Excavation Ancient Nippur City Kassite Babylon Akkadia Pots Seals Tablets Homes

$59.99 Buy It Now 4d 2h, FREE Shipping, 30-Day Returns, eBay Money Back Guarantee

Seller: ancientgifts (4,586) 99.4%, Location: Lummi Island, Washington, Ships to: Worldwide, Item: 382157417245 Nippur III: Kassite Buildings in Area WC-1 (Lost Roads). Excavations of the Joint Expedition of the American Schools of Oriental Research and the Oriental Institute by Richard L. Zettler. NOTE: We have 75,000 books in our library, almost 10,000 different titles. Odds are we have other copies of this same title in varying conditions, some less expensive, some better condition. We might also have different editions as well (some paperback, some hardcover, oftentimes international editions). If you don’t see what you want, please contact us and ask. We’re happy to send you a summary of the differing conditions and prices we may have for the same title. DESCRIPTION: Hardcover with dustjacket. Publisher: Oriental Institute of the University of Chicago (1993). Pages: 347. Size: 12¼ x 9½ x 1¼ inches; 4 pounds. Summary: (Note: This is the third volume in a five-volume set forming a report of the archaeological excavations of Nippur by the Oriental Institute, University of Chicago). As the first of the final reports related to the current program of research at Nippur, this volume is crucial for understanding the Kassite assemblage at Nippur, especially for ceramics. This monograph emends and expands the assemblage that appeared in preliminary reports and details the construction and rebuildings of a large Kassite private house near the western city wall (Area WC-1), which furnished information on Kassite architectural practice as well as unanticipated patterning in intramural burials. Cuneiform texts, though mostly fragmentary and almost all from secondary contexts, allow some suggestions on the occupants of the sequence of houses and their activities. The plates include photographs of all the texts. An introductory chapter reconsiders the evidence for the correct orientation of the famous "Kassite" city map. Faunal reports are given in the appendices. CONDITION: NEW. New (albeit "shopworn") hardcover w/dustjacket. Oriental Institute of the University of Chicago (1993) 347 pages. Unblemished except for mild edge and corner shelfwear to dustjacket and covers. Inside the book is pristine; the pages are pristine; clean, crisp, unmarked, unmutilated, tightly bound, unambiguously unread. From the outside the dustjacket is clean, but there are 1/2 inch closed edge tears to the lower edge of the front side of the dustjacket; one near the spine heel, one near the lower open corner; with a few wrinkles radiating away from the closed edge tear near the spine heel, and faint crinkles to the entirely of the lower edge of the front side of the dustjacket. We carefully repaired the two closed edge tears from the underside of the dustjacket, minimizing the prominence of these superficial cosmetic blemishes. Beneath the dustjacket the full cloth covers are clean and unsoiled, however the upper open corners are very lightly bumped. The bumps are so light that the pages beneath are unaffected, there are no bump "echoes" to the page corners beneath the cover corners. Large, heavy books like this tend to show accelerated shelfwear, frequently bumped, and particularly with respect to the edges and corners, as due to their size and weight they are frequently the victim of careless, lazy or clumsy re-shelving. Condition is entirely consistent with new stock from an open-stock bookstore environment (such as Barnes & Noble or B. Dalton) wherein new books might show minor signs of shelfwear and/or superficial cosmetic blemishes, consequence of simply being shelved and re-shelved. Satisfaction unconditionally guaranteed. In stock, ready to ship. No disappointments, no excuses. PROMPT SHIPPING! HEAVILY PADDED, DAMAGE-FREE PACKAGING #8947d. PLEASE SEE DESCRIPTIONS AND IMAGES BELOW FOR DETAILED REVIEWS AND FOR PAGES OF PICTURES FROM INSIDE OF BOOK. PLEASE SEE PUBLISHER, PROFESSIONAL, AND READER REVIEWS BELOW. WHO WERE THE KASSITES? The Kassites were a people of the ancient Near East, who controlled Babylonia after the fall of the Old Babylonian Empire ( 1531 BC and until 1155 BC). The endonym of the Kassites was probably Galzu, although they have also been referred to by the names Kaššu, Kassi, Kasi or Kashi. They gained control of Babylonia after the Hittite sack of the city in 1595 BC, and established a dynasty based in Dur-Kurigalzu. The Kassites were members of a small military aristocracy but were efficient rulers and not locally unpopular, and their 500-year reign laid an essential groundwork for the development of subsequent Babylonian culture. The horse, which the Kassites worshipped, first came into use in Babylonia at this time. The Kassite language has not been classified. What is known is that their language was not related to either the Indo-European language group, nor to Semitic or other Afro-Asiatic languages, and is most likely to have been a language isolate (a stand-alone language unrelated to any other), although some linguists have proposed a link to the Hurro-Urartian languages of Asia Minor. However, several Kassite leaders bore Indo-European names, and they might have had an Indo-European elite similar to the Mitanni, who ruled over the Hurro-Urartian-speaking Hurrians of Asia Minor. The original homeland of the Kassites is not well known, but appears to have been located in the Zagros Mountains, in what is now the Lorestan Province of Iran. However, the Kassites were – like the Elamites, Gutians and Manneans who preceded them – linguistically unrelated to the Iranian-speaking peoples who came to dominate the region a millennium later. They first appeared in the annals of history in the 18th century BC when they attacked Babylonia in the 9th year of the reign of Samsu-iluna (reigned 1749–1712 BC), the son of Hammurabi. Samsu-iluna repelled them, as did Abi-Eshuh, but they subsequently gained control of Babylonia 1570 BC some 25 years after the fall of Babylon to the Hittites in 1595 BC, and went on to conquer the southern part of Mesopotamia, roughly corresponding to ancient Sumer and known as the Dynasty of the Sealand by 1460 B The Hittites had carried off the idol of the god Marduk, but the Kassite rulers regained possession, returned Marduk to Babylon, and made him the equal of the Kassite Shuqamuna. The circumstances of their rise to power are unknown, due to a lack of documentation from this so-called "Dark Age" period of widespread dislocation. No inscription or document in the Kassite language has been preserved, an absence that cannot be purely accidental, suggesting a severe regression of literacy in official circles. Babylon under Kassite rulers, who renamed the city Karanduniash, re-emerged as a political and military power in Mesopotamia. A newly built capital city Dur-Kurigalzu was named in honour of Kurigalzu I (early 14th century BC). Their success was built upon the relative political stability that the Kassite monarchs achieved. They ruled Babylonia practically without interruption for almost four hundred years, the longest rule by any dynasty in Babylonian history. The transformation of southern Mesopotamia into a territorial state, rather than a network of allied or combative city states, made Babylonia an international power, although it was often overshadowed by its northern neighbour, Assyria and by Elam to the east. Kassite kings established trade and diplomacy with Assyria. Puzur-Ashur III of Assyria and Burna-Buriash I signed a treaty agreeing the border between the two states in the mid 16th Century BC. Egypt, Elam, and the Hittites, and the Kassite royal house intermarried with their royal families. There were foreign merchants in Babylon and other cities, and Babylonian merchants were active from Egypt (a major source of Nubian gold) to Assyria and Anatolia. Kassite weights and seals, the packet-identifying and measuring tools of commerce, have been found in as far afield as Thebes in Greece, in southern Armenia, and even in the Uluburun shipwreck off the southern coast of today's Turkey. A further treaty between Kurigalzu I and Ashur-bel-nisheshu of Assyria was agreed in the mid 15th century. However, Babylonia found itself under attack and domination from Assyria for much of the next few centuries after the accession of Ashur-uballit I in 1365 BC who made Assyria (along with the Hittites and Egyptians) the major power in the Near East. Babylon was sacked by the Assyrian king Ashur-uballit I (1365 BC – 1330 BC) in the 1360s after the Kassite king in Babylon who was married to the daughter of Ashur-uballit was murdered. Ashur-uballit promptly marched into Babylonia and avenged his son-in-law, deposing the king and installing Kurigalzu II of the royal Kassite line as king there. His successor Enlil-nirari (1330 BC to 1319) also attacked Babylonia and his great grandson Adad-nirari I (1307 to 1275 BC) annexed Babylonian territory when he became king. Tukulti-Ninurta I (1244 BC to 1208 BC) not content with merely dominating Babylonia went further, conquering Babylonia, deposing Kashtiliash IV and ruling there for 8 years in person from 1235 BC to 1227 BC. The Kassite kings maintained control of their realm through a network of provinces administered by governors. Almost equal with the royal cities of Babylon and Dur-Kurigalzu, the revived city of Nippur was the most important provincial center. Nippur, the formerly great city, which had been virtually abandoned 1730 BC, was rebuilt in the Kassite period, with temples meticulously re-built on their old foundations. In fact, under the Kassite government, the governor of Nippur, who took the Sumerian-derived title of Guennakku, ruled as a sort of secondary and lesser king. The prestige of Nippur was enough for a series of 13th century BC Kassite kings to reassume the title 'governor of Nippur' for themselves. Other important centers during the Kassite period were Larsa, Sippar and Susa. After the Kassite dynasty was overthrown in 1155 BC, the system of provincial administration continued and the country remained united under the succeeding rule, the Second Dynasty of Isin. Documentation of the Kassite period depends heavily on the scattered and disarticulated tablets from Nippur, where thousands of tablets and fragments have been excavated. They include administrative and legal texts, letters, seal inscriptions, kudurrus (land grants and administrative regulations), private votive inscriptions, and even a literary text (usually identified as a fragment of a historical epic). "Kassite rulers in Babylon were also scrupulous to follow existing forms of expression, and the public and private patterns of behavior "and even went beyond that — as zealous neophytes do, or outsiders, who take up a superior civilization — by favoring an extremely conservative attitude, at least in palace circles." (Oppenheim 1964, p. 62). The Elamites conquered Babylonia in the 12th century BC, thus ending the Kassite state. The last Kassite king, Enlil-nadin-ahi, was taken to Susa and imprisoned there, where he also died. The Kassites did briefly regain control over Babylonia with Dynasty V (1025 BC-1004 BC), however they were deposed once more, this time by an Aramean dynasty. Kassites survived as a distinct ethnic group in the mountains of Lorestan (Luristan) long after the Kassite state collapsed. Babylonian records describe how the Assyrian king Sennacherib on his eastern campaign of 702 BC subdued the Kassites in a battle near Hulwan, Iran. Herodotus and other ancient Greek writers sometimes referred to the region around Susa as "Cissia", a variant of the Kassite name. However, it is not clear if Kassites were actually living in that region so late. During the later Achaemenid period, the Kassites, referred to as "Kossaei", lived in the mountains to the east of Media and were one of several "predatory" mountain tribes that regularly extracted "gifts" from the Achaemenid Persians, according to a citation of Nearchus by Strabo. But Kassites again fought on the Persian side in the Battle of Gaugamela in 331 BC, in which the Persian Empire fell to Alexander the Great, according to Diodorus Siculus (17.59) (who called them "Kossaei") and Curtius Rufus (4.12) (who called them "inhabitants of the Cossaean mountains"). According to Strabo's citation of Nearchus, Alexander later separately attacked the Kassites "in the winter", after which they stopped their tribute-seeking raids. Strabo also wrote that the "Kossaei" contributed 13,000 archers to the army of Elymais in a war against Susa and Babylon. This statement is hard to understand, as Babylon had lost importance under Seleucid rule by the time Elymais emerged around 160 B If "Babylon" is understood to mean the Seleucids, then this battle would have occurred sometime between the emergence of Elymais and Strabo's death around 25 AD. If "Elymais" is understood to mean Elam, then the battle probably occurred in the 6th century B Note that Susa was the capital of Elam and later of Elymais, so Strabo's statement implies that the Kassites intervened to support a particular group within Elam or Elymais against their own capital, which at that moment was apparently allied with or subject to Babylon or the Seleucids. The latest evidence of Kassite culture is a reference by the 2nd century geographer Ptolemy, who described "Kossaei" as living in the Susa region, adjacent to the "Elymeans". This could represent one of many cases where Ptolemy relied on out-of-date sources. It is believed that the name of the Kassites is preserved in the name of the Kashgan River, in Lorestan.In spite of the fact that some of them took Babylonian names, the Kassites retained their traditional clan and tribal