of Akkade. Winona Lake, Ind.:
Eisenbrauns, 1997.
Harris, Rivkah. Gender and Aging in Mesopotamia: The Gilgamesh Epic and Other
Ancient Literature. Norman: University of Oklahoma Press, 2000.
Heidel, Alexander. A Babylonian Genesis. Chicago: University of Chicago Press,
1951.
Lambert, Wilfred G. Babylonian Wisdom Literature. Oxford: Clarendon, 1960.
Lambert, Wilfred G., and Allan R. Millard. Atra-hasis: The Babylonian Story of the
Flood. Oxford: Clarendon, 1969.
Leick, Gwendolyn. Sex and Eroticism in Mesopotamian Literature. London: Rout-
ledge, 1994.
Mindlin, M., M. J. Geller, and J. E. Wansbrough, eds. Figurative Language in the
Ancient Near East. London: School of Oriental and African Studies, University
of London, 1987.
Westenholz, Joan G. Legends of the Kings of Akkade: The Texts. Winona Lake, Ind.:
Eisenbrauns, 1997.
Reiner, Erica. “Your Thwarts in Pieces, Your Mooring Rope Cut”: Poetry from
Babylonia and Assyria. Ann Arbor: Horace H. Rackham School of Michigan
Graduate Studies at the University of Michigan, 1985.
176 • SELECT BIBLIOGRAPHY

Vanstiphout, Herman L. J., ed. Genre in Mesopotamian Literature. Leiden: Brill,

2001.
Vanstiphout, Herman L. J., and M. E. Vogelzang. Mesopotamian Poetic Language:
Sumerian and Akkadian. Groningen: Styx, 2001.
Wassermann, N. Wool from the Loom: The Development of Literary Genres in
Ancient Literature. Jerusalem: N.p., 2001.

Sumerian Literature
Alster, Bendt. “The Instructions of Shuruppak.” Orientalia 60, no. 3 (1991): 141–57.
———. Proverbs of Ancient Sumer: The World’s Oldest Proverb Collections. 2 vols.
Bethesda, Md.: CDL, 1997.
Behrens, Hermann. Enlil and Ninlil. Studia Pohl: Series Maior 8. Rome: Biblical In-
stitute Press, 1978.
Benito, Carlos A. “Enki and Ninmah” and “Enki and the World Order.” Ann Ar-
bor: University Microfilms, 1969.
Berlin, Adele. Enmerkar and Enšuhkešdanna: A Sumerian Narrative Poem. Phila-
delphia: University Museum, 1979.
Cohen, Mark. Balag-Compositions: Sumerian Lamentation Liturgies of the Second
and First Millennium B.C. Sources from the Ancient Near East. Malibu, Calif.:
Undena, 1974–1978.
Cooper, Jerrold S. The Return of Ninurta to Nippur. Analecta Orientalia 52. Rome:
Pontificum Institutum Biblicum, 1978.
Jacobsen, Thorkild. Harps That Once . . .: Sumerian Poetry in Translation. New
Haven, Conn.: Yale University Press, 1978.
Klein, Jacob. The Royal Hymns of Shulgi, King of Ur. Philadelphia: American
Philosophical Society, 1981.
Kramer, Samuel Noah. From the Tablets of Sumer. Indian Hills, Colo.: Falcon
Wings, 1956.
Michalowski, Piotr. The Lamentation over the Destruction of Sumer and Ur. Winona
Lake, Ind.: Eisenbrauns, 1989.
Sjöberg, Ake, and E. Bergman. The Collection of Sumerian Temple Hymns and the
Kes Temple Hymn. Locust Valley, N.Y.: Augustin, 1969.
Wasserman, Nathan. Style and Form in Old-Babylonian Literary Texts. Cuneiform
Monographs, 27. Leiden: Brill, 2002.

