No title

bi ical A rcaeol2 A Publication of the American Schools of Oriental Research The Legacy Volume 47 Number 2 of Mari...

Author: American Schools of Oriental Research

8 downloads 340 Views 20MB Size Report

This content was uploaded by our users and we assume good faith they have the permission to share this book. If you own the copyright to this book and it is wrongfully on our website, we offer a simple DMCA procedure to remove your content from our site. Start by pressing the button below!
Report copyright / DMCA form

DOWNLOAD PDF

bi

ical A rcaeol2

A Publication of the American Schools of Oriental Research

The

Legacy

Volume 47 Number 2

of Mari

st June 1984

In Memoryof GeorgesDossin (1896-1983)

Biblical t Archaeolg A Publication of the American Schools of Oriental Research

Volume 47 Number 2

The Palace of Zimri-Lim at Mari Marie-Henriette Gates

June 1984

70

A marvel of its time or just one palace among many?In considering this question, the author describes the palace and summarizes the excavations that have been conducted there. Literary Sources for the History of Palestine and Syria

Page70

The Mari Archives Dennis Pardee and Jonathan T Glass

88

More than 20,000 tablets have been discoveredat Mari (TellHariri).This article supplies a bibliographic overview of what has been learned from them to date.

Mari, the Bible, and the Northwest Semitic World Andre Lemaire

101

The Maritexts, when viewed in the propercontext, can help us understandthe oldest traditions of the Bible.

Page88

Thoughts of Zimri-Lim JackM. Sasson

110

A scholar who has been immersed in the study of the Mari texts for twenty years presents an imaginative portraitof the last king to occupy the famous palace. This unique work also providesextensive supporting information, including many texts translatedinto English for the first time.

Page 101

The Flood Judah Goldin

125

A poem

Page 110

Departments Fromthe Editor'sDesk Letterto the Readers Introducingthe Authors BookReviews BooksReceived

67 68 69 123 128

Biblical Archaeologist is published with the financial assistance of the Endowment for Biblical Research, Boston (formerlyZion ResearchFoundation), a nonsectarian foundation for the study of the Bible and the history of the Christian Church.

BIBLICALARCHAEOLOGIST/JUNE1984

65

Biblical

Archaeologist

CyprusAmerican Archaeological ResearchInstitute in Nicosia, Cyprus welcomes scholars and interested visit.ing laymen. Facilities and programsinclude: Researchlibrary Scholars'residence Annual researchappointments Study collections Informalsummer seminars Periodiclectures Guided site visits Vehicle and equipment rental

Editor Eric M. Meyers Associate Editor JamesW. Flanagan ManagingEditor Martin Wilcox Assistant to the Editor KarenS. Hoglund

BookReviewEditor PeterB.Machinist EditorialCommittee LloydR. Bailey

Carole Fontaine VolkmarFritz LawrenceT. Geraty David M. Gunn A. T. Kraabel BaruchA. Levine Carol L. Meyers JackSasson JohnWilkinson Art Director LindaHuff EditorialAssistant Melanie Arrowood SubscriptionsManager Harini Kumar Sales Advertising AllanE. ShubertCompany 198AllendaleRoad Kingof Prussia,PA19406 215-265-0648

Forfurtherinformationcontact CAARI(41King Paul St., Nicosia, Cyprus)or: ASORAdministrativeOffices 4243 SpruceStreet Philadelphia,PA 19104 Tel: (215)222-4643

0

r

Biblical Archaeologist (ISSN 0006-0895) is published quarterly (March, June, September, December) by the American Schools of Oriental Research (ASOR),a nonprofit, nonsectarian educational organization with administrative offices at 4243 Spruce Street, Philadelphia, PA 19104. Subscription orders and all business correspondence should be sent to ASOR Subscription Services, 4243 Spruce Street, Philadelphia, PA 19104. Annual subscription rates: $16 in the U.S., U.S. possessions, and Canada; $18 foreign. Special annual subscription rates for students and retired faculty: $10 in the U.S., U.S. possessions, and Canada; $12 foreign. (To qualify for student or retired faculty rates, send a copy of a document that verifies your current status.) Current single issues: $5 in the U.S., U.S. possessions, and Canada; $6 foreign. Students and retired faculty: $4 in the U.S., U.S. possessions, and Canada; $5 foreign. Members of ASOR automatically receive Biblical Archaeologist as one of their annual membership benefits. Article proposals, manuscripts, letters to the editor, and all other editorial correspondence should be sent to the Editor, Biblical Archaeologist, ASOR Publications Office, Box HM, Duke Station, Durham, NC 27706. Unsolicited manuscripts must be accompanied by a self-addressed, stamped envelope bearing the proper return postage. Foreign contributors should furnish international reply coupons. Books for review should be sent to Dr. Peter B. Machinist, Department of Oriental Studies, The University of Arizona, Tucson, AZ 85721. Composition by ProType,Inc., Chapel Hill, NC. Printed by Fisher-HarrisonCorporation, Durham, NC. Second-class postage paid at Philadelphia, PA 19104 and additional offices. Postmaster: Send address changes to ASOR Subscription Services, 4243 Spruce Street, Philadelphia, PA 19104. Copyright Q 1984 by the American Schools of Oriental Research. 0•4? esOF

66

IN THE NEXT BA "The Corinth that Saint Paul Saw" by Jerome Murphy-O'Connor. Using information from the literatureof the time and from extensive excavations, the author recreates the first-century city that was such an important part of the Pauline mission.

BIBLICAL ARCHAEOLOGIST/JUNE

1984

AmericanCenterof OrientalResearch in Amman, Jordan

I

c OF

A*

welcomes visiting scholars and interestedlaymen. Programsinclude: Archaeologyclasses Lecturesand seminars Guidedsite visits A researchlibrary Studycollections Annual appointments Scholars'residence Vehicleand equipmentrental Liaisonwith local officials Rescuearchaeology Forfurtherinformationcontact: ASORAdministrativeOffices 4243 SpruceStreet Philadelphia,PA 19104 Tel:(215)222-4643

From

the

Editor's

Desk

seventiethanniversary of the IsraelExplo-

TIhe ration Society was celebrated this

April in with a on biblical archaeJerusalem congress The was in a event ology. congress significant the history of Near Eastern scholarship for a number of reasons. First and foremost it demonstrated Israel's preeminencein this field of scholarshiptoday;the society's seventy continuous years of exploration, excavation, and historical reporting are clearly bearing fruit in 1984. Second,it indicated the enormous interest in and support for biblical archaeologyboth within Israel and without. Most sessions were attended by more than a thousand people. A stunning arrayof scholarsfromIsrael,America,and Europepresented papersthat were for the most part concerned with the topics of interest to the student of Old Testamentand Semitics. Post-exilicsubjectswere covered primarily in the sessions on the Qumran scrolls, and to some extent in the sessions on the archaeology of Jerusalem.Problemsin the Persian,Greek,Roman,Byzantine, and Islamic periods were not included even though biblical archaeologistsin the Albrighttraditionhave long embraced such an inclusive chronological range for the discipline. The exclusion of these later periods from serious historicaland archaeologicalanalysiswas in many ways the greatestdisappointmentof the congress.The emphasis was clearly on the period of Israelite origins and Israelitebeginnings in the land. It seems to me, however, that if the discipline is to continue to grow,it will have to embrace the later periods also. The congress looked mainly to Americans, especially ASOR president James Sauer, second vice president William Dever, and programchairman James Muhly, to view pertinent archaeologicaldevelopmentselsewhere in the eastern and western Mediterranean world, and especially to areaseast of the JordanRiver.Whatwas most telling in this dialogue was the unanimous feeling that scholarly discourse must ignore modem political boundaries and that all of the specific scholarly issues raised

could benefit greatly from the availabilityof a largerpool of evidence. In the closing meeting of the academic sessions JosephAviram,longtime secretaryof the IsraelExploration Society, recognized ASOR as the society's older sister. ASOR,now in its eighty-fifthyearof continuous presence in Jerusalem,and with historical roots which extend into the first half of the nineteenth century, recognizes the unique role it has to playin fosteringan open discussion of the intellectual issues that continue to preoccupya large segment of western humanistic and social-scientific scholarship for which the Bible and Near East are so important. In response to the felt need at the congress for a continuing discussion on matters of chronology and nomenclature, James Sauer announced ASOR's willingness to host a follow-up meeting in the near future. Whateverthe outcome of this initiative, it is quite evident that the congressmarks a watershedin twentieth-century scholarship.As the torch passes to a new generation, we look forwardto many more years of discovery and even greaterunderstanding.