structure, in contrast to the smaller family unit of the Babylonians. They were proud of their affiliation with their tribal houses, rather than their own fathers, preserved their customs of fratriarchal property ownership and inheritance. The Kassite language has not been classified. However, several Kassite leaders bore Indo-European names, and they might have had an Indo-European elite similar to the Mitanni. Over the centuries, however, the Kassites were absorbed into the Babylonian population. Eight among the last kings of the Kassite dynasty have Akkadian names, Kudur-Enlil's name is part Elamite and part Sumerian and Kassite princesses married into the royal family of Assyria. Herodotus was almost certainly referring to Kassites when he described "Asiatic Ethiopians" in the Persian army that invaded Greece in 492 BC Herodotus was presumably repeating an account that had used the name "Cush", or something similar, to describe the Kassites; the similar name "Kush" was also, purely by coincidence, a name for Ethiopia. A similar confusion of Kassites with Ethiopians is evident in various ancient Greek accounts of the Trojan war hero Memnon, who was sometimes described as a "Cissian" and founder of Susa, and other times as Ethiopian. According to Herodotus, the "Asiatic Ethiopians" lived not in Cissia, but to the north, bordering on the "Paricanians" who in turn bordered on the Medes. The Kassites were not geographically linked to Kushites and Ethiopians, nor is there any documentation describing them as similar in appearance, and the Kassite language is regarded as a language isolate, utterly unrelated to any language of Ethiopia or Kush/Nubia,[11] although more recently a possible relationship to the Hurro-Urartian family of Asia Minor has been proposed. However, the evidence for its genetic affiliation is meager due to the scarcity of extant texts. There is not a single connected text in the Kassite language. The number of Kassite appellatives is restricted (slightly more than 60 vocables, mostly referring to colors, parts of the chariot, irrigation terms, plants, and titles). About 200 additional lexical elements can be gained by the analysis of the more numerous anthroponyms, toponyms, theonyms, and horse names used by the Kassites (see Balkan, 1954, passim; Jaritz, 1957 is to be used with caution). As is clear from this material, the Kassites spoke a language without a genetic relationship to any other known tongue. The most notable Kassite artifacts are their Kudurru steles. Used for marking boundaries and making proclamations, they were also carved with a high degree of artistic skill, they took a long time to make. WHAT IS NIPPUR? Nippur (in the ancient world often referred to as "Enlil City") was among the most ancient of Sumerian cities. It was the special seat of the worship of the Sumerian god Enlil, the "Lord Wind," ruler of the cosmos, subject to An alone. Nippur was located in modern Nuffar in Afak, Al-Qādisiyyah Governorate, Iraq. Nippur never enjoyed political hegemony in its own right, but its control was crucial, as it was considered capable of conferring the overall "kingship" on monarchs from other city-states. It was distinctively a sacred city, important from the possession of the famous shrine of Enlil. According to the Tummal Chronicle, Enmebaragesi, an early ruler of Kish, was the first to build up this temple by Kish. His influence over Nippur has also been detected archaeologically. The Chronicle lists successive early Sumerian rulers who kept up intermittent ceremonies at the temple: Aga of Kish, son of Enmebaragesi; Mesannepada of Ur; his son Meskiang-nunna; Gilgamesh of Uruk; his son Ur-Nungal; Nanni of Ur and his son Meskiang-nanna. It also indicates that the practice was revived in Neo-Sumerian times by Ur-Nammu of Ur, and continued until Ibbi-Sin appointed Enmegalana high priest in Uruk (1950 BC). Inscriptions of Lugal-Zage-Si and Lugal-kigub-nidudu, kings of Uruk and Ur respectively, and of other early pre-non-Semitic rulers, on door-sockets and stone vases, show the veneration in which the ancient shrine was then held, and the importance attached to its possession, as giving a certain stamp of legitimacy. On their votive offerings, some of these rulers designate themselves as ensis, or governors. Originally a village of reed huts in the marshes, Nippur was especially prone to devastation by flooding or fire. For some reason, settlement persisted at the same spot, and gradually the site rose above the marshes—partly from the accumulation of debris, and partly through the efforts of the inhabitants. As the inhabitants began to develop in civilization, they substituted, at least in the case of their shrine, mud-brick buildings instead of reed huts. The earliest age of civilization, the "clay age", is marked by crude, hand-made pottery and thumb-marked bricks - flat on one side, concave on the other, gradually developing through several fairly marked stages. The exact form of the sanctuary at that period cannot be determined, but it seems to have been connected with the burning of the dead, and extensive remains of such cremation are found in all the earlier, pre-Sargonic strata. There is evidence of the succession on the site of different peoples, varying somewhat in their degrees of civilization. One stratum is marked by painted pottery of good make, similar to that found in a corresponding stratum in Susa, and resembling early Aegean pottery more closely than any later pottery found in Sumer, Mesopotamia. This people gave way in time to another, markedly inferior in the manufacture of pottery, but apparently superior as builders. In one of these earlier strata, of very great antiquity, there was discovered, in connection with the shrine, a conduit built of bricks in the form of an arch. At some point, Sumerian inscriptions began to be written on clay, in an almost linear script. The shrine at this time stood on a raised platform, and apparently contained a ziggurat. Late in the 3rd millennium BC, Nippur was conquered and occupied by the Semitic rulers of Akkad, or Agade, and numerous votive objects of Sargon, Rimush, and Naram-Sin testify to the veneration in which they also held this sanctuary. Naram-Sin rebuilt both the temple and the city walls, and in the accumulation of debris now marking the ancient site, his remains are found about half way from the top to the bottom. One of the few instances of Nippur being recorded as having its own ruler comes from a tablet depicting a revolt of several Mesopotamian cities against Naram-Sin, including Nippur under Amar-enlila. The tablet goes on to relate that Naram-Sin defeated these rebel cities in nine battles, and brought them back under his control. The Weidner Tablet suggests that the Akkadian Empire fell as divine retribution, because of Sargon's initiating the transfer of "holy city" status from Nippur to Babylon. This Akkadian occupation was succeeded by an occupation during the third dynasty of Ur, and the constructions of Ur-Nammu, the great builder of temples, are superimposed immediately upon those of Naram-Sin. Ur-Nammu gave the temple its final characteristic form. Partly razing the constructions of his predecessors, he erected a terrace of bricks, some 12 meters (40 feet) high, covering a space of about 32,000 square meters (320,000 square feet). Near the northwestern edge, towards the western corner, he built a ziggurat of three stages of dry brick, faced with kiln-fired bricks laid in bitumen. On the summit stood, as at Ur and Eridu, a small chamber, the special shrine or abode of the god. Access to the stages of the ziggurat, from the court beneath, was by an inclined plane on the south-east side. To the north-east of the ziggurat stood, apparently, the House of Bel, and in the courts below the ziggurat stood various other buildings, shrines, treasure chambers, and the like. The whole structure was oriented with the corners toward the cardinal points of the compass. Ur-Nammu also rebuilt the walls of the city on the line of Naram-Sin's walls. The restoration of the general features of the temple of this, and the immediately succeeding periods, has been greatly facilitated by the discovery of a sketch map on a fragment of a clay tablet. This sketch map represents a quarter of the city to the east of the Shatt-en-Nil canal. This quarter was enclosed within its own walls, a city within a city, forming an irregular square, with sides roughly 820 meters (2700 feet) long, separated from the other quarters, and from the country to the north and east, by canals on all sides, with broad quays along the walls. A smaller canal divided this quarter of the city itself into two parts. In the south-eastern part, in the middle of its southeast side, stood the temple, while in the northwest part, along the Shatt-en-Nil, two great storehouses are indicated. The temple proper, according to this plan, consisted of an outer and inner court, each covering approximately 8 acres (32,000 m²), surrounded by double walls, with a ziggurat on the north-western edge of the latter. The temple continued to be built upon or rebuilt by kings of various succeeding dynasties, as shown by bricks and votive objects bearing the inscriptions of the kings of various dynasties of Ur and Isin. It seems to have suffered severely in some manner at or about the time the Elamites invaded, as shown by broken fragments of statuary, votive vases and the like, from that period. At the same time it seems to have won recognition from the Elamite conquerors, so that Rim-Sin I, the Elamite king of Larsa, styles himself "shepherd of the land of Nippur." With the establishment of the Babylonian empire, under Hammurabi, early in the 2nd millennium BC, the religious as well as the political centre of influence was transferred to Babylon, Marduk became lord of the pantheon, many of Enlil's attributes were transferred to him, and Ekur, Enlil's temple, was to some extent neglected. Under the succeeding Kassite dynasty, shortly after the middle of the 2nd millennium, Ekur was restored once more to its former splendour, several monarchs of that dynasty built upon and adorned it, and thousands of inscriptions, dating from the time of those rulers, have been discovered in its archives. After the middle of the 12th century BC follows another long period of comparative neglect, but with the conquest of Babylonia by the Assyrian king Sargon II, at the close of the 8th century BC, we meet again with building inscriptions, and under Ashurbanipal, about the middle of the 7th century BC, we find Ekur restored with a splendour greater than ever before, the ziggurat of that period being 58 by 39 meters (200 by 130 feet). After the fall of the Neo Assyrian Empire Ekur appears to have gradually fallen into decay, until finally, in the Seleucid period, the ancient temple was turned into a fortress. Huge walls were erected at the edges of the ancient terrace, the courts of the temple were filled with houses and streets, and the ziggurat itself was curiously built over in a cruciform shape, and converted into an acropolis for the fortress. This fortress was occupied and further built upon until the close of the Parthian period, about AD 250; but under the succeeding rule of the Sassanids it in its turn fell into decay, and the ancient sanctuary became, to a considerable extent, a mere place of sepulture, only a small village of mud huts huddled about the ancient ziggurat continuing to be inhabited. It appears that the city was the seat of an Assyrian Church of the East Christian bishopric as late as the 8th century AD. Nippur was situated on both sides of the Shatt-en-Nil canal, one of the earliest courses of the Euphrates, between the present bed of that river and the Tigris, almost 160 km southeast of Baghdad. It is represented by the great complex of ruin mounds known to the Arabs as Nuffar, written by the earlier explorers Niffer, divided into two main parts by the dry bed of the old Shatt-en-Nil (Arakhat). The highest point of these ruins, a conical hill rising about 30 meters (100 feet) above the level of the surrounding plain, northeast of the canal bed, is called by the Arabs Bint el-Amiror "prince's daughter." Nippur was first excavated, briefly, by Sir Austen Henry Layard in 1851. Full scale digging was begun by an expedition from the University of Pennsylvania. The work involved four seasons of excavation between 1889 and 1900 and was led by John Punnett Peters, John Henry Haynes, and Hermann Volrath Hilprecht. Nippur was excavated for 19 seasons between 1948 and 1990 by a team from the Oriental Institute of Chicago, joined at times by the University of Pennsylvania Museum of Archaeology and Anthropology and the American Schools of Oriental Research. As at Tello, so at Nippur, the clay archives of the temple were found not in the temple proper, but on an outlying mound. South-eastward of the temple quarter, without the walls above described, and separated from it by a large basin connected with the Shatt-en-Nil, lay a triangular mound, about 7.5 meters (25 feet) in average height and 52.000 square meters (520,000 square feet) in extent. In this were found large numbers of inscribed clay tablets (it is estimated that upward of 40,000 tablets and fragments have been excavated in this mound alone), dating from the middle of the 3rd millennium BC onward into the Persian period, partly temple archives, partly school exercises and text-books, partly mathematical tables, with a considerable number of documents of a more distinctly literary character. Almost directly opposite the temple, a large palace was excavated, apparently of the Seleucid period, and in this neighborhood and further southward on these mounds large numbers of inscribed tablets of various periods, including temple archives of the Kassite