Mathematics and Metrology

de Odorico, Mario. The Use of Numbers and Quantifications in the Assyrian Royal
Inscriptions. State Archives of Assyria III. Helsinki: Neo-Assyrian Text Corpus
Project, 1995.
Nemet-Najat, Karen. Cuneiform Mathematical Texts as a Reflection of Everyday
Life in Mesopotamia. New Haven, Conn.: American Oriental Society, 1993.
 SELECT BIBLIOGRAPHY • 177

Neugebauer, Otto, and A. Sachs, eds. Mathematical Cuneiform Texts. New Haven,
Conn.: American Oriental Society, 1954.
Powell, Marvin A. “Ancient Mesopotamian Metrology.” Alter Orient und Altes Tes-
tament 203 (1979): 90–105.
———. “Metrology and Mathematics in Ancient Mesopotamia.” In Civilizations of
the Ancient Near East, ed. Jack M. Sasson. New York: Scribner, 1941–1957, 1979.

Omen Collections
Friedman, Sally M. If a City Is Set on a Height. Akkadian series Šumma alu ina
melê sakin. Philadelphia: Pennsylvania Museum, 1998.
Guinan, Ann. “Auguries of Hegemony: The Sex Omens of Mesopotamia.” Gender
and History 9, no. 3 (1997): 423–61.
Koch-Westenholz, Ulla. Old Babylonian Extispicy: Omen Texts in the British Mu-
seum. Istanbul: Nederlands Historisch-Archaeologisch Instituut te Istanbul, 1989.
———. Babylonian Liver Omens: The Chapter Manzazu, Padanu and Pan takalti of
the Babylonian Extispicy Series Mainly from Ashurbanipal’s Library. Carsten
Niebuhr Institute Publications 25. Copenhagen: University of Copenhagen, 2000.
Leichty, Erle. The Omen Series Summa Izbu: Texts from Cuneiform Sources. Locust
Valley, N.Y.: Augustin, 1970.
Reiner, Erica, and Donald Pingree. Babylonian Planetary Omens. Groningen: Styx,
1975–1998.

Peoples of the Ancient Near East

Hinz, Walther. The Lost World of Elam: Re-creation of a Vanished Civilization. Lon-
don: Sidgwick & Jackson, 1972.
Kramer, Samuel Noah. The Sumerians: Their History, Culture, and Character.
Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1963.
Leick, Gwendolyn. The Babylonians: An Introduction. London: Routledge, 2002.
McQueen, James G. The Hittites and Their Contemporaries in Asia Minor. Rev. ed.
London: Thames & Hudson, 1986.
Saggs, Henry W. F. Babylonians. London: British Muesum Press, 1995.
———. The Might That Was Assyria. London: Sidgwick & Jackson, 1984.
Wilhelm, Gernot. The Hurrians. Warminster: Aris & Phillips, 1989.
Wiseman, Donald J., ed. Peoples of Old Testament Times. Oxford: Oxford Univer-
sity Press, 1973.

Political Structure
Finet, André. La voix de l’opposition en Mésopotamie. Brussels: Institut des Hautes
Études Belgique, 1973.
178 • SELECT BIBLIOGRAPHY

Jacobsen, Thorkild. “Early Political Development in Mesopotamia.” Zeitschrift für

Assyriologie 52 (1957): 91–140.
Larsen, Mogens Trolle. The Old Assyrian City-State and its Colonies. Mesopotamia
4. Copenhagen: Akademisk Forlag, 1976.
Stein, Gil, and Martha Rothman, eds. Chiefdoms and Early States in the Near East:
The Organizational Dynamics of Complexity. Madison: Prehistory Press, 1994.
Weisberg, David. Guild Structure and Political Allegiance in Early Achaemenid
Mesopotamia. New Haven, Conn.: Yale University Press, 1967.
Yoffee, Norman. “Political Economy in Early Mesopotamian States.” Annual Re-
view of Anthropology 24 (1995): 415–30.