Eric M. Meyers Editor


67

and WestSemitic gods createdexcitement that is difficult to re-create or evoke today; and it is fair to state that to American biblical scholarship would neverhave insisted on setting Abrahamin the Middle BronzeAge were it not for Mr. Dossin's publications. Mr. Dossin taught Greek archaeology and Western on issueof BiblicalArchaeologist focuses Asiatic art in Liege,and it was not until afterthe warthat he came to occupy the Assyriologist's chair there. In Mari.It is especially fitting, therefore,that the editor and editorial boardshould dedicate it to Brussels,however,he had alreadyrevealedthe mysteriesof that wonderful discipline to a generation of Belgian Georges Dossin, who for many years was the chief epigraphistfor the excavation team working there. scholars,a generationthat is itself now readyto makeroom When Mr.Dossin diedlast December,Assyriologylost one for its maturing students. of its mastersandthree generationsof cuneiformistswere Appreciatingthe depth with which he pursued the reconstruction of ancient civilizations, his students and deprived of a vital link with the forefathers of the friendsorganized,in 1977, the FondationAssyriologique discipline. Mr.Dossin beganhis careeras a classical philologist, GeorgesDossin, a tribute to the master that is singularly an avocation for which he neverlost interest;but early in appropriate, since Mr. Dossin, together with Jean his studies he succumbed to the lures of the East,andpur- Nougayrol, had helped launch in 1950 what today is sued Assyriology with J.Prickartzin Liege. Parisand its Assyriology'sforemostassociation (which annually sponsors the elegant Rencontre Assyriologique Internaeminent cuneiformists soon beckoned, and Mr. Dossin continued his work with V. Scheil, Charles Fossey,and, tionale). And it is also appropriatethat the first and most above all, with the peerless Frangois Thureau-Dangin, recently published supplement of the Fondation'sjournal with whom he became especially close. A specialist in the Akkadica, should be the attractive and modestly priced Recueil GeorgesDossin, a volume that collects some of Old Babylonianperiod, Mr. Dossin was ready when, in site of excavated what to be the Mr.Dossin'smost seminal Maristudies and that includes Andre Parrot 1933, proved Mari. Within a few years of its discovery,Mari had sur- a detailed bibliographyof his work. These lines arewritten by someone who, althoughhe renderedan enormous number of cuneiform documents, had but fleeting personalglimpses of him, came veryearly and their publication became an urgent matter. As chief epigraphistof the equipe he was ableto publishin 1938and in his own studies to appreciate Mr. Dossin's exacting 1939 remarkableoverviewsand syntheses of the archive's scholarshipand to learn fromhis wisdom and good sense. I have admiredhis passionate commitment to a demandcontents. The waronly slightly slowed the pace of publication, ing enterpriseandhaverecognizedthat his legacywill long with Mr. Dossin yearly and regularly offering an avid be with us. His lettersto me, warm,courteous,yet, despite audience a rich harvest of documents, unmatched in its the octogenarian'shand, sure, brimming with vigor, and detail of life at a majorSyro-Mesopotamiancity-state.Par- generouswith observations,must certainlybe reflectiveof ticularlyamongbiblical scholars,his revelationsregarding the man. Requiescat in pace. prophets, West Semitic personal names, Benyaminite nomads, census-taking,Palestinian place names, rituals, JackM. Sasson

Letter

the

Readers

This

Incised shell figures depicting dignitaries led by a man carryinga standard. These figures, along with others, weremosaic inlays of a panel called the "standardof Mari"found in the Templeof Is'tar.It is often comparedto similar "standards" from Ur and Kish. The figuresare approximately 11centimetershigh and arenow in the Aleppo Museum and the Louvre. Photographis used courtesyMission archeologiquede Mari.

68


Jonathan T Glass JackM. Sasson

Introducing the

Authors

Marie-Henriette Gates is Assistant Professorof Archaeology in the Classics Department at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill. She has participatedin excavationsin Italy, Turkey,and Iran and she is currently the field director of the excavations at Gritille, part of the salvageprojectin the Lower EuphratesBasin in southeasternTurkey.Dennis Pardeeis Associate Professorin the Department of Near EasternLanguages and Civilizations at the University of Chicago. He has published numerous articles and reviews, and in 1980-81 he was a Fulbright Senior Lecturerat Aleppo University, during which time he also worked on collating Ugaritic tablets in Aleppo, Damascus, and Paris. Jonathan T. Glass is a student in the Graduate Programin Religion at Duke University. An Episcopal priest, FatherGlass received his A.B. in Greek and Latin from BrownUniversity and his M.Div. from Berkeley/YaleDivinity School, where he held the Day and Watson fellowships. FatherGlass writes, "Iwas assigned the Maridocuments in the Old Testament seminar this past fall, and it was love at first sight." Andre Lemaire is a well-known Frenchepigrapher.He studied under Roland de Vauxat the Ecole Biblique et Arch0ologique in Jerusalem,and he has excavatedat Tell Keisanand Lachish. His many publications include the recent work Les ecoles et la formation de la Bible dans l'ancien Israel, which appearedin 1981 as number 39 in the series Orbis Biblicus et Orientalis (Fribourg,Editions Universitaires).JudahGoldin is Professorof Oriental Studies and Postbiblical Hebrew Literature at the University of Pennsylvania and teaches Midrash whereverhe may be: In 1983-84 he is the Albert A. List Visiting Professorof Jewish Studies at the HarvardDivinity School. He has written several books. His favoriteis The Song at the Sea (the Midrashon Exodus 15) and he insists that the Song is at the sea, not of, although Scriptureelsewhere does not object to the sea making sounds, even loud ones. But not in Exodus15! He is rathercranky about that. Occasionally he writes poems. Jack M. Sasson is Professor of Religion at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill and is Adjunct Professorof Religion at Duke University. Born in Aleppo, Syria, he grew up in Lebanon and came to the United States as a teenager.He received his Ph.D. from Brandeis University in 1966. Having recently completed an eight-yearstint as Editorfor the Ancient

0

0 04

Marie-HenrietteGates

Judah Goldin

Near East of the Journalof the American Oriental Society,he currentlyserves on many editorialboards.Dr. Sasson spent last year in Jerusalemat the Institute of AdvancedStudies. He has published widely, especially on Mari, and among his writings is a commentary on the Book of Ruth published in 1979 by Johns Hopkins University Press.


69

The

Palace

of

at Mari Zimri-Lim

BYMARIE-HENRIETTE GATES

ToZimri-Lim communicate the following: thus says yourbrotherHammurabi(ofYamhad):1 The king of Ugarit has written me as follows: "Showme the palaceof Zimri-Lim! I wish to see it." With this same courier I am sendingon his man. (TabletfromZimri-Lim'sarchives, translatedby GeorgesDossin, 1937) Zimri-Lim'spalacewas certainlyfamous everywhereas one of the marvelsof its time (Parrot1974:113). This buildingis not ... the gem of the Orient, ratherone palaceon a parwith many others (Margueron1982:380).

three quotations given above represent changing attitudes toward a building which, after decades of excavation in the Middle East, remains one of the richest sources of archival, historical, and architectural documentation discovered at a single site. The palace of Zimri-Lim at Mari, which deservedly draws its modern name from its last royal resident, has now passed through three stages of investigation: The first can be assigned to the ancient Ugaritic emissary; the second, to Andr6 Parrot's intensive excavations there from 1935 to 1938; the third has evolved from Parrot'spublications in a variety of attempts by scholars to analyze, interpret, and reinterpret

T•he

70


Statueof a goddess with a flowing vase. This nearly life-size, stone statue (1.42 meters high) was found brokenin severalpieces; its inlaid eyes had been gouged out, and its nose was badly damaged-yet it has become one of the most famous examples of Marl art. The woman's massive headdress with two horns identifies her as a goddess, as does the vase that she carries. A channel drilled inside the body of the statue would originally have been connected to a tank, permitting water to flow from the goddess' vase. The statue is now in the Aleppo Museum. Photographsfrom Mari by Andr6 Parrot,Editions Ides et Calendes, CHNeuchotel, Switzerland, and Mission archeologiquede Mari, tome 70.

his finds. While we can only surmise the reactions of the Ugaritic emissary, both Parrot'sexcavations and subsequent studies provide inexhaustible questions for discussion.

The UgariticVisitor

The Ugaritic emissary who traveled to Mari in the early seventeenth cenobserved a multistoried tury B.C.E.2

building of well over 260 rooms at ground level. Why he chose to visit Mari is unknown; perhapshe was on a grandtour of architectural marvels including the palaces of Zimri-Lim's rivals in other cities.3 If scale is considered, certainly contemporary palaces closer to the traveler'shome were more modest, as were the territories they controlled (forexample Niqme-pa'spalace at Alalab). Perhapsthe decoration of the palace had arousedhis ruler'scuriosity, and he hoped to imitate these in his own residence. Whateverthe reason for the visitor's trip, he certainly was given a reception that put him at a distinct advantageto his modem successors, for when he was taken through the main gate and into the first and largest court (131),his guide surely identified the building units rising high aroundthem. No doubt the shrine of ITtarof the Palace, the Court of the Palms, the king's throne room, the banquet hall, and the royal apartments were pointed out during the palace tour. When the palace, and indeed all of Mari, fell victim a few years later to the final confrontation between Zimri-Lim and his former ally Hammurabi of Babylon, it fell silent for nearly four thousand years. Today the visitor to the remains of Zimri-Lim'spalace must piece together evidence found throughout the building in an attempt to match ancient activities with specific locations.

Parrot's Excavations The palace that Parrotbegan excavating in 1933 was, in essence, Zimri-Lim's;that is, it was the palace at its final stage of occupation. The fire set by Hammurabi'ssoldiers to destroy the building ironically helped preserve it for later study by baking the bricks and causing the upper stories to collapse and fill the lower rooms, thereby protecting the wall stumps from erosion: The walls in the southwest are preservedover 4 meters high. Parrotuncovered this enormous complex over a period of five seasons. Whereashis excavating techniques reflect the unrefined methodology common during the 1930s, he achieved striking success

BIBLICAL ARCHAEOLOGIST/JUNE1984

71

The to

fire

destroy

set

the preserve

Aerial view of the palace at Marl. Photois used courtesy Mission grapharchuologique de Mari.

