Journal articles on the topic 'Akkadian Names'

The contribution is a new version of the paper "From Mesopotamia to Greece: to the Origin of Semitic and Greek Star Names" once written by a Sumerologist (L.Bobrova) and etymologist (A. Militarev), and recently revised, updated and corrected in most part by a historian of the Mesopotamian astronomy (G. Kurtik). The present paper analyzes Sumerian and Akkadian (Babylonian) names of 34 celestial bodies, and their equivalents in other Semitic languages (Arabic, Hebrew, Syrian Aramaic, and Ge`ez, or ancient Ethiopian) and in Greek and Latin. Its main goal is to demonstrate the importance of Sumerian and Babylonian celestial body names as a source of corresponding terms in other cultures, up to the conventional inventory of modern astronomy, and to reveal four strategies by which other cultures drew ideas for name-giving from the treasury of Mesopotamia's lexicon of celestial bodies. Whereas one of these strategies -- echoing, or full translation, of a Sumero-Akkadian term -- is axiomatic, the other three -- shift of meaning or interpretation of a Sumero-Akkadian term; lexical, or "material" borrowing; and, especially, folk etymology, or misinterpretation -- are understudied and practically unnoticed. The authors do not focus on such complicated matters as a historical background of Mesopotamian influence, direct or indirect, on Greek culture; a direction and routes of inter-borrowing between different speaking areas other than Akkadian and their contacts with the Greek world; a chronology of all kinds of cultural contacts and influences; probable connections between the early pre-Islamic Arabic and Babylonian traditions; or the problem of identification of Mesopotamian constellation and stars. However, the data presented may give a certain impulse to further investigation of these matters, while feasible etymologies and relations established between names can even throw some light upon debatable identification cases.

Abstract This article examines the resemblance between the Talmudic privy demon (“Shed Bet ha-Kise”) and Šulak, a well-known Akkadian demon. There are four considerations that point to identifying the privy demon of the Talmud with the Babylonian demon Šulak: (1) They both dwell in the privy; (2) they both are demons that cause epilepsy, strokes, or sudden falls; (3) they both seem to have the form of a lion; and (4) their names (“Šulak” and “Bar Širiqa”) are very similar. This suggestion is yet another example of the presence of beliefs and opinions from the Ancient Near East that found an echo in the Babylonian Talmud, one that may be added to a number of examples given by M. Geller.

Of all figures seen in Mesopotamian art, the naked or kilted human male figure with curls of hair on either side of his face is one of the most familiar. A form of this figure was portrayed already in the Jemdet Nasr period; he became common in Early Dynastic III, and particularly in the Akkadian period, after which he was less popular, though he was revived from time to time, probably until Achaemenid times. Since the early identification with Gilgamesh has been abandoned, he has been referred to by many names: the “six-locked hero”, “wild man”, “naked hero”, or whatever. Long ago Erich Ebeling cited evidence that his Akkadian name was talīmu, the “twin”. F. A. M. Wiggermann, in his article “Exit talim!”, and later in his valuable book Mesopotamian Protective Spirits, has argued that this familiar figure was instead referred to in Akkadian, at least in the first millennium B.C., as laḫmu, the “hairy one”, the “Hairy”. This identification has been accepted by numerous other scholars.Wiggermann presents the following evidence for his identification (listed from the most general to the most specific, rather than in Wiggermann's own order):1. Lexical evidence to show that the root lḫm means “to be hairy”, and that the noun laḫmu means “the hairy one”.2. Various citations of the noun laḫmu that in general are consistent with the identification.3. A very specific association of the term and the image in the Neo-Assyrian texts which prescribe the preparing of figurines to be buried in houses and palaces for protection against evil spirits. This evidence is the same as was used by Ebeling for his identification of the “wild man” as talīmu, which Wiggermann wishes to discredit.