Religion
Abusch, Tzvi. Mesopotamian Witchcraft: Towards a History and Understanding of
Babylonian Witchcraft Beliefs and Literature. Leiden: Brill, 2001.
Black, Jeremy A., and Anthony R. Green. Gods, Demons and Symbols of Ancient
Mesopotamia: An Illustrated Dictionary. 2d. ed London: British Museum Press,
1992.
Bottéro, Jean. Religion in Ancient Mesopotamia. Chicago: University of Chicago
Press, 2001.
Chamaza, G. W. V. Die Omnipotenz Assurs: Entwicklungen in der Assur Theologie
unter den Sargoniden, Sargon II, Sanherib, und Asarhaddon. Alter Orient und Altes
Testament 295. Muenster: Ugarit Verlag, 2002.
Ciraolo, L., and J. Seidel (eds.). Magic and Dvination. Leiden: Brill, 2002.
Cohen, Mark E. The Canonical Lamentations of Ancient Mesopotamia. 2 vols. Po-
tomac, Md.: Capital Decsions, 1988.
Collins, P. “The Sumerian Goddess Inanna.” Papers from the Institute of Archaeol-
ogy (University of London) 5 (1994): 103–18.
Cunningham, Graham. “Deliver Me from Evil”: Mesopotamian Incantations
2500–1500 B.C. Studia Pohl, Series Maior 17. Rome: Pontificio istituto biblico,
1997.
Dick, Michael B., ed. Born in Heaven, Made on Earth: The Making of the Cult Im-
age in the Near East. Winona Lake, Ind.: Eisenbrauns, 1999.
Finet, André, ed. La divination en Mésopotamie ancienne et dans les régions
voisins: XIVe Rencontre Assyriologique Internationale, Strasbourg, 2–6 Juillet
1965. Paris: Presses universitaires, 1966.
Finkel, Irvin L., and Markholm J. Geller. Sumerian Gods and Their Representa-
tions. Groningen: Styx, 1997.
Holloway, S. W. Assur Is King! Assur Is King! Religion in the Exercise of Power in
the Neo-Assyrian Empire. Leiden: Brill, 2001.
Jacobsen, Thorkild. The Treasures of Darkness: A History of Mesopotamian Reli-
gion. New York, Conn.: Yale University Press, 1976.
 SELECT BIBLIOGRAPHY • 179

Kingsbury, E. C. “A Seven Day Ritual in Old Babylonian Cult at Larsa.” Hebrew

Union College Annual 34 (1963): 1–34.
Krebernik, M. and Juergen van Oorschot (eds.). Polytheismus und Monotheismus in
den Religionen des Vorderen Orients. Alter Orient und Altes Testament 298.
Muenster: Ugarit Verlag, 2002.
Laessøe, Jørgen. Studies on the Assyrian Ritual and Series Bît Rimki. Copenhagen:
Munsgaard, 1955.
Leick, Gwendolyn. A Dictionary of Ancient Near Eastern Mythology. 2d. ed. Lon-
don: Routledge, 1998.
Matsushima, Eiko, ed. Official Cult and Popular Religion in the Ancient Near East:
Papers of the First Colloquium on the Ancient Near East—The City and Its Life:
Held at the Middle Eastern Cultural Center in Japan (Mitaka, Tokyo). Heidel-
berg: Winter, 1993.
McEwan, Gilbert J. P. Priest and Temple in Hellenistic Babylonia. Wiesbaden:
Steiner, 1981.
Meyer, J. W. Untersuchungen zu den Tonlebermodellen aus dem Alten Orient.
Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchner, 1987.
Meyer, M., and Paul Mirecki. Ancient Magic and Ritual Power. Leiden: Brill, 2001.
Ringgren, Helmer. Religions of the Ancient Near East. London: S.P.C.K., 1973.
Oppenheim, Adolf Leo. The Interpretation of Dreams in the Ancient Near East:
With a Translation of the Assyrian Dream Book. Philadelphia: American Philo-
sophical Society, 1956.
Quaegebeur, J. Ritual and Sacrifice in the Ancient Near East: Proceedings of the In-
ternational Conference Organized by the Katholieke Universiteit Leuven from the
17th to the 20th of April 1991. Leuven: Peeters, 1994.
Schwerner, D. Die Wettergottgestalten Mesopotamiens und Nordsyriens in Zeitalter
der Keilschrift. Wiesbaden: Harrasowitz, 2001.
Scurlock, Joann. Magico-Medical Means of Treating Ghost-Induced Illness in An-
cient Mesopotamia. Studies in Ancient Magic and Divination, 3. Leiden: Brill,
2002.
Walker, Christopher, and Michael Dick. The Induction of the Cult Image in Ancient
Mesopotamia: The Mesopotamian Mis Pî Ritual / Transliteration, Translation,
and Commentary. State Archives of Assyria Literary Texts V 1. Helsinki: Neo-As-
syrian Text Corpus Project, 2001.
Watanabe, Kazko, ed. Priests and Officials in the Ancient Near East: Papers of the
Second Colloquium on the Ancient Near East—The City and Its Life—Held at the
Middle Eastern Culture Center in Japan (Mitaka, Tokyo), March 22–24, 1991.
Heidelberg: Winter, 1999.
Wiggermann, F. A. M. Mesopotamian Protective Spirits: The Ritual Texts. Gronin-
gen: Styx, 1992.
Wilson, E. Jan. “Holiness” and “Purity” in Mesopotamia. Neukirchen-Vlyun:
Neukirchner Verlag, 1994.
180 • SELECT BIBLIOGRAPHY

