QuoteReplyTopic: Ancient Levant - gap in history Posted: 01-Dec-2008 at 15:00
Just before civilization began in the fertile crescent of Mesopotamia (Ur, Uruk, Eridu), apparently the first city was in the Bible Lands (Levant) called Jericho. The history of the Middle East, including empires and kings, is then told exclusively from Mesopotamia for the next couple of thousands of years. So the question is: what was going on in the Bible Lands between the time of Jericho and the period of the old testament (David and Solomon's kingdom)? I know it was part of the Egyptian empire for sometime, though I don't think that can account for all the gap.
There is a vast amount of history between that period! Just go to the near-eastern section in the British Museum in London (or any other large museum instead!). Jeirco I believe is around c.2000 BC, and the kingdom of Solomon is around c.1500 BC (?), so for much of the period I would emphasise the Neo-Sumerian revival after the Akkadian kingdom was destroyed, followed by the middle-Assyrian kingdom, and the old Amorite dynasty of Babylon under kings such as Hammurabi. Then we see a brief period of Hittite hegemony after the sack of Babylon in c.1531 (read O.R. Gurney's "the Hittites" for that - wonderful book!), and following that, the middle dynasty of Babylon under the mysterious Kassite dynasty, who took most of southern Mesopotamia under her stead. The Egyptians really begin to play a part around the battle of Kadesh (1274 BC) between Ramses II and Mutilwali II - we see a long period of preoccuptation with internal matters in Egypt, but a cold-war between them and the Neo-Assyrian kingdom c.800s when the latter begin to take over Judah and Israel. Egypt is again preoccupied when a Nubian king, Piye, takes over Egypt and begins the 25th dynasty in the c.700s. Egypt, at least to my knowledge, is mainly involved with cold wars and conflicts against the Neo-Assyrians and the Hittites.
'm not sure about my facts there as I haven't done much on this period for ages, but again, much of this period is, even more so than ancient Egypt, extremely obscure - much more so than ancient Egypt! Egypt's architectual and artistic legacy has been extremely vibrant and captivated the minds of many 17-19th century Europeans - in a sandy land with large quantities of limestone and sandstone, their legacy is simply physically more. In Mesopotamia, with a much more sporadic political history of late, ever-changing water courses and a lack of many natural resources - including stone, wood and metals, it's not suprising that only civilisations in the north-west such as the Assyrians got much of a glance from the public's eye in a popular understanding of history. Moreover, many of the discoveries in this period were made comparitively recently - Nineveh, Ur and Hattasus as late as the 1920s. The earliest reference to archeological interest in the area that I've heard of is some 18th century gentleman finding some bricks with strange writing on them and taking them back to England to his curiosity cabinet. A great deal of the problem is that, whereas ancient Egypt provides us with a great deal of architectual evidence and textual information, there is not a great deal of either in ancient Mesopotamia - I seem to remember that Gurney states in his book on the Hittites that all the archeologists initially had to go on was tales of strange carvings in the Anatolian valleys and a few biblical references. Moreover, the state that controlled that area from the 1520s onwards - the Ottoman empire - were not terribly interested in archeological excavation of pre-classical (or even classical) civilisations, and it's no coincidence that with the collapse of Ottoman power and the French and British mandates of Iraq and Syria in the 1920s and immediately after world war one, we see a boom in archeological research. I'm glad that you're showing an interest though...there is a theory that the initial Pharonic culture and dynasty was imported from Mesopotamia, and the earliest work of literature - the epic of Gilgamesh, earliest form c.2500 BC - comes from this area!
Edited by Aster Thrax Eupator - 14-Dec-2008 at 00:07
Hmm there is not a wealth of information because the civilizations living here like the hitties and Assyrians. Were militaristic therefore did not keep too many records however the Egyptians probably kept some records of these people and through archaelogical findings there is more knowledege but not to the level of the Egyptians.
Hmm there is not a wealth of information because the civilizations living here like the hitties and Assyrians. Were militaristic therefore did not keep too many records however the Egyptians probably kept some records of these people and through archaelogical findings there is more knowledege but not to the level of the Egyptians.
Actually, as I understand it, the Assyrians put together quite the library -- in the form of a collection of tablets -- during the reign of Ashurbanipal. Also, wasn't Egyptian history notorious -- even among the propagandistic history of this period -- for leaving out unpleasant details? This doesn't mean that they were the only ones who did so; indeed, the historical documents and epigraphical evidence from this period generally speaks to a desire to glorify whoever was setting it up. I guess I just don't see what you are trying to demonstrate. Not being combative, or anything, I assure you; just curious.
