Historiography Ideology and Politics in The Ancient Near East and Israel Changing Perspectives 5 1st Edition Mario Liverani
Historiography Ideology and Politics in The Ancient Near East and Israel Changing Perspectives 5 1st Edition Mario Liverani
Historiography Ideology and Politics in The Ancient Near East and Israel Changing Perspectives 5 1st Edition Mario Liverani
https://ebookmeta.com/product/historiography-ideology-and-
politics-in-the-ancient-near-east-and-israel-changing-
perspectives-5-1st-edition-mario-liverani-2/
https://ebookmeta.com/product/climate-change-and-ancient-
societies-in-europe-and-the-near-east-diversity-in-collapse-and-
resilience-paul-erdkamp/
https://ebookmeta.com/product/politics-and-culture-in-
international-history-from-the-ancient-near-east-to-the-opening-
of-the-modern-age-2nd-edition-adda-b-bozeman/
https://ebookmeta.com/product/the-rise-and-fall-of-the-aramaeans-
in-the-ancient-near-east-from-their-first-appearance-
until-732-bce-new-studies-on-aram-and-israel-gotthard-g-g-
An Ethical View of Human-Animal Relations in the
Ancient Near East 1st Edition Idan Breier
https://ebookmeta.com/product/an-ethical-view-of-human-animal-
relations-in-the-ancient-near-east-1st-edition-idan-breier/
https://ebookmeta.com/product/hidden-riches-a-sourcebook-for-the-
comparative-study-of-the-hebrew-bible-and-ancient-near-east-hays/
https://ebookmeta.com/product/losing-one-s-head-in-the-ancient-
near-east-interpretation-and-meaning-of-decapitation-first-
issued-in-paperback-edition-rita-dolce/
https://ebookmeta.com/product/prophets-and-prophecy-in-the-
ancient-near-east-2nd-edition-martti-nissinen-c-l-seow-robert-k-
ritner-h-craig-melchert/
https://ebookmeta.com/product/palaeolithic-and-mesolithic-
sailors-in-the-aegean-and-the-near-east-1st-edition-adamantios-
sampson/
Historiography, Ideology and
Politics in the Ancient Near East
and Israel
Mario Liverani
Edited by
Niels Peter Lemche and Emanuel
Pfoh
First published 2021
by Routledge
2 Park Square, Milton Park, Abingdon, Oxon OX14 4RN
and by Routledge
605 Third Avenue, New York, NY 10158
The right of Niels Peter Lemche and Emanuel Pfoh to be identified as the authors
of the editorial material, and of the authors for their individual chapters, has been
asserted in accordance with sections 77 and 78 of the Copyright, Designs and
Patents Act 1988.
All rights reserved. No part of this book may be reprinted or reproduced or utilised
in any form or by any electronic, mechanical, or other means, now known or
hereafter invented, including photocopying and recording, or in any information
storage or retrieval system, without permission in writing from the publishers.
DOI: 10.4324/9781003157717
Acknowledgements
Editorial note
List of abbreviations
Introduction
NIELS PETER LEMCHE AND EMANUEL PFOH
PART I
Ancient Near Eastern historiography
PART II
Ideology and propaganda in the Ancient Near East
5 Συδύκ and Μισώρ
PART III
Syria-Palestine in the Late Bronze Age
12 Contrasts and confluences of political conceptions in the Amarna
period
PART IV
The Old Testament and the history of Israel
Index of Authors
Index of Sources
Acknowledgements
DOI: 10.4324/9781003157717
***
***
Some of Liverani’s studies on historiography, and in particular on
‘ancient Israel’, may now be rightly reckoned as proper harbingers of
a ‘minimalist’ epistemology during the 1970s – even though Liverani
himself will not consider himself a biblical ‘minimalist’ (see Chapter
17). Indeed, Liverani’s programmatic essay on the interpretation of
historiographical texts (Chapter 3) defended a position viewing
Ancient Near Eastern texts ‘not as a “source of information”, but as
information in itself; not as an opening on a reality lying beyond
itself, but as an element which makes up that reality’. It is hard not
to see some postmodern insights in this sentence, well at home with
the developments of the 1960s and early 1970s in the humanities
and the social sciences, especially Umberto Eco’s studies in semiotics
– as the author himself recognises. Yet, Liverani has also produced
literary interpretations of myths and ideologies that fit well within a
structuralist paradigm (e.g., Liverani 1982) or Russian formalism
(e.g., Liverani 1972), so it would not be fair to see the whole
spectrum of Liverani’s explorations and approaches to Ancient Near
Eastern texts and their intellectual and ideological contexts during
these decades as fittingly postmodern.