Society and Economy

Adams, Robert McC. The Evolution of Urban Society: Early Mesopotamia and
Prehispanic Mexico. London: Weidenfeld & Nicolson, 1966.
Bongenaar, A. C. V. M., ed. Interdependency of Institutions and Private Entrepre-
neurs: Proceedings of the Second MOS Symposium. Leiden: Nederlands Instituut
voor het Nabije Oosten, 2000.
Dandamaev, Mohammed. Slavery in Babylonia from Nabopolassar to Alexander
the Great 626–331 B.C. De Kalb: Northern Illinois University Press, 1984.
Dercksen, Jan G. “‘When We Met at Hattus’: Trade According to Old Assyrian
Texts from Alishar and Bogazköy.” In Veenhof Anniversary Volume: Studies Pre-
sented to Klaas R. Veenhof on the Occasion of his Sixty-Fifth Birthday, ed. W. H.
Soldt Leiden: Nederlands Instituut voor het Nabije Oosten, 2001, 39–65.
Diakonoff, I. M. “Slaves, Helots and Serfs in Early Antiquity.” Acta Antiqua Acad-
emiae Scientiarium Hungaricae 22 (1974): 45–78.
———. “Socio-Economic Classes in Babylonia and the Babylonian Concept of Social
Stratification.” In Gesellschaftsklassen im alten Zweistromland, ed. Dietz O. Edzard.
Munich: Verlag der bayerischen Akademie der Wissenschaften, 1972, 41–52.
———. “The Structure of Near Eastern Society before the Middle of the 2nd Millen-
nium B.C.” Oikumene (Budapest) 3 (1982): 7–100.
———. Structure of Society and State in Early Dynastic Sumer. Monographs on the
Ancient Near East, Vol. I. Malibu, Calif.: Undena, 1974–1979.
Durand, Jean-Marie, ed. La Femme dans le Proche-Orient Antique: XXXIIIe Ren-
contre Assyriologique Internationale, Paris, 7–10 Juillet 1986. Paris: Éditions
recherche sur les Civilisations, 1987.
Edzard, Dietz Otto, ed. Gesellschaftsklassen im alten Zweistromland, 18 Rencontre
Assyriologique Internationale, München, 29. Juni–3. Juli 1970. Munich: Verlag
der bayerischen Alademie der Wissenschaften, 1972.
Gelb, Ignace J. “Household and Family in Early Mesopotamia.” In State and Tem-
ple Economy in the Ancient Near East. Vol. I, ed. E. Lipinski. Leuven: Depart-
ment Oriëntalistiek, 1979.
Gelb, Ignace J., Piotr Steinkeller, and Robert Whiting. Earliest Land Tenure Systems
in the Near East: Ancient Kudurrus. Oriental Institute Publications 104. Chicago:
Oriental Institute of the University of Chicago, 1991.
Gibson, McGuire, and Robert D. Biggs, eds. The Organization of Power: Aspects of
Bureaucracy in the Ancient Near East. Chicago: Oriental Institute of the Univer-
sity of Chicago, 1987.
Hawkins, J. D., ed. Trade in the Ancient Near East: Papers Presented to the XXIII
Recontre Assyriologique Internationale, University of Birmingham, 5–9 July,
1976. London: British School of Archaeology in Iraq, 1977.
Jakob, S. Untersuchungen zur mittelassyrischen Verwaltung und Sozialstruktur.
Leiden: Brill, 2001.
Klengel, Horst. Gesellschaft und Kultur im alten Vorderasien. Berlin: Akademie
Verlag, 1982.
 SELECT BIBLIOGRAPHY • 181

