Akkadian Empire Research Articles

Akkadian Empire Where to Look?

With regard to the Research News article “Sea-floor dust shows drought felled Akkadian empire” by Richard A. Kerr (16 Jan., [p. 325][1]), the sediment core described by Heidi Cullen and Peter deMenocal provides compelling data for the idea of atmospheric drying and an increasingly dust-laden atmosphere for the period 2200 to 1900 B.C. For the Gulf of Oman, this amplifies the data presented by Sirocko ([1][2]), which demonstrates increased arrival of dust in sea floor sediments during periods of decreased strength of the southwest monsoon. However, to explain this dust, rather than look at northern Syria, where trends in atmospheric moisture change may have been opposite to those of the monsoonal area ([2][3]), we should first look at Arabia, where a well-attested moist period terminated around 5000 years ago, or after. The Yemen highlands and the Arabian desert both show significant drying toward the end of the mid-Holocene and could have contributed increased atmospheric dust to the atmosphere. In the later third millennium B.C., abandonment of settlements and terraced fields ([3][4]) may have been related to atmospheric drying resulting from increased southerly penetration of summer northwesterly winds during a period of decreased ocean upwelling and reduced monsoonal strength. In the north, although there was a dramatic decline in settlement in the Rhabur basin in Syria, climatically marginal towns like Tell Brak continued to be occupied in the post-Akkadian period, albeit perhaps with reduced populations. Further west in the Lake Tabqa area, where probably 250 to 300 millimeters of rainfall supported primarily rain-fed agriculture, we see in the final quarter of the third millennium B.C. an increase in settlement numbers and the growth of a town at Tell Sweyhat. In moister areas near Kurban Hoyuk in southern Turkey, growth in rural sedentary settlements was at the expense of towns. As Frank Hole states (“Wheat domestication,” Letters, 16 Jan., [p. 303][5]), something was going on at this time, but whether it was culturally or climatically driven, or a combination of both, is unclear ([4][6]). A case for increased atmospheric moisture in the mid-Holocene can be made from lake sediments and alluvial sediments ([5][7]). The former record suggests that there was dwindling but fluctuating moisture toward the end of the third millennium B.C., followed by greater drying in the later second millennium B.C., when settlement in northern Mesopotamia did indeed decline, but did not disappear. Although I, too, accept a role for climate, especially in these fragile, highly stressed semiarid agricultural systems, archaeological evidence suggests that not only was settlement decline in one part of this zone counteracted by increases in other areas, but also that there were adjustments within both pastoral and sedentary communities that could absorb some of the stress of climatic shocks. 1. [↵][8]1. F. Sirocko , Paleoecol. Africa 24, 65 (1996). [OpenUrl][9] 2. [↵][10]1. H. E. Wright 2. et al. 1. N. Roberts, 2. H. E. Wright , in Global Climates Since the Last Glacial Maximum, H. E. Wright et al., Ed. (Univ. of Minnesota Press, Minneapolis, MN, 1993), pp. 194-220. 3. [↵][11]1. T. J. Wilkinson , Geoarchaeology 12, 853 (1997). [OpenUrl][12] 4. [↵][13]1. H. N. Dalfes, 2. G. Kukla, 3. H. Weiss 1. K. Butzer , in Third Millennium B.C. Climate Change and Old World Collapse, H. N. Dalfes, G. Kukla, H. Weiss, Eds. (NATO ASI Series, Springer, Berlin, 1997), pp. 245-296. 5. [↵][14]1. G. Lemcke, 2. M. Sturm , ibid. 653-678; 1. A. M. Rosen , Geoarchaeology 12, 395 (1997). [OpenUrl][15][CrossRef][16] [1]: /lookup/doi/10.1126/science.279.5349.325 [2]: #ref-1 [3]: #ref-2 [4]: #ref-3 [5]: /lookup/doi/10.1126/science.279.5349.302c [6]: #ref-4 [7]: #ref-5 [8]: #xref-ref-1-1 View reference 1 in text [9]: {openurl}?query=rft.jtitle%253DPaleoecol.%2BAfrica%26rft.volume%253D24%26rft.spage%253D65%26rft.atitle%253DPALEOECOL%2BAFRICA%26rft.genre%253Darticle%26rft_val_fmt%253Dinfo%253Aofi%252Ffmt%253Akev%253Amtx%253Ajournal%26ctx_ver%253DZ39.88-2004%26url_ver%253DZ39.88-2004%26url_ctx_fmt%253Dinfo%253Aofi%252Ffmt%253Akev%253Amtx%253Actx [10]: #xref-ref-2-1 View reference 2 in text [11]: #xref-ref-3-1 View reference 3 in text [12]: {openurl}?query=rft.jtitle%253DGeoarchaeology%26rft.volume%253D12%26rft.spage%253D853%26rft.atitle%253DGEOARCHAEOLOGY%26rft.genre%253Darticle%26rft_val_fmt%253Dinfo%253Aofi%252Ffmt%253Akev%253Amtx%253Ajournal%26ctx_ver%253DZ39.88-2004%26url_ver%253DZ39.88-2004%26url_ctx_fmt%253Dinfo%253Aofi%252Ffmt%253Akev%253Amtx%253Actx [13]: #xref-ref-4-1 View reference 4 in text [14]: #xref-ref-5-1 View reference 5 in text [15]: {openurl}?query=rft.jtitle%253DGeoarchaeology%26rft.volume%253D12%26rft.spage%253D395%26rft.atitle%253DGEOARCHAEOLOGY%26rft_id%253Dinfo%253Adoi%252F10.1002%252F%2528SICI%25291520-6548%2528199707%252912%253A4%253C395%253A%253AAID-GEA6%253E3.0.CO%253B2-W%26rft.genre%253Darticle%26rft_val_fmt%253Dinfo%253Aofi%252Ffmt%253Akev%253Amtx%253Ajournal%26ctx_ver%253DZ39.88-2004%26url_ver%253DZ39.88-2004%26url_ctx_fmt%253Dinfo%253Aofi%252Ffmt%253Akev%253Amtx%253Actx [16]: /lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1002/(SICI)1520-6548(199707)12:4 3.0.CO;2-W&link_type=DOI