Even as Babylonia came under foreign rule, cuneiform documentation continued to record traditional activities. In the transition to the Hellenistic period, it is assumed that Greek practices became more prevalent, although documentary evidence for them remains limited. Cuneiform legal texts documented a narrower range of transactions. In Uruk, these were primarily real estate transactions and prebend sales, which continued to be framed in traditional Babylonian formulaic language. However, in those texts, some actors display personal attributes and/or form networks suggesting they are promoting Hellenizing identities. The attributes include the adoption of Greek names, the use of polyonymous Akkadian-Greek names, and of Hellenistic motifs in the iconography of their seals. These practices appear in the records of three groups of individuals, including members of the elite Ah’ūtu family; the Dumqi-Anu/Arad-Rēš family, which held a share in the atû (porter) prebend; and of the ēpiš dulli ša ṭīdi (clay workers) class. The evidence suggests active construction of a Hellenizing identity is most apparent among members of the ēpiš dulli ša ṭīdi, who belonged to the lowest stratum of the groups considered, while the social networks of members of the Dumqi-Anu/Arad-Rēš family often attest to individuals who bridge communities grounded in Babylonian culture and to those who adopt features of Hellenizing identities.

AbstractScholars have recognized the composite nature of the narrative in Daniel 2 based upon certain contradictions within the story. Additional evidence will be marshaled to bolster this claim, including variation in the use of divine names according to the evidence of the Old Greek version. Furthermore, I suggest that a more precise division of the source material can be obtained based upon a philological analysis of the expression (v. 14), and its Akkadian cognates. The earlier stratum of the story presents Daniel as a “second” Joseph, and closely parallels both the story of Genesis 41 and the tale in Daniel 5. The secondary section is analyzed in an appendix in an attempt to identify its literary and historical context, with special attention given to the relationship between the description of God in 2:21 and the depiction of Antiochus IV Epiphanes in Daniel 7:24-26.

This study deals with historical and demographic aspects from the early history of Mesopotamia. 1 The history of the immigration of the Semites in the 3rd millennium B.C. is presented from the oldest evidence to the domination of the Akkadian Empire (ca. 2900-2300). Especially the names of persons and places are informative. The integration into the autochthonous Sumerian society seems to have proceeded largely without conflict. 2 After the Semitic dynasty of Akkade had gained dominance for about 150 years around 2300, there are detailed reports about several large uprisings in Sumer. Their backgrounds are analysed. 3 From the detailed data on the high numbers of victims, the question of the consequences for Sumerian society arises. Various methods of historical demography are presented, the results of research are referred to, conclusions on population density are attempted, and strategies for conflict resolution are discussed.

AbstractIn this article, data appearing in recently published Akkadian letters from the House of ʾUrtēnu (Ugarit) are applied to reach solutions to several Ugaritic onomastic and prosopographic problems. The results allow for clearer etymological evaluation of several personal names and a number of plausible prosopographic identifications, including two that are arguably relevant to Hittite prosopography and chronology. They further contribute to ongoing efforts devoted to exploring the relationship between Ḫatti and Ugarit in the final decades of the Late Bronze Age.This study has been completed during the course of a research fellowship at the Collège de France and has been facilitated by the hospitality of Professor Thomas Römer (Chair, Milieux bibliques, Collège de France) and the library of the Institut du Proche-Orient ancien. The many helpful suggestions from Dennis Pardee, Robert Hawley, Petra Goedegebuure, Theo van den Hout, Ilya Yakubovich, Madadh Richey, and the anonymous reviewers of this article are also gratefully acknowledged here, though I bear sole responsibility for any shortcomings.

The article discusses the problem of movement to “axial time” (Karl Jaspers’ term) on the basis of two cultural traditions - Sumero-Akkadian and Egyptian. An attempt is made to find signs of the emergence of a new consciousness within the framework of collective-traditional consciousness. These signs are the emergence of authorship, the emergence of new genres, the peculiarity of which is a free change in the position of the speaker, the change in the perception of the world through the ideas of justice, the emergence of new narratives, existing in parallel with the traditional ones. It is shown that by the end of the second millennium BC both cultures possessed almost all the set of the named features. We consider the peculiarities of functioning of such mystically experienced images-concepts as “me” (norm, measure, etc) and “shimtu” (fate) in Mesopotamia and “maat” (order, justice, etc) in Egypt. In both cultures, the existence of personal gods, doubles, and personified souls creates the possibility of a regularly practiced reflection on one’s life. The notion of authorship of certain texts shows that, along with folklore, certain narratives are formed that are transmitted along with authoritative names. Nevertheless, the possibility of transition to individual consciousness proper was blocked by two crucial features of these cultures - the consciousness of absolute dependence on the gods, who could, if they wished, but were not obliged to reveal to man his destiny, and the attachment of each individual to his social position, where status plays a leading role in determining man's destiny than his own efforts.