Mattila, Raija. The king’s magnates: a study of the highest officials of the Neo-Assyr-
ian Empire. Helsinki: The Neo-Assyrian Text Corpus Project, 2000.
Miller, N., ed. Economy and Settlement in the Near East: Analyses of Ancient Sites
and Materials. MASCA Research Papers in Science and Archaeology, suppl. to
vol. 7. N.p.: 1990.
Powell, Marvin. “Elusive Eden: Private Property at the Dawn of History.” Journal
of Cuneiform Studies 46 (1994): 99–104.
Renger, Johannes. “On Economic Structures in Ancient Mesopotamia.” Orientalia
63, no. 3 (1994): 157–208.
Silver, Morris. Economic Structures of the Ancient Near East. London: Croom
Helm, 1985.
Snell, Daniel C. Flight and Freedom in the Ancient Near East. Leiden: Brill, 2001.
van de Mieroop, Marc. “Women in the Economy of Sumer.” In Women’s Earliest
Records from Ancient Egypt and Western Asia: Proceedings of the Conference on
Women in the Ancient Near East, Brown University, Providence, Rhode Island,
November 5–7, 1987, ed. Barbara Lesko. Atlanta: Scholars, 1987, 53–66.
———. Society and Enterprise in Old Babylonian Ur. Berlin: Reimer, 1992.
———. The Ancient Mesopotamian City. Oxford: Clarendon, 1997.
Veenhof, Klaas R., ed. Houses and Households in Ancient Mesopotamia: Papers
Read at the 40e Rencontre Assyriologique Internationale, Leiden, July 5–8,
1993. Istanbul: Nederlands Historisch-Archaeologisch Intituut te Istanbul,
1996.
Yoffee, N. The Economic Role of the Crown in the Old Babylonian Period. Malibu,
Calif.: Undena, 1977.
Zagarell, A. “Trade, Women, Class and Society in Ancient Western Asia.” Current
Anthropology 27 (1986): 415–30.
Zeder, M. A. Feeding Cities: Specialized Animal Economy in the Ancient Near East.
Smithsonian Series in Archaeological Inquiry. Washington, D.C.: Smithsonian
Institute, 1991.

Trade and Commerce

Archi, Alfonso, ed. Circulation of Goods in Non-Palatial Context in the Ancient
Near East. Rome: Ateneo, 1984.
Bongenaar, A. C. V. M., ed. Interdependency of Institutions and Private Entre-
preneurs: Proceedings of the Second MOS Symposium, Leiden 1988. Leiden:
Nederlands Instituut voor het Nabije Oosten, 2000.
Dercksen, Jan G. The Old Assyrian Copper Trade in Anatolia. Istanbul: Nederlands
Historisch-Archaeologisch Instituut te Istanbul, 1996.
———. Trade and Finance in Ancient Mesopotamia. Leiden: Nederlands Historisch-
Archaeologisch Instituut voor het Nabije Oosten, 1999.
Edens, C. “Dynamics of Trade in the Ancient Mesopotamian ‘World System.’”
American Anthropologist 94 (1992): 118–39.
182 • SELECT BIBLIOGRAPHY