Sea-Floor Dust Shows Drought Felled Akkadian Empire

SAN FRANCISCO-- In 1993, a Yale archaeologist proposed that the Akkadian empire--which in 2300 B.C. was the first to subsume independent societies into a single state, only to splinter a century later--was brought low by a wide-ranging, centuries-long drought ( Science , 20 August 1993, p. 985). At the annual fall meeting last month of the American Geophysical Union here, new evidence for this theory was presented from a sediment core retrieved from the bottom of the Gulf of Oman, 1800 kilometers from the heart of the Akkadian empire, indicating that a 300-year-long dry spell began just as the Akkadians9 northern stronghold of Tell Leilan was being abandoned. The new results illustrate that climate change is emerging as a new and powerful causal agent in the evolution of civilization.

The Two Steles of Sargon: Iconology and Visual Propaganda at the Beginning of Royal Akkadian Relief

Sargon's accession to the throne and the subsequent submission of Mesopotamia to Akkadian sovereignty were accompanied by a strong propaganda campaign, the first such cultural enterprise to go beyond the limits of a single city-state, the echoes of which are reflected in various sources. Being a usurper, Sargon devoted a large part of his propaganda to legitimizing his authority, on the one hand by stressing the continuity between Early Dynastic and Akkadian sovereignty and, on the other, by celebrating the religious legitimacy of Akkadian kingship (Liverani 1966: 21–4). Due to these political purposes, pictorial art achieved a central role in Sargonic propaganda (Amiet 1972: 97) as it was addressed to distinguished social groups deeply involved in the Akkadian political system (Foster 1993: 26–9; Westenholz 1993: 161). At the level of official art, royal relief became a functional medium for conveying ideological messages, as is attested by the exceptional findings at Susa and by written sources such as the copies of inscriptions on monuments erected in temples. Two steles kept in the Louvre testify to the strict links established between ideological purposes and visual media during the founding phase of the Akkadian empire.

The Early Dynastic-Akkadian transition, Part 2. The authors' response

Dr Matthews was kind enough to show us a draft of the preceding article before publication so that we could reply, for which we thank him. Our original article was intended as a review of the problem of the Early Dynastic to Akkadian transition and as a quick general overview of the WF excavation at Nippur, rather than the final statement on either. The point of the article was not to define the Akkadian Period but to make steps towards the identification of an assemblage of material culture (pottery, tablets, objects, and seals) found in levels which are dated to the historical Akkadian Period. That assemblage included pottery types, but we did not suggest that a single pottery type or a few types alone should be the basis for dating; nor would we prefer, as is implied by Matthews, to define a period by pottery as opposed to other objects. What the Nippur WF excavation gave us was a well-stratified sequence of artifacts; and we were careful when suggesting the level at which we might have entered the Akkadian (historical) period not to be adamant about the date of the pertinent level and to precede it with a “transitional” level (Level XVII) which might have been either Early Dynastic or Akkadian. Perhaps we should have been more cautious and extended that transitional label to cover Level XVI as well.