В статье мифологические имена рассматриваются как средства выражения творческой индивидуальности И.А. Бунина. Актуальность выбранной темы обусловлена интересом отечественных и зарубежных филологов к изучению мифологических образов и сюжетов в прозе и поэзии писателя в связи с такой характерной чертой его художественно-эстетической системы, как мультимифологизм. Фактическим материалом исследования выступают стихотворения, созданные И.А. Буниным в период с 1888 по 1952 гг. При интерпретации и систематизации материала использовались методы описательного, этимологического, контекстологического, мотивно-тематического анализа, метод количественного анализа полученных данных. Новизна работы связана, с одной стороны, с самим фактическим материалом, вводимым в научный обиход литературной ономастики, с другой - с синтезом лингвистического, культурологического и литературоведческого подходов при его рассмотрении. Выявлено несколько источников узуальных мифонимов: древние тексты греко-римской, германо-скандинавской, египетской, иранской, индийской, славянской, шумеро-аккадской мифологий; религиозно-философская литература ислама, христианства, иудаизма, буддизма; предания; фольклорные тексты славян (сказки, былины, лирические песни, духовные стихи). Автор приходит к выводу, что роль узуальных мифонимов в поэзии И.А. Бунина заключается в аккумулировании философско-символической сути стихотворений, репрезентации историософских концепций, ключевых идей и др. Индивидуально-авторские мифологические имена, в отличие от узуальных, выступают порождением фантазии писателя, его эстетико-философских воззрений, фоновых знаний. Несмотря на малочисленность индивидуально-авторские мифонимы тоже становятся средствами моделирования картины мира Бунина-художника, единицами, через призму которых осмысливались и транслировались читателю-интерпретатору основные темы, сквозные мотивы, система ценностей. ____________________________ © Селеменева О.А., 2022 The article describes the usual and individual author’s mythonyms as means of expressing the creative individuality of I.A. Bunin. The relevance of the chosen topic is due to the interest of domestic and foreign philologists in the study of mythological images and plots in the writer’s prose and poetry in connection with such a characteristic feature of his artistic and aesthetic system as multimythologism. The research was carried out on the basis of poems created by I.A. Bunin in the period from 1888 to 1952. The methods of descriptive, etymological, contextual, motive-thematic analysis, the method of quantitative analysis were used in the interpretation and systematization of the material. The novelty of the work is connected, on the one hand, with the factual material introduced into the scientific use of literary onomastics, and, on the other hand, with the synthesis of the linguistic, cultural and literary approach in its analysis. The author has identified several sources of conventional mythonyms: ancient texts of Greco-Roman, Germanic-Scandinavian, Egyptian, Iranian, Indian, Slavic, Sumerian-Akkadian mythologies; religious and philosophical literature of Islam, Christianity, Judaism, Buddhism; legends; folklore texts of the Slavs (fairy tales, epics, lyric songs, spiritual verses). The author comes to the conclusion that the role of conventional mythonyms in the poetry of I.A. Bunin is huge: the accumulation of the philosophical and symbolic essence of poems, the creation of a metaphorical semantic capacity, images-symbols, the representation of historiosophical concepts, etc. Individual author’s mythological names, in contrast to conventional ones, are the product of the writer’s fantasy, his aesthetic and philosophical views, background knowledge. Despite their small number, they also become means of modeling the picture of the Bunin’s world, units help the reader-interpreter to comprehend key themes, cross-cutting motives, value systems.

We propose a reflection about the theme of slavery, from the study of the archives of an important businessman in the city of Larsa, in the south Mesopotamian, named Ubar-Šamaš, during the reign of King Rîm-Sîn (1822-1763 BCE). This merchant exercised relevant economic activities, such as buying and selling land in urban and rural areas, silver loans and slave trade. In paleobabylonian society, slave labor did not occupy an important role in the economy, and the conditions of the trade of servantswere directly linked to political conditions, such as war and its economic and social consequences. Another objective of this article is to offer Brazilian readers research sources for the study of economic history of the ancient world, from the translation of documents directly from Akkadian language and cuneiform writing into Portuguese.