Larsen, Mogens T. Old Assyrian Caravan Procedures. Istanbul: Nederlands His-

torisch-Archaeologisch Instituut te Istanbul, 1967.
Leemans, Wilhelmus F. The Old Babylonian Merchant: His Business and Social Posi-
tion. Studia et documenta ad iura Orientis Antiqui pertinentia III. Leiden: Brill,
1950.
———. Foreign Trade in the Old Babylonian Period as Revealed by Texts from South-
ern Mesopotamia. Studia et documenta ad iura Orientis Antiqui pertinentia VI.
Leiden: Brill, 1960.
Lipinski, Edward, ed. State and Temple Economy in the Ancient Near East. Leuven:
Department Oriëntalisiek, 1982.
Oates, Joan. “Mesopotamian Social Organisation: Archaeological and Philological
Evidence.” In The Evolution of Social Systems, ed. J. Friedman and M. J. Row-
lands. London: Duckworth, 1977, 457–85.
———. “Ancient Trade: New Perspectives.” World Archaeology 24, no. 3 (1993).
Oppenheim, A. Leo. “The Seafaring Merchants of Ur.” Journal of the American
Oriental Society 74 (1954): 6–17.
Powell, Marvin A. “Sumerian Merchants and the Problem of Profit.” Iraq 39 (1954):
23–29.
Shiff, L. B. “The Nur-Sin Archive: Private Entrepreneurship in Babylon (603–
507 B.C.).” Ph.D. diss., University of Pennsylvania, 1987.
Snell, Daniel. Ledgers and Prices: Early Mesopotamian Merchant Accounts. New
Haven, Conn.: Yale University Press, 1982.
Stech, T., and V. C. Pigot. “The Metals Trade in Southwest Asia in the Third Mil-
lennium B.C.” Iraq 48 (1986): 39–64.
Stolper, Matthew W. Entrepreneurs and Empire: The Murašu Archive, the Murasu
Firm, and the Persian Rule in Babylonia. Istanbul: Nederlands Historisch-
Archaeologisch Instituut te Istanbul, 1985.
Veenhof, Klaas R. Aspects of Old Assyrian Trade and Its Terminology. Leiden: Brill,
1972.
Wunsch, Cornelia. Das Egibi Archiv 1: Die Felder und Gärten. Groningen: Styx, 2000.
Yoffee, Norman. The Economic Role of the Crown in the Old Babylonian Period.
Malibau, Calif.: Undena, 1977.
———. Explaining Trade in Ancient Western Asia. Malibu, Calif.: Undena, 1981.

Tribal Peoples
Buccellati, Giorgio G. The Amorites of the Ur III Period. Naples: Istituto Universi-
tario Orientale, 1966.
Curtis, John, ed. Later Mesopotamia and Iran: Tribes and Empires 1600–539 B.C.:
Proceedings of a Seminar in Memory of Vladimir C. Lukoniv. London: British
Museum Publications, 1995.
Dietrich, Manfried. Die Aramäer Südbabyloniens in der Sargonidenzeit (700–648).
Neukirchen-Vlyun: Neukirchner, 1970.
 SELECT BIBLIOGRAPHY • 183

Dion, Paul E. Les Araméens à l’age du fer: Histoire politique et structures sociales.
Paris: Lecoffre, 1997.
Eph’al, Yisrael. The Ancient Arabs: Nomads on the Borders of the Fertile Crescent
9th–5th Centuries B.C. Leiden: Brill, 1982.
Heltzer, Michael. The Suteans. Naples: Istituto Universitario Orientale, 1981.
Luke, John T. Pastoralism and Politics in the Mari Period. Ann Arbor. Mich.: Uni-
versity Microfilms, 1965.
Matthews, Victor H. Pastoral Nomadism in the Mari Kingdom. Ann Arbor. Mich.:
University Microfilm International, 1978.
Millard, Allan R. “Arameans.” In The Anchor Bible Dictionary, ed. D. N. Freed-
man. New York: Doubleday, 1992, 345–50.
Schwartz, G. “Pastoral Nomadism in Ancient Western Asia.” In Civilizations of the
Ancient Near East, ed. Jack M.Sasson. New York: Scribner, 1995, 249–58.
Sommerfeld, Walter. “The Kassites of Ancient Mesopotamia: Origins, Politics and
Culture.” In Civilizations of the Ancient Near East, ed. Jack M. Sasson. New
York: Scribner, 1995, 917–30.
Whiting, R. M. “Amorite Tribes and Nations.” In Civilizations of the Ancient Near
East, ed. Jack M. Sasson. New York: Scribner, 1995, 1231–42.