72

Hammurabi's soldiers

by

ironically

building it

for

later

helped

study.

in clearing its entire preservedarea (morethan 6 acres)with fairly systematic care.His final reporton the palace, its paintings, and its contents appearedin 1958. It is remarkablydetailed:Each room is presented in turn with a plan and summary of the finds. The building's units, as he saw them, emerge one after the other. Parrothesitated rarely in his interpretations,identifying and labeling the functions of most of the rooms. He always admiredtheir refinement, ornamentation, and rich contents. But the palace Parrot presented in his excavationreportis a monolithic one. He barely consideredthe possibility of a long history for the building or was simply not interested in investigating it. Thus the modern visitor was first introducedto the palace at Mari as solely belonging to Zimri-Lim. Parrot'sprogressinto ZimriLim'spalace did not begin, like the Ugaritic emissary's,at the north gate. Instead,he first descended into the small court unit in the southwest areaof the complex (court 1) and from there advanceddue north across a series of rooms organized aroundrectangularcourtyards.4His investigations, therefore,followed a route precisely contraryto that of his ancient predecessor:Starting from the residential wings he moved into the majorofficial block (court 106 and rooms 64-65-66), then on to the largest courtyardof the palace (131),then to the main entrance building to its north, and finally to the rooms and shrines to its south. The building was immediately identified as a palace from the

for the ceilings and roofs. Suites of rooms in the northwest quadrant were unusually well finished with plasteredplinths and polychrome bands painted along the upperparts of the walls. Considerableattention had been lavished on water supply, properdrainage(also fromupper stories), and bathrooms.Finally, tablets recoveredfrom the first days of excavation confirmed that the building and its residents were closely bound to the cultural and political history of Mesopotamia in the early

monumental character of the walls. They were built of heavy, carefully plastered sun-dried brick, with little or no structural timber used except

meters, and indeed served as the central nexus for the entire eastern half of the complex. It is difficult to assess the quality


second millennium B.C.E.5

Our route through the palace should not, however,follow the excavator'sbut ratherthe sequence published in his final reportand, no doubt, that followed by the palace inhabitants duringthe time of ZimriLim. There is only one firmly recognized entrance-to the north from the pavedstreet that runs along the complex'sfortified outer wall (Parrot 1958a: 7-19).6 It leads into a

vestibule (156)with, perhaps,a sentry box, then into a largeopen court (154)where, accordingto Parrot, guardsor visitors killed time by playing the boardgames scratched into the pavement. In the final stage of the palace, the doorwaysconnecting this court to the rooms to the east (Parrot'stwelve-roomhostel for foreign couriers and merchants)and the rooms to the west (Parrot's postdestruction residence)had been filled in (Margueron1982:figure 148).One could enter these rooms only by proceedingsouth into the huge courtyard131.This courtyard was the largest in the palace, measuring approximately48 by 32.5

North

of the reportsconcerning precise finds from these rooms in the northeastern quadrantof the palace. The "hostel"(rooms 158-167) was filled with domestic debris that may well obscure its original function. Forinstance, from bathroom 153, two letters to Yahidun-Lim and thirty account tablets were associated with crockeryand a grindstone (Parrot 1958a: 19);more tablets and large jarswere found in the putative kitchen unit (rooms 165-167); and large jarsand a heap of bitumen obstructed the door of room 152, an area where one would expect evidence of heavy traffic into court 131.Here, as elsewhere in the palace, pillage and collapsed superstructuresconfuse the original furnishings of the rooms; one cannot, given the pace of Parrot'sexcavations,expect much more. Even court 131 is enigmatic. Parrotnoted that a largeand fairly regularareain the middle of the court was strippedof paving bricks. Although he acknowledgedthis may have been the result of accidental preservation,he also proposedthat the areamay never have been paved but was ratherplanted with date palms; the Mari archives referto a "Courtof the Palms"(Parrot1958a: 57). Parrotfurthersuggested that the narrowroom (132)that opens to the south onto court 131by a semicircularflight of steps was the king's audience chamber,which had a brick podium at the back for his throne (Parrot1958a:63-66). A large number of wall-painting fragments were recoveredfrom the southwestern end of this room. When reconstructed,they form a very large composition of at least five registers, with scenes drawnfrom myth, religion, and secular themes. Thus in terms of decoration, access, and even plan, room 132 wasquite distinct from the others opening onto court 131;the latters'contents suggest they functioned as storerooms or archives,and in one case (room 130)as a converted passageway.

I?I "" " "-

"Chariot Gate"

•'i : ,•

S25

152 24

;5

?f7-_

13

64

32

a

210

65

S150

2-

r~r

14, .

P\

:"-

'?

1,

r .?-

Tworepresentationsof the palace at Mari. One is the palace plan, after Mission archeologiquede Mari, tome 68, foldout. The other is an artist's reconstructionof Zimri-Lim'spalace, used courtesy of Histoire et Archdologie,February1984, issue number 80, page 38.

q

'

,,, >"

.

b

g -r

N


73

Figural ings were

wall

paint-

only

recovered but five rooms, was found one

in

situ.

in

Paintingfragment and drawingof a partial life-size figurefrom court 106. The figure is wearing an elaborate garment and has a daggerin his belt. Height is 44 centimeters. Mission archeologique de Mari, tome 69, plate XXI, 2 and figure35.

74

By Zimri-Lim'stime, one could reach the inner official section of the palace from court 131by a single door in the northwest corner.It led through a dogleg corridor(114and 112)to the main entrance of court 106, which was also the main entrance on the central axis of the palace'smajorofficial block. At first glance, this unit appearsto be the result of a unified architecturalprogram:Court 106 and rooms 64, 65, and 66 to its south could have been built at one time. Parrotidentified room 106 as an open forecourt,room 64 as an antechamber,and rooms 65 and 66 as the palace'sthrone room and temple (Parrot1958a:78). These rooms were indeed the most monumental in the palace. Court 106- half the size of court 131but quadrangularin plan-was decoratedwith paintings. The famous "Investitureof ZimriLim"panel, found in situ on the court'ssouth wall just west of the door,was one of a series of panels (as can be judgedfrom the extension west of the upperpainted borderParrot1958b:plate A). It is very different stylistically from the much largersacrificial procession scene that was found in fragmentscollapsed at the base of the same wall's eastern half. More largefigures painted in the same style were discoveredon fragmentsin the southeast and southwest cornersof this court.7They include a life-size figure with a daggerin his belt, a second figure in front of an architectural background,a largehand graspinga mass of hair in the Egyptianfashion, two goats in heraldic pose nibbling a sacredtree, and hundredsof other fragmentssuggesting a lively and ambitious composition. Unlike the "Investiture" scene, which was on a thin film of mud plaster painted set directly on the brickwork,the fallen fragmentswere painted on a thick and carefully preparedcoating of gypsum (Parrot 1958b: 17-18; 1958a: 86-87). Finally, a red and blue geometric band decorated the other


painting fragments - .131

64

mural

65

6

Two drawingsof fragmentarypaintings discoveredin court 106. One shows a large hand graspinga mass of hair. This pose mimics the traditional Egyptian scene of a pharaoh conqueringhis enemy by grasping the enemy's hair in one hand and raising a mace in his other, ready to strike the final blow Height is 23 centimeters; length is 33 centimeters. The other drawingreconstructs part of a now fragmentarypainting with two goats heraldically flanking a sacred tree. Height is 43 centimeters; length is 31 centimeters. Mission archeologique de Mari, tome 69, figures36 and 23.

32 32

Wall

Paintings

Palace

the

from at

Mari

Above: Reconstructionof the wall painting from room 132. Below: Fragmentfrom the original mural showing a warrior.Mission arch6ologiquede Mari, tome 69, plates XVII and XX, 2.

F

fromfiveroomswithinZimri-Lim's iguralwallpaintingswererecovered palace at Mari.Unfortunatelyonly fourcompositions were restorable.

Inroom132(Parrot's "audience hall")numerousfragmentsfroma com-

position of at least five registershad collapsed along the southwestern cornerof the west wall. It was restoredto a height of at least 2.8 meters anda width of 3.35 meters,thus representinga composition of considerablesize. The two majorregistersillustratetwo cult scenes (offeringsmade to deities)framed by mythological creatures.Above and below this double panel are smaller stridingmen with bundles (bootyfromwar?)on their backs and a man pierced by arrows.The colors in the painting are red, gray,brown, black, yellow, and white. The figuresareoutlined with a thick black line. Twoseparatecompositions were found at the south end of court 106.The first, consisting of a number of fragmentsfound in the debris,was on a larger scale than the painting from room 132. Restorable fragments show a multiregisterscheme with men leading sacrificialanimals in a procession;in frontof them stridesa much largerfigurerepresentedlife-size.This procession scene is, however,only one of what appearsto be a wide varietyof themes. The colors arethe same as in the room 132 painting but without yellow. Strikinglydifferentin style andwith a farbroaderrangeof colors(including


75

blue andgreen)is the second composition fromcourt 106, called the "Investiture" panel. This is the only figural wall painting discovered by Parrotin situ. It was foundon the south wall of court 106immediatelyto the west of the doorwayleading into room 64. Like the paintings from room 132, it consists of two / registers depicting a king who is invested with powerby the goddessIstarin the presence of other deities. The scene is framedby mythical animals and palm trees. Finally, very fragmentary paintings were recoveredfrom debris (probablythe result of the collapse of an upper story) in room 220. They seem to fall stylistically into two groups:one with life-size figures(from a royal hunt?) resembling the procession scene from court 106, and another with figures similar to those in the upper register in room 132. Parrotnoticed that there were two superimposed paintings on at least one fragment (Parrot1958b:87, note 31). As in the "Investiture" painting, blue appearsfrequentlyas a backgroundcolor. There is no indication that these fragmentsbelonged to a scene with registers. I would sort these fourcompositions (actuallyfive, counting the two from room 220) into two generalcategories:The first groupincludes the procession scene from court 106 and the largerfigures from room 220; the second group includes the religious scene from room 132 and the "Investiture"panel from court 106plus a few figuresfromroom 220 (see,forexample,Parrot1958b:plate XXIII).Parrotalso divided his paintings into these two groups (Parrot1958b:

76


Above: Fragmentof a sacrificial scene discovered in court 106. Approximate height is 80 centimeters. de Mari, tome 69, plate VI. Mission archtologique Below: "Investiture of the king of Mari." Original wall painting found in situ on the south wall of court 106. Mission arch ologique de Mari, tome 69, plate VIII.