The Early Dynastic-Akkadian transition, Part 1. When did the Akkadian period begin?

We may want to recognise an “Akkadian period” in archaeology for two reasons. A sequence of periods is used as a system of chronological reference, and the Akkadian period conventionally represents the time from 2334–2154 BC (Walker 1995, 234). Periods are also used to define fields of analysis in which studies of social structure or other synchronic investigations may be conducted. The Akkadian period is known as the “first empire” which saw major political and administrative innovations. In archaeology periods have to be defined from the changes in artefact types, so a concordance is needed between the historical and artefactual phases. During the last thirty years McG. Gibson has persistently addressed questions of chronology, and has made an especially important contribution to the chronology of the Akkadian period. A new article (Gibson and McMahon 1995) represents the present state of this issue, based on excavations in the Diyala and Hamrin regions, and in the vicinity of Nippur. Dr McMahon has subjected thousands of sherds from stratified occupation surfaces to statistical analysis, and publication of their distribution and comparanda is expected. The resulting pottery sequence, exhaustively constructed, and summarised in that article, will constitute the principal reference sequence for archaeological sites of this period in southern Iraq. In this article, while accepting the validity and importance of this achievement, I will examine how the Akkadian period should be defined and how pottery sequences should be calibrated with respect to historical periods. I will suggest that the Akkadian pottery should be calibrated by ultimate reference to the glyptic sequence, and that this results in a different dating for the strata in question.

The Early Dynastic-Akkadian Transition Part I: When Did the Akkadian Period Begin?

The Early Dynastic-Akkadian Transition Part I: When Did the Akkadian Period Begin?

Urban Development at Mid-Late Early Bronze Age Titriș Höyük in Southeastern Anatolia

This article examines the role of Early Dynastic III and Akkadian period imperial ambitions of southern Mesopotamian states in shaping the initial process of urbanization in the upper Euphrates River Basin, encompassing portions of southeastern Turkey and northern Syria during the latter half of the third millennium B. C. Evidence is drawn primarily from recent excavations at the site of Titriș Hoyuk, capital of a small city-state that developed and collapsed in southeastern Turkey between the mid- and late Early Bronze Age (ca. 2600/2500-2400 and 2400-2100 B. C., respectively). The article investigates site morphology, organization of space, rate of urban growth and decline, and evidence for contacts with southern Mesopotamia. The genesis and growth of Titriș as an Early Bronze Age capital may be best understood as an opportunistic response by an indigenous polity benefiting from intensified trading contacts in the second half of the third millennium B. C. between the resource-starved alluvial lowlands o...

Investigation of the Early Dynastic-Akkadian transition: Report of the 18th and 19th seasons of excavation in Area WF, Nippur

The Akkadian Period has not received the archaeological attention it deserves, despite its great historical and artistic importance. Excavated remains from the period have been more extensively reported from Syria, at such sites as Tell Brak, than from the core area of southern Iraq. The artifactual assemblage is still ill-defined, in part due to delays in the final publication of crucial excavations, including our own work at Umm al-Hafriyat and Tepe al-Atiqeh. A full assessment of the Akkadian Period also has been hindered to a significant degree, however, by errors in the dating of strata and artifacts at the key sites of Tell Asmar and Khafajah in the Diyala (see Gibson 1982), which have resulted, at these and other sites, in the disguising of early Akkadian material under the terms Protoimperial and Early Dynastic IIIB.The excavators of the critical sequence of the Northern Palace at Tell Asmar originally assumed that the main level of the palace was pre-Akkadian because of its plano-convex bricks (Frankfort 1933: pp. 34 ff.); but subsequently they assigned this level, correctly, to the Akkadian Period (Frankfort 1934: pp. 29–39). Seton Lloyd, in his manuscript for the final monograph, maintained an Akkadian dating for the main level of the building but was persuaded to allow the date to be changed to Protoimperial for the publication (Delougaz, Hill, and Lloyd 1967: pp. 181–196). Lloyd has continued to discuss the main level of the Northern Palace as an Akkadian Period building in his own books (e.g. Lloyd 1978: p. 141). Having read the Lloyd manuscript and having witnessed the process of editorial change from the vantage point of an editorial assistant, M. Gibson was aware as early as 1963 that there were some difficulties in the interpretation of the Diyala stratigraphy, especially in the zone of transition from Early Dynastic to Akkadian.