Warfare and Military Organization

Dalley, Stephanie. “Ancient Mesopotamian Military Organisation.” In Civilizations
of the Ancient Near East, ed. Jack M. Sasson. New York: Scribner, 1995, 413–22.
———. “Foreign Chariotry and Cavalry in the Armies of Tiglath-Pileser III.” Iraq 47
(1985): 31–38.
Epha’al, Yisrael. “Ways and Means to Conquer a City, Based on Assyrian Queries
to the Sun God.” In Assyria 1995: Proceedings of the 10th Anniversary Sympo-
sium of the Neo-Assyrian Text Corpus Project, Helsinki, September 7–11, 1995,
ed. Simo Parpola and Robert M. Whiting. Helsinki: Neo-Assyrian Text Corpus
Project, 1997, 49–53.
Gabriel, Richard A., and Kren S. Metz. From Sumer to Rome: The Military Capa-
bilities of Ancient Armies. New York: Greenwood, 1991.
Gelb, Ignace J. “Prisoners of War in Early Mesopotamia.” Journal of Near Eastern
Studies 32 (1973): 70–98.
Klengel, Horst. “Krieg, Kriegsgefangene.” Reallexikon der Assyriologie 6. Berlin:
de Gruyter, 1980–1983, 241–46.
Malbran-Labat, Florence. L’armée et l’organisation militaire de l’Assyrie d’après
les lettres des Sargonides. Paris: Droz, 1982.
Munn-Rankin, J. M. “Diplomacy in Western Asia in the Early Second Millen-
nium B.C.” Iraq 18 (1956): 68–100.
Postgate, John Nicholas. Taxation and Conscription in the Assyrian Empire. Rome:
Biblical Institute Press, 1974.
Sasson, Jack M. The Military Establishments at Mari. Rome: Pontifical Institute, 1969.
184 • SELECT BIBLIOGRAPHY

Yadin, Yigael. The Art of Warfare in Biblical Lands in the Light of Archaeological
Evidence. London: McGraw-Hill, 1963.

Women
Asher-Greve, Julia. “Stepping into the Maelstrom: Women, Gender and Ancient
Near Eastern scholarship.” NIN—Journal of Gender Studies in Antiquity 1
(2000): 1–22.
Bahrani, Zainab. Women of Babylon: Gender and Representation in Mesopotamia.
London: Routledge, 2001.
Batto, Bernard F. Studies on Women at Mari. Baltimore, Md.: Johns Hopkins Uni-
versity Press, 1974.
Cameron, Averil, and Amélie Kuhrt, eds. Images of Women in Antiquity. London:
Routledge, 1993.
Durand, Jean-Marie, ed. La femme dans le Proche-Orient antique. Paris: N.p., 1987.
Lesko, Barbara. Women’s Earliest Records from Ancient Egypt and Western Asia:
Proceedings of the Conference on Women in the Ancient Near East, Brown Uni-
versity, Providence, Rhode Island, November 5–7, 1987. Atlanta: Scholars Press,
1987.
Stol, Marten. “Women in Mesopotamia.” Journal of the Economic and Social His-
tory of the Orient 38 (1995): 123–44.
Westenholz, Joan G. “Towards a New Conceptualization of the Female Role in
Mesopotamian Society.” Journal of the American Oriental Society 110 (1990):
510–21.
Wyke, Maria. Gender and the Body in the Ancient Mediterranean. Oxford: Oxford
University Press, 1998.
Wyke, Maria, Léonie J.Archer, and Susan Fischler, eds. Women in Ancient Soci-
eties: An illusion of the Night. Basingstoke: Macmillan, 1994.