107-08) and remarkedon the strong connections between the religious scene in room 132andMesopotamianartof the ThirdDynasty of Ur at the end of the third millennium B.C.E.

Moortgat'sdatingof the wall paintingsis more ambitious.The stylistic and iconographicfeaturesof the threereconstructedpaintings(excludingthose from room 220) presentedhim with precise chronological correlations.The homed tiaras of the deities shown in the "Investiture"scene are painted in profile, a technique which he thinks can firstbe datedby the Hammurabistele (setup in the king'sthirty-thirdor thirty-fifthyear,which coincides with the last months of the Maripalace).In contrast, the deities portrayedin room 132 have frontal tiaraswhich, in conjunction with the entire composition, point to an artistic traditionpracticedseveralhundredyearsearlierduringthe ThirdDynasty of Ur. As forthe largestridingfigurein the processionscene fromcourt 106,Moortgat convincinglycompareshis garmentto that wornby Sam'i-Adadon a stone relief found at Mardin in southeastern Turkey.Thus the paintings at Mari would extend overthree precise periods:the Third Dynasty of Ur, the Assyrian interregnum, and the last years of Zimri-Lim'sreign. Moortgat'sarguments can be countered with archaeological,ratherthan stylistic or iconographical,observations.First,concerning the composition in "audiencehall"andMargueron's room 132 (Parrot's chapel),Parrotis not specific in describingthe findspotof these fragments,but it appearsfromthe excavation photographsthat they correspondto the rearof the room along the west wall (Parrot1958a:64, figure63; and 1958b:71, figure56),preciselywhere one finds a blocked doorway.The paintings must belong to a phase when the room, and indeedthe entire sector,underwentconsiderablemodifications-modifications that cannot be dated,but which must havetakenplace some time long afterthe originalconstruction of this room. Second,andmore significantly,these paintings, like the ones from room 220 and the "Investiture"scene, were painted on a thin mud plaster applieddirectly onto the brick wall. In contrast,the procession scene fromcourt 106was painted on a thick gypsum plaster, which was also used for the east, south, and west walls of that same court. Parrotdescribedthis plaster technique in some detail, since it was exceptional in the palace. The brick wall was firstcoatedwith a thin layerof mud and then with a second, much thicker layer of mud that was scoredso that the outer,plaster layer would adhere securely

Above: The southern wall and doorway of court 106. The "Investitureof the king" painting was found on the wall to the right of the doorway Photograph fromMariby Andrt Parrot,EditionsIdes et Calendes, CH-Neuchditel, Switzerland. Below: Copies and drawingof the "Investiture"scene from court 106. Mission arch6o-

logiquede Mari,tome

69, plates XI; XII, 2; and XIIH,2.


,,

77

(Parrot1958a:86-89 and figures 90 and 91). If one examines the excavation photographs(especially1958b:figures46 and 51),one can readilymakeout the thin mud plasteron which the "Investiture" scene was paintedin contrastto the of white over both a thickermud layerand the fine plasterapplied patches bright mud plaster. The presence of both the procession scene fragments and the in-situ "Investiture" painting can be explained in only one fashion:The "Investiture" an is earlierdecorationthatwas laterplasteredoverandthe life-sizepropainting cession scene andotherswerepaintedon top of it. This coveringlayerof plaster protectedthe "Investiture" panel from the fate that the others suffered.Parrot attemptedto reconcilehis difficulties in locating the originalplacementof the procession figuresby setting them 3 meters abovethe floor level of the court (Parrot1937:334).In fact,the sacrificialprocessionscene was in the same place as the "Investiture" painting but was separatedby 0.25 meter of plaster. I will not at this point attemptto re-sortthe chronologicalparallelsforthe wall paintingsat Mari,for such a study would requirea carefulreexamination of all of Moortgat'sarguments.I will only underline the implications of this scene can discoveryconcerningthe paintings in court 106:If the "Investiture" be firmly linked to the iconographyof Hammurabi'sthirty-thirdor thirty-fifth regnalyear,who then commissioned the processionfriezes in the Court of the Palms? Marie-HenrietteGates

Tbp:Drawingof a painting fragmentfrom room 220. This large figureis similar to those in the procession scene from court 106. The significance of the quadrangularobject to the left of the figureis unknown and the man's face and hairstyle are hypothetically reconstructed. Height of reconstructionis 65 centimeters; length is 52 centimeters. Middle and bottom: Photographsand drawingsof painting fragmentsfound in the debris of room 220. The man preservedfrom the waist up, holds a horn in his raised hand. Parrotidentified the damaged figure to the left as a dignitary on the basis of the elaborategarment and pendant that he wears. Height is 40 centimeters;lengthis 54 centimeters.Missionarch(ologique de Mari, tome 69, plate XXIIIand figure 66.

78


* 106

:*

*

ead *

podium

aIdess tue h 6

hLc

.

65

-

6

1shrin

This large podium, with an imitation marble surface and steps on either side, was prominently located against the center of the southern wall of room 64. Mission archeologiquede Mari, tome 69, plate XV 1.

The

point built

podium

large an

focal

outer

limestone imitate

of

room

of

brick

coating

64

a

was

but

painted

with to

marble.

walls of court 106 at a height of 2 meters from the floor. South of this court, which was bright from sunlight and decoration, there were two rectangularhalls whose lengths (east-west) were equal to the width of the court. The focal point of the first hall (room64), was a largepodium set against the south wall opposite the 106-64 doorway.It was built of brick but had an outer limestone casing that was painted to imitate marble. Decorative wooden paneling once protected the wall behind the podium. Parrot reflected little on the function of this podium and, indeed, on the entire room:He concentrated ratheron the fine statue of the goddess with a flowing vase found in severalfragments beside the podium. (The statue'shead was discoveredin the basin in court 106-Parrot 1959: 5-11.) He was especially eagerto place the king's throne on the socle found against the west wall of the

to give an idea of the original installation. At the foot of the steps lay a basalt statue of I'tup-ilum, an early governor('akkanakku) of Mari known for his lavish gifts to the Istar temple. Aroundhim were three stone bases for small statues (presumably tossed down from the platform duringthe pillage), as opposed to the two brick and bitumen-coated bases still in place on either side of the stairway.Like these bases, the steps were exceptionally well coated with bitumen: The rituals performed in the shrine must have involved an unusual amount of liquid. Parrotimagined that this entire unit enragedthe invadersso much that they set fire to largelogs draggedinto the center of the rooms (Parrot 1958a: 111-44). Most likely Parrot's burnedlogs were, in fact, the collapsed beams from the roofs of both rooms and servedultimately the same purpose. If this official section (rooms furthest room in the series - room 106, 64, 65, and 66) was isolated in 65. Fromhis throne, the king could terms of accessibility from the thus look across the room-almost eastern half of the palace (atleast at 28 meters long-to the platform groundlevel), the opposite is true of situated at the top of a low flight of its relation to the western wing, for steps in room 66. Parrotinterpreted it is linked directly by rooms 106, 64, this platform, no doubt correctly,as and 65. Here the scale was domestic, a shrine. It had sufferedfrom the with the rooms arrangedneatly in generalpillage, but enough remained standardMesopotamianfashion


Statue of Igtup-ilum found in room 65. The inscription on his shoulder identifies this man as a governor or sakkanakkuof Mari during the early second millennium B.C.E.Height is 1.52

meters. The statue is now in the Aleppo Museum. Photographs from Mari by Andrg Parrot,Editions Ides et Calendes, CHNeuchiatel,Switzerland.

79

Terra-cottamolds in the shape of fish. The molds are approximately30 centimeters long. Photographis used courtesy Mission archeologique de Mari.

31

i

.IL.

r

106

1 orvinnivyJt "

105

80

Ab.

-6

4

o

6

these workshops, and thus in the southeast quadrantof the palace, a sequence of pavedrooms led from court 131to a pair of halls (rooms 149/150and 210)where Parrot recognized the second cult center of the palace. The fragmentarystatues of formerMari rulers Laasgaanand Idi-ilum found here suggest an installation comparableto the religious platform (66)at the east end of the throne room. These are the only two areasin the palace that housed statuaryat the time of discovery;we can thus be quite certain that the Mari statuaryrecovered in Babylon(a statue of the sakkanakku Puzur-Istar- see also Sollberger1967)originally stood in one of these two sanctuaries. Perhapsthe horns of divinity on Puzur-I'tar'scap qualified him-to the illiterate Babyloniansoldier- as a god to be cartedhome as an ultimate symbol of victory.The deities large ovens, and a staircase all of these shrines, whom Parrottencrammed into too small a space, intatively identified as IStar/Inannain dicating they were not contemporoom 210 (on the basis of the inscriprary.8The debrisfrom this unit, tion on the statue of Laasgaan)and including jars,assortedpottery,a Anunit in 149/150(Parrot1958a: largenumber of terra-cottamolds used for breador cheese, and 273), have disappearedlike virtually all Mesopotamian cult statues, the tablets,9was rich and perplexing.It is thus too variedto providea reason- victims of systematic deportations. This religious sector was on able interpretation.Finally,Parrot claimed to have discoveredthe only higher groundthan court 131 and the official royalhalls 64 and 65 to the Mesopotamian scribal school, in rooms 24 and 25, which were outeast. Rooms led up to the fitted with benches. southeastern shrines through a seThe southernmost preserved quence of well-pavedstaircases.In unit of small rooms, placed on either 1966 and subsequent seasons Parrot's side of a narrowcorridorand opening excavations in this higher sector uncoveredearlierversions of the palace onto a court at the east end, was inthe as Parrot from the EarlyDynastic ("prepalace terpretedby From 86 to Sargonic")period.The discoveryof magazines (rooms 105).

arounda succession of four courts. The northernmostblock, which is centered aroundcourt 31, is the largest in terms of area,size, and number of dependent rooms. It is here that Parrotidentified the royal apartments,for the carefulpreparation of the walls, the painted bands in most of the rooms similar to court 106'sgeometric decoration, and the numerous bathrooms implied a degreeof comfort and luxury distinct from the other sectors in the palace (Parrot1958a: 161-85). Due west of court 106, a second unit aroundcourt 15 and a third unit aroundcourt 1 were assigned to the palace officials and, perhaps,to the queen'sentouragesince tablets of the queen'scorrespondencewere discovered here. West of throne room 65 is a smaller unit whose purpose is unclear:Its central court (70)contained a superbfloor mosaic, two

these one could reach the otherwise isolated group of rooms behind and south of court 131 and the "audience hall" 132-a direct route of some significance, since Parrot placed the palace workshops here. Architecturally, these are structured around room 220, where more wall-painting fragments in the style of the large procession frieze in court 106 were found (Parrot 1958b: 83-106). East of


these earlier versions of the palace would now support a major revision in understanding the sequence of construction for Zimri-Lim's residence. Parrot'spublications suggested that the building of the palace began in the west wing and then expanded east with the construction of the official block (rooms 106, 64, and 65) and culminated in the building of the Court of the Palms (131), the

132

.