and commercial archives of the Persian period, were excavated. The latter, the "books and papers" of the house of Murashu, commercial agents of the government, throw light on the condition of the city and the administration of the country in the Persian period, the 5th century BC. The former give us a very good idea of the administration of an ancient temple. The whole city of Nippur appears to have been at that time merely an appendage of the temple. The temple itself was a great landowner, possessed of both farms and pasture land. Its tenants were obliged to render careful accounts of their administration of the property entrusted to their care, which were preserved in the archives of the temple. We have also from these archives lists of goods contained in the temple treasuries and salary lists of temple officials, on tablet forms specially prepared and marked off for periods of a year or less. On the upper surface of these mounds was found a considerable Jewish town, dating from about the beginning of the Arabic period onward to the 20th century AD, in the houses of which were large numbers of incantation bowls. Jewish names, appearing in the Persian documents discovered at Nippur, show, however, that Jewish settlement at that city dates in fact from a much earlier period. Drehem or ancient Puzrish-Dagan, a suburb of Nippur, is the best known city of the so-called redistribution centers of the Neo Sumerian period of Mesopotamian history. It is located some 10 kilometers (6 miles) south of Nippur. Witnessed by thousands of cuneiform tablets, livestock (cattle, sheep and goats) of the state was centralized at Drehem and redistributed to the temples, its officials and the royal palaces of Sumer. The temples of nearby Nippur, the religious capital of the Neo Sumerian culture, were the main destinations of the livestock. The city was founded by Shulgi, king of Ur. Some of its cuneiform archives are at the Royal Ontario Museum, Toronto. PUBLISHER REVIEWS: REVIEW: ["Nippur - Sacred City Of Enlil" by McGuire Gibson, Professor of Mesopotamian Archaeology, The Oriental Institute, The University of Chicago]. From earliest recorded times, Nippur was a sacred city, not a political capital. It was this holy character which allowed Nippur to survive numerous wars and the fall of dynasties that brought destruction to other cities. Although not a capital, the city had an important role to play in politics. Kings, on ascending the throne in cities such as Kish, Ur, and Isin, sought recognition at Ekur, the temple of Enlil, the chief god of the Mesopotamian pantheon. In exchange for such legitimization the kings lavished gifts of land, precious metals and stones, and other commodities on the temples and on the city as a whole. At the end of successful wars, rulers would present booty, including captives, to Enlil and the other gods at Nippur. Most important, kings carried out for the city elaborate construction and restoration of temples, public administrative buildings, fortification walls, and canals. Even after 1800 B. C., when the Babylonians made Marduk the most important god in southern Mesopotamia, Enlil was still revered, kings continued to seek legitimization at Nippur, and the city remained the recipient of pious donations. The city underwent periodic declines in importance, but rose again because its function as a holy center was still needed. The greatest growth of the city, which occurred under the Ur III kings (2100 B.C.), was almost matched in the time of the Kassites (1250 B.C.) and in the period when the Assyrians, from northern Iraq, dominated Babylonia (750-612 B.C.). The strength of Mesopotamian religious tradition, which gave Nippur its longevity, can be illustrated best by evidence from the excavation of the temple of Inanna, goddess of love and war. Beginning at least as early as the Jemdet Nasr Period (3200 B.C.), the temple continued to flourish as late as the Parthian Period (100 A.D.), long after Babylonia had ceased to exist as an independent state and had been incorporated into larger cultures with different religious systems (Persian, Seleucid, and Parthian empires). The choice of Nippur as the seat of one of the few early Christian bishops, lasting until the city's final abandonment around 800 A.D., was probably an echo of its place at the center of Mesopotamian religion. In the Sasanian Period, 4th to 7th Centuries, A.D., most of the major features of Mesopotamian cultural tradition ceased, but certain aspects of Mesopotamian architectural techniques, craft manufacture, iconography, astrology, traditional medicine, and even some oral tradition survived, and can be traced even today not just in modern Iraq but in a much wider area. The origins of Nippur's sacred character cannot be determined absolutely, but some suggestions can be made. The city's special role was derived, I would suggest, from its geographic position on an ethnic and linguistic frontier. To the south lay Sumer, to the north lay Akkad; the city was open to the people from both areas and probably functioned as an arbiter in disputes between these potential enemies. The existence of the frontier can be demonstrated from texts as early as the Early Dynastic III period (2600 B.C.), when Sumer was the dominant cultural entity. In tablets from Shuruppak, a city 45 kilometers (27 miles) southeast of Nippur, more than 95% of the scribes had Sumerian names, while the rest had Akkadian names. In contrast, at Abu Salabikh, 12 kilometers (7 miles) to the northwest of Nippur, literary and other scholarly texts were written in equal numbers by Sumerian and Akkadian scribes. But, Biggs notes that in the preparation of administrative texts at Abu Salabikh there was a greater representation of Sumerian scribe names, about 80%. This fact may indicate that although Akkadians were deeply involved in all aspects of life in the area just north of Nippur, government affairs may have remained predominantly the preserve of Sumerians in the pre-Sargonic period. For Nippur, we do not know as yet what percentage of scribes had Akkadian names in Early Dynastic III, but Biggs has suggested that the percentages at Nippur would be more like those of Shuruppak than like those of Abu Salabikh. I would suspect, however, that the percentages for non-governmental texts were closer to those at Abu Salabikh, with a good number of Akkadian scribes in evidence. As is the case with the world's other holy cities, such as Jerusalem, Mecca, and Rome, Nippur was a vibrant economic center. Besides the economic benefits derived from gifts and on-going maintenance presented by kings and rich individuals, there was probably a continuing income from pilgrims. Nippur was the center of an agricultural district, with much of the land in the possession of temples. The temples produced manufactured goods, predominantly textiles and finished items, some of which were meant for export. But the temples were only part of the economic picture. Even though it was more dominated by religion than other towns, Nippur, like them, had a mixed economy, with governmental, religious, and private spheres. Steadily accumulating evidence indicates that the public spheres were closely integrated, with final control in the hands of government officials. The work-force for much of the large-scale manufacture was probably connected with the major institutions, especially the temples. As in most countries until modern times, the temples in Mesopotamia had an important function as social welfare agencies, including the taking in of widows and orphans who had no families or lineages to care for them; temples also were the recipients of war prisoners, especially those from foreign lands, who worked in agricultural settlements belonging to temples or in other temple service. Such dependent people probably worked for generations in the service of one temple as workers and soldiers, rather than as slaves. All institutions, whether the governor's palace, a government-sponsored industry, or a temple, were not just buildings and not just abstract bureaucratic hierarchies or economic establishments, but were social organizations within a broader social network. As happens in most societies, large institutions in ancient Mesopotamia tended to be dominated by families, lineages, and even larger kinship groups and I would argue that it is this web of kinship that furnishes the long-term, underlying continuity for civilizations, making it possible to reassemble the pieces even after disastrous collapses. For Mesopotamia, the role and power of such kinship organizations is best observed ironically in the Ur III Period, the most centralized, bureaucratized period in Mesopotamian history. The abundance of records of administrative minutiae allows the reconstruction not just of the administrative framework, but of the social network underlying and imbedded within it. The best reconstruction of such a kin-based organization within an institution is Zettler's work on the Inanna temple. One branch of the Ur-me-me family acted as the administrators of the temple, while another dominated the governorship of Nippur and the administration of the temple of Enlil. It is important to note that the Ur-me-me family remained as adminstrators of the Inanna temple from some time within the Akkadian period to at least as late as the early years of the Isin dynasty. Thus, while dynasty replaced dynasty and the kingship of Sumer and Akkad shifted from city to city (Akkad to Ur to Isin) the family remained in charge of the Inanna temple. From the listing of members of two and three generations as minor figures on the temple rolls, it is clear that it was not just the Ur-me-me family that found long-term employment within the temple's economic and social skucture. Through the continued association of families with the institution, not only were generations of people guaranteed a livelihood, but the institution was guaranteed a cadre which would pass on the routines that made the institution function. The temple could add key personnel not only through a kind of birth-right (family or lineage inclusion), but also through recruitment; important individuals within the institution's adrninistration would have acted as patrons not just for nephews, nieces, and more distant relatives but also for unrelated persons. By incorporating clients of its important men and women, an institution could forge linkages with the general population in the city as well as in the supporting countryside and in other cities; these recruits, in taking up posts within a temple, a municipal establishment, the royal bureaucracy, or in a large family business, would ensure that the patron had loyal adherents. We know from cuneiform texts found at Nippur and elsewhere that the temples, rather than controlling the cities through a "Temple Economy," as was proposed earlier in this century, were under supervision by a king or a royally appointed governor, even in the Early Dynastic III period (2600 B.C.). In the Akkadian period (2300 B.C.), the temples of Inanna and Ninurta seem to have been under very close control of the governor, but the ziggurat complex, dedicated to Enlil, appears to have been more autonomous, reporting directly to the king in Agade. During the Ur III period (2100 B.C.) at Nippur, the administrator of the Inanna temple had to report to his cousin, the governor, on the financial affairs of the temple, and even had to go to the governor's storehouse to obtain the ritual equipment for specific feasts of the goddess. The situation was much the same in the Isin-Larsa period, with texts from one agency (presumably the governor's office) recording distribution of goods to several temples; it is unfortunate that a recent article revives, again, the notion of "temple economy" to cover these transactions. The characteristics of administration and support that can be reconstructed from texts for a few temples at Nippur must be assumed to have been operative in the rest of Nippur's temples. The relationship of those temples to governmental institutions and to private entities and individuals is only beginning to be worked out. To reconstruct life in ancient cities one cannot rely on written documents alone, since they do not cover the entire range of ancient activity. Often, crucial insights can be obtained by the correlation of non-inscribed evidence, for instance the repeated co-occurrence of a set of artifacts in one type of find-spot. Especially valuable are correlations that illustrate human adaptations to natural environrnental conditions. When one can bring texts into such correlations, truly innovative syntheses can be made. Whenever possible, documents must be viewed in their archaeological contexts, treating them as an extraordinarily informative class of artifacts to be studied in relationship to all other items. When such relationships are studied, a much more detailed picture emerges. Although that procedure would appear to be self-evidently valuable, it is rare that texts have been treated in this manner. At Nippur, we have made a concerted effort to combine all kinds of information in our interpretations of the site, and we think that we have made some important discoveries by so doing. Nippur has been the focus of major excavation since 1889 when the University of Pennsylvania opened the first American expedition in the Middle East. Finding the site a rich source for cuneiform tablets, that expedition continued to excavate at Nippur until 1900. The main achievements of the expedition were to locate the ziggurat and temple of Enlil and to recover more than 30,000 cuneiform tablets of extraordinary literary, historical, grammatical, and economic importance. More than 80% of all known Sumerian literary compositions have been found at Nippur. Included were the earliest recognized