Writing
Driver, George R. Semitic Writing from Pictograph to Alphabet. 3d. rev. ed. Oxford:
Oxford University Press, 1976.
Gelb, Ignace J. A Study of Writing. Rev. ed. Chicago: University of Chicago Press,
1963.
Gesche, Petra. Schulunterricht in Babylonien im ersten Jahrtausend v. Chr. Muen-
ster: Ugarit, 1963 (reprint: 2000).
Healey, John F. The Early Alphabet. London: British Museum Publications, 1990.
Hooker, J. T., ed. Reading the Past: Ancient Writings from Cuneiform to the Alpha-
bet. London: British Museum Publications, 1991.
Krispijn, Th. J. H. “The Early Mesopotamian Lexical Lists and the Dawn of Lin-
guistics.” Jaarbericht Ex Oriente Lux 32 (1991–1992): 12–22.
 SELECT BIBLIOGRAPHY • 185

Liebermann, Stephen. “Of Clay Pebbles, Hollow Clay Balls, and Writing: A Sumer-
ian View.” American Journal of Archaeology 84 (1980): 339–58.
Michalowski, Piotr. “Early Mesopotamian Communicative Systems: Art, Litera-
ture, and Writing.” In Investigating Artistic Environments in the Ancient Near
East, ed. A. Gunter. Washington, D.C.: Arthur M. Sackler Gallery, Smithsonian
Institute, 1990, 53–69.
———. Letters from Early Mesopotamia. Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1990.
———. “Writing and Literacy in Early States: A Mesopotamianist Perspective.”
In Literacy: Interdisciplinary Conversations, ed. Deborah Keller Cohen. Creskill,
N.J.: Hampton, 1994, 49–70.
Millard, Allan R. “The Infancy of the Alphabet.” World Archaeology 17 (1986):
390–98.
Nissen, Hans, Peter Damerow, and Robert K. Englund. Archaic Bookkeeping: Early
Writing and Techniques of Economic Administration in the Ancient Near East.
Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1993.
Parpola, Simo. Letters from Assyrian and Babylonian Scholars. State Archives of
Assyria 10. Helsinki: Helsinki University Press, 1993.
———. Letters from Assyrian Scholars to the Kings Esarhaddon and Assurbanipal.
Helsinki: Helsinki University Press, 1970–1983.
Pedersén, Olof. Archives and Libraries in the Ancient Near East, 1500–1300 B.C.
Bethesda, Md.: CDL, 1998.
Powell, Marvin A., ed. “Aspects of Cuneiform Writing.” Visible Language 15, no.
4 (1981).
Schmandt-Besserat, Denise. Before Writing: From Counting to Cuneiform. 2 vols.
Austin: University of Texas Press, 1992.
Veenhof, Klaas R., ed. Cuneiform Archives and Libraries: Papers Read at the 30e
Rencontre Assyriologique Internationale, Leiden, 4–8 July, 1983. Leiden: Neder-
lands Historisch-Archaeologisch Instituut te Istanbul, 1986.
Walker, Christopher B. F. Reading the Past: Cuneiform. London: British Museum,
1987.

Periodicals
Acta Sumerologica
Akkadica
Analecta Orientalia
Archiv Orientalni
Archiv für Orientforschung
Baghdader Mitteilungen
Bibliotheca Orientalis
Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Research
186 • SELECT BIBLIOGRAPHY

Bulletin of Sumerian Agriculture

Journal of the American Oriental Society
Journal of the Ancient Near East Society
Journal of Cuneiform Studies
Journal of the Economic and Social History of the Orient
Journal of Near Eastern Studies
Mesopotamia
Mitteilungen der Altorientalischen Gesellschaft
Mitteilungen des Instituts für Orientforschung
NIN—Journal of Gender Studies in Antiquity
Orientalistische Literaturzeitschrift
Revue d’Assyriologie
State Archives of Assyria Bulletin
Studia Orientalia
Sumer
Welt des Orients
Zeitschrift für Assyriologie und verwandte Gebiete
 About the Author

Gwendolyn Leick studied assyriology at the Karl-Franzens University of

Graz (Austria) (Dr.phil) and at the School of Oriental and African Studies,
London. She has taught since 1980 at various universities in Britain and is
at present senior lecturer at the Chelsea College of Art and Design in Lon-
don. She is the author of A Dictionary of Ancient Near Eastern Architecture
(1988), A Dictionary of Ancient Near Eastern Mythology (1991), Sex and
Eroticism in Mesopotamian Literature (1994), Who’s Who in the Ancient
Near East (1999) (all published by Routledge), as well as Mesopotamia:
The Invention of the City (2002, Penguin). The Babylonians: An Introduc-
tion was published by Routledge in 2002.

187