The trouble with “Hairies”

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.

The Structure and Dynamics of Dry-Farming States in Upper Mesopotamia [and Comments and Reply

The Structure and Dynamics of Dry-Farming States in Upper Mesopotamia [and Comments and Reply

How the Akkadian Empire Was Hung Out to Dry

How the Akkadian Empire Was Hung Out to Dry

The Genesis and Collapse of Third Millennium North Mesopotamian Civilization

Archaeological and soil-stratigraphic data define the origin, growth, and collapse of Subir, the third millennium rain-fed agriculture civilization of northern Mesopotamia on the Habur Plains of Syria. At 2200 B. C., a marked increase in aridity and wind circulation, subsequent to a volcanic eruption, induced a considerable degradation of land-use conditions. After four centuries of urban life, this abrupt climatic change evidently caused abandonment of Tell Leilan, regional desertion, and collapse of the Akkadian empire based in southern Mesopotamia. Synchronous collapse in adjacent regions suggests that the impact of the abrupt climatic change was extensive.

MISCELLANEA OF DLUGAL-É-MÙŠ

The purpose of this paper is to study dlugal-e-mus, who is an obscure god of Sumer in the E. D. III period. This paper consists of the following seven parts:I. The first part is transliteration and translation of CIRPL. ENT 45, where he is inscribed as the deities of the Emus with Inanna.II. In this part, I have studied the meaning of e-mus i. e. “mus house”. Examining critically some views of mus which is used in the literatures and considering what MUS (SL 103) originally meant, I have come to the conclusion that e-mus must have meant “house, a bundle of reeds standing for the goddess Inanna” and the chief-god of the Emus must have been Inanna, not Lugalemus.III. Examining in detail ENT. 45 a 73, col. I, 11. 7-8, there are variable uses of -na- (the Sumerian, dative infix, 3 sg.) and -ne- (3. pl) that means the deities are a couple (Cf. M. Yoshikawa, OrNS 46, 448f.) i. e. Inanna and Lugalemus is thought to be a couple in the period of Entemena.IV. This part consists of transliteration and translation of ENT. 74 and I have referred to the several points of AO 24414 i. e. the royal inscription of Entemena (M. Lambert, RSO 47, 1ff.). On the latter inscription, Inanna is the tutelary goddess of Uruk. I venture to guess that Entemena must have invited her into the Emus of Badtibira from Uruk on the baisis of the brotherhood agreement with Lugalkinisedudu of Uruk.V. I have analysed the offering lists of unknown festivals of Ningirsu (ezem-se-ku-dnin-gir-su-ka(-ka) and ezem-munu4-ku-dnin-gir-su-ka) during the late E. D. III period. Lugalemus receives many kinds of sacrifices (flour, beer, fish, etc.), but he receives them not so much as the other deities. As a result of the analysis, I think that he must originally have belonged to the Lagas Pantheon and that he must have been invited in Lagas from Badtidira by Entemena.VI. After Akkadian period, Lugalemus is not seen at all in the various materials. The tuteraly god of the Emus is Dumuzi or Lulal, not Lugalemus.VII. I tried to consider whether or not Lugalemus is identical with Dumuzi, as insisted by A. Falkenstein and E. Sollberger. To my kowledge, Dumuzi is not referred to in the Fara and Abu Salabikh God_ Lists, and also he is not mentioned on the royal inscriptions of the E. D. III period. As for Dumuzi-abzu, she is thought as a goddess (Cf. A. Sjoberg, TCS 3, 110.).As a result of the considerations summarized above, I would like to take the following views: In the E. D. III period, Dumuzi did not exist or if he existed, he was not officially held in high repute. Lugalemus must have kept an independent character during the E. D. III period. After the Akkabian Period, he must have been absorbed by Dumuzi.