versions of the Flood Story, parts of the Gilgamesh Epic, and dozens of other compositions. It was these Sumerian works, plus an invaluable group of lexical texts and bilingual (Sumerian/Akkadian) documents that allowed scholars to make real progress in deciphering and understanding Sumerian. As important in historical terms are royal inscriptions from all periods, especially those of the Kassite Dynasty which ruled Mesopotamia from about 1600 to 1225 B. C. More than 80% of our knowledge of this dynasty has come from Nippur texts. In a special category of Nippur texts are the business archives of the Murashu family, merchant bankers who controlled vast commercial and agricultural interests under the Achaemenid Persian kings (500 B.C.). For almost a half-century after the University of Pennsylvania left the site, Nippur lay unexcavated. In 1948 the University of Chicago initiated a Joint Expedition to Nippur with the University of Pennsylvania. It was felt at that time that although Nippur had been inundated by a sea of dunes since the 1920's, the information to be gained, especially on Sumerian culture, justified the extraordinary expense and difficulty caused by those dunes. A stated goal of the new excavations was to establish an archaeological context for the extraordinary artifacts, especially the tablets, that the earlier expedition had found. When the University of Pennsylvania withdrew from the expedition in 1952 it was succeeded by the American Schools of Oriental Research until 1962. The University of Chicago has continued its commitment to the site to the present day, and the last season of work in the winter of 1990 constituted the nineteenth campaign since 1948. For the first three seasons of modern work, 1948-52, excavation was concentrated on the area of the ziggurat and the adjacent mound called Tablet Hill. The early Pennsylvania excavators gave the name Tablet Hill or The Scribal Quarter to that mound in the belief that all or most of the scribes at Nippur had lived in that one part of the site. Although many important tablets were found in Tablet Hill, a study of all the records of the old Pennsylvania expedition shows that even more texts were found in the southern end of the West Mound. Recent excavations have proven that tablets, including school texts, probably are to be found in every part of the site. Because it had more than a hundred temples as well as governmental offices and numerous private businesses, it is not surprising that written records are to be found all over Nippur. But, so far, Sumerian literary texts do appear to be more highly concentrated at Tablet Hill. The Joint Expedition's work in Trenches TA and TB on Tablet Hill yielded a valuable sequence of houses with artifacts in situ. This sequence, especially the pottery, dating from the Akkadian through the Achaemenid period (2300-500 B.C.) became a standard of reference for all of Mesopotamia. While working on Tablet Hill, the expedition began to make exploratory trenches at numerous locations in the eastern half of the site. In one of these trenches, R.C. Haines exposed the North Temple, dedicated to a god/goddess as yet unidentified. More important, another trench encountered the temple of Inanna, goddess of love and war, one of the most important deities in the Mesopotamian pantheon. For ten years (Seasons 3-8, 1953-62) the expedition concentrated on this one area, and exposed seventeen rebuildings of the temple, one upon another, dating from the Jemdet Nasr Period (3200 B.C.) until the Parthian Period (100 A.D.). As with other temples built of unbaked mudbrick, when the Inanna Temple began to age, it was demolished and a new, larger, more elaborate building was constructed upon its ruins. This long sequence of temples, especially the earliest ten (3000-2200 B.C.) with their thousands of artifacts (statues, reliefs, stone bowls, cylinder seals, and pottery), has furnished yet another standard of comparison for all other Mesopotamian sites. In 1964, University of Chicago, by then the sole sponsors of the Nippur expedition, signed a revised agreement with the Iraqi government, promising to continue excavating on a long-term basis. It was decided that the ziggurat area should once more be the focus of research, since that is the most important single structure at Nippur. This focus required the re-excavation of a large Parthian fortress that Pennsylvania had exposed partially in the 1890's. After recording the fortress, the expedition was supposed to demolish it so that the Sumerian levels around the ziggurat could be exposed fully. The 9th and 10th Seasons (1964-67) were expended in excavating the fortress, but when the task was finished, the expedition was not permitted to remove the remains to continue its proposed program because the fortress was judged to have value for tourism. For five years, the site lay neglected. In 1972, when I became director of Nippur, I instituted a new program, meant to bring to light not just the religious aspects of the city, but its governmental and private sectors as well. I wanted to investigate the city's origins and history, the function of various parts, and the relationship of the city to its region and its environment. I proposed to examine the city walls, put trenches into parts of the site that had never been sampled, and also try to fill gaps in the Mesopotamian sequence (especially the Akkadian and Kassite Periods), and examine the later periods (Sasanian and Islamic) that had rarely been excavated systematically in Mesopotamia. Very important in our work was a commitment to linking archaeological to epigraphical data and an attempt to understand the ecological and social systems of ancient Nippur. We also introduced a new, up-to-date method of excavation, recording, and analysis of material. And we proposed to bring to the archaeology of the historical periods of Mesopotamia some of the techniques and theoretical viewpoints, called the "New Archaeology," that had been developed for prehistoric sites elsewhere. Such an approach was new to Mesopotamia, as it was to the historical ranges of most other parts of the Near East. Now, twenty years later, these methods and viewpoints have become commonplace not just in Iraq, but in the area as a whole. To carry out our new program, we turned away from the eastern mounds, which were considered to be the more religious side of the city, and began to work on the West Mound, which had not been touched since 1899. Our first operation, WA (=West Mound, Operation A) was located in the bottom of a huge pit left by the University of Pennsylvania. Here, that expedition had found a large villa of Parthian data (100 A.D.), and, in nearby locations, the Murashu archive and a group of Kassite administrative tablets. We thought we had a chance to expose, eventually, not only buildings that might relate to the Murashu family, but also a Kassite administrative building. Very soon we realized that we had come down upon yet another sequence of temples dating from at least the Ur III (c. 2100 B.C.) to the Neo-Babylonian period (600 B.C.). We worked here for three seasons, having great difficulty because of the continual movement of dunes into our excavations, and were able to expose only a part of successive levels of a very large and important temple. We could not identify the deity venerated there. We assumed that this sequence of buildings would be much older than the lowest level we reached at that time (Ur III) and that it would rival the Inanna Temple in importance if conditions made it possible to carry the excavations to conclusion. In Area WB, toward the south end of the West Mound we did, in fact, discover a totally unexpected Kassite administrative building, a badly destroyed palace (1250 B.C.). This building, half the size of the Kassite royal palace at Dur Kurigalzu near Baghdad, was the governor's palace, according to tablets found there. We know from other cuneiform documents, found by the old Pennsylvania expedition in the area to the south of WB, that the administrative center of the city and the province was located in this area from at least the Akkadian Period (c. 2300 B.C.) to the 7th Century B.C. The existence of governmental buildings in this part of the city must explain the great number of tablets found in this part of the site by the old University of Pennsylvania expedition. Directly below the Kassite palace in Area WB was an Old Babylonian house (1750 B.C.) owned by a family of bakers, who used the front half of the building as an office and shop and the space outside for the baking of bread and meat. Texts found in the house show that the family baked on contract for the city administration, temples, and individuals. On the floor of the building we found dozens of objects left in place-pottery, a bread oven, grinding tools, cuneiform tablets, and other items. The debris on the last occupation floor gave the impression that the occupants had left suddenly, expecting to return soon, but never did. In time, sand drifted over the artifacts on the floor, and the walls of the house were eroded by rain and finally collapsed. This dramatic instance of sudden abandonment brought into clear focus evidence of similar breaks in stratigraphy in other Old Babylonian contexts on the site. We realized that there had been a crisis in the history of the city that had resulted in a total, or almost total, abandonment. The cessation of dated texts at around 1720 B.C., noticed by earlier excavators but not discussed, had to be correlated with the archaeological evidence. I knew that there was a similar halt in dated texts at other sites in Babylonia (Ur, Larsa, Isin) during the reign of Samsuiluna, and I knew that only those cities lying along or close to the river's western branches, such as Babylon, Kish, Sippar, Borsippa, and Dilbat, continued to produce dated texts. I began to suggest in lectures, as early as 1973-74, that there may have been a general catastrophe in Babylonia at that time, due to a major environmental crisis, probably the shifting of water away from the main branch of the Euphrates that had passed through Nippur. Elizabeth Stone, in an important restudy of Tablet Hill summarized the available evidence for the crisis and abandonrnent at Nippur. Hermann Gasche subsequently laid out the evidence, in very graphic form, for a general collapse of central and southern Babylonia during the period. The catastrophic abandonment of the heart of Babylonia, with a subsequent formation of dunes, was not to be reversed until about 1300 B.C., when irrigation water was brought back to the center of the country by the Kassite dynasty. As the Kassites began to revive Nippur and the other cities, they must have done a kind of archaeology to allow them to identify individual buildings. Only such a procedure can explain how, after hundreds of years of abandonment, the Kassites could have placed their versions of the Inanna Temple, the North Temple, the temple in WA, and other buildings, over their Old Babylonian predecessors. The reconstruction by the Kassites of this holiest of cities on so grand a scale and with such care for detail is consistent with that dynasty's deliberate efforts to revive other aspects of ancient Mesopotamian culture, such as a resurrection of the long-dead Sumerian language and literature. Our appreciation for that effort of reconstruction was heightened by work we carried out on the lowest parts of the site. In our 13th Season of excavation, 1975, we began to investigate Area WC in the southernmost corner of the city. We had noticed that a ridge, appearing on an air photograph of the site, seemed to coincide with a corner of the city wall on a Kassite map that had been found at Nippur by the University of Pennsylvania. This city plan shows the ziggurat complex, Ekur and Ekiur, "the canal in the middle of the city," and a number of city gates, as well as measurements along sections of the city wall. I was already convinced that Samuel Kramer had been correct in arguing that the Kassite map represented the entire city, not just the eastern half, as other scholars have thought. Miguel Civil, our expedition epigrapher, in conducting a new study of the map, showed me that the measurements along the walls made sense only if the entire city were represented and if the map were oriented as I present it here. The correct orientation of the map was proven by the cutting of trenches WC-1 and WC-2 across the ridge at the southern corner of the site, where we found evidence of a city wall more than 14 meters (45 feet) in thickness. There is difficulty in overlaying the ancient plan on the topographical plan of the site, however, because of inaccuracies in the angles of the city wall as given by the Kassite scribe. If Ekur and the southern corner of the city (Area WC) are aligned, many of the other features are skewed and if the river Euphrates is laid over the Kassite canal that we excavated to the west of WC, another set of features is then skewed. Even with the difficulty in alignment, however, the similarity of detail in both maps is obvious. By excavation, we also determined that an ancient canal west of WC-1 was Kassite in date and it lay approximately where the Euphrates is located on the ancient map. We even located what must be the Birdu canal, which branches off from the Euphrates at the western corner of the city. In a long trench at the northwest of the mound, we discovered at four meters (13 feet) below the present plain level many thousands of Kassite pottery vessels embedded in greenish clay, laid down in conditions that our soil specialist interpreted as ponded water. This area on the ancient map is marked hirtum, which can be translated "moat", that is, an area of ponded water. In summary, I can say that we have been able to verify