At some point early on during his reign, Sar-kali-sarrē, made a journey to Sumer. The occasion was so momentous that an entire year was named in commemoration of the excursion. This paper investigates the evidence for that royal visitation, with special attention given to the administrative documents that record the king's sojourn at Girsu. The investigation also considers the rationale for the king's decision to make an expedition to Sumer and asserts that Sar-kali-sarrē may have undertaken the journey in order to begin his building works at the Ekur in Nippur. In addition, the paper identifies some of the highest officials of the Akkadian court who traveled with the king. These individuals are significant because they are usually conspicuous in administrative documents, and as such their presence can establish prosopographic synchronisms between Sargonic archives.

The Greek name for the Trm͂mili people in Asia Minor was Λύκιοι, naturally explained by some Greek authors as from λύκος, ‘wolf’, either directly or via a personal name. This has inspired modern explanations by means of the same word. The first was that the Hittite country of Luwija was, just like Lycia, named after wolves, i.e. from a word for ‘wolf’ cognate with the Greek word, whereas the Akkadian name-form Lukku of another country have been influenced by the Greek form. The second explanation was that the Lycians, the Lycaonians and even the Hittite land of Lukkā were named after λύκος, but that this would be a word of pre-Greek origin. The third retains λύκος as a Greek word, making out that Lycians and Lycaonians, together with Lukkā, were originally Greek worshippers of a wolfish Apollo. The fourth turns the Lycians – and then also Lukkā – in the wake of the racist ‘Männerbund’ ideology, into a wolfish Greek ‘Jungmannschaft’, which became the ruling class in the later Lycia. This is certainly a fantasy without any linguistic or archaeological basis, and the explanation of Lukkā via a non-Greek but Proto-Anatolian *lukos ‛wolf’ is not a viable alternative. And there is no need to explain the name of the Bronze Age land of Luwiya via a putative Proto-Indo-European *lukwos either. Lukkā, Lykioi and Lykaones are more plausibly derived from the PIE root *leuk-/louk-/luk-, like English light. An independent attempt, which depicts the Lycians as former Aegean migrants who abandoned their Greek language, is based on two Greek loanwords, a putative link between a Lycian and a Greek word, and two phonological developments which have parallels in Greek, but are of a very different age. This is certainly not enough to corroborate that hypothesis.

The article is devoted to archaeological exploration conducted by researchers of the Institute of Oriental Studies, Russian Academy of Sciences in March 2023 at the site of Tell Jidr in Iraq. According to new research, the city of Tell Jidr, named Karkar in the ancient times, was a multi-layered monument that emerged on the eastern channel of the Euphrates – Iturungal – back in the Ubaid III Period, and then existed throughout the Early Dynastic I and Akkadian Periods, the Third Dynasty of Ur, into the Old Babylonian and the Kassite era. At its peak in the Parthian and Sasanian Periods, Tell Jidr, which apparently lost its original name, occupied an area of about 430 ha, stretching 4.4 km from northwest to southeast and 1.9 km from southwest to northeast, and competed with the capital of both empires, Ctesiphon. Remote sensing and ground truthing activities made it possible to clarify the internal structure of the monument, which consisted of northern and southern parts, to identify the system of city blocks and streets, public buildings (temple, palace, citadel), fortification, and to trace the evolution of urban development. Taking into account the finds of ceramic fragments decorated with stamps and fish dishes, as well as mention of Karkar in cuneiform sources of the late Achaemenid and Seleucid times, it is possible to clarify the existing ideas about the stages of the settlement’s development and to confirm the existence of the settlement in the Achaemenid and Hellenistic Periods.