*I

religious sanctuaries just discussed, and the workshops located in between (Parrot1958a:6; 1974: 139-40). Parrotthought the earliest builders at Mariwere the governors contemporarywith the Third Dynasty of Ur but he was hardlyconcerned with charting the building accomplishments of their successors. He believed his role as excavatorwas to revealto the scholarly community the palace at the time of its destruction- a "jewelbox"studded with gems (Parrot1958a:342).

stal

220

a

.

210

Above right: Drawingof the damaged statuette of Laasgaanwhich was found in a box in room 149. Height is 19.5 centimeters. The statuette is now in the Aleppo Museum. Drawingis reproducedfrom Mission archdologiquede Marn,tome 70. figure10.

Thmviewsof the

steatitestatuette

of Idi-.lum,

norof Man. overHighft is 41.5centimetas. The statuette is now in the Louvm.Drw

hn Mission inp arereproduced uarh6oogique deMan,tome70. guzs13and14.

New Workand Interpretations Parrot'sfinal reportwas met with some criticism and recently has been the basis for severalsystematic studies. These mark the third phase in the investigation of the palace-a phase characterizedby efforts to interpretParrot'sfindings beyond the conclusions he made in his publications. The most significant of these studies have proceededalong two fronts: The first is an effort to articulate the chronological evolution of the building (Moortgat1964; Margueron1982);the second is interested in redefiningthe functions of the palace'ssectors (Margueron 1982)or ascribingto them functions referredto in the Mariarchives (AlKhalesi 1978).The results of these analyses are uneven but always provocative. It is to Parrot'scredit that he providedsuch detailed evidence that now others can reworkhis original interpretations. If Parrotpuzzled little overthe chronological sequence of the palace at Mari,others have closely scrutinized it. Moortgat (1964)was the first to present an influential argument for a precise building history when he reassignedthe three major wall-painting compositions to three distinct periods.Accordingto Moortgatthe panel from the "audience hall" 132 belonged to the Ur III/Gudeaperiod, the sacrificial procession painting was the productof the Assyrian interregnum,and only the "Investiture" panel dated to the


81

reign of Zimri-Lim.His proposalsare based on iconographicparallels ratherthan style and they are elegant, concise, and convincing. Despite some faint protests (for example Ellis 1975:85 and AlKhalesi 1978:2, 63-65), a majority of commentators have relied, at least to some extent, on Moortgat's reconstruction.10It even underlies the chronological scheme proposed by Margueron,who recently has produced an exhaustive reappraisalof Zimri-Lim'spalace in the context of monumental Mesopotamian secular architectureduringthe BronzeAge (Margueron1982:377). Margueron's conclusions, like his methods, are in almost all instances at odds with Parrot's.There emerges from his study a somewhat differentpalace in which Zimri-Limwas merely the final occupant and not an influential builder (Margueron1982:376-78; 378, note 1).It is to this version of the palace that we will now turn. In the course of his examination of Mesopotamianpalatial architecture, Marguerondecided that by analyzing associations between rooms he could appraisemost accurately the coherence of units within a building. He thus examined at Marithe trafficpatternswithin room blocks identified by Parrot,and concluded that not only were the blocks misidentified but they had undergoneconsiderableremodeling. He could chart the remodeling from obstructeddoorways;however,it was difficult to determine precisely when the remodeling had been done. The western wing of the palace was subject to the most reorganization, but even the major official roomsthe "audience hall" 132 and sanctuary 66" -had been affected (Margueron 1982: figure 148). Margueron also attempted to provide conclusive evidence for superstructures over certain parts of the palace. He relied heavily on the height of preserved walls, correctly assuming that the collapsed superstructures were responsible for

82

Identifications of the Rooms in Zimri-Lim'sPalace ITwo RoomNumber(s) AndreParrot JeanMargueron

antechamber throneroom shrine

24 and25 northwestroomblock around31 64 65 66

magazines

86 to 105

workshops -

roomblocksouthof 131 secondstoryabove roomssouthof 131 131 132 149/150 210

scribalschool royalapartments

Courtof the Palms audiencehall shrine shrine

magazines administrative rooms shrine throneroom roomconnecting 65 and68 housingforminor personnelorslaves magazines royalapartments

chapel shrine

Room 24 at the palace of Mari. This room was originally identified by Andrg Parrotas a scribal school with rows of benches for the students. Tobday, other scholarspreferto identify it as one of the palace magazines where variousgoods would have been stored.Photographfrom Mari by Andr6 Parrot,Editions Ides et Calendes, CH-Neuchatel, Switzerland.


preservingthe lower story from erosion (Margueron1982: 19 and 306). While Parrotdid not recordthe stratigraphicsequence of deposits in the rooms he excavated,Margueron drew attention to anomalies such as finding tablets in unexpected areas like hallways and courts and discoveringpainting fragments in room 220 high in the fill (Margueron 1982:291).Margueronbelieved these features were as convincing as the rareramps and staircases for evidence of a second story. Finally,Margueronestablished a hierarchyfor his room blocks according to the preceptthat plans closest to the Mesopotamian model (rooms organizedarounda court and strict orthogonality) indicate a more recent construction than units showing extensive remodeling and walls askew (as in the areaof the entrance gate and court 131).12The palace's building sequence would therefore appearto have evolved from east to west, and its sectors take on very different functions from those assigned by Parrot. Margueron'sstudy (which is as long as Parrot'sfinal publication) agreeswith Parrotonly on the identification of room 65 as the throne room (Margueron1982:354) and of the southeastern unit abovethe third-millennium palaces as a sanctuary-but with a shrine in room 210 only (Margueron1982: 334). While he discounts the platform at the farend of the throne room (66)as a furtherchapel,13he would set a cult statue on the brick podium in Parrot's"audiencehall" 13214 and would put the statue of the goddess with a flowing vase on the painted podium in room 64 that Parrot thought was a throne dais.'5 Margueron refutes Parrot's identification of the room block south of court 131 as a workshop and of rooms 24 and 25 as the scribal school. Both, he rightly suggests, were magazines that were part of the economic activities of the palace (Margueron 1982:335-39 and 345). The royal

:.: •

. .

..

•

. .. .

W,

I

2 Ur II

32

/

Lower levels destroyed when this section was built

? Nthe 0

m

to

"Entrance

sanctuary

Final building phase?

20.m

Above: Major building phases of the palace as identified by JeanMargueron.Wallsshowing remodeling are circled. After Margueron1982, figure 248. Below: Jean Margueron'splan indicating highly controlled trafficroutes between the major sectors of the palace. After Margueron1982, figure 247.

Housingforhighofficials

Receptionwing

C

0

.

King's house•i

N

Temple

Palace storerooms/

workshops

0 10 20 m .... ......Business traffic ...Temple

access

Majortrafficroutes


83

Tro views of court XXVIIin the preSargonic-1level of the palace's southeastern religioussector.Photographsareused courtesy Mission archeologique de Mari.

84

apartmentshe shifts from the northwest block aroundcourt 31 to a second story abovethe magazines south of court 131.This identification is supportedby the readyaccess to this sector via a staircase (81) behind the throne room as well as the fragmentarywall paintings in the debris of room 220 (Margueron 1982:364-65). Parrot'smagazinesthe row of rooms running along the preservedsouthwest limit of the palace-become housing for the minor personnel or slaves of the king, as does the tawdryset of rooms immediately to the west of the north gate (Margueron1982:340-42). This organizationof the palace takes on a very differentpattern from that presentedby Parrot.Margueron rearrangesthe main axes of the complex into a southern and northern plan: He puts the "king'shouse"to the south, its northernboundary coinciding with the south walls of courts 131 and 106;it includes the administrativequartersdirectly west of this line (that is, the rooms organizedaroundcourts 1 and 70). The northernhalf of the palace mirrorsthe principles of the king's house, with the groundfloor serving as administrativerooms and the upper story or stories as residential quartersfor the largenumber of official personnel of the king (Margueron1982:366). The north gate, court 131,and its directly associated rooms remain the reception wing. In conjunction with this reorganizationof the room functions, Margueronproposesa new

blocks immediately west of 65. The palace then expandednorth (Parrot's royalapartmentsand the north gate). In a fourth stage, court 131was truncated along its western side for the construction of court 106 and antechamber64- a bold undertaking of Sam'i-Adadand his sonwhich was shortly followed by the final addition of the wing south of chapel 132 and the slave quarters south of the throne room (Margueron1982:377-78). Thus identified, the apparenthomogeneity of the entire western half of the palace would disintegrate;it would be the result of monumental remodeling ratherthan an organic architecturaldevelopment. While Margueron'sscheme adheresto the conclusions drawn from his very close reexaminationof architecturalfeatures in the palace, it nonetheless skirts certain categories of evidence that one might reasonablyconsult as further chronological indices. Epigraphic evidence is rarebut it does exist. The door socket from the first room inside the north gate (156)indeed offers little help since the king, EnimDagan, whose name is inscribed on it, has yet to find his place in the Mari sequence (Margueron1982:213

scheme for the evolution toward this final stage of the palace, which he thinks was reached during the Assyrian Yasmah-Adad's tenure (Margueron 1982: 378, note 652). Margueron believes the earliest version of the palace was constructed in the southeastern religious area. The large court 131, chapel 132 with its wall paintings (Moortgat's Ur III attribution), and throne room 65 were added next, along with the room