Kramer's interpretation of the map by a combination of archaeological, geomorphological, and philological evidence. While we worked for three seasons on the southern end of the mound, exposing private houses of several periods just inside the city wall, the dunes that had hampered our excavations on the high mounds began to retreat rapidly towards the east. This phenomenon allowed us to carry out investigations of the city wall east of the ziggurat (Areas EA, EB, EC) and a very important operation, TC, at the end of the TA trench on Tablet Hill. In Area TC, we were able to prove that not only had there been a crisis and abandonment of Nippur during the Old Babylonian period, but also a second crisis in the period after the Kassite occupation. James A. Armstrong, in an outstanding example of archaeological excavation and reasoning proved that the original excavations from 1948 to 1952 had involved a misunderstanding of the stratigraphy. When correctly reassembled, the evidence clearly shows sharp breaks in pottery traditions not only in the Old Babylonian period but also in the post-Kassite period. And in both periods of abandonment, dunes invaded the site, just as they have done in the past hundred years. The abandonment at the end of the 2nd Millennium meant that there was the necessity for a second revival of Nippur, which seems to have taken place in the 8th Century B.C., reaching its peak under Assurbanipal in the late 7th Century. The breaks in the pottery sequence, which reflected the abandonments, had been somewhat apparent in a table in the original publication of Tablet Hill, but were made indistinct by the confusion of stratigraphy. Armstrong's revision of that table, now nearing completion, will illustrate very graphically the two gaps in occupation of the city. We cannot state, absolutely, that the entire city was abandoned each time; there is a possibility that the ziggurat and the Enlil temple may have survived with a small staff that could derive water from wells and could have been supplied with food from the irrigated areas to the west. In future, we hope to investigate the problem in the ziggurat area. By 1989, with most of the sand off the site, we decided to return to Area WA to reopen the investigation of the sequence of temples that we had found in the early 1970's. In the years that we had been working on the lower parts of Nippur, we had achieved several of our objectives, such as sampling unexcavated parts of the city through surface collection of sherds and soundings; we have not yet uncovered any industrial areas except the bakery of Area WB and some areas of pottery production of various periods, but we do have a better idea of the history of occupation of the city as a whole; we have also examined the city walls in Areas WC, EA, EB, EC; and, by the inclusion of environmental specialists on the expedition since 1972, we have made significant strides in understanding the environment both in modern times and in antiquity. Our first step in reopening work on the high mound in 1989 was to make a sizable excavation of Sasanian and Islamic levels in Area WG, just to the southwest of Area WA. With this operation we achieved yet another of our long-range goals, the systematic investigation of the last two periods of occupation at Nippur. The excavation of this area was also meant to give us room to expand Area WA toward the location of the Murashu archive. At the same time, we sank a deep pit (WF) in the southern end of WA, in order to expose levels that would make possible a revision in our understanding of the transition from the Early Dynastic to the Akkadian period. In the winter of 1990 we resumed excavation on the temple sequence in Area WA. Although we did not expose the entire temple at any level, we were able to gain enough information to hazard an estimate that the latest (Neo-Babylonian, 600 B.C.) building was probably about 100 meters by 40 meters (330 by 130 feet) in size. In addition, although only the bottoms of the walls of the 7th Century and Kassite (13th Century) levels remain, we were able to recover enough artifacts in these buildings to identify the deity to whom this temple is dedicated. On floors, and buried in the plaster on walls, we found several figurines of dogs. We also found fragmentary figurines of human beings in attitudes of pain; for instance one with his hand to his throat, another with one hand to his head and one to his stomach. Knowing that the dog was the special symbol of Gula, the goddess of medicine, we began to hypothesize that this was her temple, even though there are very few mentions of a Gula Temple in Nippur tablets. The identification was made positive by the finding of a small fragment of a lapis lazuli disc with the incription a-na dGu-la "to Gula." Muhammad Ali Mustafa, an Iraqi scholar, had excavated a small Kassite mound near Dur Kurigalzu, where he had discovered dozens of similar figurines. On some of his animal figurines there were prayers to Gula, making certain the association of such figurines with the goddess. We had been assuming since 1973 that the WA temple, being so large, might be dedicated to Ninurta, who is the second most important god at Nippur. It may be proven in future that the temple of Gula lies beside a large temple dedicated to Ninurta, but it is more likely that the part of the WA temple that we have thus far exposed is only the Gula section of the temple of Ninurta, since Gula was the wife of Ninurta from the Old Babylonian period onwards. The situation in WA may, then, be the reverse of what has been found at Isin, where Gula, the chief deity of that city, shared her temple with Ninurta. At least one other scholar has argued that the Ninurta temple is to be located in the West Mound. Our plan to continue excavation of the Gula Temple in the winter of 1991 was cancelled by the Gulf War. We still hope to spend several years exposing the temple systematically, level by level, until we reach the earliest one. We wish to examine not just the temple but also the area around it, to try to put it in its urban context. And we will be conducting analyses of soil and floral and faunal remains that can expand our knowledge of the environment of ancient Mesopotamia. In the early levels, we know that the temple will not be dedicated to Gula, whose name appeared only at about 2,000 B.C.; the early versions of the temple probably will be dedicated to a Sumerian counterpart, Bau or another of the goddesses of medicine. If we can carry out our program, we may gain important new information on Mesopotamian medicine, on its practitioners the asu and the asipu, as well as on their relationship to the temple. We know that the asu was something like a modern doctor, making diagnoses, prescribing remedies, and recording the results. We also know that the asipu was a magician, performing rituals and giving potions. We do not know how the two professions related to Gula or to her temple. Perhaps the Mesopotamians dealt with illness as many people do today. They went to the doctor for a cure. If that didn't work, they tried alternative medicine-a faith healer or a folk healer. Maybe at the same time, they went to the temple to leave a figurine or obtain a figurine and say a prayer. In their attitude toward medicine, as in other things, I would suggest that the ancient people of Nippur and of Mesopotamia in general, rather than having "mythopoeic minds", were only a little less complex than we are and probably just as sensible. As is the case with most people, the ancient Mesopotamians had contradictory aspects to their personalities, being religious when it was called for but forgetting religion in most situations. In my understanding of written records, the ancient Mesopotamians, even those at a religiously dominated city such as Nippur, were in most aspects of life very pragmatic and extremely rational in working out problems. They were the inventors of many procedures that still underlie modern life, e.g. in commerce and law. Their art objects show an ability to objectify reality, but there are also artifacts, such as figurines of monsters, that express superstition and fear. They could express lofty ideas of justice and mercy, but punish with severity, and even carry out acts of senseless brutality. And besides great art and literature, they could create riddles and jokes and probably pornography. As a culture, ancient Mesopotamia must be recognized as a tremendously resilient and strong tradition. In a harsh and demanding environment, Mesopotamians created the world's first civilization and sustained it for more than three thousand years. That culture was, in fact, so elaborate, changing, and elastic an adaptation that it could be maintained even when major states collapsed. Nippur, its spiritual center, was probably more intimately involved in that continuation of tradition than most other sites. The city is, then, an extraordinarily important focus for sustained research and deserves continued excavation well into the future, even though there has already been a century of archaeological research on the site. TABLE OF CONTENTS: Preface by McGuire Gibson. Introduction by McGuire Gibson. Chapter 1. Area WC-1: Stratigraphy, General Description, and Chronology by Richard L. Zettler. Chapter 2. Description of Excavated Loci by Richard L. Zettler. Chapter 3. Pottery by James A. Armstrong. Chapter 4. Seals and Sealings by Richard L. Zettler. Chapter 5. Catalogue of Tablets by J. A. Brinkman. Catalogue of Registered Objects by Richard L. Zettler, James A. Armstrong and Augusta McMahon. Concordance of Loci, Squares, and Levels. Concordance of Catalogue Numbers, Levels, and Loci. Plates. Appendix A. Tierknochenfunde Aus Nippur: 13. Season by Joachim Boessneck. Appendix B. Tierknochenfunde Aus Nippur: 14. Season by Joachim Boessneck and Mostefa Kokabi. Appendix C. Mollusca by Gerhard Falkner. ADDITIONAL BACKGROUND: REVIEW: In 1889, University of Pennsylvania archaeologists began excavations at Nippur—one of the world's earliest cities and the most important religious center of the Sumerian civilization—located in modern-day Iraq. Archaeologists & Travelers in Ottoman Lands, which will be on display at the University of Pennsylvania Museum of Archaeology and Anthropology until June 26, tells a tale of discovery, diplomacy, and deception involving the three men responsible for much of the early archaeology at Nippur: John Henry Haynes, Hermann Vollrath Hilprecht, and Osman Hamdi Bey. Haynes served as field director on Penn's excavations at Nippur. Hilprecht, who officially led the project, avoided the harsh conditions on-site, instead staying back in relatively cozy Constantinople. There, he ingratiated himself with Hamdi Bey, the director of the Ottoman Empire's Imperial Museum, founder of what would become the Istanbul Archaeological Museums, and author of a restrictive set of laws limiting foreign excavations within the empire. To gain access to sites and artifacts, Hilprecht arranged for Penn to award Hamdi Bey honorary degrees and buy some of his paintings for exorbitant prices; two of these paintings are on display. The exhibited artifacts from Nippur illustrate the trio's story. Particularly noteworthy are never-before-seen black-and-white and sepia-toned landscape photographs that chronicle Haynes' extensive travels around the Ottoman Empire. While the exhibition tells us more about the three men than it does about ancient Sumer, a collection of 16 cuneiform tablets provide details about life in Nippur. A severely fractured piece bears an inscription that uses sexual imagery to describe digging a canal. Another is a receipt for the sale of a slave for 20 silver shekels. Several school tablets clearly contrast the meticulous, tiny cuneiform of an advanced scribe and the clumsy, large markings of a novice. During a decade of excavating at Nippur, Haynes helped uncover the Temple Library, which held 23,000 of these tablets. Hilprecht, however, stole the credit for this and other finds, earning him headlines in The New York Times and eclipsing Haynes' career. After being revealed as a fraud and accused of mismanaging the collection of tablets, Hilprecht resigned from Penn in 1910—the same year that both Hamdi Bey and the emotionally shattered Haynes died. REVIEW: In 1919, the American Egyptologist James Henry Breasted received five years of funding from John D. Rockefeller, Jr., to found the Oriental Institute at the University of Chicago, which was to be a “Research Laboratory” for the study of the civilizations of the ancient Middle East. Even though World War I had just ended and the Middle East was far from stable or safe, the 53-year-old Breasted immediately made plans to travel with four companions through what is now Egypt, Iraq, Syria, Lebanon, and Israel to purchase antiquities and identify sites for excavation. Breasted traveled by boat to England in August 1919, where he met colleagues and British government officials who gave him letters of introduction and permits to travel in areas still under British military control. The first of the national borders that we are familiar with today would not be established until 1921. Among the permits was one that allowed Breasted to travel with a handgun. After passing through Paris and purchasing antiquities for the Oriental Institute there, Breasted arrived in Egypt at the end of October 1919. Archaeology was of increasing political importance, both to colonial powers and to growing nationalist movements in the Middle East. Breasted met the High Commissioner of Egypt, General Edmund Allenby, who gave him further permits and letters of introduction to British officers in Mesopotamia. He also gave Breasted access to a British military plane, which Breasted had requested because he wanted to take aerial photographs