Las ciudades mesopotámicas estaban amuralladas desde sus orígenes. Muralla y ciudad, símbolo de civilización, eran dos conceptos inseparables. Por mandato de los dioses, el rey era el responsable de la fundación de las ciudades y de la construcción de sus sistemas de defensa, que fueron evolucionando como respuesta a los cambios producidos en el arte de la guerra en el Próximo Oriente antiguo. En este artículo se analiza, en particular, la documentación arqueológica y textual de dos modelos de ciudad fortificada: Mari (III-II milenio a. C.), en el norte, y Babilonia (II-I milenio a. C.), en el sur. Se realiza una nueva propuesta de interpretación del recinto defensivo interior de Babilonia. Palabras clave: Ciudades mesopotámicas, fortificacionesTopónimos: Habuba Kabira, Mari, BabiloniaPeríodo: IV-I milenio a. C. ABSTRACTMesopotamian cities were walled from their origins. Wall and city, a symbol of civilisation, were two inseparable concepts. By mandate of the gods, the king was responsible for the foundation of the cities and the construction of their defence systems, which evolved in response to changes in the art of warfare in the ancient Near East. This article analyses, in particular, the archaeological and textual documentation of two models of fortified cities: Mari (3rd-2nd millennium B.C.), in the north, and Babylon (2nd-1st millennium B.C.), in the south. A new approach to the interpretation of the inner wall of Babylon is proposed. Keywords: Mesopotamian cities, fortificationsPlace names: Habuba Kabira, Mari, BabylonPeriod: IVth-Ist millennium B. C. REFERENCIASAbrahami, Ph. (1997), L’armée à Mari, tesis doctoral, Université de Paris I (inédita).al-Rawi, F.N.H. (1985), “Nabopolassar’s Restoration Work on the Wall Imgur-Enlil at Babylon”, Iraq, 47, pp. 1-9.Aurenche, O. (dir.) (1977), Dictionnaire illustré multilingue de l’architecture du Proche Orient Ancien, Lyon, MOM.Azara, P. (dir.) (2000), La fundación de la ciudad. Mesopotamia, Grecia y Roma, Barcelona, CCCB.Battini, L. (1996), “Un exemple de propagande néoassyrienne: les défenses de Dur-Sharrukin”, CMAO, 6, pp. 215-234.— (1997), “Les sytèmes défensifs à Babylone”, Akkadica, 104-105, pp. 24-55.Becker, H., van Ess, M., Fassbinder, J. (2019), “Uruk: Urban Structures in Magnetic and Satellite Images”, en Uruk. First City of the Ancient World, Los Angeles, Getty Museum.Burke, A. A. (2008), “Walled up to Heaven”. The Evolution of Middle Bronze Age Fortifications Strategies in the Levant, Winona Lake, Eisenbrauns.Butterlin, P. (2016), “Villes de Mésopotamie, D’Uruk à Babylone”, en L’histoire commence en Mésopotamie, París, Louvre, pp. 166-171.— (2020), “Mari, une ville circulaire ordinaire?”, en Circular Cities of Early Bronze Age Syria, Turnhout, Breplos, pp. 265-273.Chavalas, M. (ed.) (2006), Historical Sources in Translation. The Ancient Near East, Malden, Blackwell.Childe, V. G. (1992), Los orígenes de la civilización, México DF, FCE (1ª edición de 1936).Collon, D. (2008), “Le développement de l’arc en Mésopotamie”, en Les armées du Proche-Orient ancien (IIIe et Ier mil. av. J.-C.), Oxford, BAR.Durand, J. M. (1997), Les documents épistolaires du palais de Mari, tome I, Paris, Éditions du Cerf.— (1998), Les documents épistolaires du palais de Mari, tome II, Paris, Éditions du Cerf.George, A. R. (1992), Babylonian Topographical Texts, Leuven, Peeters.Herzog, Z. (1997), “Fortifications”, en The Oxford Encyclopedia of Archaeology in the Near East, New York-Oxford, Oxford University Press, pp. 319-326.Hnaihen, K. H. (2020), The Defensive Brick Architecture in Mesopotamia from the end of Early Bronze Age to th end of Early Iron Age, tesis doctoral, Universidad de Almería (inédita).Houben, H. y Guillaud, H. (2006), Traité de construction en terre, Marseille, Éditions Parenthèses.Kenyon, K. M. (1963), Arqueología en Tierra Santa, Barcelona, Ediciones Garriga.Lackenbacher, S. (2001), “Fondations assyriennes”, en Mites de fundació de ciutats al món antic (Mesopotàmia, Grècia i Roma), Barcelona, MAC, pp. 69-74.Liverani, M. (2006), Uruk. La primera ciudad, Barcelona, Edicions Bellaterra.