Zimri-Lim's name throughout the palace (they are the only stamped bricks found in situ) to repairs as well (Margueron 1982: 370 and 378, note 652). One might stress, however, the epigraphical finds that do give fixed chronological points: a fragmentary impression with the name of Yahdun-Lim recovered from a lower floor in court 131 (Parrot 1964: 98) or-in the southeast stratigraphic probes that may well be


and 373).16 One might mention,

however,a discardedtablet giving the name of Zimri-Lim'sofficial Zaziya, which servedas rubblein the pivot-stone casing for the door to corridor 152 nearby(Parrot1958a:15).It may representno more than a repair; Margueronwould indeed ascribe the frequent stampedbricks bearing

)r3

p,.".1

N

'4 pl

r

D

C3

Drawings by Constance Spriesterbach

Above: Reconstruction of the chapel (room 66) by YasinAl-Khalesi. Reproducedfrom The Court of the Palms: A Functional Interpretationof the Mari Palace,plate VI, courtesy of Undena Publications. Right: Life-size diorite statue of Puzur-Igtarof Mari. This statue was discoveredin the museum of Nebuchadrezzar'spalace at Babylon (604-562 B.C.E.) along with a second identical statue whose head is lost. The inscription on the hem of the statue's skirt mentions Puzur-Igtar,'akkanakku of Mari, and his brotherthe priest Milaga. The horns on Puzur-Igtar'scap signify deification. Horned caps were usually limited to divine representations in Mesopotamian art but they do occur on depictions of kings duringthe Ur III period. The body of this statue is now in the Archaeological Museum of Istanbul; its head is in the Berlin Museum.

under the final floor of rooms 220 and 221 that are at the core of Margueron'slatest building phase three floors dated by tablets to Yahdun-Lim,Sumu-Yamam,and the Third Dynasty of Ur (Parrot1967:4). I would agreethat the accumulation of floors in throne room 65 (Parrot 1958a: 124, figure 132)implies a long history for this room but I would hesitate to reconstruct a development for the entire palace without comparablestratigraphicprobes elsewhere in the complex. Finally,a building sequence relying in any way on the wall paintings can readily be demonstratedas tendentious. It remains for Margueronto test his premises: He has resumed excavations at Mari since 1979. Marguerondeliberatelyavoided correlatingtextual referencesfrom the Mari archives to specific sectors of the palace (Margueron1982:330). He was forced,however,to tackle Parrot'sidentification of court 131 as

the "Courtof the Palms"and was thus drawninto consideringa location for the associated papai1um/shrine(Margueron1982: 360-63). The identification of rooms mentioned in the Mari texts involves yet anotherbranchof scholarship in this third phase of investigations of Zimri-Lim'spalace, and one that should, given patience and alertness, provemost fruitful. In a recent bold study,YasinAl-Khalesihas attempted to demonstrate that the Court of the Palms should be located in court 106 and that the palms in its title refernot to real trees but ratherto the date palms that frame the "Investiture"painting (Al-Khalesi1978: 10).7 He would place the "sealedoil storehouse,"mentioned in another text (ARMTIX.9)as a dependent of the Court of the Palms, in room 116 on the court'ssoutheastern side. This room was filled with largejars still in situ. Furtherreferencesto railings and "prancinglamassfis"


85

(dLAMA.HI.A raqidfitum: ARMT XIII.6) could also be reconciled with this court (or with court 131Margueron 1982: 360-63). The roofed pap~l3um/shrine would thus become the chapel 66.18 It is for this chapel (room 66) that Al-Khalesi offers a most daring reconstruction based on the ceremony that he thinks took place there, and which he suggests was illustrated and commemorated by the "Investiture"painting. He transposes the five figures of the panel's upper register-the king, the goddess Istar, and three attendant deities - onto the chapel platform as statues (AlKhalesi 1978: 37-43). The two goddesses with flowing vases depicted in the lower register would find their places as statues set on the bitumencoated bases that stand on either side of the steps leading up to the platform. He cites, among other evidence, the statue of such a goddess found at the base of the podium in room 64, drain or water conduits necessary for water to flow from the statues' vases at the east end of throne room 65, and - for the platform statues - the three bases discovered by Parrot. (Al-Khalesi's drawing is incorrect here for the statues stand directly on the platform-Al-Khalesi 1978: plate VI.) There is no place for IJtup-ilum's statue in this scheme, for he could hardly be the deity on the far right of the painting's upper register. The statue of Puzur-IJtar, to pursue this issue further, might have been a better candidate because of the horns on his cap. In fact, any number of valid objections might be raised to what at present should be recognized as too sensational a reconstruction. Nonetheless, it is precisely along these lines of investigation that one can hope to progress beyond the bare architectural plan of the palace to a structure that functions as a threedimensional entity. Was Zimri-Lim's palace, as Parrot believed, one of the marvels of its time or was it merely a palace

86

among many as Margueron asserts?

The issue will only be resolvedby

the discovery of comparable Mesopotamian structures, especially

Sam'i-Adad'sown palace at Tell Leilan.

Notes 'Dossin published this tablet more completely in Ugaritica I (Schaeffer 1939: 16, note 1)than in his preliminary article two yearsearlier (Dossin 1937:74) and demonstratedthat the Hammurabi in question is the rulerof Aleppo- not Babylonor Kurda. 2Thetraditionalhigh-middle-low chronological system forthe FirstDynasty of Babylonis invalid (Reinerand Pingree 1974:25) and should no longer be used. Foradapteddates for Hammurabiof Babylon,see Gates 1981: 36-37: late eighteenth throughthe first quarterof the seventeenth century B.C.E. 3Unfortunatelylittle is known of Mesopotamianpalaces contemporary with Zimri-Lim's.The Old Babylonian monuments at Babylonhave been destroyedboth by later energetic kings of the seventh and sixth centuries B.C.E.and by a high water-table.At present Sam'iAdad'spalace has not been found, although it could be at the site of Tell Leilan,which is currentlybeing excavatedby H. Weiss. 4Thenumberingsystem for the rooms of the palace indicates the orderin which they were discoveredby Parrot. sDuring the third and early second millennia Mari'stemples were consistently West Syrianin plan;however, the secular architectureand art were closely linked to southern Mesopotamia- a sure indication of Mari's cultural and political aspirations. 6Therearetwo other possible entrances:Parrot's"chariotgate"in the northeast cornerof the palace, and a service entrance in the southeast located near the temples (Margueron1982:283 and 334). Since the mound is badly eroded on this side, one cannot be certain of the palace'slayout here. 7Exactfindspots for the fragments arenot given in the excavationreport.I suspect that the field notes with this information were lost (alongwith the actual fragments)when the excavation house was destroyedduringthe war (Parrot1958b:18-19).


8Margueron (1982: 251-53) discusses

the problemsof this court in greatdetail but does not suggest what seems to be the likeliest explanation:The oven in the southeast cornerwas used first and then abandoned;a wall anda staircasewerebuilt overit (thus creatinga small room, number 77, at the east end of truncatedcourt 70);and a second oven was set up in the middle of the now smaller court 70. 91twould be interestingto know whether any of these tablets had been bakedin antiquity and whether these ovens were used forbakingbread(Parrot found two quems - Parrot1958a:234) or forbaking tablets (asat UgaritSchaeffer1962:31-33). It should be noted that most of the tablets here were found in room 71 and had fallen from an upperstory. l0Themost recent example is the work of M.-L.Buhl (1982). 11Theplatformand flight of steps leading up to the sanctuarywere built into what was originally a room (66)connecting the throne room to corridor68 (Margueron1982:228). 12Parrot's "hostel"to the east of the main entrancegate would then become the exception that confirms the rule. Margueronconsiders that this plan arounda court evolvedafterconsiderable modifications (Margueron1982:220-21). 13Thepresence of statues in room 66, however,links the platformthere to room 210 in the southeast, which Margueronagreeswas a cella. Statues were not found elsewhere in the palace. Moreover,the plan of this platformis strikingly similar to those in Assyrian cellas known from later periods (forexample the thirteenth century B.C.E.Istar Templeat ASlur).Can this be an Assyrian installation in the throne room at Mari? 14Margueron arguesthat the platform is made of brick, as is used in temple architecture,and not stone, as is used in the throne room (Margueron1982: 332). The podium does not, however, resemble at all the podia in contemporaryor earliertemples at Mari. IsMargueronuses the same argument for the podium in room 64 (that it is made of brick)as for the podium in room 132. He concedes that the statue of the goddesswith a flowing vase must originallyhave been installed elsewhere, since there is no water supplied to the podium to activate the flowing