It should be noted that Liverani’s critical assessment of the biblical
data on Israel’s origins (Ch. 16), in spite of a historical-critical
context, pioneered a historical skepticism about the possibility of the
historian reaching an ‘origin’ (or ethnogenetic) momentum in the
biblical narrative correlated to the historical-archaeological
knowledge about the appearance of Israel.1 These procedures would
in effect be developed during the 1990s by Thomas L. Thompson,
Niels Peter Lemche, Philip R. Davies and other ‘minimalist’ scholars.
However, after minimalism’s intervention in the discourse of Old
Testament studies and the history of ‘ancient Israel’, Liverani would
adopt a more cautious or ‘centrist’ position (see Chapters 17 and
18), as is evident in his own rendition of the history of Israel
(Liverani 2003).2
Liverani’s semiological approach to ancient texts, along with his
scepticism regarding the finding of real facts behind historical
sources – as seen in many of his studies from the 1960s and 1970s
– has been challenged most recently, and perhaps most importantly,
by Itamar Singer in a lengthy article (cf. esp. Singer 2011: 733–7).
In it, Singer – echoing some earlier similar concerns in Assyriology
and Biblical studies by W.W. Hallo (1990)3 – observes how Liverani
has been behind some of the most postmodernist approaches to
Ancient Near Eastern history, fostering a kind of research focused on
literary topoi and ideological narratives rather than on historical (i.e.,
‘real’) events. Lastly, and after reviewing some historical problems of
Hittite historiography, Singer (2011: 757–60) calls for a return to
older (pre-postmodern?) times where there was not so much of an
issue with how to do history with textual sources:
References
Beckman, G. 2005. ‘The Limits of Credulity (Presidential Address)’.
JAOS 125: 343–52.
Davies, P.R. 2011. ‘Way Beyond the Bible: But Far Enough?’ In
Enquire of the Former Age: Ancient Historiography and Writing
the History of Israel (ESHM 9/LHBOTS 554). L.L. Grabbe (ed.).
London: Bloomsbury T & T Clark: 186–93.
Diebner, B.J. 1984. ‘Wider die “Offenbarungs-Archäologie” in der
Wissenschaft vom Alten Testament. Grundsätzliches zum Sinn
alttestamentlicher Forschung im Rahmen der Theologie’. DBAT
18: 30–53.
Garbini, G. 1986. Storia e ideologia nell’Israele antico. Brescia:
Paideia = History and Ideology in Ancient Israel, transl. by J.
Bowden. London: SCM Press, 1988.
Hallo, W.W. 1990. ‘The Limits of Skepticism’. JAOS 110: 453–70.
Lemche, N.P. 1984. ‘On the Problems of Studying Israelite History.
Apropos Abraham Malamat’s View of Historical Research’. BN 24:
94–124.
Liverani, M. 1960. ‘Karemiš nei testi di Ugarit’. RSO 35: 135–47.
———. 1962. Storia di Ugarit nell’età degli archivi politici (Studi
Semitici 6). Roma: Centro di Studi Semitici, Istituto di Studi del
Vicino Oriente, Università di Roma «La Sapienza».
———. 1963. Introduzione alla storia dell’Asia anteriore antica
(Sussidi didattici 2). Roma: Centro di Studi Semitici, Istituto di
Studi del Vicino Oriente, Università degli Studi di Roma «La
Sapienza».
———. 1966. ‘Problemi e indirizzi degli studi storici sul Vicino Oriente
antico’. Cultura e Scuola V/20: 72–79.
———. 1972. ‘Partire sul carro, per il deserto’. Annali dell’Istituto
Universitario Orientale di Napoli 22: 403–15 = ‘Leaving by
Chariot for the Desert’. In Myth and Politics in Ancient Near
Eastern Historiography (SEANE). Z. Bahrani and M. van de
Mieroop (eds.). London: Equinox: 85–96.