— (2014), Imaginar Babel. Dos siglos de estudios sobre la ciudad oriental antigua, Barcelona, Edicions Bellaterra.Ludwig (1980), “Mass, Sitte und Technik des Bauens in Habuba-Kabira Süd”, en Le Moyen Euphrate, zone de contactes et d’échanges, Leyden, Brill, pp. 63-74.Margueron, J. C. (2000), “Nacimiento y fundación de ciudades en Mesopotamia”, en La fundación de la ciudad. Mesopotamia, Grecia y Roma, Barcelona, CCCB, pp. 33-48.— (2004), Mari. Métropole de l’Euphrate au IIIe et au Début du IIe millénaire av. J.-C., Paris, Picard-ERC.— (2009), “La fondation de Mari. Première aproche d’une technologie de fondation”, Estudos Orientais, 10, pp. 13-33.— (2011), “Aux origines de l’architecture militaire en Mésopotamie”, en Stratégies de défense, de conquête ou de victoire en Méditerranée des textes aux architectures et à l’aménagement, Tlemcen, pp. 11-45.— (2012), “Du village à la ville: continuité ou rupture?”, en Du village néolithique à la ville syro-mésopotamienne, Ferrol, PAMES-UDC, pp. 67-97.— (2013), Cités invisibles. La naissance de l’urbanisme au Proche-Orient ancien, París, Paul Geuthner— (2014), Mari. Capital of Northern Mesopotamia in the Third Millennium, Oxford-Philadelphia, Oxbow Books.Mazar, A. (1995), “The Fortification of Cities in the Ancient Near East”, en Civilizations of the Ancient Near East, volumes III-IV, Peabody, Hendrickson Publishers, pp. 1523-1537.Mielke, D. P. (2012), “Fortifications and Fortification Strategies of Mega-Cities in the Ancient Near East”, en Mega-cities Mega-sites, the Archaeology of Consumption Disposal, Landscape, Transport Communication, 7th ICAANE vol. 1, Wiesbaden, Harrassowitz Verlag, pp. 74-91.Montero Fenollós, J. L. (2004), “Revisando a Gordon Childe, el concepto de Revolución Metalúrgica en los albores de la historia de Mesopotamia”, en Miscelánea en homenaje a Emiliano Aguirre, Alcalá de Henares, Museo Arqueológico Regional, pp. 312-319.— (2017), “Bronze Metallurgy in the Times of Earliest Cities. New Data on the City I of Mari”, Ash-Sharq, 1, pp. 48-54.— (2019), “La frontera noroccidental del reino de Mari a comienzos del II milenio a. C. a la luz de los textos y la arqueología. Reflexiones sobre la localización de Dur-Yahdun-Lim”, Claroscuro, 18, pp. 1-21.Nadali, D. (2007), “Ashurbanipal against Elam. Figurative Patterns and Architectural Location of Elamite Wars”, Historiae, 4, pp. 57-91Nigro, L. (2015), “Tell es-Sultan 2015. A Pilot Project for Archaeology in Palestine”, Near Eastern Archaeology, 79, pp. 4-17.Pedersén, O. (2011), “Excavated and Unexcavated Libraries un Babylon”, en Babylon. Wissenskultur in Orient und Okzident, Berlin-Boston, De Gruyter, pp. 47-67.— (2021), Babylon. The Great City, Münster, Zaphon.Reade J. E. (2008), “Early Travellers on the Wonders: Suggested Sites”, en Babylon: Myth and Reality, London, British Museum, pp, 112-118.Rey, S. (2012), Poliorcétique au Proche-Orient à l’âge du Bronze. Fortifications urbaines, procédés de siège et systèmes défensifs, Beyrouth, IFPO.Sanmartín, J. (2018), Gilgamesh, rey de Uruk, Madrid, Trotta.Sasson, J.M. (1969), The Military Establishments at Mari, Roma, Pontifical Biblical Institute.Sollberger, E., Kupper, J. R. (1971), Inscriptions royales sumériennes et akkadiennes, Paris, Éditions du Cerf.Thomas, A. (dir.) (2016), L’histoire commence en Mésopotamie, París, Louvre.Van Ess, M. (2008), “Koldewey, Pionier systematicher Ausgrabungen im Orient”, en Auf dem weg nach Babylon. Robert Koldewey. Ein Archäologenleben, Mainz, Verlag Philipp von Zabern, pp. 91-103.Vidal, J. (2012), “La guerra de asedio en el período paleobabilónico según los textos de Mari”, en Fortificaciones y guerra de asedio en el mundo antiguo, Zaragoza, Libros Pórtico, pp. 21-35.Wetzel, F. (1969), Stadtmauer von Babylon, Osnabrück, Otto Zellen.Yadin, Y. (1963), The Art of Warfare in Biblical Lands, 2 vols., New York-Toronto-Londres, McGraw-Hill Book Company.