of sites, including the pyramids of Giza. Allenby had read Breasted’s book, Ancient Times, and had even used Breasted’s account of the ancient battle of Megiddo to plan his invasion of that region of Palestine during World War I. Travel from Egypt to what was then called “Mesopotamia” (soon to be named Iraq) was by steamship to Bombay, India, and then to Basra. British control of Mesopotamia was administered by the India Office, and, indeed, many of the British rank-and-file soldiers in Mesopotamia were of Indian origin. After a brief stay in Bombay (Mumbai), Breasted and his team were able to travel to Basra with permissions from the British Foreign Office. It had been six months since he left Chicago. In Mesopotamia, Breasted and his team were given transportation on British military trains, cars, and horses so that they could visit the known archaeological sites, including Ur, Nippur, and Babylon in southern Mesopotamia and the Assyrian capital cities of Ashur, Nineveh, Nimrud, and Dur-Sharrukin (Khorsabad) in northern Mesopotamia. Although it took a number of years, the Oriental Institute would go on to dig two of those sites (Khorsabad and Nippur), as well as a series of sites in the Diyala region that were unknown in 1920. Percy Hambro, the British Quartermaster General in Mesopotamia, wrote to Breasted to tell him that soldiers digging a machine gun emplacement had uncovered some wall paintings near Abu Kemal at a site on the Euphrates River at the border of British control (now close to the border of Iraq and Syria, Breasted was able to identify the site as the ancient city of Dura-Europos). Breasted’s study of these paintings from the Roman garrison was carried out in a single day, immediately before the British withdrew toward Baghdad. Breasted and his team then crossed the border into what was then called the “Arab State” (now Syria), flying an American flag on their wagon to make sure that no one confused them with the hated British. This turned out to be good advice; within several weeks of their departure, the British political officer in Abu Kemal was killed by local tribesmen. When the British had attacked the Ottoman Turks in a campaign that led them to capture Damascus, they were assisted by Arab irregulars, led by the Hashemite prince Faysal and T.E. Lawrence (“of Arabia”). The Arabs were promised their own state, and, after the end of World War I, they worked to establish one based in Damascus. The extremely uncomfortable wagon trip through the Arab State extended along the Euphrates River and ended in Aleppo. Because of riots and instability, Breasted was not able to visit most of the archaeological sites he wanted to see in the Arab State, but he did visit the mound of Kadesh, site of a famous ancient battle between the Egyptian and Hittite armies in the 13th century B.C. In Aleppo, Breasted obtained permissions to continue to Beirut (Beyrouth), which was under French control. While in the area that would become Lebanon, he visited the American University of Beirut and archaeological sites, including the Roman city at Baalbek and the Phoenician sites of Byblos and Sidon. Returning to the Arab State, he met with King Faysal in Damascus. Within two months of Breasted’s departure the Arab State’s existence was ended by a French invasion from Beirut. Having left Arab and French-controlled areas, Breasted and his expedition traveled toward Jerusalem. The city itself was controlled by the British military, but the countryside was considered extremely unsafe. Breasted nevertheless wished to visit Megiddo, the focus of some of his historical research. They were frustrated in their plans, however, as wrong directions and lack of good roads meant that he was only able to see the site from a distance. The Oriental Institute would, however, go on to excavate Megiddo from 1925-1939. Breasted’s trip through the Arab State was of sufficient interest to the British government that he was summoned to London to discuss matters with Lord Curzon, the British Foreign Minister. Although he was not sent as a spy, the value of Breasted’s observations reflects an aspect of the connection between archaeology and politics in the colonial era. In mid-July 1920, he was finally able to return to Chicago, 11 months after he had departed. In addition to his passport, hundreds of letters and 1,100 photos document this founding trip of the Oriental Institute. REVIEW: Nippur is a large site approximately 180 km south of Baghdad. The site rises nearly 20 meters high and occupies about 150 hectares. The city has a long history extending from the early sixth millennium (Ubaid period) to 800 AD, with intermittent breaks in occupation. A dried canal bed (Shatt-en-Nil) bisects the site into a Western and Eastern Mound. A small gully divides the eastern mound into Tablet Hill, or the Scribal Quarter, in the south, and the Religious Quarter on the North Mound, with the ziggurat and Enlil Temple. The site has produced over 30,000 cuneiform tablets that span a variety of genres and historical periods, and provide information about the cultic, economic, and administrative role of Nippur. From the earliest historical periods in Mesopotamia, Nippur occupied an important position because it was home to the god Enlil, the main deity of the Sumerian pantheon. Rawlinson, Layard, and W. K. Loftus all visited Nippur in the 19th century, but the first major excavations at the site lasted from 1888 to 1900, under the University of Pennsylvania. This was the first American team to excavate in Mesopotamia, which had previously been dominated by French and English archaeologists. The University of Pennsylvania's Babylonian Expedition, led by H. Hilprecht, J. P. Peters, and J. H. Haynes, focused on Tablet Hill and the southwest corner of the West Mound. They established the basic stratigraphy of the site and recovered tens of thousands of cuneiform documents, many of ended up in the newly founded University Museum in Philadelphia. In 1948, D. McCown of the University of Chicago returned to Nippur, leading a Joint Expedition with the Oriental Institute of the University of Chicago and the University of Pennsylvania. Excavations focused on Tablet Hill, the ziggurat complex, the North Temple, and the Inanna Temple. In 1953, R. C. Haines succeeded McCown, and remained director until 1962. Haines was followed by J. E. Knudstad, who exposed the Parthian Fortress. After a five-year hiatus, the new director of the Nippur Excavations, McG. Gibson, exposed new areas in the West Mound in order to concentrate on administrative and domestic history of Nippur, rather than its religious nature represented by the ziggurat complex and temples of the Religious Quarter. Work in all areas of the site continued for eighteen years until 1990. Though Nippur was never the seat of a king or a regional capital, the city held a special religious significance as the seat of the god Enlil. As early as the Early Dynastic III period (2600-2350 BC), Nippur was understood to be the house of Enlil, “who determines destiny” (Sjöberg and Bergmann 1969: TH No. 2, 18:35). The tradition of Sumerian kings’ legitimization of their rule through the possession of Nippur continued into the Akkadian period (2350-2100 BC). Akkadian kings dedicated gifts to Enlil and built monuments within the Ekur, the major temple of Nippur, as did the Ur III period (2100-2000 BC) kings, even as their kingdom fell into decline. During the Isin-Larsa period, rival kings continued to claim authority based on their possession of Nippur. Changing environmental conditions during the reign of Hammurapi probably altered the course of the Euphrates, and caused the abandonment of sites south of Nippur. After the Old Babylonian kingdom (1800-1595 BC), Nippur fell into decline until the growth of Kassite Babylonia in the 14th-13th centuries BC. Kassite Nippur was a cosmopolitan city, with important administrative and religious institutions. When Nippur was sacked by the Elamites at the end of the 13th century, the city began a second long decline. Records after this period are scarce until the middle of the 8th century, when Nippur was under Neo-Assyrian control. During this period Nippur was an important regional trade center surrounded by Chaldean and Aramaean semi-nomadic tribes. In the Neo-Babylonian period, Nippur’s status declined once again until the Parthian period. Tablet Hill is the findspot of the majority of the thousands of cuneiform documents that were recovered from the early Pennsylvania campaigns. Later campaigns undertook stratigraphic excavations in two trenches, extending from the latest Achaemenid levels to the Akkadian period. The result of these systematic excavations was the establishment of a standard ceramic chronology for the historical periods of lower Mesopotamia. More recent excavations of new trenches in Tablet Hill have refined the occupation history of Nippur, and helped to define the period of abandonment between the Old Babylonian and the Late Kassite periods (13th century BC). The two trenches in Tablet Hill also contained remains of private houses, and possibly an administrative building (House J) from Levels VI-XI of the Ur III period. Within the Ekur, the Enlil Temple lies on the southeast side of the ziggurat which was founded by Ur-Nammu around 2100 BC, and successively rebuilt by kings in later periods. The main temple to Enlil probably sat on top of the ziggurat itself, and the excavators concluded that the temple southwest of the ziggurat was a kitchen temple, used primarily to prepare offerings that would have been presented to the god in the main temple atop the ziggurat. In the first and second centuries AD, a fortress was built on top of the ziggurat. The last of the three phases of the fortress included four iwans, large vaulted halls open on one side. At the northernmost tip of the Eastern Mound, excavators found a temple that had been in continuous use from the Early Dynastic I period (2900-2750 BC) (and possibly earlier) to the Akkadian period. The plan is similar to other Early Dynastic temples from the Diyala region, with a courtyard, food preparation rooms, and a long shrine with benches, offering tables, and an altar. After the Akkadian period, the building was no longer used for religious functions. The earliest excavated levels of the Inanna Temple date to the Middle Uruk period (4th millennium BC). Over twenty successive occupation levels continue through the late Parthian period (2nd century AD), and constitute the longest continuous archaeological sequence in Mesopotamia. The earliest Middle Uruk levels consist of large houses with a possible religious structure nearby. Analysis of the area during the following Jemdet Nasr (3300-2900 BC) period resulted in the identification of that period as a distinct phase in the history of Mesopotamia, rather than a subphase of the Uruk period as it had previously been understood. Although the exact nature of the transformation of this area from a private domestic area to a religious area is unclear, the first temple structure appears in the later part of the Early Dynastic I period. This first Early Dynastic temple was a large building with altars, plastered floors and walls. This building was followed by a temple with two shrines; one shrine was constructed according to the traditional Sumerian bent-axis plan, in which a visitor had to make a 90 degree turn from the entrance way to face the altar; the other shrine followed a straight axis plan, with the entrance way located directly opposite the altar. The shrines were situated within a larger complex of courtyards and industrial workshops with fireplaces. From the Early Dynastic temple levels came several sculptures, clay plaques with scenes carved in relief, sealings, and other craft objects. Analysis of the Early Dynastic levels of The Inanna Temple led to crucial reanalysis of Early Dynastic chronology in southern Mesopotamia, which did not correspond to the sequence identified from earlier excavations in the Diyala region to the north. The level IV temple, built by Shulgi in the Ur III period was a one hundred meter long monumental complex consisting of workshops, courtyards, a residential area, and shrines that probably followed the plan of the original two sanctuaries. The Inanna temple continued to be used in the Isin-Larsa, Kassite, and Neo-Assyrian (900-612 BC) periods, but construction of the Parthian temple damaged these earlier levels. The fact that the Parthian temple followed the same general plan as the first Early Dynastic temple clearly illustrates the strength of the religious tradition associated wtih Nippur, and the continuity of sacred space and architecture there. In the early 1970's excavators concentrated heavily on the West Mound. In Area WA, they found a Neo-Babylonian temple, the latest phase of a series of temples dating back to the Ur III period. Finds in the Neo-Babylonian temple, including an inscription, dog figurines, and other figurines, indicate that this was the Temple of Gula, a healing goddess, or possibly the Temple of Gula and Ninurta, her husband. Zettler notes that both Westenholz and Gibson locate the Ninurta temple on the West Mound rather than north of the Inanna temple on the East Mound as originally suggested by Zettler. It remains unclear, however, whether or not the temple of Ninurta from the Ur III period as attested in one of Shulgi's year names can be associated with the Neo-Babylonian temple of Gula. The phrase e2 gu-la in the Isin-Larsa administrative records must be interpreted as ‘the big house’ in the absence of the divine determinative and Zettler denies the existence of any substantial evidence that links the e2 gu-la to the temple of Ninurta. In Area WB, where 19th century excavations had found tablets from the Kassite period, excavators