<sup>d</sup>lugal-é-mùš 雑纂

The purpose of this paper is to study dlugal-é-mùš, who is an obscure god of Sumer in the E. D. III period. This paper consists of the following seven parts:I. The first part is transliteration and translation of CIRPL. ENT 45, where he is inscribed as the deities of the Emuš with Inanna.II. In this part, I have studied the meaning of é-mùš i. e. “mùš house”. Examining critically some views of mùš which is used in the literatures and considering what MÙŠ (ŠL 103) originally meant, I have come to the conclusion that é-mùš must have meant “house, a bundle of reeds standing for the goddess Inanna” and the chief-god of the Emuš must have been Inanna, not Lugalemuš.III. Examining in detail ENT. 45 à 73, col. I, 11. 7-8, there are variable uses of -na- (the Sumerian, dative infix, 3 sg.) and -ne- (3. pl) that means the deities are a couple (Cf. M. Yoshikawa, OrNS 46, 448f.) i. e. Inanna and Lugalemuš is thought to be a couple in the period of Entemena.IV. This part consists of transliteration and translation of ENT. 74 and I have referred to the several points of AO 24414 i. e. the royal inscription of Entemena (M. Lambert, RSO 47, 1ff.). On the latter inscription, Inanna is the tutelary goddess of Uruk. I venture to guess that Entemena must have invited her into the Emuš of Badtibira from Uruk on the baisis of the brotherhood agreement with Lugalkinišedudu of Uruk.V. I have analysed the offering lists of unknown festivals of Ningirsu (ezem-še-kú-dnin-gír-su-ka(-ka) and ezem-munu4-kú-dnin-gír-su-ka) during the late E. D. III period. Lugalemuš receives many kinds of sacrifices (flour, beer, fish, etc.), but he receives them not so much as the other deities. As a result of the analysis, I think that he must originally have belonged to the Lagaš Pantheon and that he must have been invited in Lagaš from Badtidira by Entemena.VI. After Akkadian period, Lugalemuš is not seen at all in the various materials. The tuteraly god of the Emuš is Dumuzi or Lulal, not Lugalemuš.VII. I tried to consider whether or not Lugalemuš is identical with Dumuzi, as insisted by A. Falkenstein and E. Sollberger. To my kowledge, Dumuzi is not referred to in the Fara and Abu Salabikh God_ Lists, and also he is not mentioned on the royal inscriptions of the E. D. III period. As for Dumuzi-abzu, she is thought as a goddess (Cf. Å. Sjöberg, TCS 3, 110.).As a result of the considerations summarized above, I would like to take the following views: In the E. D. III period, Dumuzi did not exist or if he existed, he was not officially held in high repute. Lugalemuš must have kept an independent character during the E. D. III period. After the Akkabian Period, he must have been absorbed by Dumuzi.

New Sources concerning the Reign of Naram-Sin

Previous articleNext article No AccessNew Sources concerning the Reign of Naram-SinPiotr MichalowskiPiotr Michalowski Search for more articles by this author PDFPDF PLUS Add to favoritesDownload CitationTrack CitationsPermissionsReprints Share onFacebookTwitterLinkedInRedditEmail SectionsMoreDetailsFiguresReferencesCited by Journal of Cuneiform Studies Volume 32, Number 4October 1980 A journal of ASOR Article DOIhttps://doi.org/10.2307/1359836 Views: 13Total views on this site Copyright 1980 American Schools of Oriental ResearchPDF download Crossref reports no articles citing this article.

The Terracotta Plaques from Kish and Hursagkalama, c. 1850 to 1650 B.C.

The small moulded terracotta plaques made in Mesopotamia in the first three or four centuries of the second millennium B.C. provide a unique, if often enigmatic, corpus of evidence for the popular iconography of the period. They embrace scenes of myth, ritual and daily life unmatched in glyptic save during the Akkadian period, and then only on artefacts which their quality suggests were common currency only among the upper classes. Three major studies have so far been devoted to these plaques, the most recent, that by Barrelet, still in progress. Single volumes have covered the terracottas of Nippur and Uruk, whilst those found in excavations at many other sites are scattered through the literature. Barrelet has provided an excellent, fully illustrated survey of the terracottas from de Genouillac's excavations at Kish in 1912 now in the Louvre (the majority of those which he preserved), but the extensive collection recorded by the Oxford—Field Museum (Chicago) Expedition (O.F.M.E.) of 1923–33 remains largely unpublished and is now divided between Baghdad, Chicago and Oxford. This paper seeks to publish as economically as possible the repertory of motifs found at Kish, paying particular attention to recorded findspots and the popularity of the motif elsewhere. This information seems particularly important in any attempt to unravel the social significance of these objects, to which no explicit documentary references are yet known. The links between the religious iconography of these plaques and Old Babylonian glyptic has long been apparent; but in addition to the stereotyped combinations of deities and their attributes, which are common to the two, the plaques offer a quite fresh range of scenes.