In this paper, the year names on two tablets from the reign of Naramsin of Akkad are mutually restored and their contribution to understanding the development of Old Akkadian royal iconography is considered.

Abstract Music and instruments are inseparable concepts. At the same time, the instruments as high-ranking cultural assets are not only simple instruments in which sound, loudness, timbre, sound intensity are generated. They are the indispensable elements of rituals, conversation, communication, and more importantly art in Mesopotamia and Anatolia. The importance of instruments as high-ranking cultural assets in the Sumerian period (B.C.) is proven by the numerous classifications made. Cuneiform texts, instrument finds and illustrated descriptions play an important role in revealing music culture of the time. Cuneiform script originating from Mesopotamia has, in essence, been an important type of script spreading out from Asia Minor, used in the writing of various languages from different groups. Cuneiform texts give us instrument names rather than instrument types. The lexical (glossary) lists, which are available in two languages, Sumerian-Akkadian, which sometimes include descriptions of instruments, give us the Sumerian and Akkadian names of the instruments. In some cases, besides the instrument names, there are certain clues with occasional addendums regarding the material from which the instrument is made. Also, after the Sumerians, the Akkadians, Babylonian, Assyrian and Hittite States improved the musical and instrumental knowledge of their preceeding societies and left important works for the peoples who came after them in Anatolia. Keywords: Mesopotamia, Sumerian, Akkad, Babylon, Assyrian, Hittite, Asia Minor, Instrument, Cuneiform, Ritual

Abstract We describe an efficient pipeline for morpho-syntactically annotating an ancient language corpus which takes advantage of bootstrapping techniques. This pipeline is designed for ancient language scholars looking to jump-start their own treebank projects, which can in turn serve further pedagogical research projects in the target language. We situate our work in the field of similar ancient language treebank projects, arguing that our approach shows that individual humanities scholars can leverage current machine-learning tools to produce their own richly annotated corpora. We illustrate this pipeline by producing a new Akkadian-language treebank based on two volumes from the online editions of the State Archives of Assyria project hosted on Oracc, as well as a spaCy language model named AkkParser trained on that treebank. Both of these are made publicly available for annotating other Akkadian corpora. In addition, we discuss linguistic issues particular to the Neo-Assyrian letter corpus and data-encoding complications of cuneiform texts in Oracc. The strategies, language models, and processing scripts we developed to handle both linguistic and data-encoding issues in this project will be of special interest to scholars seeking to develop their own cuneiform treebanks.

In this study, the political relationship between Mesopotamia and Elam in third millennium BC has been dwelled on and Elam’s political history has been aimed to be enlightened. In the subject period, the two dynasties, named respectively Awan and Šimaški, have become prominent politically in Elam. However, here, almost contemporary with the Third Dynasty of Ur, Šimaški Dynasty has been out of scope, the process when Elam's first appearance on history, from 27th century BC to 2100 BC has been discussed. In this period, due to the lack of domestic resources scarcely any, Elamite history, except for a few examples, has been learned in the light of the written sources coming from Mesopotamia. In this context, the sources of the Early Dynasties and Akkadian periods were examined, and they have been compared with the written documents, when necessary by using the archaeological findings. Nevertheless, local sources that are very few also were mentioned. The only king of Elam who left epigraphs after himself, Puzur-Inšušinak's epigraphs were analyzed by including in this study. Elam, which existed in the southwest of Iran from the beginning of the third millennium BC until the Persian period, has had cultural, economic and political relations with the civilizations in its close neighbor Mesopotamia since the early periods of history. Even though it is known that cultural and economic relations are to be known since prehistoric periods, the first information about political relations dates to the Early Dynastic Period, 27th century BC. In the Early Dynastic period, Elam had political contacts with Kiš, Ur, and Lagaš city-states. During the Akkadian period, some parts of Elam lands were under the control of this state. Akkadian Kings, starting from Sargon the Great until the Šar-Kali-Šarri period, organized many expeditions on Elam. As a result of the collapse of Akkad, the last king of the Awan Dynasty, Puzur-Inšušinak, managed to achieve political unity. But, this case did not last long, Ur-Nammu, who established the Third Dynasty of Ur, vanquished Puzur-Inšušinak.