found evidence of occupation from the Old Babylonian period to the Neo-Assyrian period. The lowest levels had Old Babylonian private houses with texts recording economic transactions and baking activities. These houses were suddenly abandoned at the end of the Old Babylonian period. In the 13th century BC, a Kassite governor's palace was constructed, similar in plan to the palace at Dur Kurigalzu (Aqar Quf). In a later pit, an archive dating to the 8th and 7th centuries BC was found inside a jar. The Assyrian governor's archive fills a substantial textual gap for that period. In area WC, at the southwestern corner of the site, evidence for the city wall matches the wall depicted on a map of Nippur inscribed on a clay tablet in 1300 BC. The city wall in the western part of the city was constructed in several phases, beginning in the Ur III period. In the east, the city wall may have been constructed as early as the Early Dynastic I period, and the city would not have extended west beyond the Shatt en-Nil. Only in the Ur III period did the city expand to the Western Mound. During the Kassite period, large houses stood in area WC, and in the 6th-7th centuries BC, a new city wall and new houses were built there, including one large building that may have served a commercial function. One of the most recently excavated areas, Area WF, provided an unbroken sequence from the Early Dynastic to the Ur III period. This sequence has helped to refine the understanding of the transition from the Early Dynastic to the Akkadian periods. REVIEW: [University of Pennsylvania]. Southern Iraq, ancient Sumer and Akkad, is a land of contrasts. Rapid modernization has brought tractors, new crops, and indus trial factories. But certain agricultural and irrigation practices, construction techniques, and many other details take one back thou sands of years. Change amidst stability, or stability despite change, may be said to characterize not only today, but millennia of Mesopotamian history. Settlement patterns and land use have been shown by archaeological surface survey to have been tied to shifting watercourses, problems of salinization, depletion of land, and movements of population. Remains of villages, towns and cities lie alongside half-buried ancient canals in the middle of the desert. Some urban centers were important enough to survive longer than most. One such site was Nippur, which came into existence some time prior to 4000 B.C. and was not abandoned until about 1000 A.D. The history of the Nippur region during the past one hundred and twenty years shows how extreme and precipitate changes in local conditions can be. Around 1850, various British visitors reported that they were obliged to use boats to reach Nippur. The area for miles on all sides was a swamp. We have no indication when the swamp had formed. Slightly later, reports indicate that the swamp was drying up, yet at the time of the University of Pennsylvania Nippur Expedition (1889-1900), the site was still usually approached by boat, though sometimes it could be reached by land. The gradual shrinking of the swamp has been associated with the deterioration and breakdown of a dam on the Euphrates north of Babylon. A complete rupture of this dam in 1906 left great stretches of southern Iraq, including Nippur, dry for several years. After the First World War, new irrigation controls and dams changed the countryside drastically. By 1926, maps showed a road in the vicinity of Nippur. In 1948, when the Oriental Institute of the University of Chicago and the University Museum of the University of Pennsylvania reopened Nippur as a joint expedition, the site lay in a sea of sand. Within about forty years, a transition had taken place from swamp to desert. The sand around Nippur has a certain interest, but the dunes on the mounds them selves, and the recurring sandstorms they imply, make work on the site extremely diffi cult. However, the sand appears to be moving north and east. When I first saw Nippur in 1964, there was cultivation on only two sides of the mounds. Today, irrigated fields border the site for more than three-quarters of its circumference. The Nippur season of 1972-73, the eleventh modern season and the fifth in which Chicago has worked alone, had much of change/stability within it. Any archaeological research in Mesopotamia must address itself to cultural change, but it must also be aware of cultural traditions and the thread of history linking periods. Our specific aims in the campaign, however, brought into play other ele ments of the new and old. With this season, the Oriental Institute was launching a long term project of research at and around the site. Previous field directors often had to work under the assumption that theirs was the “last season". The focus of their efforts was, therefore, upon Nippur’s most salient features: the temples that marked the city as the primary religious center in early Meso potamia; and the “scribal quarter,” or Tablet Hill, that has yielded, in thousands of cuneiform tablets, more information on Sumerian history, language, and literature than any other site. Now that we have a projected program of research, we may turn to other parts of the city and to different problems. For instance, although Pennsylvania, in the last century, traced portions of the city wall, we know little about the outlines of the city and next to nothing about the functions of its various parts, although they have been labeled “Religious Quarter,” “Scribal Quarter,” and “Residential Quarter". Likewise, we know nothing about the growth of the city, which parts were earlier and which were later, even though previous excavations were extensive. Nippur is a gigantic site, more than three miles around and rising to sixty feet above the present plain level. It will take years of sampling to begin to understand the history of the city; and even then we will be far from the truth. In deciding to investigate areas of the site untouched in the previous ten Chicago seasons, the West Mound seemed the obvious area to work. This very large mound was relatively ignored by the old excavators, although there are enormous pits in the southernmost tip and in an area that we came to call WA. From examination of surface material it was obvious that much of the mound is covered by an Early Islamic town, and that under that is a mass of Parthian (100 A.D.) buildings. There are Parthian constructions on most parts of Nippur, and the size of the buildings, combined with the particular method of deep foundation cuts, makes exca vation of earlier, Babylonian and Sumerian, levels difficult and frustrating. One goes to Nippur hoping to reveal more about early Nippur and spends months recording and re moving Parthian mud brick. The material from this period is interesting, but the focus of the Oriental Institute is earlier. Approaching the problem of excavating on the West Mound, one could sink trenches in disturbed localities, but would expend much effort on the later levels. On the other hand, if one takes an area previously worked by Pennsylvania, one must first try to figure out what was found in the 1890’s and then try to link one’s own work with that often inadequately recorded and usually unpublished material. We decided to use the information given us by J. P. Peters and the other Pennsylvania excavators, and to suffer with old trenches for awhile, in order to avoid Parthian levels and reach early levels in as short a time as possible. In published and unpublished reports, there is an account of a long trench cut in 1889. This trench ran eastwards from the highest part of the West Mound to the low area called the Shatt an-Nil, which was in ancient times the bed of the Euphrates. In the long trench Pennsylvania discovered a very large building, or palace, with a central court flanked by baked brick columns. The pillars gave the structure its name, the Columned Hall. West of this building was found an important collection of cuneiform tablets recording the business transactions of the mercantile Murashu family (5th century B.C.). In a tunnel sunk below some rooms of the palace, a few meters west of the Columned Hall, was found another cache of tablets. These were an invaluable group of administrative texts from the time of the Kassites (1300 B.C.), about whom much more needs to be known. Being interested in the Kassite Period, and in administration, I considered this area the prime candidate for excavation. Knowing that the Columned Hall was Seleucid in date (300 B.C.) and thus earlier than Parthian, and remembering the location as a large pit, we thought that we could reach Kassite levels, and perhaps some administrative building, in this season. However, there was a puzzling inconsistency in the unpublished records con cerning the Kassite remains under the Columned Hall. In one place Kassite was said to lie just one meter below the Hall. In another, the depth was given as two meters, and in still another, four. This, we assumed, was the result of an error in recording, or a mistake in identifying levels. Upon arriving at Nippur in mid-December, 1972, we found that nature was a factor to be taken into account in our operations. The Columned Hall area was, in fact, a large pit, but the exact location of the Kassite administrative archive a bit farther west was under a tremendous sand dune. The best we could do this season was to try to find Kassite levels under the rooms associated with it. Work began in the Columned Hall area, WA, in late December. Remains of the Hall and related rooms were almost nonexistent. At a slightly lower level, we found earlier Seleucid structures, including a large founda tion wall. This wall, which had been cut by Pennsylvania’s long trench, is a corner of a structure that lies mainly to the northeast of our excavation. Our Squares WA 7 and 8, northeast of this wall and inside that structure, consisted of five meters of deliberate fill, most of it Seleucid, some earlier. Digging in these squares was, therefore, fast and relatively free of finds. Squares WA 12-13, south west of the Seleucid wall, were very different. Just below some Seleucid houses, we were surprised to come upon a small temple, with niches, buttresses, and a recessed entryway. This temple was of rather careless plan; it had no provision for a screened or separated cella, and had been destroyed on the northern end by the Seleucid foundation wall. Another surprise was the finding of an alabaster plaque with an Egyptian hieroglyphic inscription and a figure of Horus holding snakes and scorpions. This object is an amulet to ward off snakes and scorpions. From the pottery in the temple, we could date the building to the Achaemenid Period, a time when Persia had contact with and eventually conquered Egypt. The levels below the small temple were for weeks a puzzle and frustration. Tamped earth “floors” would suddenly disappear, or be cut by jagged, ancient holes. These holes were often filled with rubbish, brick pieces and many potsherds. After more than a meter, we encountered a wall made of mud bricks of a size so large that the local pickmen thought they were Parthian. No one had ever seen mud bricks this size in a pre-Achaemenid context before. Other bits of mud-brick walling would appear, and seem to relate to nothing. The puzzles finally resolved themselves when, along the southwestern edge of our excavation, we uncovered a series of niched and buttressed walls. These proved to be re-buildings of a temple in the Kassite, Middle Babylonian and Neo-Babylonian Periods (1300-500 B.C.). We were able to unearth a length of about twenty meters of the Neo-Babylonian wall to a corner. Inside two small rooms, we were able to excavate below Kassite levels and find evidence of an Old Babylonian ver sion of the building. On an Old Babylonian floor, we found three cylinder seals of Akka dian date (2300 B.C.), and another of Early Dynastic times (2500 B.C.). The seals, in very good condition and of excellent work manship, must be viewed as heirlooms; so must another stone object, a decorated axe with an incomplete inscription. This last item, inscribed “Property of the goddess Nin- …,” gives us some clue as to the deity to whom the temple belonged. Further work, after removal of the large dune, hopefully will identify the goddess with certainty. Returning to the area in front and east of the temple walls, we were able to explain the bits of walling, the bad stratification, etc. Study of the sections revealed that this area was, anciently, the slope leading to the river. Erosion, dumping of trash, excavations for mud-brick-making or mortar-mixing, and deliberate leveling to enhance the temple’s surroundings are to be read in the strata. Likewise, the wall with outsized bricks can be explained as a revetment sunk mostly below ground level, and designed to give a stepped appearance to this face of the temple. We have indications of at least two renovations of the stepping. In this area, the Kassite levels do in fact lie at different depths. In WA 12-13, we found Kassite remains at three and a half and four meters below the Columned Hall. In WA 7-8, on the other side of the Seleucid foundation, however, Kassite remains were found at five and a half meters. As we work west, under the dune, we will probably find Kassite mate rials at one or two meters below the Col umned Hall. The “inconsistency” in the old records was, in fact, an accurate record of remains found on a hillside under the Seleucid In a gully south of the main operation in WA, we opened a small stratigraphic pit. This operation proved to be extraordinarily productive. Below Seleucid levels, there were two meters of trash pits, dating to Achaemenid and Neo-Babylonian times. Here we found two complete medical commentaries of an ancient scholar who