mechanism of her vase. He further miens de lAge du Bronze,volume I underlines the narrownessof the (text)and volume II (plates).Series: Institut FranqaisdArch'ologie du podium, which would make it difficult ProcheOrient. Bibliothequearto sit gracefullyon a chair set upon it. cheologique et historique 107. Paris: Finally,he remarksthat the painted Paul Geuthner. decoration of the podium shows no sign Moortgat,A. of wear (Margueron1982:356-58). I 1964 Die Wandgemildeim Palastezu would point out that there is no evidence Mariund ihre Historische Einordthat the statue was not linked up to a nung. BaghdaderMitteilungen3: water supply,that the unmarredsurface 68-74. of the podium may be the result of the Parrot,A. 1937 Lesfouilles de Mari,troisieme camthrone being placed on a rug, that without the rug the statue also would pagne (Hiver1935-1936). Syria 18: 54-84. have left a mark on the platform,and 1958a Lepalais: Architecture.Series:Misthat the steps on either side of the sion archdologiquede Mari2. Inpodium were surely functional. The stitut FrangaisdArcheologiede problem of identifying the function of Beyrouth.Bibliothbquearch6olothis room cannot be resolvedgiven the gique et historique68. Paris:Paul present evidence. Geuthner. 1958b Lepalais: Peinturesmurales. Series: 16Margueron (followingKupper) Mission archdologiquede Mari2. Inplaces Enim-Daganearly in the sequence stitut FrangaisdArchdologiede of kings at Mari.Parrottentatively puts him at the end (Parrot1974: 180). Beyrouth.Bibliothhquearch6ologique et historique69. Paris:Paul 17Thetexts mentioning the Court of Geuthner. the Palms date both from the Assyrian 1959 Lepalais: Documents et interregnumand Zimri-Lim'sreign.They monuments. Series:Mission arare all listed by Al-Khalesi(1978:6-9). chsologique de Mari2. Institut FranS18Margueron (1982:362) prefersto qais dArcheologiede Beyrouth. identify room 64 with its podium as the Bibliothequearcheologiqueet shrine; since he identifies "audiencehall" historique 70. Paris:PaulGeuthner. 132 as a chapel, it could also be the 1964 Lebassin de Iahdun-Lim.Baghdader Mitteilungen 3: 96-99. papaihumfor a Court of the Palms 1967 Lesfouilles de Mari,seizieme camsituated in court 131.

Bibliography Al-Khalesi, Y.M. 1978 The Courtof the Palms:A Functional Interpretationof the Mari Palace. Series:Bibliotheca Mesopotamica8. Malibu,CA: Undena Publications. Buhl,M.-L. 1982 Un sceau de Zimrilim. Syria59: 93-100. Dossin, G. 1937 P. 74 in Lesfouilles de Mari, troisieme campagne(Hiver 1935-1936)by A. Parrot.Syria 18: 54-84. Ellis, R. S. 1975 Reviewof TheArt of Ancient Mesopotamiaby A. Moortgat.Journal of the American Oriental Society 95: 81-94. Gates, M. -H. 1981 Alalakh Levels VIand V:A ChronologicalReassessment. Series: Syro-MesopotamianStudies 4/2. Malibu,CA:Undena Publications. Margueron,J. 1982 Recherchessur les palais misopota-

pagne (Printemps1966).Syria44: 1-26. 1974 Mari,capitale fabuleuse. Paris: Payot. Reiner,E., and Pingree,D. 1975 BPO I: The VenusTabletsof Ammisaduqa. Series:Bibliotheca Mesopotamica2/1.Malibu,CA: Undena Publications. Schaeffer,C. E A., and others 1939 UgariticaI. Series:Mission de Ras Shamra3. Haut-commissariatde la R6publiqueFranqaiseen Syrieet au Liban,Servicedes Antiquitds Bibliothequearcheologiqueet historique31. Paris:PaulGeuthner. 1962 UgariticaIV Series:Mission de Ras Shamra15.Institut FrangaisdArcheologie de Beyrouth.Bibliothhque archdologiqueet historique 74. Paris: Paul Geuthner. Sollberger,E. 1967 LostInscriptionsfromMari.Pp. 103-07 in La Civilisation de Mari, edited by J.-R.Kupper.Series: Bibliothequede la Facultede Philosophie et Lettresde l'Universit6 de Lidge182. RencontreAssyriologique Internationale15.Paris:Les Belles Lettres.

ASORAwardsforStudyin the MiddleEast1985-86 The American Schools of Oriental Researchis offeringover$170,000 in research,study,and travelgrantsfor the 1985-86 academicyearand the summer of 1985.Awardsareavailableto undergraduates,graduatestudents, seminarians,and postdoctoralscholars. Awardsofferopportunitiesfor humanistic study in the Middle East fromprehistoricthroughIslamic times. Recipientsparticipatein the stimulating scholarly community of the AlbrightInstitute in Jerusalem,the AmericanCenter of OrientalResearch in Amman, or the CyprusAmerican ArchaeologicalResearchInstitute in Nicosia. Awardsinclude: National Endowmentforthe Humanities Post-DoctoralResearch Fellowships,stipendsup to $25,000, in Jerusalemand Amman (pending receiptof funds from NEH) Annual Professorshipsin Jerusalem, Amman, and Nicosia, with roomand-boardbenefits KressFellowshipin Art History,in Jerusalem,with room-and-board benefits and stipendup to $2,700 BartonFellowshipin Jerusalem,with room-and-board benefits and stipend up to $2,000 Shell Fellowshipin Amman, with stipendup to $6,000 MesopotamianFellowship,with stipend up to $5,000 AlbrightFellowship,with stipend up to $5,000 EndowmentforBiblical Research (formerlyZRF)summer study and travelgrants,with stipendsof $1,000 and $1,500 Honoraryawardsin Jerusalem,

Amman,andNicosia Applicationdeadlinefor most awardsis November 1984.Fordetails and application information,write: ASORAdministrativeOffice 4243 SpruceStreet Philadelphia,PA 19104 Tel. (215)222-4643


VSOFo0

Q)Pn A I?ti 44

."

,

87

Literary Sources for the History of Palestine and Syria

The Manr Archives by Dennis Pardee updatedand revisedbyJonathanT Glass'

MI 04 all?Y

fV

o(o 00.5~) 00

ott :. 51?.

o?

009

0

4bi~ ~?:00

0

%,b 04 :S%4%.

lb

o.

wa 4 0.0. 0. .0 o.0I0- ; 00 ~ 0.?P ? 0% V10 0 069. 0 0 0 4IM 0?,00

Mari,

theancientcitythatonceoccupiedthe

mound that now goes by the name Tell Hariri, is located on the right bank of the EuphratesRiver in Syria, about ten miles north of the Iraqifrontier.Its importanceforthe history of SyriaandPalestinelies not so much in its location as in its inhabitants at the beginning of the second millennium B.C.E.:Their native languageis closely relatedto the family from which the Hebrew of the Old Testament sprang (termed the Northwest Semitic group of languages by linguists),andthus when we tracethe languageandhistory of the inhabitants of Mari,we are studying one branchof the (linguistic) family tree of the later West Semitic peoples. Archaeology The first campaign at Tell Hariri was carriedout by the French under Andr6Parrotduring the winter months of

88


1933-34; it was reportedin the journalSyria(Parrot1935). Since that firstsession, preliminaryreportsof twenty more campaignshavebeen publishedin that journal,the twentyfirst appearing in 1975 in Syria 52. Also, several comprehensive reports have appeared (Parrot1956, 1958a, 1958b, 1959, 1967, 1968).Parrothimself has summed up the finds, both archaeologicaland epigraphic,with a good bibliography(Parrot1974).Workat the site was suspended in 1975but was resumedagainin 1979underthe direction of JeanMargueron,and two preliminaryreportshavebeen published, of the twenty-second and twenty-third campaigns (Margueron1982a, 1983). The most spectacular finds fall into two categories: texts and architecture.To date more than 20,000 tablets havebeen found, as well as inscriptions on stone, cylinder seals, jewelry,and so on in far smaller number.The contents of the tablets are the main topic of this report. As to the architecturaldiscoveries,the most astonish-

ing was that of a series of superimposedpalaces stretching overa period of at least a thousand yearsfrom early in the third millennium B.C.E. (Early Dynastic II-III or preSargonicin archaeological/historicalterms)to earlyin the second millennium B.C.E. (the Old Babylonianperiod).The earliest palace (Pre-Sargonic II)is, of course,the deepest in the mound and is now the least exposed. Nonetheless, several large rooms of the sacred portion of this palace, complete with altarsandlibationpits, havebeen completely excavated,as havealso severalof the surroundingrooms and corridors. The plan of the laterpalace(Pre-Sargonic I)is the same as the earlier,with walls, altars,andso on all superimposed overa periodof severalhundredyears.The possibility of a III"palace raisedby Parrot(1972:291)is now "Pre-Sargonic confirmed by Margueron(1982b:87-88). In additionto the pre-Sargonic palaces,severaltemples of these periodshavebeen found (thoseof I'tar,Istarat,and Ninni-Zaza have been described in reportsnoted above). The most striking epigraphicfinds of these early periods are short references to Ansud (also written Ansub and Hanusu), king of Mari, and to Mesannepada,king of Ur, discussed in Syria 42 (Parrot1965a: 23; 1965b: 220-25). These kings are presented in the Sumerian king list as founders of dynasties in Mari and Ur, but before Parrot's finds only Mesannepadawas known from contemporary sources. (The Sumerianking list itself dates from a later period and its historical value is now called into doubtMichalowski 1983.)The inscriptionsof Ansud prove,first, that he existed in the EarlyDynastic periodas king of Mari, and,second,that he was roughlycontemporarywith Mesannepada (showing that the dynasties that appearin the Sumerianking list as successivewereoften contemporarya situationanalogousto the judgesof the Bibleforwhom contemporaneityis not statedbut likely in severalcases). The latest palace,which lay closest to the surfaceand which was thus excavatedfirst,was that of the Old Babylonian period (early second millennium). It received its greatestexpansion in the time of its last king, Zimri-Lim, when it coveredeight acresand comprisedapproximately 300 rooms, complete with throne rooms, audience chambers, schools, bakeries, wine cellars, archives, bathrooms, and lavatories ("inside plumbing" in 1800 This is the palace treated by Parrot, as noted above. B.C.E.!). Recent publications have offered a "functional interpretation" of this palace (Al-Khalesi 1978) and have suggested different functions for individual rooms (Margueron 1982). It was in this palace that most of the 20,000 tablets were found, particularly in rooms 5, 110, 111,and 115. Room 115 was reexcavated in 1972 and another hundred tablets were found (Birot 1973). There is now a journal devoted primarily to the study of all aspects of the finds at Mari: Mari: Annales de Recherches Interdisciplinaires (acronym: MARI; Paris: tditions Recherche sur les Civilisations, 1982- ).

t~40 Ali,

12:'-.