Literary Style in First Millennium Mesopotamia

STUDENTS OF TlHE LATE E. A. SPEis]3R often speak of his feeling for literaure, which he disseminated in his teaching perhaps even more than in his publications. It is fitting, then, that this paper, composed in his memory, should be concerned with style. The term 'literary style' must be qualified for ancient Mesopotamia, since the cumbrous writing system restricted literacy to a highly trained corps of professional scribes, and any 'literary' composition would inevitably be comprehended with the ears, rather than the eyes, by most who made its acquaintance. Indeed, there is every reason to assume that 'literature' began entirely orally, and that when writing was invented and texts were written down the oral aspects of it continued exactly as before. We are in no position to be more specific, but a mention of this presumption is called for. The first literary texts from Mesopotamia are Sumerian and date from the middle of the Third Millennium, from the sites of Fara and Tell Salabih mainly.' Too little of them is understood to permit any study of style, but they are the earliest witnesses to a development in Sumerian which was not finally exhausted until about 1,000 B. C. The development of Akkadian literature may well have been stimulated by the Old Akkadian dynasty (c. 2,300-2,200 B. C.), which made use of Semitic in royal inscriptions and generally seems to have provoked a cultural ferment. However, too little from this period remains in the way of Akkadian literature, and the next blossoming of culture, under the Third Dynasty of Ur, was, perhaps as a reaction, distinctly Sumerian. The break-up of this dynasty under the immigrating Amorites c. 2,000 B. C. was the time when Akkadian literature really began to develop, and three basic influences on its style can be traced. The first was the every-day language, Babylonian, known to us from many letters. The syntax of this dialect was largely Sumerian, with the verb at the end of its clause or sentence. But its Semitic connexions are unknown, since it differs widely from Old Akkadian, but shows no real Amorite influence. The second influence is the formal Sumerian style. The phraseology of royal inscriptions, to take the clearest example, was largely traditional and had been Sumerian in the first place. It remained Sumerian during the Isin-Larsa period, but starting with Hammurabi the inscriptions were generally issued in both Sumerian and Babylonian versions, which normally correspond almost word for word. In this way Akkadian absorbed Sumerian syntax, phraseology, and nuances. The same happened in other spheres. Much Sumerian religious language passed over into Akkadian in quite literal renderings. The third influence on style in the development of Akkadian literature was that of Old Akkadian. What had been ordinary language in that dialect was employed as high falutin by Old Babylonian literati. This applied particularly to vocabulary and to certain endings, especially the locative -umn and the ' adverbial ' -s, which were no longer current in the Old Akkadian uses. Whether Old Babylonian poetic line patterns were taken over from the Old Akkadian period cannot yet be ascertained for lack of evidence. It does seem that behind the Old Babylonian poetic scene there is the influence of a Semitic poetry, like that from Ras Shamra, employing a short line. Both the Sumerian and the Old Akkadian influences helped to remove literary productions away from everyday speech, but hymns show these influences much more than epics. As the Second Millennium passed the impact of all three sources of influence on style lessened. The development of academic learning resulted in a rejection of ordinary language forms as a suitable medium for literature. Old Akkadian had given what it could, and it could give nothing more. Sumerian was still a living tradition in the sense that texts were being composed in it, but it was increasingly under the influence of literary Akkadian. Thus the development of literary style in the second half of the Second Millen1 See M. Civil and R. D. Biggs, RA 60 1-16.

Relations Between Egypt and Mesopotamia From Prehistoric Times To the End of the Middle Kingdom1)

I will begin with the only definite link I can find between Egypt and Mesopotamia for this entire period 2). In a tomb of the First Intermediate Period at Helwan, a very distinctive type of metal axe was discovered. This is an anchor axe, of which only a few examples have been found in the Near East 3). One example comes from Ur, probably of the Akkadian Period 4), another was found at Byblos 5) and still another from Syria of unknown provenance 6).

The Bronze Head of the Akkadian Period from Nineveh

The life-size bronze head illustrated on Plates V–VII was found by Dr. R. Campbell Thompson and Mr. R. W. Hamilton at Quyunjiq in 1931 (during the excavations at Nineveh on behalf of the British Museum which were financed by Sir Charles Hyde, Bt.) and published in A.A.A., vol. XIX, pl. L. Since that time, however, the corroded surface of the metal has been cleaned, and the head appears once more in its pristine beauty. The metal has not yet been analysed, but it would appear to be bronze, and the head to have been cast, certain details having doubtless been worked out with a chisel. On grounds of style the workmanship may be assigned to the Akkadian period, and may be dated approximately to the twenty-sixth century B.C.