———. 1973a. ‘Memorandum on the Approach to Historiographic
Texts’. Or NS 42: 178–94.
———. 1973b. ‘Storiografia politica hittita – I: Šunaššura, ovvero:
della reciprocità’. OA 12: 267–97 = ‘Shunashura, or: On
Reciprocity’. In Myth and Politics in Ancient Near Eastern
Historiography (SEANE). Z. Bahrani and M. van de Mieroop
(eds.). London: Equinox: 53–81.
———. 1974. ‘L’Histoire de Joas’. VT 24: 438–53 = ‘The Story of
Joash’. In Myth and Politics in Ancient Near Eastern
Historiography (SEANE). Z. Bahrani and M. van de Mieroop
(eds.). London: 147–59.
———. 1976a. ‘La struttura politica’. In L’alba della civiltà. I: La
società. S. Moscati (ed.). Torino: UTET: 275–414.
———. 1976b. ‘Il modo di produzione’. In L’alba della civiltà. II:
L’economia. S. Moscati (ed.). Torino: UTET: 1–126.
———. 1976c. ‘La concezione dell’universo’. In L’alba della civiltà. III:
Il pensiero. S. Moscati (ed.). Torino: UTET: 437–521.
———. 1977. ‘Storiografia politica hittita – II: Telipinu, ovvero: della
solidarietà’. OA 16: 105–31 = ‘Telipinu, or: On Solidarity’. In Myth
and Politics in Ancient Near Eastern Historiography (SEANE). Z.
Bahrani and M. van de Mieroop (eds.). London: Equinox: 27–52.
———. 1979. Three Amarna Essays (MANE 1/5). Introduction and
transl. by M.L. Jaffe. Malibu, CA: Undena Publications.
———. 1982. ‘Adapa ospite degli dei’. In Religioni e civiltà. Scritti in
memoria di Angelo Brelich promossi dall’Istituto di Studi Storico-
Religiosi dell’Universita degli studi di Roma. V. Lanternari, M.
Massenzio and D. Sabbatucci (eds.). Bari: Dedalo: 293–319 =
‘Adapa, Guest of the Gods’. In Myth and Politics in Ancient Near
Eastern Historiography (SEANE). Z. Bahrani and M. van de
Mieroop (eds.). London: Equinox: 3–26.
———. 1988. Antico Oriente: Storia, società, economia. Roma-Bari:
Editori Laterza.
———. 1998. Le lettere di el-Amarna, 1. Le lettere dei «Piccoli Re»
(TVOA 3/1). Brescia: Paideia Editrice.
———. 1999. Le lettere di el-Amarna, 2. Le lettere dei «Grandi Re»
(TVOA 3/2). Brescia: Paideia Editrice.
———. 2003. Oltre la Bibbia. Storia antica di Israel. Rome-Bari:
Laterza = Israel’s History and the History of Israel, transl. by C.
Peri and P.R. Davies. London: Equinox, 2005.
———. 2004. Myth and Politics in Ancient Near Eastern
Historiography (SEANE). Z. Bahrani and M. Van de Mieroop
(eds.). London: Equinox.
———. 2014. The Ancient Near East: History, Society and Economy.
London: Routledge.
Singer, I. 2011. ‘Between Scepticism and Credulity: In Defence of
Hittite Historiography’. In I. Singer, Calm before the Storm:
Selected Writings of Itamar Singer on the Late Bronze Age in
Anatolia and the Levant (WAWSup 1). Atlanta: Society of Biblical
Literature: 731–66.
Thompson, T.L. 1974. The Historicity of the Patriarchal Narratives:
The Quest for the Historical Abraham (BZAW 134). Berlin: W. de
Gruyter.
van de Mieroop, M. 2013. ‘Recent Trends in the Study of Ancient
Near Eastern History: Some Reflections’. JAH 1/1: 83–98.
Van Seters, J. 1975. Abraham in History and Tradition. New Haven,
CT: Yale University Press.
Part I
Ancient Near Eastern
historiography
1 ‘But in the Seventh Year …’
DOI: 10.4324/9781003157717-1
For seven years Barattarna the mighty king, the king of the
Hurrians was my enemy, but in the seventh year I wrote to
Barattarna, the king of Umman-Manda, and reminded him of
the peace conditions and the treaty between our fathers, etc.