was famous enough to be quoted in tablets found at Uruk, a hundred miles south. Below the trash pits, were found sub stantial Neo-Babylonian house walls. We expected then to find Kassite remains, but instead, below a very thin sand lens, we found Old Babylonian (1800 B.C.) and Ur III [2100 B.C.] levels. We then, at a depth of five meters from the top of the pit, began to uncover walls made of plano-convex shaped mud bricks. Such mud bricks are usually the hallmark of the Early Dynastic Period [3000-2350 B.C.). Our two meters depth of walls, with two rebuildings and four associated floors, contained Akkadian material (2350-2200 B.C.). Here were found, besides Akkadian pottery, four Akkadian account tablets, two Akkadian cylinder seals, and a fragment from a brick stamp of Naram Sin, a king of the dynasty. Under the Akkadian levels, we found other plano-convex mud-brick walls along with Early Dynastic pottery types. We had no time to take the pit farther down. It is clear that we have here a rich location for fairly early material. This seems to be a private house area, and is not covered with much late material. We carried out yet another operation on the West Mound. This was our area WB, toward the southern end of the mound. Here, near the findspot of another cache of Kassite tablets found by Pennsylvania, we chose a location that seemed undisturbed and was covered with Kassite sherds. A little digging made it plain that Pennsylvania had been here before us. The top meter and a half was com posed of old trenches and backfill. When we finally reached “good dirt,” we were in Old Babylonian houses. These buildings yielded much information. In one court we discovered many whole or reconstructable pots lying where they had been left in the nineteenth century B.C. Fragments of clay plaques, figurines, and other debris lay in the courtyard. The walls of the building were of baked brick, a rarity in private houses of the Old Babylonian Period, which indicated that this building was of more than usual interest. The finding of several cuneiform tablets in the court and in a small adjacent room supported that conclusion. Among the tablets were contracts dated to the 34th and 35th years of Hammurabi, and one dated to the 13th year of Samsuiluna. We thus have about a twenty year bracket (1756-1736 B.C.) for the dating of the house. Also found among the tablets was a literary text in Sumerian. Below the Old Babylonian level are older, Isin-Larsa, houses. The series of whole and fragmentary pots plus the shards from WB should help to discriminate Isin-Larsa from Old Babylonian types. This is a range of pottery that is as yet inadequately distinguished. Probably the greatest importance for future work is the knowledge that the WB area gives excellent opportunities for reach ing early levels with little overburden. Our Isin-Larsa levels are about nine meters above plain level. Strata such as those of the Early Dynastic Period, that elsewhere have been found under meters of later debris, or below plain level, may at this spot be found relatively easily. The final operation for this season was a small pit, SQ, sunk in a low area northwest of the ziggurat in the eastern part of the site. This excavation was carried out by Dr. Peter Mehringer, an earth scientist from Washing ton State University, in order to sample strata that may give a pollen and faunal record of climate at Nippur over the past few thousand years. Carl Haines, the former director of Nippur, who was with us as a special consultant, remembered that when he made soundings in this locality in 1951-52, he observed a blackish layer about a meter below plain level. He thought that this might be evidence of an ancient swamp. Mehringer found this and another stratum that he thinks were swamp sediments. His analysis and report will appear at a future date. Looking at the season as a discrete unit of research, we can point to several notable accomplishments. In our main area, WA, we discovered what seems to be a major temple, although we must now try to determine its relation to its surroundings. In the stratigraphic pit, WA 50c, we have, I think, dem onstrated conclusively the use of plano-convex mud bricks in the Akkadian Period. Also, we have from this cut a large, well stratified collection of potsherds, including glazed specimens, that will help to set up a better ceramic chronology. The changes in glazes may cause us to reassess our under standing of glazing, especially when detailed chemical and microscopic studies are made. The private house area, WB, has likewise furnished good ceramic criteria from floor levels dated by tablets to distinguish the important Isin-Larsa/Babylonian sequence. The season must also be viewed as a link with past work at the site, and as the first part of a new program of research. We will continue to work in the trenches opened this year, trying to answer the questions raised. We intend to expand, especially in private house areas, and sample other parts of the West Mound and the plain level around it. Shards on the plain indicate possible loca tions of early material without late over burden. In conjunction with such soundings, attempts will be made to trace more of the city wall. In terms of method, we hope to continue combining old techniques of excavation with new ones, trying to bring in scholars and stu dents from anthropology, paleobotany, and other fields whenever possible. For a site as complex and gigantic as Nippur, we need as much help from various disciplines as we can obtain. Digging merely for objects or for his tory is no longer justifiable. Piecing together cultural evidence, establishing the historical relevance of an object, a building, or a city, and trying to relate these to environmental or other factors as elements in a larger process are the task of archaeology today. For Mesopotamia, elaborate research designs may be possible. However, it is my opinion that until a firm ceramic sequence is established, such research must be questionable. The main task for the next few years must be the setting up of that sequence, with an eye to future cul tural and historical studies. It is our intention at Nippur to be open to new ideas, and try new methods, but to focus on the basic work of good recording and pursuit of a reliable sequence. It may not be as exciting as other programs, but it will be more important. REVIEW: During the mid-second millennium B.C., Kassite Babylonia emerged as the first national state in lower Mesopotamia. Earlier regional kingdoms such as Akkad, Ur III, and Babylon I had controlled large territories in southern Mesopotamia and sometimes beyond; but their centralized administrative organizations had disappeared with the decline of their dynasties, and the land had dissolved once again into independent city-states. The Babylonian state under Kassite sovereignty, however, put in place an enduring administrative structure to govern all lower Mesopotamia and established a political solidarity that was to serve as the norm during the rest of the history of independent Babylonia. When the Kassite dynasty ended in 1155 B.C., the unity of the land and the provincial and local administrative organizations survived nearly intact under a new dynasty. The administrative structure of Kassite Babylonia is at present best attested in the archives from Nippur, where more than twelve thousand tablets and fragments have been excavated since 1889. These texts, mostly economic texts and letters, show the operation of the local government and particularly of the provincial governor, the ßandabakku (a title used only at Nippur in this period). The governor of Nippur discharged both civil and religious duties within his province; and there is evidence in the archives for a wider role on the national and international scene: correspondence with the king of Assyria and with the governor of Dilmun (in or near Bahrain), documents describing mercantile relations with both Assyria and Syria, and reports on agriculture and irrigation from provinces throughout Babylonia. I always ship books Media Mail in a padded mailer. This book is shipped FOR FREE via USPS INSURED media mail (“book rate”). All domestic shipments and most international shipments will include free USPS Delivery Confirmation (you might be able to update the status of your shipment on-line at the USPS Web Site) and free insurance coverage. A small percentage of international shipments may require an additional fee for tracking and/or delivery confirmation. If you are concerned about a little wear and tear to the book in transit, I would suggest a boxed shipment - it is an extra $1.00. Whether via padded mailer or box, we will give discounts for multiple purchases. International orders are welcome, but shipping costs are substantially higher. Most international orders cost an additional $12.99 to $33.99 for an insuredshipment in a heavily padded mailer, and typically includes some form of rudimentary tracking and/or delivery confirmation (though for some countries, this is only available at additional cost). However this book is quite heavy, and it is too large to fit into a flat rate mailer. Therefore the shipping costs are somewhat higher than what is otherwise ordinary. There is a discount program which can cut postage costs by 50% to 75% if you’re buying about half-a-dozen books or more (5 kilos+). Rates and available services vary a bit from country to country. You can email or message me for a shipping cost quote, but I assure you they are as reasonable as USPS rates allow, and if it turns out the rate is too high for your pocketbook, we will cancel the sale at your request. ADDITIONAL PURCHASES do receive a VERY LARGE discount, typically about $5 per book (for each additional book after the first) so as to reward you for the economies of combined shipping/insurance costs. Your purchase will ordinarily be shipped within 48 hours of payment. We package as well as anyone in the business, with lots of protective padding and containers. All of our shipments are sent via insured mail so as to comply with PayPal requirements. We do NOT recommend uninsured shipments, and expressly disclaim any responsibility for the loss of an uninsured shipment. Unfortunately the contents of parcels are easily “lost” or misdelivered by postal employees – even in the USA. That’s why all of our domestic shipments (and most international) shipments include a USPS delivery confirmation tag; or are trackable or traceable, and all shipments (international and domestic) are insured. We do offer U.S. Postal Service Priority Mail, Registered Mail, and Express Mail for both international and domestic shipments, as well United Parcel Service (UPS) and Federal Express (Fed-Ex). Please ask for a rate quotation. We will accept whatever payment method you are most comfortable with. If upon receipt of the item you are disappointed for any reason whatever, I offer a no questions asked return policy. Send it back, I will give you a complete refund of the purchase price (less our original shipping costs). Most of the items I offer come from the collection of a family friend who was active in the field of Archaeology for over forty years. However many of the items also come from purchases I make in Eastern Europe, India, and from the Levant (Eastern Mediterranean/Near East) from various institutions and dealers. Though I have always had an interest in archaeology, my own academic background was in sociology and cultural anthropology. After my retirement however, I found myself drawn to archaeology as well. Aside from my own personal collection, I have made extensive and frequent additions of my own via purchases on Ebay (of course), as well as many purchases from both dealers and institutions throughout the world - but especially in the Near East and in Eastern Europe. I spend over half of my year out of the United States, and have spent much of my life either in India or Eastern Europe. In fact much of what we generate on Yahoo, Amazon and Ebay goes to support The Hermitage Museum in St. Petersburg, as well as some other worthy institutions in Europe connected with Anthropology and Archaeology. I acquire some small but interesting collections overseas from time-to-time, and have as well some duplicate items within my own collection which I occasionally decide to part with. Though I have a collection of ancient coins numbering in the tens of thousands, my primary interest is in ancient jewelry. My wife also is an active participant in the "business" of antique and ancient jewelry, and is from Russia. I would be happy to provide you with a certificate/guarantee of authenticity for any item you purchase from me. There is a $2 fee for mailing under separate cover. Whenever I am overseas I have made arrangements for purchases to be shipped out via domestic mail. If I am in the field, you may have to wait for a week or two for a COA to arrive via international air mail. But you can be sure your purchase will arrive properly packaged and promptly - even if I am absent. And when I am in a remote field location with merely a notebook computer, at times I am not able to access my email for a day or two, so be patient, I will always respond to every email. Please see our "ADDITIONAL TERMS OF SALE." TRANSLATE Arabic Chinese French German Greek Indonesian Italian Hindi Japanese Korean Swedish Portuguese Russian Spanish Condition: NEW. See detailed description below., Material: Paper, Pages: 347 pages, Provenance: Ancient Babylon

PicClick Insights PicClick Exclusive
  •  Popularity - 2,330 views, 3.7 views per day, 626 days on eBay. Super high amount of views. 0 sold, 1 available.
  •  Price -
  •  Seller - 4,586+ items sold. 0.6% negative feedback. Top-Rated Seller! Ships on time with tracking, 0 problems with past sales.
Similar Items