Hmm there is not a wealth of information because the civilizations living here like the hitties and Assyrians. Were militaristic therefore did not keep too many records however the Egyptians probably kept some records of these people and through archaelogical findings there is more knowledege but not to the level of the Egyptians.
Actually, as I understand it, the Assyrians put together quite the library -- in the form of a collection of tablets -- during the reign of Ashurbanipal. Also, wasn't Egyptian history notorious -- even among the propagandistic history of this period -- for leaving out unpleasant details? This doesn't mean that they were the only ones who did so; indeed, the historical documents and epigraphical evidence from this period generally speaks to a desire to glorify whoever was setting it up. I guess I just don't see what you are trying to demonstrate. Not being combative, or anything, I assure you; just curious.
It's not that there wasn't enough of a literary culture - on the contrary, the Mesopotamians had some of the earliest such records! Ironically, it's actually the more militaristic states that tend to perseve cuneiform writing - a burnt Mesopotamian city, made mainly of dried mud, hardens under such conditions...and thus so do the tablets! The only reason that Ashurbanipal's library remains is because in c.612 there was a four-pronged attack by the Egyptians, Medians, Mittani and Urartians against them. There's a vast amount of written material...but compartively little of the archeological sites that would present it haven't been exacavated for obvious reasons, and languages such as Akkadian are still scarecly understood. Egyptian history as notorious - is probably a little much; all monarchs of that period messed around with the factual accuracy of their sources - besides, the idea of unbias attempts at "history" only came with Thucydidies in the 5th century BC and perhaps Herodotos a little earlier. It's just that the Egyptian and Assyrian monarchs, as god-kings, emphasised their uber-victories a little more than usual, and usually portray themselves at their battles, however, Assyrian reliefs and documents do display a great deal of fairly unbias tactical information.
Jericho is the oldest continually inhabited city site ... it's not necessarily the first city that existed. It wasn't even a city during the earliest habitation of the site.
Jericho is the oldest continually inhabited city site ... it's not necessarily the first city that existed. It wasn't even a city during the earliest habitation of the site.
I think it dates to the Halaf and Ubaid pottery cultures in Mesopotamia, so that's about c.3000/4000 BC. I seem to remember the eminent archeologist W.B. Emery stating that even in that period, there was some kind of tower or large fortification, thus showing some kind of fairly complex society with a hierarchy even that early. That's an amazing find to my mind, as the earliest political assembly was found in central Mesopotamia and dates a little later.
I think the phrase "Gap in history" for this period is extremely apt, as much of the detail for these periods comes from archeological records (indeed, Sumerian hieroglyphs are much later than the pottery cultures I've named above!), and thus it wouldn't be considered a branch of "history", of which there is comparatively little for such an archeologically rich area.
Yea I saw a lot of the Assyrian reliefs and artifacts at the British museum I found those really interesting especially after learning about the Assyrians. But yea even if there was good information from the Egyptians on the Assyrians it probably was destroyed during the destruction on the libraries of Alexandria.
There probably is a lot - especially on the side of temples, reliefs and that kind of thing, it's just how much of it would be published in the public domain and easily accessible. A great deal of historical information isn't "missing", it's just so theoratical and obscure that it would only be present in Routledge books and Journals that cost an arm and a leg!
Yea exctatly thus these civilizations were not the most scholarly but they did exist and have a pretty neat societies even though they were a little more blood thirsty than the Egyptians.
Yea exctatly thus these civilizations were not the most scholarly but they did exist and have a pretty neat societies even though they were a little more blood thirsty than the Egyptians.
Perhaps in the case of the Hittites and Neo-Assyrians, but regard the temple reliefs from Luxor of Ramses fighting his enemies - hundreds of men slaughtered, being tortured and trampled by the Pharoah's chariot - that's not exactly peaceful. The Pharoah's role as a god naturally entailed that he was a warrior - king as well. I believe it's just because we don't see so frequent conflicts in Egypt as we do in central Mesopotamia - an area where natural resources are sparse and life is harsh, and thus we see a continuing cycle of a quick rise of an empire from an external invasion, to a slow decline caused by similar outside groups and the economic and military troubles that the region naturally caused. In comparison, Egypt is much more of a natural Geographical unit - even as late as the Ptolemies, or even that Fatimids, control of the Nile basin up to the cataphracts and Elephantine usually meant control over what we now consider to be Egypt. Thus, we don't see as many changes in their "map", but trust me, the Egyptians - like all ancient states - were extremely militaristic.
You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot create polls in this forum You cannot vote in polls in this forum