In 1965 this inscribed bead was found among a rich cache of objects in court XXVIof the pre-Sargonicpalace at Mari. It is made of lapis lazuli and is inscribed with seven lines of cuneiform which includes the name Mesannepada, the founder of the FirstDynasty of Ur. The transcriptionwas made by GeorgesDossin. The photographis used courtesy of Mission archologique de Mari and the drawingis from Mari capitale fabuleuse by Andr6 Parrot(Paris:Payot,1974).

This bathroom excavatedfrom room 7 of the palace at Mari has a toilet and two terra-cottatubs. Photographis from Mari by Andr6 Parrot,Editions Ides et Calendes, CH-Neuchactel,Switzerland.


89

The Texts Of the more than 20,000 texts excavatedto date, slightly more than one-fourthhavebeen publishedofficially.They are appearingin two parallel series: the first containing only hand copies of the tablets themselves (in the series Textescun6iformesdu Louvre,since 1976in the new series Textes cundiformes de Mari), the second containing transliterations of the Akkadian signs into Roman charactersand a French translation, usually with some formof commentaryand/orglossary.Bothseries go by the name Archivesroyalesde Mari.As a convention,the hand copies areusually abbreviatedARM and the accompanying volumes of transliterations and translations ARMT. The publication dates of correspondingvolumes vary,so a givenvolumemayhaveappearedin ARMTbut not in ARM. The ARMTseries contains severalvolumes designed as technical aids to the study of the texts. ARMT 17/1contains a listing of all texts published, including those published outside of the official series (ARMHC), up to 1974.ARMT 16/1providesa subsequentlisting up to 1978 (ARMT16/1,1979:ix). Recently,texts havebeen published by Dossin (1981)and studied by Malamat (1983). About thirty percentof the publishedtexts areletters. The rest areeconomic, administrative,andjuridicaltexts. (Themain collections arenoted at the end of this article.) It should be noted also that English translations of Mari texts may occasionally be found in the Englishlanguagearticles cited in this report.The standardcollection of ancient Near Easterntexts in English translation contains relatively few texts from Mari (Pritchard1969: 482-83, 556-57, 623-25, 628-32). A selected number of texts relating to prophetic manifestations at Mari are available in one collection, Ancient Near Eastern Religious Texts (Beyerlin1978: 122-28). Twocollections may be cited that contain English translations of letters from Mari (Oppenheim 1967: 96-110 and Lass~ e 1963: 46-77). Virtuallyall of the texts of the Old Babylonianperiod are in Akkadian.It is clear,however,that the languageof the native populationhas many featuresin common with the later Northwest Semitic languages. (In other words, there was a standard,official languageused for business correspondenceand probablyalso utilized by the higher class of society for speech, andthere was a native, popular language spoken by the lower classes.) These Northwest Semitic features show up in propernames (forexample native Yabni-Addu as opposedto AkkadianIbni-Addu)and in a few words that are used in a non-Akkadiansense or that arenot Akkadianat all, as well as in some sentences that betrayNorthwest Semitic syntax. The texts arewritten on rectangularor squaretablets, fatterin the middlethan at the sides,madeof unbakedclay. Because the tablets were not originally baked hard, they tend to be in a veryfragilecondition when unearthed.The excavatorshavedevelopedtechniquesforbakingandclean-

90


The

of

Earliest

the

The

Name

Mention

"Canaan"

withina quotation givenhereisembedded

letterwrittenby anofficialto Yasmah-Adad, a king of Mariwho precededZimri-Limto the throne.Theletter,publishedbyGeorgesDossin in 1973("UnementiondeCanaaneens dansunelettrede Mari,"Syria50:277-82),is not in the bestconditionand its contextis dim.All we cansayis thatits authorwasin a Mesopotamian town,Rahisum,andwascontemplating takinghostileactionagainstunspecificopponents. habbatum u kinahnu ThievesandCanaanites

ina Rahisimwasib arein Rahisum. ninuu ununittattal Wejustfaceeachother. This referenceto Canaan(ites) in the texts foundat Mariis the earliestbyat leastfourcenturies,sincewe are to awaittheAmamadocuments(fourteenth-thirteenth cenandthe commemorative inscriptionof Idrimi turiesB.C.E.) latethirteenthcenturyB.C.E.) beforewe meetwith (probably variationson thewritingof thisname.Previousliterature onthesubject-welloverviewed bydeVauxin 1968("Le Pays de Canaan,"Journalof the American Oriental Society

88:23-30)-allows us to arrange ourinformation intotwo distinctcategories,which seem to belongtogetheronly because of phonologicalcoincidences:There is (1) kinah(h)u (once kinahhina), which occurs in Nuzi and

refersto theshadeofared/purple imdyethatwasprobably reflectsHurrianportedfromtheWest.Thistermprobably izingAkkadian uqnu(Ugaritic 'iqnu,Greekx6avos),a term thatis itselfobscurein originsandwhichrefersto a bluish

stone (see B. Landsberger,"OberFarberim sumerischakkadischen,"Journalof CuneiformStudies 21: 139-73).

Andthereis (2)kinahni,the designationforCanaanthat wasusedin the LateBronzeAge. Thecuneiformkinahnu/kinahnim usedin the letter recovered fromMariis closestin writingto theLateBronze Agecitationsthatwererecorded bythescribesofByblosand to Canaan.Their Tyre- thatis,bythosewhowere"native" colleagueswhowrotefromMitanniandKassiteBabylon, on the otherhand,seem to preferthe spellingkinahhi. the scribewhowasapparently for Sharruma, responsible tellingthestoryofIdrimiofAlalah,writeskin'anim,thus displayingcloserconnectionwith the Canaaniterather than with the Syro-Mesopotamian usage. We could also note, but leave undeveloped,the very suggestiveconnection between habbTitumand kinahnu/ kinahnim. It will be recalled that the sumerogramfor habbatumis frequentlygivenas SA.GAZ,andthat SA.GAZ is itself often used for Habiru.The last, of course, is the ethnicon that has led many to retrojecta documentable history for the Hebrewsinto the late second millennium B.C.E.

JackM. Sasson

ing the tablets shortly after discovery in orderto prevent furtherdecay. There is a small group of pre-Sargonictablets from Mari,discoveredbetween 1954and 1980,which havemany points in common with the Ebla texts. These are to be published by J.-M.Durandand D. Charpin(Charpin1982; preliminarypublication of two: M. Lambert1970,Nos. 2, 8). I. J.Gelb has pointed out the importance of the early Mari texts (including the post-Ur III texts) for the understandingof the Eblacivilization (Gelb 1977, 1981). History The best historicalsurveyis that by J.-R.Kupper(1973).An older treatment is that of FrancoMichelini Tocci (1960). In respectto the historicalinformationsuppliedby the texts, the letters providefirsthandinformation and are of more intrinsic value than royalinscriptions because they deal with real-lifesituations and lack the propagandistic bombast of documents intended forpublic consumption. The deriving of historical information from letters is not without its difficulties, however.First,they were written to and from individuals who, of course, knew what they werewritingaboutandwho, thus, didnot botherto provide all the details the modern reader would like to have; second, though there is less propagandisticexaggeration anddeviationfromthe facts than in, say,the laterAssyrian royal inscriptions, we are nonetheless never sure when someone writing to the king, forexample,was embroidering on the truth; and, third, not enough letters have come down throughthe nearly 3,000 yearssince they werewritten to fill all the gaps in our information, and those that have come down areoften fragmentary,with exasperating lacunae. The economic, administrative,andjuridicaltexts provide the raw material for assessing the manner in which goods and services wereexchangedandthe legal traditions regulatingsuch exchanges;they also give information on other aspects of social intercourse. An example of how these texts can be used for reconstructingpolitical history is providedin the section below on the history of neighboring areas. The Maritexts, coupled with informationfromother Mesopotamiansources,revealthe following outline of the political history of Mari in the early second millennium: (1) There was a local dynasty in which the royal names Yaggid-Lim and Yahdun-Lim occur. This would be dated before about 1815 B.C.E.according to the so-called "middle chronology." (E. F. Campbell, 1961, has provided bibliographies concerning the various chronologies that have been in Mari, suggested.) (2)Then there was a period of foreignnirule with the king of Assyria, Samli-Adad, taking control of the Mari region and putting his son Yasmali-Adadon the throne of Mari itself (until about 1780 B.C.E.). (3) Subsequently the local dynasty regained ascendancy, with Zimri-Lim, son of Yahdun-Lim, retaking the throne of Mari. In this last-

S1 11

No title

No title

No title

No title

No title

No title

No title

No title

No title

No title

No title

No title

No title

No title

No title

No title

No title

No title

No title

No title

No title

No title

No title

No title

No title

No title

Recommend Documents