Mari - by A. Malamat

MariAuthor(s): Abraham MalamatSource: The Biblical Archaeologist, Vol. 34, No. 1 (Feb., 1971), pp. 1-22Published by: The American Schools of Oriental ResearchStable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/3210950 .Accessed: 29/05/2013 00:25

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at .http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

.

JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range ofcontent in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new formsof scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected].

.

The American Schools of Oriental Research is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extendaccess to The Biblical Archaeologist.

http://www.jstor.org

This content downloaded from 108.81.114.222 on Wed, 29 May 2013 00:25:40 AMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

2 THE BIBLICAL ARCHAEOLOGIST (Vol. XXXIV, The Biblical Archaeologist is published quarterly (February, May, September, December)

by the American Schools of Oriental Research. Its purpose is to meet the need for a readable, non-technical, yet thoroughly reliable account of archaeological discoveries as they relate to the Bible.

Editor: Edward F. Campbell, Jr., with the assistance of Floyd V. Filson in New Testament matters. Editorial correspondence should be sent to the editor at 800 West Belden Avenue, Chica- go, Illinois 60614.

Editorial Board: W. F. Albright, Johns Hopkins University; G. Ernest Wright, Harvard University; Frank M. Cross, Jr., Harvard University; William G. Dever, Jerusalem.

Subscriptions: $5.00 per year, payable to the American Schools of Oriental Research, 126 Inman Street, Cambridge, Massachusetts 02139. Associate members of ASOR receive the BA automatically. Ten or more subscriptions for group use, mailed and billed to one address, $3.50 per year apiece. Subscriptions in England are available through B. H. Blackwell, Ltd., Broad Street, Oxford.

Back Numbers: $1.50 per issue, 1960 to present: $1.75 per issue, 1950-59; $2.00 per issue before 1950. Please remit with order, to the ASOR office.

The journal is indexed in Art Index, Index to Religious Periodical Literature, and at the end of every fifth volume of the journal itself.

Second-class postage PAID at Cambridge, Massachusetts and additional offices.

Copyright by American Schools of Oriental Research, 1971

PRINTED IN THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, BY TRANSCRIPT PRINTING COMPANY PETERBOROUGH, N. H.

Contents Mari, by Abraham Malamat ............................................ ... .2... .......2 The "Ghassulian" Temple in Ein Gedi and the Origin of the

Hoard from Nahal Mishmar, by David Ussishkin ............................ ..........

23 N elson G lueck: In M em oriam

................................................................................

39

Mari ABRAHAM MALAMAT

Hebrew University, Jerusalem

(This article is a slightly modified version of the study "Mari" submitted by the author to the ENCYCLOPAEDIA JUDAICA (scheduled to appear in late 1971 or early 1972); it is printed here by the kind permission of Kater Publishing House, Jerusalem, Israel. The illustrations are svecifically selected for RA readers. The article fully updates the early article of G. E. Mendenhall in our 1948 volume. Assyriologists will know that the letter h in all Akkadian words should be understood as the hard letter usually represented with a hook beneath it.)

Mari was one of the principal centers of Mesopotamia during the third and early second millennia B.C. The archaeological and epigraphical discoveries there are of prime significance for the history of Mesopotamia and upper Syria, and for biblical research, especially on Hebrew origins and the formative stages of Israelite history. Mari (sometimes Ma'eri in the cuneiform sources) was located at Tell Hariri, at present about a mile and one- half west of the Euphrates near Abu Kemal, some fifteen miles north of the modern Syria-Iraq border. It was in an optimal position for contacts with the west, and its location on the river artery, yet immediately adjacent to the desert, was continually decisive in the shaping of its fortune and character.


The

BIBLICAL ARCHAEOLOGIST

4

Published by THE AMERICAN SCHOOLS OF ORIENTAL RESEARCH

126 Inman Street, Cambridge, Mass.

Vol. XXXIV February, 1971 No. 1

cr

-;t d

~'S~"~ r?

r IE?L ~I

.~Yb~ r~

?? ~L

I i

I ~

~:

~c

-,?

":r?i~ _ii

Fig. 1. Statue of Ur-Nina (Ur-Nanshe), the "great singer" at the court of king Iblul-Il of Mari (mid-3rd mill. B.C.). From Mission archeologique de Mari, III: Les temples d'Ishtarat et de Ninni-Zaza (1967), PI. XLVIa.


1971, 1) THE BIBLICAL ARCHAEOLOGIST 3 Excavations and Discoveries

The French excavations at Mari, instituted in 1933 under the direction of Andre Parrot, have continued (with a break during and after World War II) into their nineteenith season in 1970.

The archaeological evidence indicates that Mari was founded at the end of the 4th millennium B.C. (Jemdet Nasr period) and reached a cultural-artistic peak during the first half of the 3rd millennium. Dating to this period ("Early Dynastic II-III," or "pre-Sargonic") are a ziggurat and several

*HATTUSHA

*tANESH

S(CHAGAR BAZAR) SHUSHARRA CACHE45 j - INIVEH -' ~CARCHE 'SH' HARRAN KARANA, NN (Teuat-Rimah)

N1N RREH EKALLATU M 1/ ARRAPtHA

-rALEPPO ALALAHO ft ASSHUR L NUZI

ALALA EMAR TUTTU

Cyprus UGARIT t ,TERA

*SAGARATIM TERQA

ATNA TAMER MARI v, 45 JADMER

*ESHNUNNA eve~o ~3` DE~R

BYBLOS TUTTULDER

Z SIPPAR SUSA, S *DAMASCUS BABYLON

LAISH NIPPUR HAZOR

.ISIN LAGASH

4 URUKLARS

0 AMo

00 A. M. Fig. 2. Map of the Near East in the Mari period, prepared by the author.

sanctuaries: the temples of Dagan (where the earliest list of the Mari pantheon was discovered), Shamash, Ninhursag and Ishtar, together with the pair of temples of Ishtarat and Ninni-Zaza. In the three last-named, there came to light many inscribed statues of local kings (such as Lamgi-Mari, Iku-Shamagan and Iblul-I1), lesser royalty and courtiers (Fig. 1). Although Sumerian culture predominated, the character of the cultic installations, the appearance of bearded figures in art, and especially the occurrence of particular divine and private names are all clearly indicative of a basic Semitic element from earliest times; Semites ruled Mari centuries before the rise of Akkad.


4 THE BIBLICAL ARCHAEOLOGIST (Vol. XXXIV, Since 1964, the excavations have revealed two superimposed palaces

from pre-Sargonic times, most impressive in themselves, including a royal chapel with an earthen altar (cf. Exod. 20:24); its sacred tradition was preserved even in the Old Babylonian palace built there some 700 years later (see below). Within the palace complex a jar came to light containing a "treasure" including a lapis lazuli bead with a votive inscription mentioning Mesannepada, founder of the First Dynasty of Ur. This indicates a close contact between Mari and Ur at an early date, as do other fnds from Mari such as shell inlays essentially identical with those of the "Ur standard" (war panel). The pre-Sargonic palace was destroyed either by Eannatum of Lagash (mid-25th century B.C.) or by Lugalzaggesi of Uruk (mid-24th century).

r ??? cc; II r?rr-?j r L?` Y ?,

r. h? - , t.? ;~~5~,6 -r r i?- C )L' ,~.+~ r ??a r ?? r?? ~ZL~?-aIr .n .?.141~'-1 5 ~,??LL~lr-. L-~

~LIC~L~S~LI~t- ?~BJ ~31YY~r-1I?t~k?r~

-? ?r ~ri~ '- ?,. ii . ?r

~IE~fj)i .e (_i 4'1 " ?~ . I r r?b~~? ~ rh r r .('

?'~ C h

Fig. 3. Lapis lazuli bead with votive inscription of Mesannepada, king of Ur, found in the pre- Sargonic palace (first half of 3rd mill. B.C.). From Mission archdologique de Mari. IV: Le 'trisor' d'Ur (1968), P1. XXII.

After Sargon's conquest in the second half of the 24th century, Mari became a vassal city within the empire of Akkad; among the epigraphic evidence from this period are the names of two daughters of Naram-Sin, king of Akkad. In the final two centuries of the 3rd millennium, Mari was a sort of loose dependency of 3rd-Dynasty Ur, flourishing anew under local governors who bore the title Jakkanakku (eight are known by name). Indeed, a ruler of Mari is known to have given his daughter in marriage to a son of Ur-Nammu, king of Ur.

The pre-eminence of Mari throughout the 3rd millennium is well re- flected in epigraphic sources: in the Sumerian King List, it appears as the seat of the tenth post-diluvian dynasty; in the inscriptions of Eannatum


1971, 1) THE BIBLICAL ARCHAEOLOGIST 5 mention is made of the penetration and repulse of forces from Mari as far south as Lagash; and Mari also appears in the inscriptions of Sargon and of Naram-Sin of Akkad. At the close of the 3rd millennium, Ishbi-Irra, "a man of Mari," founded the Isin dynasty and facilitated the collapse of the empire of 3rd-Dynasty Ur. After an obscure period of two centuries (from which several economic texts and 32 inscribed liver models are known), Mari reached its final period of glory, in the 18th century under West Semitic rule. Then Hammurapi, king of Babylon, quashed Mari, and it never regained its former position.

In the 13th century, Tukulti-Ninurta I conquered the meager settlement there and stationed a garrison in the city for a short time. To round out the archaeological picture, the uppermost layer on the site dates to the Seleucid-Roman period.

In the second half of the 2nd millennium, Mari was still sufficiently important to be mentioned in the Nuzi documents (horses and chariots were sent there), -in recently found texts at Ugarit ("Ishtar of Mari" in an alphabetic text, and in an epithet of another deity in a Hurrian text), and in the Egyptian geographical lists of Thutmosis III and probably also of Ramses III (15th and 12th centuries, respectively). The land of Mari appears in the neo-Assyrian geographical treatise describing Sargon's Akkadian empire; it was on this basis that W. F. Albright identified Mari with Tell Hariri long before excavation began. Finally, Mari is mentioned in a Greek itinerary, in the (Aramaic) form Merrhan.

The Old Babylonian Palace and Royal Archives The main discoveries at Mari are from the period of its domination

by the West Semitic dynasties in the last quarter of the 19th century and the first half of the 18th century (reckoned on the "middle" chronology; if one uses the "low" chronology of Albright and others, the dates would be 64 years lower). Several temples of this period were built over corresponding sanctuaries of pre-Sargonic times, namely those of Ishtar, Ninhursag and Shamash; a second temple of Dagan, also known as the "lions temple" from bronze lions found flanking its entrance, was founded earlier, by the end of the 3rd millennium. Dagan, biblical Dagon, held a prime position in the West Semitic pantheon, and at Mari bore the titles "King of the Land" and "Lord of all the Great Gods."

The outstanding architectural discovery from this period, however, is the royal palace, a structure of unparalleled magnificence and widespread fame in its time (Fig. 4). This residence, enlarged successively by each of the West Semitic rulers at Mari, reached its zenith under Zimri-Lim, at- taining an area of about eight acres and including over 300 chambers, cor- ridors and courts. Besides the private quarters for the royal family and en-


6 THE BIBLICAL ARCHAEOLOGIST (Vol. XXXIV,

QI

ILl

r?

rA)? 0 ?4

'

i

I 0 040 M ~ ,,~

L i . . ... I

. . . . . -

Fig. 4. Plan of Zimri-Lim's palace at Mari. Legend: gateway (A), forecourt (B), foreign visitor's quarters (C), kitchen (D), great court (E), old throne-room with murals (F), sacred area (G), sanctuary with earthen altar (H), sanctuary with podium (J), "dining hall" with murals (K), store-rooms and workshops (L), court 106 with investiture mural (M), entrance-hall with statue of goddess on podium (N), throne-room (P), kitchens and bath (Q), palace administration (R), steward's and officials' quarters (S), scribal school (T), royal quarters (V), "king's chamber" (W). The numbered rooms refer to the places where archives have been found: administrative archives, mainly palace provisions (5), Yahdun-Lim's disc inscription (18), molds for fancy cakes (77), economic and other archives, including liver models and Hurrian texts (108), economic archives (110), administrative archives, mainly palace provisions (111), diplomatic archives (115), economic archives, including documents of Sumu-Yamam (119), economic archives (134 & 135), economic and administrative archives, including documents of Yahdun-Lim (142).


1971, 1) THE BIBLICAL ARCHAEOLOGIST 7

tourage, there are administrative offices, a scribal school, quarters for visit- ing dignitaries, a royal chapel, a throne room and a reception chamber. Service areas included guard quarters, workshops and storerooms. A special elegance was provided in several halls and courts by multicolored frescoes depicting chiefly ritual and mythological scenes, including one depicting the investiture of a king (perhaps Zimri-Lim?) in the presence of several deities (Fig. 5). This ceremony occurs in an idealized garden, its trees guarded by "Cherubim" and symbolically watered by four streams flowing

-

. .

i~a'AfA AZT-~ _41-i

VWVWM

11*7,

Fig. 5. Multi-color wall-painting in the Old Babylonian palace, depicting the investiture of a Mari king. From A. Parrot, Sumer (1960), pp. 279-280.

from a single source - all reminiscent of the biblical paradise story. Many of the figures in these murals are depicted as typical West Semites.

The discovery of greatest impact on historical and biblical research comprises the more than 20,000 cuneiform tablets from the several archives in the palace, written in the Babylonian language. So far, some 3000 documents have been published by the noted Assyriologists G. Dossin (dean of the Mari epigraphers), M. Birot, J. Bott6ro, Mme. M. L. Burke, A. Finet, J. R. Kupper, and the late G. Boyer and Ch. F. Jean; they are published mostly in the series Archives royales de Mari (henceforth ARM), I-XIII (1946-67). Though only a small proportion of the total found, these


8 THE BIBLICAL ARCHAEOLOGIST (Vol. XXXIV, texts have shed much light on the administrative, economic, cultural and political face~ts mainly of upper Mesopotamia and upper Syria in the 18th century B.C., regions previously known only vaguely.

The archives were found to be distinguished according to subject. The political-diplomatic archives (ARM I-VI and XIII) include correspondence between the king of Mari and his agents, both at the palace and abroad, as well as with foreign potentates. The 1000 letters published so far (compare the mere 350 at el-Amarna!) provide the earliest insight into the com- plexities of suzerain-vassal relationships, diplomatic protocol, and the fluct- uating alliances and plots rampant in the ancient Near East. A noteworthy class of letters is the extensive women's correspondence (so far, only cuneiform copies of 179 documents have been published, in ARM X), revealing the prominent role of females in activities of the realm. The outstanding case is that of Shibtu, Zimri-Lim's "chief wife," who entertained the king's utter confidence, representing his interests during his absence from the city and exercising considerable influence in her own right (cf. Fig. 8).

The majority of documents (ARM VII, IX, XI and XII) are economic or administrative in nature, dealing with the maintenance of the palace, official trade abroad, lists of goods, and rosters of persons in royal employ (such as a list of nearly 1000 male and female captives (?) from the Har- ran-Nahor region, engaged in manufacturing clothes for the palace). Of a unique character are the some 1300 tablets containing lists of daily provisions for the palace, often summarized by month. Though dealing only with "vegetarian" foodstuffs and beverages, they shed light on Solomon's "provisions for one day" and possibly also his monthly quantities (cf. I Kings 4:22-23, 27 [Heb.: 5:2-3, 7]; cf. also Neh. 5:17-18). The royal table at Mari, known to have entertained hundreds of guests on occasion, was served from spacious kitchens; in one of these were found numerous molds for preparing fancy cakes, some bearing animal and goddess motifs (recall Jer. 44:19 and see Fig. 9).

Dozens of legal tablets were also found, mostly contracts concerning transactions and loans of silver or grain (ARM VIII), revealing that the palace served as a sort of exchange. Of exceptional interest is an adoption contract which ensured the "primogeniture" of the "eldest" (that is, first adopted) son, stipulating that he receive a double portion of the inheritance; this is in full accord with biblical law (cf. Deut. 21:15-17).

The very few literary and religious compositions found at Mari include a lengthy Ishtar-ritual in Babylonian, as well as six texts in Hurrian. That Hurrian was used occasionally in diplomatic correspondence is known from the only other tablet at Mari in that language, a letter written to Zimri-Lim.


1971, 1) THE BIBLICAL ARCHAEOLOGIST 9 Mari under West Semitic Rule

The origins of the West Semitic, or "Amorite," dynasties is shrouded in darkness, though there are pointers to north Syria for the local line at Mari. Thus the theophoric name element -Lim, perhaps derived from "folk," "people" (see Ugaritic l'im and Hebrew le'om); is found at both Aleppo (in the dynastic name Yarim-Lim) and Mari (in the royal names Yagid-Lim, Yahdun-Lim and Zimri-Lim). It is also present in the name of Yashi-Lim, ruler of Tuttul (probably the one at the mouth of the Balikh river), several generations earlier th'an ithe time of the above-named. Furthermore, the title "king of Mari, Tuttul and

.the land of Hana" was borne by both

Yahdun-Lim (Disc Inscription) and Zimri-Lim (on a fragmentary inscription from Terqa, located between Tuttul and Mari). And, indeed, the site of ancestor worship for both the local and the "Assyrian" dynasties at Mari lay at Terqa, about 44 miles to the northwest at the mouth of the Khabur river. Hence, the immediate origin of the West Semitic rulers at Mari would appear to be in the Terqa region.

The Reign of Yahdun-Lim. The historical figure of Yagid-Lim, founder of the local dynasty at Mari, is vague and none of his records have been found. Nor have many tablets from the reign of his son, Yahdun-Lim, been published, though in 1965 an archive of some 300 of his economic texts came to light. It is known, however, that Yahdun-Lim was able to stabilize his kingdom, establishing his dominance over the entire middle Euphrates region, as is evident from the dozen known year-formulas and especially the two extant royal inscriptions from his reign.

The shorter inscription, the "Disc Inscription," relates that Yahdun- Lim fortified Mari and Terqa, founded a fortress on the desert fringe (nam- ing it after himself: Dur-Yahdun-Lim), and laid out an extensive irrigation system, boasting that "I did away with the water bucket in my land." The other text, the Foundation Inscription of the Shamash Temple, is a splendid literary composition relating his campaign to the Mediterranean coast and to the "cedar and boxwood mountain," where he obtained several types of choice wood "and made known his might." However, this was probably only a passing episode and not a lasting conquest.

Thirty-five economic texts published in 1970 mention two year-formulas for one Sumu-Yamam, an obscure character who ruled at Mari either before or after Yahdun-Lim. Also elusive is his kinship - whether to the local dynasty or otherwise - because the few other references to him, such as in a "letter to a god" (ARM I, 3), are inconclusive. This same letter also reveals the assassination of Yahdun-Lim in a court conspiracy, much to the benefit of Shamshi-Adad, scion of a rival West Semitic dynasty, who es- tablished himself in Assyria, swiftly gaining control over large portions of Mesopotamia.



The Assyrian Interregnum. Yahdun-Lim's removal facilitated a take- over by Shamshi-Adad, who installed his son, Yasmah-Adad, as viceroy at Mari. Under his father's tutelage, Yasmah-Adad reorganized the local administration, cultivated ties with neighboring lands, and secured his flank against marauding nomads. Though his brother Ishme-Dagan, upon suc- ceeding to the throne of Assyria, promised to maintain the proitective policy of their father, Yasmah-Adad was left adrift only three or four ecars later when he was defeated by Lshnunna, a West Semitic kingdom beyond the Tigris. Altogether, Assyrian control of Mari lasted less then twenty years.

The Kingdom of Zimri-Lim. Thus the stage was set for the advent of Zimri-Lim, son of Yahdun-Lim, who in the interim had lived in exile under the wing of Yarim-Lim, king of Yamhad (with his capital at Aleppo). Yarim- Lim, who had become Zimri-Lim's father-in-law, was most instrumental in restoring him to the throne of Mari. Thirty-two year-formulas arc known for Zimri-Lim's reign, though many of them are probably alternates for he cannot have ruled for so long a period.

Zimri-Lim's reign, during the tumultuous interval between Assyria's de- cline and the rise of the empire of Hammurapi, marks Mari at its apogee. It is this period which is best represented by the archives found at Mlari which provide thorough insight into organization of the kingdom. Interest- ingly, several of Zimri-Lim's letters have recently been found in the royal archives at Tell er-Rimah (between the upper Khabur and the Tigris), probably to be identified with the city of Karana mentioned in the MTari correspondence. Mari had become a principal political force in 1Mesopotamia, alongside Babylon, Larsa, Eshnunna, Qatna, and Yamhad (as is known from a contemporary political report). Relying heavily on his diplomatic cunning, Zimri-Lim developed an elaborate intelligence system, within his sphere of influence and beyond it. Frequent alliances, as with Yamhad and Babylon, were designed to meet the danger of the moment - for example, now against Eshnunna, then against Elam. His military endeavors were directed mainly against the hostile tribal federation of the Yaminites (the previously subdued Hanean tribes were already in his service; for both, see further below).

This political situation crystallized hand in hand with the development of economic ties branching out as far as the island of Dilmun (in the Pers- ian gulf), Elam on the east, Arrapha and Shusharra in southern Kurdistan, Cappadocia in the north, Phoenicia and Palestine in the west, and even Kaptara/Crete in the Mediterranean. Indeed, tolls from caravan and river- ine trade were one of Zimri-Lim's principal sources of income.

This golden age at Mlari came to an abrupt end, however, when Ham- murapi turned on his former ally and conquered the city in his 32nd year, during the consolidation of his empire - the year was 1759 B.C. by the


Summary (dates are "middle chronology" with "low chronology" in parentheses):

B.C. Mari Dynasty Rule at Mari Assyrian Dynasty

Yagid-Lim Ila-kabkabu

(Sumu-Yamam ?) Aminu

1820 Yahdun-Lim Shamshi-Adad (1755)

(Sumu-Yamam ?) - 1800 Yasmah-Adad

(1735)

1780 Zimri-Lim Ishme-Dagan (1715)

1760 (1695) I-ammurapi of Babylon

-4 trl

cm

C) C.



middle chronology, 1695 B.C. by the low chronology. Two years later he ordered the city razed to the ground.

Mari and the West Mari was bound closely with the lands to the west - Syria and even

northern Palestine - in economy, politics, culture, religion and ethnic back- ground. We have noted above the ties between the local dynasty at Mari and that of the kingdom of Yamhad; Zimri-Lim's queen, Shibtu, was from Aleppo and he appears to have held land there which was either a patrimony or received as a dowry. Similarly, the rival Assyrian dynasty at Mlari secured political ties in the west through the marriage of Yasmah-Adad to a princess from Qatna, Yamhad's southern adversary. Another form of contact with the west is the already-mentioned campaign by Yahdun-Lim and the later expedition by Shamshi-Adad to the Levant. Zimri-Lim is also known to have visited various places in the west: Yamhad, where he had presented a statue to "Adad the great god of Aleppo," and Ugarit, where he was accompanied by a select bodyguard (sabumn behru; see below).

The region father southwest is only sparingly mentioned in the Mari archives, but references are found to Byblos on the Phoenician coast and to the land of Amurru in southern Syria (the Apum of the Mari texts is most probably the one in the Khabur region and not the one near Damas- cus known from the contemporary Egyptian Execration Texts and various later sources). In northern Palestine, Hazor and Laish (Dan) are noted in the Mlari archives as the destination of diplomatic and economic emissaries, as well as of shipments of tin (for making bronze), a commodity of impor- tance among the exports to the west. In one instance,.emissarics passing through Mari are on their way to Yamhad, Qatna, Hazor and a fourth place whose name is broken (the traces in ARM VI, 23:23 may be restored to read "Megiddo," rather than "Egypt," which is sometimes proposed; Egypt, surprisingly does not appear in the Mari archives).

On the other side of the ledger, Mari imported from the west horses and fine woods (from the Qatna region), various precious vessels of Syrian and "Cretan" style, Cypriot copper, fabrics and garments (especially from Aleppo and Byblos), and large quantities of foodstuffs such as honey, wine and olive oil.

Mari and the Bible The Mari documents have a manifold bearing upon early Israelite his-

tory: chronological, if the so-called patriarchal age is placed in the first third of the 2nd millennium (Middle Bronze II), keeping in mind of course that even the oldest portions of the Bible are of much later date; geographical, for the patriarchal homeland, Aram-Naharaim, lay within Mari's horizons; ethnic-linguistic, the Hebrews being of the same West Semitic (or Amorite)


1971, 1) THE BIBLICAL ARCHAEOLOGIST 13 stock as that so very much manifest at Mari; and sociological, for the des- criptions of tribalism comprise the most extensive insight into the nomadic and settled phases of the Israelite tribes.

Patriarchal Homeland. The cities of Harran and Nahor in the upper Balikh valley, which figure in the Bible as ancestral habitats of the patriarchs, are well documented as important dependencies controlled by governors from Mari (one of whom, Itur-asdu at Nahor, will be the subject of the forthcoming ARM XIV). Both cities were foci of tribal foment; at the temple of Sin at Harran a treaty between the "kings" of Zalmaqum and the Yaminites was sworn against Mari, while at Nahor reinforcements had often to be called in to quell local uprisings inflamed by the Habiru. Alongside the West Semitic peoples in this region was a considerable Hurrian element (note the typically Hurrian name of king Adalshenni, who at one time gained control over Nahor), which may well have left an imprint upon the initial ethnic and cultural composition of the Hebrews.

The picture revealed in the Mari archives of far-reaching tribal migra- tions such as those of the Yamin-ite groups, and of caravan conditions between the Euphrates region and Syria-north Palestine, is a realistic backdrop for the biblical narratives of the patriarchal wanderings between Aram-Na- haraim and Canaan.

Ethno-linguistic Affinities:the West Semitic Idiom. Evidence for the West Semitic origin of the majority of the people figuring in the Nlari documents is revealed in the onomasticon and in specific linguistic features of the Mari dialect. Many of the hundreds of proper names known from the Mari texts are paralleled in the Bible, especially in the patriarchal narratives and the Exodus-Conquest cycle, but at Mari the names often have theophoric components. For example, Jacob compares to Haqba-Ilammu, I laqba- ahim, etc., while Ishmael compares to Yasmah-El, Yasmahb-Adad and Yas- mah-Ba'al. Parallels even for the divine names YHWH and Shaddai, and for the epithet Sur, the "Rock," are possible; for example, Yawi-ila and Yawi- Adad, and the Shadu/i- and Sura/i- names. The names of the Israelite tribes of Levi and Benjamin also seem to have their parallels. Thus the Nlari tribal designation DUMU.MES-yaamin(a) 'Yaminites' bears the same connotation as Benjamin, namely "sons of the south," though it is preferable not to render the logogram for "sons" as West Semitic balinim, which would yield Ba/inu-yamina, conveniently homophonic with Hebrew Bin),amlin.

The West Semitic imprint on the standard Babylonian language in use at Mari is evident to a certain extent in phonology, morphology, syntax and especially vocabulary. The lexical inadequacy of this standard Babylonian in specific spheres brought about at Mari the frequent adaptation of West Semitic expressions, of Babylonian words in new West Semitic connotations,


14 THE BIBLICAL ARCHAEOLOGIST (Vol. XXXIV, and of out-and-out loanwords from the West Semitic - words well represented in biblical Hebrew (often in "exalted" language, as also at Mari). Besides the linguistic yield a comparative study of the West Semitic loanwords at Marl and their Hebrew cognates may broadly illuminate the nature of the societies involved.

A list of such lexical items would include the following. Geographical terms: ha;zqumiz Hebrew 'emeq 'valley;' k/qasum = Hebrew qaseh '(desert) frontier;' hen (as a place name) - Hebrew 'ayin 'spring.' Points of the compass: aqdanmatum = Hebrew qedeimi 'east;' ahartuii t

-

= Hebrew 'ahar,

'ahor 'west;' north and south are attested in the tribal names DUAIU.AIE? sim'al = Hebrew seilol and DUMU.A ES-yanjin(a) I-eIbrew xvyan1in.

,,- j .. . iiT::* : ..

...!i.

1971, 1) THE BIBLICAL ARCHAEOLOGIST 15 lexicon. Consider for example the set of terms for various tribal units: gayum =

Hebrew goy; hibrum = Hebrew heber; and perhaps ummatum = Hebrew

'ummah. West Semitic verbs unknown in standard Babylonian but with cognates

in biblical Hebrew include haki'im 'to wait;' halemr

'to be ill;' harashum 'to be silent;' nahaluni( 'to inherit, apportion;' naqaiuimn 'to avenge' (only in personal names); qatalum 'to kill;' shapatuiim 'to judge, govern' (and see below).

Patriarchal Tribal Society. The Mari archives provide the most abun- dant and fruitful source material concerning West Semitic tribes of any ancient Near Eastern source, shedding invaluable light on Israelite tribal society, its structure and organization, as well as upon institutions. The wide range of the tribes mentioned at Mari, from fully nomadic to fully sedentary, and their confrontation with the indigenous population, bear directly upon an understanding of the gradual process of the Israelite settlement in Canaan and their ensuing relationship with its inhabitants.

The most revealing material at i\ari concerns the broad tribal federa- tions of the Haneans and the Yaminites. The former were concentrated principally along the middle Euphrates and comprised an appreciable seg- ment of the general population (and of the army) of Mari. Indeed, the middle Euphrates region became known as the "land of Hana," and "Hana" was applied also to a type of soldier and a kind of wool. The name, which was basically gentilic, also came to denote the generic concept of (semi-) nomad; it seems to be in this sense that Zimri-Lim was called "king of the Haneans" in parallel to "king of the Akkadians;" together these designations reflect the two main population strata, semi-nomadic and'indigenous sedentary (see below).

The Yaminites, "sons of the south," were less settled and posed the greater threat in this period, both to the rest of the population and to the authorities. In their subtribes (Ubrabu, Amnanu, Yahruru, and Yarihu with their affiliated Rabbeans), they were dispersed over a wide arc from the city of Sippar (and even as far south as Uruk) and the eastern banks of the Ti- gris around to the Khabur and Balikh valleys up to the bend of the Euph- rates, where their main concentration lay. In the west, they had crossed the Euphrates toward Mount Bisir (Jebel Bishri) and encroached upon the land of Amurru in southern Syria. Little mention is made in the Mari archives of the corresponding "sons of the north," who roamed the "upper coun- try" in the Harran region, or of the Sutu, the fully nomadic tribe which appears more in subsequent history. The Sutu ranged in the Syrian steppe and the Bishri mountains, raiding the adjacent oasis of Tadmor (Tadmer at Mari, later Palmyra) on at least one occasion. The Mari archives are



surprisingly silent on the "Amorites" as a definite tribal entity (though one reference is made to a gayu Amurumn as a sub-clan of the Haneans); in general, the designation (both spelled phonetically and wilth the logogram MAR.TU) is restricted to the land of Amurru, far to the west, or to the military titles "great-of-Amurru" and "scribe-of-Amurru" (the latter only at Mari).

L;

I \` \

'' ~''

I , r r

C

c

P

Fig. 7. Warrior with prisoner, mosaic of bitumen and shell inlay found in the pre-Sargonic palace. From Syria, XLVI (1969), P1. XV, 1.

Patterns of Settlement The tribal society depicted in the Mari archives is essentially dimorphic,

that is, it encompasses both nomadic and urban modes, with their inherent distinctions and interactions, social as well as economic. Tribal groups would sometimes undergo a gradual process of sedentation, splitting into partly settled and partly nomadic factions (refer to ARM VIII, 11), or leading a life of transhumance - in the steppe or desert in the grazing season and in urban bases in the "off" months.

Depending on the stage of sedentation, the Haneans and the Yaminites dwelt in towns and hamlets (both designated alani at Mari, literally "cities;" the term kaprum 'village' is rare in this context) and engaged in urban-agri- cultural pursuits as well as herding, or they live in temporary encampments (nawiim) and engaged in purely pastoral pursuits. At Mari, the standard Babylonian word nawufm 'desert, uncultivated field' or even "a savage" took on the West Semitic connotation of a pastoral abode, precisely the connota-



tion of the Hebrew word naweh (primarily in poetic usage in the Bible). An illustration of this dual mode of life is found in the distinctions Hana Sa nawim (loosely "steppe Haneans") and hibrum a nawnlm, the nomadic faction of a partly settled clan (in this case, of Yaminites).

Another type of settlement originating among nomadic and semi-nomadic populations was the hasiarumn (pl. hasiriitum), which, rather than an enclosure for sheep or cattle as usually assumed denotes a dwelling place, as does the cognate Hebrew term h.serim, referring to settlements of the Ishmaelites, the Avvi'tes and the "sons of Kedar" (Gen. 25:16; Deut. 2:23; and Isa. 42:11 [cf. Jer. 49:33], respectively).

Tribal Leadership The Mari archives indicate that tribal leadership was in the hands of

family heads (compare the biblical beth-'ab 'family,' the basic unit of the patriarchial tribal organization), called abu bitiiti 'father of the household' (plural at Mari abitt bitim, a West Semitic form equivalent to Hebrew 'abot). The actual tribal rulers were elevated from among these family heads, leading to the use of the expression to designate certain officials; occasionally abil served as a synonym for "tribal chiefs," for example abfi Hana and abii Idamaras. As in pre-monarchical Israel, the council of the elders appears in the Mari documents as a central institution, deciding on matters of war and peace, functioning in treaty making and in representing the tribe before the authorities.

A capital role in the tribal organization, unknown outside the Mari texts, is that of sugagum/suqaqum (meaning unknown) whose function is somewhat vague. He may have been a sort of mukhtar, chief of a tribal unit or village appointed, or at least approved, by the Mari authorities from among the local leadership; this office was sometimes purchased with money or sheep.

At the head of the tribal hierarchy stood the "kings" (sarru, pl. arrani), who usually appear in the Mari texts as wartime leaders, which again sug- gests a special West Semitic nuance, in this case military, much like the Hebrew sar. Thus, Yahdun-Lim's royal inscriptions record that he defeated "seven kings, fathers (abii) of Hana" and, on another occasion, "three Ya- minite kings." This plurality of "kings" must be understood as referring to subtribal rulers that collectively comprised the tribal leadership; such a structure is also found among the Midianites (Num. 31:8; Judg. 8:12), the early Arameans (I Sam. 14:47) and perhaps the Edomites (Gen. 36:31ff.).

Tribal Traditions: Functional and Religious The convergence of the West Semitic tribes at Mari with urban Meso-

potamia involved a dual process of friction and strife alongside symbiosis and mutual adaptation; this interaction between a tribal heritage and an es-


18 THE BIBLICAL ARCHAEOLOGIST (Vol. XXXIV, tablished civilization was characteristic also of the settlement of the Israelite tribes in Canaan. In Mari, this was especially evident at the court, where, despite the process of assimilation of Sumero-Akkadian civilization, much of tribal tradition was still preserved. We may thus interpret the advice of the palace prefect to Zimri-Lim on a point of protocol: "[If] you are the king of the Haneans, you are, moreover, a 'king of the Akkadians.' [My lord] should not ride horses (that is, in tribal fashion). May my lord drive in a wagon and mules (,that is, in a "civilized manner"), and may he (thus) honor his royalty" (ARM VI, 76:20-25). This same distinction is found at the early Israelite court, though there the mule was ridden (II Sam. 13:29, 18:9; I Kings 1:33) and the horse yoked to !the chariot (I Sam. 8:11; II Sam. 15:1; I Kings 1:5).

Tribal heritage from the nomadic phase did persist in spite of the curbs of sedentation and acquiescence to royal administration of Mari. Tribal cus- toms and institutions, legal, military and political procedures, and ritual or religious practices all find expression in the Mari texts. These traditions, largely unknown outside Mari, serve to illuminate early Israelite practices. Only a few major points can be outlined here.

Making a Covenant. In the largely illiterate society of the tribe, treaties were concluded not by means of documents but solely by symbolic acts - in the cases recorded in

,the Mari texts, by the ritual of "killing an ass-foal"

(note the purely West Semitic expression applied here: ha(ya)ram qata- luiz). (Another symbolic expression in this context is "to touch the throat.") In one case, a possible ploy was made to introduce other animals into the ritual: in a report on a peace treaty made between the Haneans and the land of Idamaras, a Mari official in the Harran region tells his king that "they brought a whelp and a goat, but I obeyed my lord and did not allow a whelp and a goat. I caused 'the foal of a she-ass' (cf. Gen. 49:11; Zech. 9:9) to be slaughtered" (ARM II, 37:6-12). The Bible mentions a parallel ceremony, involving the cutting in two of young animals (cf. the covenant between God and Abraham in Gen. 15:9-10, and one with the leaders of Judah during the Babylonian siege of Jerusalem in Jer. 34:18-19). In all these ceremonies, the common denominator is the ritual sacrifice of young and tender animals.

Census. The Mari authorities used to take periodic censuses of the tribes, both nomadic and settled. This activity was denoted by the terms ubbubum (D-stem of ebebum), "to cleanse," and its derivative tebibtum (literally "cleansing, purification"), and is most likely West Semitic in origin. The purpose of -the census seems to have been military conscription, taxa- tion and land distribution, though at least originally it was accompanied by a ritual of purification similar to that associated with the census of the



Israelites in the wilderness (which involved a tax, the payment of which was regarded as a ritual expiation, Hebrew kippurim; cf. Exod. 30:11-16). Some scholars, however, view the tjbibtum as a purely administrative pro- cedure to clear persons or property or financial claims (as would be indi- cated by the fact that it is carried out by secular, not religious, officials).

Patrimony. The Mari legal documents employ, among others, the West Semitic term nahalum 'to inherit or apportion' in referring to land transfers effected within a quasi-famillial inheritance framework and not in the nor- mal sales procedures. This type of transaction was inherently a part of the patriarchal-tribal system, in which land ownership was not on an individual basis but was a patrimony (nihlatum at Mari, Hebrew nahalah). The patrimony could not, theoretically, be transferred other than by inheritance, so various means were contrived to circumvent this rule. The Israelites up- held a similar custom, where the patrimony was considered an inalienable

1 LTo my lord] _ _

,

2 say: 3 Thus (said) [Shib]tu 4 [your] maidservant s 5 I have [just given] birth to twins 6 -- a son and a daughter.

_____ _ 7 May my lord rejoice' Fig. 8. Cuneiform copy of message from queen Shibtu to her husband Zimri-Lim (ARM X, 26)

possession: "the Israelites must remain bound each to the ancestral portion of his tribe" (Num. 36:7; cf. Lev. 25:13, 28; I Kings 21:lff; Ezek. 46:16-17).

The "Judge." The Mari documents employ several derivates of the West Semitic root

Sp.t (verb: apitum; participle aiipi.tum; abstract nouns: siptum and Japitiitum), which may serve to elucidate the biblical cognates shaphat, shophet, and imishpat, usually translated "judge" (verb and noun) and "norm, law," respectively. However, neither in the Mari documents nor in the Bible is the primary connotation of these terms judicial (for which Akkadian employs dayanu); rather, they connote the much broader concept of governorship and rule. Thus, the svdpitumn and his counterpart in Judges, the shophet, were actually prominent tribesmen who had ac- quired an authority far exceeding that of a mere "justice" (and compare the later Punic suffetes). The expression `ipptam nadinuim/lakanum, met with in the Mari documents, corresponds to the biblical sim mishpat 'to lay down a ruling' (by a duly authorized person) employed in connection with the authoritative acts of a Moses, a Joshua or a David (Exod. 15:25; Josh. 24:25; I Sam. 30:25).


20 THE BIBLICAL ARCHAEOLOGIST (Vol. XXXIV, The Ban. A peculiar expression at Mari, asakkam aklalum (literally

"to eat the asakku"), refers to the infringement of a taboo or the profaning of something revered; it may be a loan translation of some West Semitic concept paralleling that of the biblical ban (herem). The asakku of a particular deity and/or king is frequently invoked in penalty clauses of contracts, in oaths and in royal decrees as the sacrosanct and inviolable element. The closest parallel -between Mari and the biblical practice is in the imposition of the ban on spoils of war (see the Achan incident, Josh. 7). However, whereas the biblical ban functioned on a purely religious plane (whatever was banned was exclusively God's), the taboo at Mari was applicable also on a human level, and its infringement there, though theoretically still considered a capital offence, was expiated by payment of a simple fine.

God of the Father. Among the central religious concepts of the He- brew patriarchs is the "God of the/my/your/his father," that is, a personal, innominate deity, revered by subsequent offspring (cf. Gen. 28:13; 31:5, 29, 42, and 53; 32:10, 49:25; Exod. 3:6, 15; 15:2; etc.). A direct parallel occurs in one Mari text, where the king of Qatna swears "by the name of the god of my father" (ARM V, 20:16; cf. Gen. 31:53), and in another, recently published, where Hammurapi (undoubtedly Yarim-Lim's succes- sor as king of Aleppo) is appealed to "by the name of (the god) Adad, Lord of A[leppo] and the god of [your] father" (ARM X, 156:10-11). It is of significance for the biblical comparison that both instances are in the west, as are all other references to such a deity outside Mari - in the slightly older Assyrian tablets from Cappadocia, the much later texts from Ugarit (in Akkadian, Ugaritic and Hurrian), and, again at Qatna, in temple inventories and in an Amarna letter sent from there.