Notes
1 On the special physiognomy of the numbers in ‘the mythical
thinking,’ cf. Cassirer (1964).
2 In general concerning the number seven in the Ancient Near East,
see especially Hehn (1907). Since Hehn, the material has greatly
increased.
3 2 Aqht II 32–40; 1 Aqht I 175–86. See especially Loewenstamm
(1965).
4 Smith (1949: 16), respectively ll. 27–30 and 43–47. We should at
the same time note the list of seven cities in ll. 65–68). Cf. on
this text recently Buccellati (1962).
5 The text has še-ib-i ša-na-ti (l. 29) and i-na še-ib-i ša-na-ti (l. 45)
using a cardinal number and the nomen in the plural, while the
correct Akkadian form would be (with an ordinal number and the
substantive in the singular) *ina šebūtim šattim (Goetze [1950:
228]), which has caused problems for some commentators. The
text, however, represents the local (Canaanite) form as
demonstrated by the similar Phoenician form (cf. Friedrich [1951:
§ 315a]) and the Ugaritic (thus 2 Aqht II 39: b šb' ymm, etc.).
6 Smith (1949: 59–60) and Klengel (1965: 182, 228). Albright
(1950: 20), on the other hand, correctly considers the seven
years a ‘standard cliché,’ quoting parallels from the story of
Joseph.
7 Reading 20 instead of 30, cf. Wiseman (1953: 6 n. 2).
8 Cf., for example, the 20 years in KUB XIX 9 (we will return to this
text below), also in Muršili prayer against the pestilence (Goetze
[1929: 164, 206]), and in EA 59 (ll. 13, 44), and in KBo V 8, II 41
(Goetze [1934: 154]). These numbers have mistakenly been
taken by Goetze as real numbers, and he constructed on this
basis the annalistic sequence in his text forcing him to postulate
a major lacuna (six years) in a text which is practically speaking
complete (cf. against Goetze, Sturm [1935: col. 92–93];
Cavaignac [1934]; cf. recently Otten [1955]).
9 Cavaignac (1950: 29) and Gurney (1952: 30). When we refer to
the literary character of this motif, we may think of the conquest
of Jericho after a siege of six days duration, and also in the epic
of Keret, the surrender of King Pebel on the seventh day of the
siege. Already a document from Mari mentions in a non-literary
context a siege lasting seven days, cf. ARM I 131.
10 Cf., among other, Goetze (1928: 37) (1305–1278); Cavaignac
(1950: 39) (1292–1285); Gurney (1952: 216) (1282–1275);
Scharff-Moortgat (1950: 496) (1290–1283); Schmökel (1957: 135)
(1290–1283); Liverani (1963: tav. III) (1290–1283); etc. Only
Otten (1961: 358) makes an exception, when he remarks: ‘“sieben
Jahre schaute ich zu”, mag nur einen symbolischen Wert haben.’
11 Those who intend to establish exact synchronisms between Urḫi-
Tešub’s reign and the contemporary dynasties in Aššur and Egypt
must have this in mind. Cf., recently among others, Rowton (1959:
6 n. 30); Otten, in Weidner (1959: 68); and Hornung (1964: 51,
59).
12 See recently Kitchen (1962: 3–5), including references to previous
scholarship.
13 Cf. especially Forrer (1926: 10, 32); Goetze (1927: 117–8);
Cavaignac (1932: 64, 74, 95); Redford (1959: 36–37); Liverani
(1962: 37); Kitchen (1962: 4–5, 22, 47); Hornung (1964: 68); etc.
References
Albright, W.F. 1950. ‘Some Important Recent Discoveries: Alphabetic
Origins and the Idrimi Statue’. BASOR 118: 11–20.
Buccellati, G. 1962. ‘La carriera di David e quella di Idrimi, re di
Alalac’. Bibbia e Oriente 4: 95–99.
Cassirer, E. 1964. Filosofia delle forme simboliche: II: Il pensiero
mitico. Firenze: La Nuova Italia. [Orig. German edn: Philosophie
der symbolischen Formen. Bd. 2: Das mythische Denken. Berlin:
B. Cassirer, 1925].
Cavaignac, E. 1932. Suppiluliuma et son temps. Paris: A.
Maissonneuve.