Prophetic Revelation. (This subject was the topic of a very recent study in BA, XXXI (1968), 102-24.) The earliest definite references to intuitive divination are found in some twenty-five Mari texts, revealing a religious phenomenon independent of, but alongside, current external man- tic techniques. The diviner-prophets of Mari largely acted as the unsolicited and spontaneous mouthpieces of deities by means of ecstatic trances, dreams and the like. Apart from male and female laity imbued with such esoteric abilities, there were cult diviners, usually attached to sanctuaries (for example, the Dagan temple at Terqa or the temple of the goddess Annunitum at Mari) - professionals designated by such Akkadian terms as muhhiim (fem. muhhitum), 'frenzied one' and apilum (fem. apiltumn) 'respondent.' These appellatives may well be loan translations of West Semitic nomen- clature, such as the biblical terms nabi' 'prophet' and neshugga' 'frenzied one, possessed,' as well as certain applications of the root 'nh 'to respond.'

The eminence of biblical prophecy lies in its socio-ethical pathos, its


1971, 1) THE BIBLICAL ARCHAEOLOGIST 21 ^' "

~sy 'r; '

c 3 .d,`?,

r ''' \Y ? ? ? '' ?C~~

rt ~XL .e, tr r 9

;? ,flTLC~~.. 91 ~.L c; it ?'

c.? ?-~?, ~ ? c??~ ?? ~? \Ic :'? ~?~"

~i~~5~i 'Y -`iI

??I

~- ~? ?

~WF, r .~Y4 -(

..

r ~??. i, ,,

?'?' 4?Y, ....*t ~,'4 ?r`D

.?~L:-~:~ct9~' `\.+?

? ~ii;p~Irr ;; I?r ~ - . ? ? . i 7r s ?~

-4 .L' r

a 7?-1/' ' .?i ~iif c~I -? 1

.?~?'~r ~C;r?

.r ,. n r ?i ?

r. .r

~ ~c:~? ,...

'4 ?r, I .. ?l * : ?' h -Y~ I I-.

t?~~ T ~vr re '3~3~.~t?

'''''' ?1 ?~?~~ J-v? ?, r? !?' J '' ?~ C~?~ ,, ?e ~(

.). . I --?~ "I

.... I?j; ?: :) 3? 1 ~? 1 ~' (1 ?CI bi ft CD.-. 7'

6?; " C 4' .c ~:`A crti? *? ?? .? -h;f~?. ~bf~:L"i'*- i ?. .r ?r r 1. .C : C

4? L Y -*Y~j~~cC( r '`? "? r.

I r I I. '"

'3; '' ~L. .~ c P,3 ?? 111:

-

?t~t(:L:.. r?'1

Fig. 9. Mold for cakes, representing a goddess, found in royal kitchen at Mari palace. From Mission archdologique de Mari, II: Le palais--documents et monuments (1959), P1. XIX, 1044.

religious ideology and its popular level - all of which are missing in the Mari material, where the ruling interests alone are promoted, satisfying local and immediate material demands. Despite this obvious shortcoming, the very manifestation at Mari of intuitive divination, revealing a conscious- ness of prophetic mission among West Semitic tribes in a period predating Israelite prophecy by centuries, places the history and investigation of Near Eastern prophecy in general, and both earlier and later biblical prophecy in particular, in an entirely new perspective.


22 THE BIBLICAL ARCHAEOLOGIST (Vol. XXXIV, A Select Mari Bibliography

General Surveys. A. Parrot, ed., Studia Mariana (1950) with bibliography; Ch. F. Jean, Six campagnes de fouilles a' Mari 1933-1939 (1952); A. Parrot, Mari (1953); A. Malamat in En- cylopaedia Biblica, IV (1962), 559-79 (Hebrew) with bibliography; G. E. Mendenhall, BA, XI (1948), 1-19 (reprinted in BA Reader 2 [1964], pp. 3-20); J. R. Kupper ed., La civilisation de Mari (XVe rencontre assyriologique internationale) (1967; henceforth: IIAI XV); A. Petitjean and J. Coppens, Bibliotheca Ephemeridum Theologicarum Lovaniensium, XXIV (1969), 3-13, with bibliography.

Archaeological Reports. A. Parrot, Mission archdologique de Mari, I. Le temple d'Ishtar (1956); II. Le palais-architecture (1958),---peintures murales (1958) and-documentes et monuments (1959); III. Les temples d'Ishtarat et de Ninni-Zaza (1967); IV. Le trdsor d'Ur (1968); Parrot, Syria, XLIV (1967), 1-26 (16th campaign); XLVI (1969), 191-208 (17th campaign); XLVII (1970), forthcoming (18th campaign); W. F. Albright, Journal of the American Oriental Society, XLV (1925), 225-26, XLVI (1926), 220-30; M. Rutten, Revue d'Assyriologie (henceforth RA), XXXV (1938), 36-52; I. J. Gelb, ibid., L (1956), 1-10; M. Civil, ibid., LVI (1962), 213; D. O. Edzard, RAI XV, 51-71; P. Carlmeyer, ibid., 161-69; G. Dossin, RA, LXI (1967), 97-104; Kupper, Journal of Cuneiform Studies, XXI (1967), 123-25; A. Moortgat, Baghdader Mitteilungen, III (1964), 68-74, IV (1968), 221-31; E. Soliberger, RA, LXIII (1969), 169f.; A. Caquot, Syria, XLVI (1969), 246f.; M. Astour, Journal of the American Oriental Society, LXXXVIII (1968), 738.

Old Babylonian Archives. ARM series: I. Dossin, Correspondance de Shamshi-Addu (1950); II. Jean, Lettres diverses (1950); III. Kupper, Correspondance de Kibri-Dagan (1950); IV. Dossin, Correspondance de Shamshi-Addu (1951); V. Dossin, Correspondance de lasmah-Addu (1952); VI. Kupper, Correspondance de Bahdi-Lim (1954); VII. J. Bottero, Textes dconomiqures et administratifs (1957); VIII. G. Boyer, Textes juridiques (1958); IX. M. Birot, Textes adminstratifs de la salle 5 du palais (1960); X. Dossin, La correspondance fdminine (cuneiform only) (1967); XI. M. Lurton Burke, Textes administratifs de la salle 111 du palais (1963); XII. Birot, Textes administratifs de la salle 5 du palais (1964); XIII. Dossin, Bottero, et al., Textes divers (1964); XV. Bottiro and A. Finet, Rdpertoire analytique des tomes I ii V (1954). Others: Dossin, Syria, XIX (1938), 105-26, XX (1939), 97-113; idem, RA, XXXV (1938), 1-13; W. von Soden, Welt des Orients, 1 (1947-52), 187-204; F. Thureau-Dangin, RA, XXXVI (1939), 1-28; G. Goossens, ibid., XLVI (1952), 137-54; E. Laroche, ibid., LI (1957), 104ff.; I. Mendelsohn, BASOR, No. 156 (Dec., 1959), pp. 38-40; A. L. Oppenheim, Letters from Mesopotamia (1967), pp. 96-110; Malamat, Qadmoniot, I (1968), 80-87; P. Artzi and Malamat, Orientalia, XL (1971), 75-89.

West Semitic Rule at Mari. Dossin, Syria, XXXII (1955), 1-28; idem, RA, LXIV (1970), 17-44; W. F. Leemans, RA, XLIX (1955), 201ff.; idem, Foreign Trade in the Old Babylonian Period (1960), pp. 176-81; B. Landsberger, Journal of Cuneiform Studies, VIII (1954), 35f.; J. M. Munn-Rankin, Iraq, XVIII (1956), 68-110; Kupper, Les nomades en Mdsopotamie au temps des rois de Mari (1957); H. Lewy, Welt des Orients, II (1959), 438-53; idem, RAI XV, 14-28; A. Goetze, Journal of Semitic Studies, IV (1959), 142-47; Gelb, Journal of Cuneiform Studies, XV (1961), 27-47; Edzard in Fischer Weltgeschichte, II (1965), 165-91; K. A. Kitchen, Ancient Orient and Old Testament (1966), index under Mari; W. Rllig, RAI XV, 97-102; J. J. Finkelstein, Journal of Cuneiform Studies, XX (1966), 95-118; Malamat, Journal of the American Oriental Society, LXXXVIII (1968), 163-73; S. Page, Iraq, XXX (1968), 87-97; Albright, Yahweh and the Gods of Canaan (1968), index under Mari; J. M. Sasson, The Military Establish- ments at Mari (1969).

The West. F. M. Tocci, La Siria nell' eta di Mari (1960); Dossin, Bulletin acad. roy. belg. (cl. des lettres), XXXVIII (1952), 224-39, XL (1954), 130-34; Kupper in Cambridge Ancient History (rev. ed.), II, Chap. 1 (1963); Malamat, Eretz-Israel, V (1958), 67-73 (Hebrew); idem, Journal of Biblical Literature, LXXIX (1960), 12-19; idem, in Studies in Honor of B. Landsberger (1965), 365-73; idem, in Near Eastern Archaeology in the Twentieth Century (Essays in Honor of Nelson Glueck) (1970), 164-77; B. Mazar, Israel Exvloration Journal, XVIII (1968), 65-97.

Mari and the Bible. Dossin, Mdlanges Dussaud, II (1939), 981-96; idem, RA, LII (1958), 60ff., LXII (1968), 75f.; M. Noth, in Geschichte and Altes Testament (Alt Festschrift) (1953), 127-52; idem, Urspriinge des alten Israels im Lichte neuer Quellen (1961); Finet, L'accadien des lettres de Mari (1956); idem, Syria, XLI (1964), 117-42; idem, RA, LX (1966), 17-28; W. L. Moran, Orientalia, XXVI (1957), 339-45; Edzard, Zeitschrift fiir Assyriologie, N.F., XIX (1959), 168-73; H. Klengel, Orientalia, XXIX (1960), 357-75; idem, Archiv Orientdlni XXX (1962), 585-96; idem, in Das Verhiltnis von Bodenbauern und Viechziichtern in historischer Sicht (1968), 75-81; P. Fronzaroli, Ar. Glott. Ital., XLV (1960), 37-60. 127-49; J. C. L. Gibson, Glasgow University Oriental Society Transactions, XVIII (1959-60), 15-29; idem, Journal of Semitic Studies, VII (1962), 44-62; Artzi, in Oz le-David (D. Ben-Gurion Volume) (1964), 71-85 (Hebrew); H. B. Huffmon, Amorite Personal Names in the Mari Texts (1965); G. Buccellati, The Amorites of the Ur III Period (1966); Malamat, Journal of the American Oriental Society, LXXXII (1962), 143-50; idem, RAI XV, 129-38; von Soden, Welt des Orients, III (1966), 177-87; W. G. Lambert, 1. Klima, H. Cazelles and M. Rowton, RAI XV; Klima, in Das

Verhiiltnis von Bodenbauern und Viehziichtern (1968), 83-89; L. R. Bailey, Journal of Biblical Literature, LXXXVII (1968), 434-38; M. Weippert, Die Landnahme der israelitischen Staimme (1967), pp. 102-33.

Tribal Traditions. Dossin, in Studies in Old Testament Prophecy (T. H. Robinson Volume) (1950), pp. 103-10; von Soden, Welt des Orients, I (1947-52), 397-403; Noth, Bulletin of the Johns Rylands Library, XXXII (1950), 194-206; idem, Annuaire de l'Institut de Philologie et d'Histoire Orientales et Slaves, XIII (1955), 433-44; idem, Journal of Semitic Studies, I (1956), 322-33; G. Wallis, Zeitschrift fiir alttestamentliche Wissenschaft, LXIV (1952), 57-61; Mendenhall, BASOR, No. 133 (Feb., 1954), 26-30; E. A. Speiser, ibid., No. 149 (Feb., 1958), 17-25; idem, Journal of Biblical Literature, LXXIX (1960), 157-63; Malamat, Eretz-Israel, IV (1956), 74-84, V (1958), 67-73 (Hebrew); idem, Vetus Testamentum Supplement, XV (1966), 207-27; ideim, in Biblical Essays: Proceedings of the 9th Meeting of Die OT Werkgemeenskap in Suid-Afrika (1966), 40-49; W. Richter, Zeitschrift fiir alttestamentliche Wissenschaft, LXXVII (1965), 40-72; R. de Vaux, Ugaritica, VI (1969), 501-17; C. Westermann, Forschung am Alten Testamesnt (1964), 171-88; F. Ellermeier, Prophetie in Mari und Israel (1968); J. G. Heintz, Vetus Testamnentum Supplement, XVII (1969), 112-38; Huffmon, BA XXXI (1968), 102-24; W. L. Moran, Biblica, L (1969), 15-55; idem, in Ancient Near Eastern Texts Relating to the OT (Supp. Ed., 1969), 623-31; J. F. Ross, Harvard Theological Review, LXIII (1970), 1-28.


Article Contentsp. 2p. [1]p. 3p. 4p. 5p. 6p. 7p. 8p. 9p. 10p. 11p. 12p. 13p. 14p. 15p. 16p. 17p. 18p. 19p. 20p. 21p. 22

Issue Table of ContentsThe Biblical Archaeologist, Vol. 34, No. 1 (Feb., 1971), pp. 1-40Mari [pp. 1-22]The "Ghassulian" Temple in Ein Gedi and the Origin of the Hoard from Nahal Mishmar [pp. 23-39]Nelson Glueck: In Memoriam [pp. 39-40]

Date post:	24-Nov-2015
Category:	Documents
Upload:	rupert84
View:	22 times
Download:	2 times

Mari - by A. Malamat

Documents