———. 1934. ‘La date et l’ordre des campagnes de Mursil’. RHA 14:
193–8.
———. 1950. Les hittites. Paris: A. Maissonneuve.
Forrer, E. 1926. Forschungen II/1. Berlin: Selbstverlag.
Friedrich, J. 1951. Phönizisch-punische Grammatik. Rome:
Pontificium Institutum Biblicum.
Goetze, A. 1925. Ḫattušiliš. Der Bericht über seine Thronbesteigung
nebst den Paralleltexten. Leipzig: J.C. Hinrichs.
———. 1927. ‘Zur Chronologie der Hethiterkönige’. In Kleinasiatische
Forschungen I/1. A. Goetze (ed.). Leipzig: J.C. Hinrichs: 115–9.
———. 1928. Das Hethiterreich. Leipzig: J.C. Hinrichs.
———. 1929. ‘Die Pestgebete des Muršiliš’. In Kleinasiatische
Forschungen I/2. F. Sommer and H. Ehelolf (eds.). Weimar:
Hermann Böhlaus Nachfolger: 161–251.
———. 1934. Die Annalen des Muršiliš. Leipzig: J.C. Hinrichs.
———. 1950. ‘Contributions to Hittite Lexicography’. JCS 4: 223–5.
Gurney, O.R. 1952. The Hittites. London: Harmondsworth.
Güterbock, H. 1956. ‘The Deeds of Suppiluliumas’. JCS 10: 41–50,
59–68.
Hehn, J. 1907. Siebenzahl und Sabbat bei den Babyloniern und im
Alten Testament. Leipzig: J.C. Hinrichs.
Hornung, E. 1964. Untersuchungen zur Chronologie und Geschichte
des neuen Reiches. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz.
Kitchen, K.A. 1962. Šuppiluliumaš and the Amarna Pharaohs.
Liverpool: Liverpool University Press.
Klengel, H. 1965. Geschichte Syriens im 2. Jahrtausend v.u.Z. Teil 1:
Nordsyrien. Berlin: Akademie Verlag.
Liverani, M. 1962. Storia di Ugarit nell’età degli archivi politici (Studi
Semitici 6). Roma: Centro di Studi Semitici.
———. 1963. Introduzione alla storia dell’Asia anteriore antica.
Rome: Centro di Studi Semitici.
Loewenstamm, S.E. 1965. ‘The Seven Day-Unit in Ugaritic Literature’.
IEJ 15: 121–33.
Otten, H. 1955. ‘A. Götze, Die Annalen des Muršiliš’. MIOF 3: 156–8.
———. 1961. Kulturgeschichte des alten Orient. Stuttgart: Kröner
Verlag.
Redford, D.B. 1959. ‘Some Observations on Amārna Chronology’. JEA
45: 34–37.
Rowton, M.B. 1959. ‘The Background of the Treaty between Ramses
II and Ḫattušiliš III’. JCS 13: 1–11.
Scharff-Moortgat, A. 1950. Ägypten und Vorderasien im Altertum
(Weltgeschichte in Einzeldarstellungen). München: Verlag F.
Bruckmann.
Schmökel, H. 1957. Geschichte des alten Vorderasiens. Leiden: E.J.
Brill.
Smith, S. 1949. The Statue of Idri-mi. London: The British Institute
of Archaeology at Ankara.
Sturm, J. 1935. ‘A. Götze, Die Annalen des Muršiliš’. OLZ 38: 91–97.
Weidner, E. 1959. Die Inschriften Tukulti-Ninurtas I und seiner
Nachfolger (AfO Beiheft 12). Graz: Verlag Berger.
Wiseman, D.J. 1953. The Alalakh Tablets. London: British Institute of
Archaeology at Ankara.
2 The Ugaritic epic in its
historical and literary context
DOI: 10.4324/9781003157717-2
My brothers, who were older than me, dwelled with me; but not
one of them thought the things I did. I (thought) this: there are
those who want to possess their paternal house, and those who
want to be slaves of the people of Emar.
(Idrimi 7–12)
His father, who was king of Ḫatti, was a brave king and had the
control over the enemy lands, but he became a god. His son,
who succeeded him on the throne, he was also brave, but was
sick and he has become a god too. The one who accessed the
throne now instead is small: he shall not be able to save the
land of Ḫatti and the confines of the land of Ḫatti.
(Goetze 1933: 16–19)
A statue from Ursa with its two saddle horses and its charioteer,
with its base of cast bronze, over which appeared its pride in
these terms: “With my two horses and one charioteer, my hands
have conquered the kingdom of Urartu”.
(Thureau-Dangin 1912: line 404; cf. Oppenheim 1960 for the comparison
with Idrimi)
1863 szeptember.
Néhány porosz lap fekszik előttünk, melyek Bulyovszkynénak a
berlini királyi szinpadon való vendégszerepléséről írnak. Már kétszer
lépett fel Stuart Máriá-ban és Romeo és Juliá-ban. A Berliner
Allgemeine Zeitung elragadtatva magasztalja alakját és öltözékét.
«Úgy tetszett nekünk – mond – mintha rámából lépne ki valamely
egykorú képíró által elővarázsolva: nemes szenvedő arcz, fájdalom
által sujtott, de meg nem hajolt termet, egészen akkori jelmezben.»
Ruhájának anyaga, színe, vágása egészen az volt, melyet a banzi
kolostorban mutatnak; öv, gallér, hajviselet egészítették ki e képet,
mely lehető hű volt a történelmihez. «Azonban – folytatja – e fényes
foszlányok még nem teszik a királynőt; vendégművésznőnk
szellemben távolról sem közelítette meg annyira Schiller Máriáját,
mint a történelminek testi alakját.» Hibáztatja benne különösen azt,
hogy a szenvedélyt idegességgel fejezi ki. Mindamellett hivatott
színésznőnek nevezi s egyszersmind a drámai technika tökélyes
mesternőjének. A Breslauer Zeitung berlini levelezője sokkal
kedvezőbben nyilatkozik róla, bár dicséreteibe némi oly illetlen
személyeskedést is vegyít, minőt Bulyovszkyné a magyar
journalistikában soha sem tapasztalt. Legobjectivabbnak látszik a
National Zeitung birálata, melyet egész terjedelmében közlünk,
annyival inkább, mert egyik politikai lapunk igen részrehajló
kivonatban közölte. «Bulyovszkyné – mondta a National Zeitung –
legforróbb köszönetünket és elismerésünket érdemli, hogy mint
született magyar nő, ennyi időt, fáradságot fordított nyelvünk
megtanulására s költőink alakjainak megtestesítésére. Csak erős
lelkesülés, s a német művészet szeretete bátoríthatta őt e nehéz
feladat megoldására. Bármily hiányokat találjunk is játékában, ez
azérdeme érintetlen marad s ez értelemben minden német örülni
fog, hogy nyelvét egy oly tehetséges nő ajkáról hallhatja. Azonban
azt, hogy e nyelvet a maga tökéletes tisztaságában beszélje, még
nem érte el Bulyovszkyné; az idegen hangsúlyt még gyakran nagyon
is észrevehetni rajta. A mi a vígjátékban talán még bizonyos
kellemet kölcsönözhet, zavarólag hat a tragédiában; Stuart Mária
magas eszményi stiljába pedig épen nem illik. Úgy tetszik nekünk,
hogy a művésznő első vendégszerepét nem jól választotta meg. A
mi őt kitünteti, az az értelmes kiszámítás, bizonyos hidegen fontoló
érzék, a jellemzetesre törekvés, ide hajlik már arczulata s egész
alakja. A mi királyi fönség és páthosz hiányzik benne. Hangja sem
állja ki a szenvedély viharát. Az ő Mária rajzában sok finom vonás
volt, bizonyos neme az aprólékos rajznak, de a géniusz egyetlen
szikrája sem, mely az egész alakot megvilágítsa. Sajátságos volt ez
előadás, se a schilleri, se a történelmi Máriát nem tüntette föl.
Bulyovszkyné az ötödik felvonásban valami oly hangot és megtört
magatartást vett föl, mely félig túlvilági átszellemülést, félig
fásultságot akart kifejezni. De hogyan lépett a vérpadra? Könnyek
nélkül, bátran, fényesen öltözve, mintha ünnepélyre menne. A hóhér
háromszor érinté s még csak nem is rezzent össze. Oly Stuart
Mária, a ki e lassú ünnepélyes egyhanguságban, minden bensőség
nélkül mondja Leicesternek: