Introduction
1. Michael S. Neiberg, Warfare in World History (London and New York: Routledge, 2001), 9–20. Scholars now tend to replace traditional chronological markers AD and BC with CE (current era) and BCE (before the current era). Both systems still mark the transition between AD/CE and BC/BCE at the traditional year of the birth of Christ.
2. Charles Messenger (editor), Reader's Guide to Military History (London: Fitzroy Dearborn, 2001). See p. xxviii for a chronological listing; ancient Egypt {to 330 BCE}, pp. 151–2; ancient Near East {1000–500 BCE}, pp. 444–5. There is also one entry on China {1600 BCE – 906 CE}, pp. 96–8, and another on South Asia {to 1000 CE}, pp. 553–4.
3. Gerard Chaliand (editor), The Art of War in World History: From Antiquity ot the Nuclear Age (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1994), 49–60.
4. Christon I. Archer, John R. Ferris, Holger H. Herwig and Timothy Travers, World History of Warfare (Lincoln: University of Nebraska Press, 2002), 1–29; pages 29–61 cover ancient Persia, China and India.
5. Nine of eleven pages devoted to the ancient Near East in Chaliand's The Art of War in World History are on the battle of Kadesh, two are from Deuteronomy. Of the twenty-nine pages on ancient Near Eastern military history in Archer et al., World History of Warfare, six (14–19) retell the battle of Kadesh. Likewise, Arther Ferrill, in his useful Origins of War (OW) devotes ten of his thirty-one pages on the pre-Assyrian Near East period to Kadesh and Megiddo.
6. For background to archaeological dating techniques and other methods, see the relevant articles in Brian Fagan, Oxford Companion to Archaeology (Oxford University Press, 1996), EAE 1:104–9; for radiometric dating and its use in archaeology, see EA 2:11317. For an introduction to issues specific to ancient Near Eastern chronologies, see CANE 2:651–4; EAE 1:264–8; DANE 73; CAM 16.
7. There are several other highly technical forms of dating which are not discussed here; see EA 2:115–17.
8. EAE 1:264–8; for more technical details, see Robert Ehrich (editor), Chronologies in Old World Archaeology, 2 vols, 3rd edn (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1992). Dates for Mesopotamian rulers and dynasties are conveniently collected in chronological charts by Roux in AI 500–15, which I have followed. DANE, ANE, CAM, C1/2 and C2/1 all also follow the Middle Chronology, with some slight variations.
9. The Epipaleolithic was formerly called the Mesolithic (“Middle Stone” Age), a term still in use in some publications.
10. EAE 1:260–1, 360–3, 448–58; EA 2:130–3, 3:37–81.
11. In general, see CANE 4:2097–486: Sumerian (CANE 4:2107–16; EA 5:92–5), Akkadian (EA 1:44–9); Egyptian (CANE 4:2135–51; EAE 2:258–7); Hittite (CANE 2367–78; EA 3:81–4); Eblaite (EA 2:184–6).
12. CANE 4:2161–79; EA 2:86–9, 4:516–27, 5:352–8.
13. For an insightful discussion, contextualizing the issue in the broader range of intellectual history of the study of warfare, see John Keegan, A History of Warfare (New York: Alfred Knopf, 1993), 3–60, 386–92.
Chapter One
1. Some scholars suggest that war-like behavior can be found among some primates, CB 77–86; FA 20–37, and the interesting bibliography cited on FA pp. 217–8.
2. The differences between these four categories relate to both size and social organization. Band = egalitarian, up to several dozen people; tribe = egalitarian, informal leadership, up to a few thousand; chiefdom = formal leadership, social stratification and rank, up to tens of thousands; state = central government, laws, stratification, ability to enforce obedience, up to hundreds of thousands (WBC 26–7).
3. Brian Ferguson and Neil Whitehead (editors), War in the Tribal Zone: Expanding States and Indigenous Warfare (Santa Fe: School of American Research Press, 1992) examine warfare between “tribes” and “states”.
4. For general introductions to the Neolithic period in Mesopotamia, see Hans J. Nissen, The Early History of the Ancient Near East, 9000–2000 BC (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1988); Charles Keith Maisels, The Emergence of Civilization: From Hunting and Gathering to Agriculture, Cities, and State in the Near East (London: Routledge, 1990).
5. For a discussion of Bronze Age nomads and their military significance, see pp. 155–7.
6. EA 4:1–15; CANE 3:1503–21, with full bibliographies to technical studies.
7. CH; EA 1:438–40; DANE 66–7; CAM 43–6; CAM 43–6; OW 30.
8. CH 171, §54, 61–4; xiii; AANE §14; for clear and detailed photographs see Astrid Nunn, Die Wandmalerei und der Glasierte Wandschmuck im Alten Orient (Leiden: Brill, 1988), plates 4–6, 20–29.
9. Mircea Eliade (editor), The Encyclopedia of Religion (New York: Macmillan, 1995), 4:199–200, 5:455–6.
10. EA 2:448–9, 1:124–5; ET 117–18; PA 151–65.
11. AS 14–98; ED 45–74. The most important Neolithic sites in Syria are Abu Hureyra (Tel Haror) (EA 2:474–6; AS 25–31, 57–9, 72–6); Bouqras (EA 1:354; AS 120–46); Jayrud (AS 27–8); Jerf al-Ahmar (AS 52–5); Mureybet (EA 4:65–6; AS 31–2, 49–52); Tell Halula (AS); Tell Sabi Abyad (AS 64–7, 112–114).
12. I. Hijjara, The Halaf Period in Northern Mesopotamia (London, 1997); AS 99–180; EA 2:460–2, 5:251–2; DANE 137–8, 304–5.
13. ALB 35–58; major Neolithic sites in modern Israel, Palestine, and Jordan include: Ain Ghazal (EA 1:36–8); Basta (EA 1:279–80); Jericho (EA 3:220–4); Nahal Oren (EA 4:89–90); Yiftahel (EA 5:378–9).
14. ALB 40–2; EA 3:220–4; DANE 160; M= CAM 32.
15. PAE 44–83; E. Carter, and M. Stolper, Elam: Surveys of Political History and Archaeology (Berkeley: University of California, 1984); W. Hinz, The Lost World of Elam: Recreation of a Vanished Civilization (London: Sidgwick and Jackson, 1972); EA 4:27781.
16. Summaries and bibliographies found in PAE 45–83; EA 5:106–10.
17. PAE 69–71, 79–81; EA 3:406–9; DANE 22.
18. Barbara Adams and Krzysztof Cialowicz, Protodynastic Egypt (Buckinghamshire: Shire Egyptology, 1997); EBP; EE; EAE 3:61–5; LA 6:1069–76; DAE 226–8.
19. WBC 37; F. Wendort, “Site 117: A Nubian Final Palaeolithic Graveyard near Jebel Sahaba, Sudan”, in F. Wendorf (ed.) The Prehistory of Nubia, 2 vols (Dallas: Southern Methodists University Press, 1968), 2:954–95.
20. Nissen, The Early History of the Ancient Near East; EA 3:476–9; CAM 18–41; M = CAM 43, 49.
Chapter Two
1. EHA 39–128; EM; AI 66–84; Charles Maisels, The Emergence of Civilization (London and New York: Routledge, 1990).
2. FC 10–16; EA 5:294–8; CAM 60; DANE 312–3.
3. An alternative title for many Sumerian rulers was ensi, perhaps “steward”; the term originally referred to the mortal ruler's role as representative and steward of the patron god of the city who was the real ruler. Its meaning was somewhat ambiguous, because an ensi of the god was supreme ruler on earth, but an ensi might also be a representative or steward for another earthly ruler (EM 260–74).
4. PAE 67–9; AFC 22–4.
5. FI; CAM 72–3; EA 4:509–12; DANE 85–6.
6. AFC 22; AM §18; AAM §14; AANE §228; SDA 75; AW 1:118. Some scholars interpret both figures as the Priest-king in two different phases of the hunt.
7. P. Hunter, The Royal Hunter: Art of the Sasanian Empire (New York: The Asia Society, 1978); the biblical hunter-king Nimrod is probably part of this tradition, Genesis 10.812.
8. Guillermo Algaze, The Uruk World System: The Dynamics of Expansion of Early Mesopotamian Civilization (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1993); ME 53–86; AS 181–201; HE1 14–18; PAE 52–71.
9. T. Jacobsen, The Sumerian Kinglist (Chicago: University of Chicago, 1939); a translation can be found in KS 328–31, which I will generally cite; an abridged translation of the antediluvian and proto-historic kings can be found in ANET 265–6; P. Michalowski, “History as Charter: Some Observations on the Sumerian King List”, Journal of the American Oriental Society, 103 (1983); CANE 4:2350; C1/2:105–109. Readers of Italian can consult G. Pettinato, I re di Sumer I: Iscrizioni reali presargoniche della Mesopotamia (Brescia: Peideia Editrice, 2003).
10. C1/2:93–144; 238–314; for chronological charts see C1/2:998–9; AI 502–3; RH 60. Archaeological reports on the major excavated Early Dynastic Sumerian city states can be found at: Abu Salabikh (EA 1:9–10); Adab (EA 1:14–15); Eridu (EA 3:258–60); Fara (Shuruppak) (EA 3:301–3); Girsu (EA 3:406–9); Isin (EA 4:186–7); Kish (EA 4:298–300); Lagash (EA 3:406–9); Larsa (EA 4:331–3); Nippur (EA 4:148–52); Tell el-Oueili (EA 4:191–4); Sippar (EA 5:47–9); Tell el-Ubaid (EA 5:251–2); Ur (EA 5:28891); Uruk (Warka) (EA 5:294–8).
11. AI 122–145; KS 33–72; M = CAM 83; RH 57–9.
12. HTO 341–4; C1/2:110–11; Herman Vanstiphout, Epics of Sumerian Kings: The Matter of Aratta (Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature, 2003).
13. “Bilgames and Agga”, EOG 143–8 = ANET 44–7 = CS 1:550–2; the Sumerian has a variant spelling, Bilgames, for Gilgamesh; I have normalized this to the standard English Gilgamesh.
14. Inscriptions, PI 97–101; C1/2:112–13; DANE 309–11; on the archaeology of Ur see EA 5:288–91 and bibliography; on the royal tombs, see RTU and AFC 93–132.
15. Trevor Watkins, “Sumerian Weapons, Warfare and Warriors”, Sumer, 39/1–2 (1983): 100–2.
16. See cover art; Figure 5a, p. 133; AFC 98–9; AANE §46; AM 72, xi; RTU 44; AW 1:132.
17. Best viewed in AM §64; see also FI §723; cf. AAM §44.
18. A late tablet purporting to be the record of a king Lugalannimmundu of Adab, who claims hegemony over Sumer, describes an unsuccessful revolt of thirteen cities against him. Past scholars have accepted this king as authentic (KS 50–1; C1/2:115), but it is now generally thought to be a late unhistorical literary text.
19. KS 52–6; C1/2:116–20; RH; though I will cite the primary sources from PI, many of the same sources are also found in RH 44–56. Both of these translations will soon be superseded by Douglas Frayne, Royal Inscriptions of Mesopotamia, Early Periods, Vol. 1: Pre-Sargonic Period (to 2334 B. C.) (Toronto: University of Toronto Press, forthcoming).
20. PI 33–46; RH; KS 53–6; CH1/2: 117–19.
21. The identity of Enakale as king of Umma in Eanatum's wars is found in PI 55.
22. This stele has been photographed many times, but it is generally only the largest portion, with the chariot and phalanx, that is reproduced in military histories (FA 82; AW 1:135); the stele should be studied in its entirety to fully understand its message. The full stele, with both sides, can be seen in AFC 190–1; the entire obverse is shown in AAM §118. The most detailed photographs are found in AM §66–9, plus AAM §120 for the vultures (from which the stele gets its name) and AAM §121 for the burial mound. See also SDA 134–7. The inscription which fills the background of the stele can be read in PI 33–9. Throughout my discussion I will refer to the photograph with the most detail for the particular point under consideration. See Irene Winter, “After the Battle is Over: The Stele of the Vultures and the Beginning of Historical Narrative in the Art of the Ancient Near East”, in H. Kessler and M Simpson (editors), Pictorial Narrative in Antiquity and the Middle Ages (Washington, DC, 1985), pp. 11–26.
23. PI 19, 54, 86; AM §43, 70 = AAM §35–8.
24. E3/1:150–1, 154, 166, 175, 178, 180, 189, 197, 199, 201, 206, 208, 212.
25. PI 47–54; RH 28–30; KS 56; C1/2:119.
26. The foreign mercenary are not specifically named, but in the cultural context they could have been Semitic speakers from central and northern Mesopotamia, proto-Gutians from the central Zagros Mountains, or Elamites from south-western Iran. The mention of both Mari and Elam as enemies of Eanatum (PI 42) makes either possible.
27. The Hebrew Bible is strikingly distinct in this regard.
28. Eanatum II {c. 2385–2367} (PI 68); En-entarzi {c. 2367–2350} (PI 68); Lugalanda {7 years; c. 2350–2343} (PI 69–70).
29. PI 70–85; RH 33–6, 51–2; S 58.
30. “Year names” are names given to regnal years of Mesopotamian kings and often mentioned on various administrative tablets. They are generally formulaic – “the year the king built this temple” or “the year the king conquered that city” – but are important sources for military history, since they frequently mention military events. Many of the year names have been collected on the internet at http://cdli.ucla.edu/dl/yearnames/yn_index.htm (accessed 6.7.2005).
31. PI 94–7; RH 33–6; C1/2:143–4, 331; AI 144–5; KS 58–9.
32. AW 1:60–1, 135–6; MW 1: 142–3, 170–1, 2:514. The term sickle-sword is something of a misnomer, since the cutting edge of the weapon is on the outside of the curve, rather than the inside like a sickle. However, I will retain it since it has become the standard term used to describe these weapons.
33. FA 82; AFC 190–1; AW 1:135; SDA 135; AM §66, 68; the details are most clear in SDA 135.
34. WV §13, §17, §32, §35; in AAM § 49 the upper right figure holds an object similar to Eanatum's.
35. AAM §125; the side of the stele, generally not reproduced, shows four men, all of whom seem to be carrying this same type of axe (ME 99).
36. There are a number of examples of the curved sickle-axe where the haft and blade cannot be differentiated: FI §540, §763; AANE §410; a bronze statue of a god also holds the same type of curved sickle-axe, Mesopotamia {19C} (SDA 285).
37. Artisitic depictions (FI §794; SDA §380; AAM §G-5, 8); archaeological find: Lagash, {c. 2000} (AW 1:172a); Shechem, Canaan, {19C} (AW 1:172d); Byblos {19C} (AW 1:172c); MW 142–3.
38. Elam: artistic, FI §763, SDA §383, EM 20, PAE 319. Syria: artistic, FI §169, AANE §448; archaeological, Byblos {19C} AW 1:172c. Canaan: artistic, FI §872, GG §31a; archaeological, Shechem {19C} AW 1:172d. Egypt: archaeological, Abydos {18C} (AW 1:172b).
39. PAE 87–100; ME 90–6; C1/2:644–7; for Neolithic Elam, see pp. 30–32. Elam is the ancient name for the modern province of Khuzistan in south-western Iran.
Chapter Three
1. R2; LKA; M. Liverani (editor), Akkad, the First World Empire (Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 1993); C1/2:417–54; AI 146–60; CANE 2:831–42; EA 1:49–54; M = CAM 97.
2. R2:7–39; LKA 33–172; C1/2:417–34; DANE 251–2.
3. The chronology of Sargon's campaigns is uncertain; I here follow the suggestions of Frayne in R2.
4. Prisoners in precisely such neck stocks are found in Akkadian martial art, AM §118.
5. Campaigns in Elam: R2:22–7; PAE 100–3; ME 97–100; C1/2:432–3.
6. AM §114–5; the figure of Sargon in the Susa stele looks very similar to the famous bronze head of an Akkadian king (AM §xxii-xxiii).
7. Some scholars believe that the cultic list of cities in a hymn of En-hude-ana, high priestess and daughter of Sargon, represents the extent of Sargon's empire; see discussion and bibliography in R2:7.
8. E2:224; LKA 83, 137–9, 185, 305, 316, 321.
9. R2:40–73; C1/2:437–40.
10. The closeness of the figures for captive and expelled may indicate that the two categories are the same: those who were expelled were made slaves.
11. This insertion comes from a parallel inscription, R2:58.
12. Meluhhans are also said to have participated in an Elamite coalition against Naram-Sin, LKA 251. On Meluhha, see D. Potts, “The Road to Meluhha,” JNES 41 (1982): 27988; further references in LKA 251 n. 12; DANE 152–3; CANE 3:1456–9.
13. R2:74–83; C1/2:437–40; PAE 106; ME 103–5.
14. R2:84–181; LKA 173–331; C1/2:440–5; AI 156–8; DANE 206–7.
15. S. Tinney, “A New Look at Naram-Sin and the Great Rebellion,” JCS 47 (1995): 1–14.
16. A later literary epic recounting the rebellion is found in LKA 225–61, providing interesting insights on the martial mentality; poetic lists of the city-states in the rebellion can be found on LKA 241–5, 249–53.
17. There is no firm chronology for the campaigns of Naram-Sin's reign; this outline is simply one option.
18. This is based on Frayne's reading of some obscure characters (R2:90). A later literary account of this campaign can be found in LKA 176–87.
19. For the remarkable archaeological discoveries at Ebla confirm the destruction of the city by the Akkadians, DANE 98–9; EA 2:181–3; AS 277–82; see further discussion at pp. 241–4.
20. AAM §125; AFC 192; SDA 174a; AANE §361. L. Nigro, “The Two Steles of Sargon: Iconography and Visual Propaganda at the Beginning of Royal Akkadian Relief”, Iraq 60 (1998): 1–18; L. Nigro, “Visual Role and Ideological Meaning of the Enemies in the Royal Akkadian Relief”, in J. Prosecky (editor), Intellectual Life in the Ancient Near East (Prague, 1998), 283–97.
21. Only two soldiers are visible from the usually reproduced front view. All five can be seen from the side view, reproduced in ME 99.
22. AM §114; AAM §138; SDA 172, 174; AW 1:151a; AANE §362.
23. AM §117; AW 1:151b; AANE §359; AAM §134–5 shows the two pieces side-by-side.
24. AM §122–3; AFC 196; AAM §155–6; SDA 176–7; AW 1:150; this should be compared with 5 in the list on p. 87.
25. AAM §153; SDA 175; AANE §360.
26. AM §118–19; AAM §136–7; the original form of the stele is reconstructed in ME 108 and AFC 204.
27. AM §xxii-xxiii; AANE §48; AAM §154; SDA 171–3; AFC 194.
28. R. Miller, E. McEwen, and C. Bergman, “Experimental Approaches to Ancient Near Eastern Archery”, World Archaeology, 18/2 (1986): 178–95; E. McEwen, R. Miller, and C. Bergman, “Early Bow Design and Construction”, Scientific American, 264/6 (June 1991): 76–82.
29. AW 1:6–8, 46–8, 62–4, 80–3, 150–1.
30. Y. Yadin, “The Earliest Representation of a Siege Scene and a ‘Scythian Bow’ from Mari”, Israel Exploration Journal, 22/3 (1972): 89–94.
31. OW 40; FA 94, 97; EAA 180.
32. AS 133; D. Collon, “Hunting and Shooting”, Anatolian Studies, 33 (1983): 51–56, pl. xviii.
33. AW 1:118; SDA 75; AANE §228; AFC 22; AM §18.
34. Yadin, “The Earliest Representation”; AFC §99
35. HE2:128–9; P. Michalowski, “Foreign Tribute to Sumer during the Ur III Period”, Zeitschrift für Assyriologie, 68 (1978), 36.
36. Barry Eichler, “Of Slings and Shields, Throw-Sticks and Javelins”, Journal of the American Oriental Society, 103 (1983): 95–102, gives an excellent review of the philological problems surrounding interpreting ancient Near Eastern technical military terms. Astour, HE2:128–132, follows Eichler's interpretation.
37. Brigitte Groneberg, “Tilpanu = Bogen”, Revue d'Assyriologie, 81 (1987): 115–24.
38. In each case I will give the approximate length of the strung undrawn bow based on the proportional relation to the body of the man holding the bow, assuming the average man is 165 cm tall, a height derived from the height of the mummies of contemporary Egyptian warriors (SSN 7; see pp. 438–40).
39. AW 1:150; SDA 176–7; AAM §156; AANE §49; AM 122–3; FA 96.
40. The two can be compared side-by-side in AAM §156–7.
41. AFC §150 has the largest and clearest reproduction; see also FI §641; AM §113a.
42. AW 1:151; SDA 174; AAM §134; AM §§117; AANE §359.
43. Since the data is limited, and the categories and military systems overlapping, I have combined a discussion of the Akkadian and Neo-Sumerian military systems here; much of this discussion also applies to Chapter Four.
44. MAS 27; Benno Landsberger, “Remarks on the Archive of the Soldier Ubarum”, JCS 9/4 (1955): 121–31.
45. For the archive of Umma, see USP; specifically military records are found at USP 1517; however, the non-military parts of the archive still illustrate the detail and complexity of the logistical system of the Sumerians and Akkadians.
46. J. S. Cooper (editor), The Return of Ninurta to Nippur (Rome, 1978).
47. My translation is a synthesis of R3/1:92–3 and E. J. Wilson, The Cylinders of Gudea: Transliteration, Translation, and Index (Neukirchen-Vluyn: Verlag Butzon, 1996), pp. 149–52.
48. R2:182–208; C1/2:454–61.
Chapter Four
1. For background on the Amorites, see pp. 155–9.
2. CAH 1/2:454–63; ME 119–21; DANE 135; RA 3:708–20; R. Henrickson, “A Regional Perspective on Godin III Cultural Development in Central Western Iran”, Iran 24 (1986):23.
3. A letter of a farmer describes the devastation to his farm caused by Gutian raids: S. Smith, “Notes on the Gutian Period,” JRAS (1932):295 ff.
4. The Umman-Manda appear in the Naram-Sin epics as a rather obscure but powerful enemy of Naram-sin. It is unclear if they are an ethnic group or a place-name. They are perhaps best understood more generically like the English term “horde”, meaning a vast barbarian army (see LKA 265–6 for discussion and bibliography).
5. The epic “Cuthean Legend” or “Naram-Sin and the Enemy Hordes” (LKA 263–331) is set in the reign of Naram-Sin, but is generally thought to reflect memories of the fall of Akkad under his successors.
6. R3/1; DANE 134; AI 166–8.
7. There are occasional scenes of gods or kings enthroned holding weapons: AAM §201; AFC §317; AANE §404.
8. PAE 122–8; ME 122–3; C1/2:652–4; his name means the “protege of [the Elamite god] Inshushinak”, in an Akkadian and Elamite form of the name. A stele of Puzur-Inshushinak from Susa shows him with Akkadian-style regalia, AAM §158.
9. R2:280–96; Romer, W. “Zur Siegesinschrift des Konigs Utuhegal von Unug,” Orientalia 54 (1985):274–88.
10. C1/2:595–631; AI 161–78; M = CAM 102.
11. R3/2:9–89; LC 13–22; C1/2:595–631; DANE 312.
12. R3/2:12–14, 21, 39, 41; ANET 523b.
13. On the background of the Amorites, see pp. 155–9.
14. R3/2:20; Samuel Kramer, “The Death of Ur-Nammu and His Descent to the Netherworld,” JCS 21 (1967).
15. R3/2:91–234; DANE 270–1; C1/2:585–623; CANE 2:842–57; I follow the chronology established in R3/2:92–110, assuming that Year One of Shulgi is 2094 BC.
16. W. Hallo, “Simurrum and the Hurrian Frontier,” Revue Hittite et Asianique, 36 (1978): 71–83; based on the year names the three Hurrian wars were in 2070–2067, 2063–2061 and 2052–2046; on the Hurrians, see pp. 303–7.
17. R3/2:235–84; C1/2:607–9.
18. P. Steinkeller, “The Administrative and Economic Organization of the Ur III State: The Core and Periphery”, in M. Gibson and R. Biggs (editors), The Organization of Power (Chicago: Oriental Institute, 1987), 19–41; HE2:87–8; M = CAM 102.
19. On this alliance and the subsequent military campaign see R3/2:287–90 and 296–300; unattributed quotations in this section are to the latter inscription; see Piotr Michalowski, “Bride of Simanum”, Journal of the American Oriental Society, 95 (1975): 716–19.
20. On the Hurrians, see pp. 303–7; on Tish-atal, see R3/2:457–64.
21. R3/2:191; on Ebih as Jabal Hamrin, see RGTC 2:38.
22. EA 3:186; R. Barnett, “Xenophon and the Wall of Media”, Journal of Hellenic Studies, 83 (1963): 1–26.
23. DANE 74–5; CAH 1/2:611–17; Thorkild Jacobsen, “The Reign of Ibbi-Suen”, JCS 7 (1953): 36–47.
24. For sources on spiraling prices and the defections of the city-states, see R3/2:366–7 and the bibliography cited there.
25. MC 243–51; Jacobsen, “Reign of Ibbi-Suen, p. 42.
26. First portion, PH 9; second portion, MC 253–68.
27. On the other hand, this could have reference to a literal flood which devastated southern Mesopotamia (LD 37), which would only have served to compound the economic, social, and military disruption of the era and further weakened Ur.
28. HTO 233–72; Ninurta is war god closely associated with Ningirsu, DANE 214; GDS 138, 142–3.
29. I have removed the refrain “before holy Inanna, before her eyes, they are parading” which recurs after each line in the poem, along with some non-military details of the procession.
30. On oracular dreams in antiquity, see A. Oppenheim, The Interpretation of Dreams in the Ancient Near East (Philadelphia: American Philosophical Society, 1956); similarly, Alexander's soothsayer Aristander was an expert at consistently interpreting every omen encountered as favorable to Alexander: e.g. Arrian 1.11.7.
Chapter Five
1. WV §13, 17; E3/1:73; cf. Ezekiel 1, 10, where the Israelite god rides a wheeled celestial chariot. The sun-god Shamash is described as riding his chariot through the sky (EOG 25). Ishtar's celestial chariot – presumably an exalted version of a royal chariot – is described as made “of lapis lazuli and gold, its wheels shall be gold and its horns shall be amber, driving lions in a team and mules of great size” (EG 48). M. Civil, “Isme-Dagan and Enlil's Chariot”, Journal of the American Oriental Society, 88/1 (1968): 3–14.
2. I will use the term “war-cart” to describe the military vehicles of the Early Bronze Age, to distinguish them from the “chariot”, the light, spoked, two-wheeled vehicles of the late Middle Bronze period; a full discussion of the differences between war-cart and chariot is given in this chapter. It is not clear that ancient Near Eastern peoples made this type of distinction.
3. I. Shaw, “Egyptians, Hyksos and military technology: Causes, effects or catalysts?”, in A. J. Shortland (editor), The Social Context of Technological Change, Egypt and the Near East, 1650–1550 BC (Oxford: Oxbow Books, 2001), 59–71, discussed at 60–2; EAE 3:452.
4. Richard Bulliet, The Camel and the Wheel (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1975); likewise, although the principle of the wheel was widely known in Pre-Columbian Mesoamerica, there is no evidence that wheeled vehicles were used (EWT 14–5), perhaps because of the lack of an adequate draft animal.
5. A. Schulmann, “Chariots, Chariotry and the Hyksos”, Journal of the Society for the Study of Egyptian Antiquities, 10 (1980): 105–53; Shaw, “Egyptians, Hyksos and military technology.”
6. I will use the term “equid” to refer to any of the species or hybrid species of the genus equus known in the Bronze Age Near East, including donkeys, onagers, onager-donkey hybrids, mules or horses. The linguistic and artistic ambiguities of our third millennium evidence often make precision and certainty in distinguishing the species difficult. Nicholas Postgate, “The Equids of Sumer, Again”, in R. Meadow and Hans-Peter Uerpmann (editors), Equids in the Ancient World, vol. 1 (Wiesbaden: Ludwig Reichert Verlag, 1986) 1:194–206.
7. Evidence for horses equipped with bits comes from Dereivka in the Ukraine in the early fourth millennium, and from Botai in the northern steppes of Kazakhstan in the late fourth millennium, leading some scholars to argue for domestication and horse-riding in the fourth millennium steppe: David Anthony, “The Domestication of the Horse”, in R. Meadow and Hans-Peter Uerpmann (editors), Equids in the Ancient World, vol. 2 (Wiesbaden: Ludwig Reichert Verlag, 1991) 2:250–77; D. Anthony and D. Brown, “The origins of horseback riding”, Antiquity, 246 (1991): 22–38, and “The opening of the Eurasian steppe at 2000 BCE”, in Victor H. Mair (editor), The Bronze Age and Early Iron Age Peoples of Eastern Central Asia, vol. 1 (Washington D.C.: The Institute for the Study of Man, 1998). See also the webpage of the Institute for Ancient Equestrian Studies, http://users.hartwick.edu/iaes (accessed 7 July 2005). This evidence is, however, ambiguous and inconclusive, and a third millennium date appears more likely: see Marsha Levine, “The origins of horse husbandry on the Eurasian Steppe”, in Marsha Levine et al. (editors), Late Prehistoric Exploitation of the Eurasian Steppe (Cambridge: McDonald Institute, 1999); Marsha Levine, “Botai and the origins of horse domestication”, Journal of Anthropological Archaeology, 18 (1999): 29–78, and her “Domestication, Breed Diversification and Early History of the Horse” at http://www2.vet.upenn.edu/labs/equinebehavior/hvnwkshp/hv02/levine.htm (accessed 7 July 2005). Basically, the bit is not conclusive evidence of horse-riding, since a horse can be given a bit for other purposes; nor is horse-riding alone evidence for military equestrianism. To further complicate the problem it must be remembered that horses can be ridden without bridle or saddle, and hence the absence of riding accoutrements is not evidence for the absence of horse-riding. Here I will focus on the more limited question of military equestrianism in the Bronze Age Near East.
8. EEH 117–19; D. Owen, “The ‘first’ equestrian: an Ur III glyptic scene”, Acta Sumerologica, 13 (1991):259–71; P. Moorey, “Pictorial evidence for the history of horse-riding in Iraq before the Kassites”, Iraq, 32 (1970): 36–50; Augusto Azzaroli, An Early History of Horsemanship (Leiden: Brill, 1985); R. Meadows and H. Uerpmann (editors), Equids in the Ancient World, 2 vols (1986–1991); A. R. Schulman, “Representations of Horsemen and Riding in the New Kingdom”, JNES, 16 (1957): 263–7; LA 4:1009–13.
9. Robert Drews, Early Riders: The Beginnings of Mounted Warfare in Asia and Europe (New York: Routledge, 2004); an east Asian perspective is given by Nicola Di Cosmo, Ancient China and its Enemies: the Rise of Nomadic Power in East Asian History, (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2002). David Anthony argues, unconvincingly to me, that mounted warfare on the steppe occurred in the fourth millennium, and that chariot warfare developed after the rise of mounted warfare: “Early Horseback Riding and Warfare in the Steppes,” http://users.hartwick.edu/iaes/.
10. Cavalry divisions were used in many regular armies throughout World War Two: Janusz Piekalkiewicz, The Cavalry of World War II, 1939–1945 (Harrisburg PA: Historical Times, 1979). Horses and mules were also still used extensively for transportation in World War Two: the average German infantry division in 1939 had 4000–6000 horses; the Germans employed 625,000 horses for their invasion of Russia in 1941. The Soviet army used an incredible 21 million horses during all of World War Two, two thirds of which died: I. Dear (editor), The Oxford Companion to World War II, (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1995), 37–8. Even in the late twentieth century mules and donkeys were still being used for the covert transportation of arms to Afghan rebels fighting the Soviet Union: George Crile, Charlie Wilson's War: The Extraordinary Story of the Largest Covert Operation in History (New York: Atlantic Monthly Press, 2003). Despite the widespread mechanization of modern armies, it is likely that the limited use of horses and mules for highly specialized military transport needs will continue into the foreseeable future.
11. Keith H. Beebe, The Dromedary Revolution (Claremont CA: Institute for Antiquity and Christianity, 1990); EA 1:407–8.
12. AW 1:37–40, 128–39; WV 13–36; Wolfram, Nagel, Die mesopotamische Streitwagen und seine Entwicklung im ostmediterranen Bereich (Berlin: Berliner Beitrage zur Vorund Frühgeschichte 10, 1966); J. Crouwel, Chariots and Other Means of Land Transport in Bronze Age Greece (Amsterdam: Allard Pierson Museum, 1981); EA 1:485–7.
13. Wheels and a frame of the war-cart were discovered from Kish (AW 1:37; WV §5); a silver terret for holding the reins was found at Ur {ED IIIA, 2550–2400} (RTU 165; AFC 116; AW 1:131; WV §10; SDA 21; AM §83); while a bronze “tire” or casing for the disk wheel for protection and added traction was found at Susa (AW 1:38; WV §19).
14. WV 15–36; AW 1:37–40. In addition to the military examples presented here there are a number of recently published cylinder seals showing ceremonial four-wheeled carts from Tell Beydar {2400–2250} (EEH 116, §5–9), a terracotta model from Kish (WV §4; AW 1:132), and a shell inlay of equids pulling a cart from Nippur (WV §6); none provides any additional military information. In this chapter I will make parenthetical reference to the specific pieces evidence by citing the number assigned in the following lists; e.g. (item 1) refers to source number one.
15. WV 20–2; There is also a terracotta model from Kish {ED II?, 2650–2550} (AW 1:130).
16. WV 14–22; SDA 21; modern illustration: FA 83; Terence Wise and Angus McBride, Ancient Armies of the Middle East (London: Osprey, 1981), plate B.
17. AAM §121; for a detailed discussion of the overall meaning of the Stele of the Vultures, see pp. 55–9.
18. Unfortunately, this particular fragment of the stele (the third register) is generally left out of most reproductions; it shows people climbing onto a large mound of corpses with baskets of earth to cover the bodies in a burial mound (AAM §121; AFC 190).
19. Ur-namma {2112–2095} also built a ritual war-cart for the goddess Ninlil during this period, which may be fragmentarily depicted on the Ur-namma Stele (E3/2:17; cf. IYN 26; AFC 445); unfortunately, he did not leave a detailed description of this vehicle.
20. This description is repeated twice in the text (E3/1:73), once when Gudea is commanded by an oracle to build the chariot (lines vi 12–23), and again when he actually builds it (lines vii 13–23). I have merged the most important elements from both passages into one.
21. Based on E3/1:96–7 and Wilson, Cylinders of Gudea, 168–70; unfortunately, neither of Gudea's descriptions tell us if the chariot he made had two or four wheels. Based on the contemporary Neo-Sumerian artistic evidence discussed above, we should probably assume it was two-wheeled.
22. Debates about what is a “true” chariot seem sometimes almost to be more about the meaning of the word “true” than the word “chariot”.
23. CG 74–120; WV 48–72; EWT; P. Moorey, “The emergence of the light, horse-drawn chariot in the Near East, c. 2000–1500 BC”, World Archaeology, 18/2 (1986): 196–215; David W. Anthony and Nikolai B. Vinogradov, “Birth of the Chariot”, Archaeology, 48/2 (1995): 36–41; M. Littauer and J. Crouwel, “The Origin of the True Chariot”, Antiquity, 70 (Dec. 1996): 934–9; P. Raulwing, Horses, Chariots, and Indo-Europeans, Archaeolingua, Series Minor, vol. 13 (Budapest: Archaeolingua Foundation, 2000).
24. R. Miller, E. McEwen and C. Bergman, “Experimental Approaches to Ancient Near Eastern Archery”, World Archaeology, 18/2 (1986): 178–95.
25. WV 50–5, §28–40; ELH.
26. Three cylinder seals from Karum Kanesh, Anatolia {2000–1850} seem to depict similar, non-military scenes of four-wheeled carts in ritual settings: 1, WV §24; ELH §2; 2, WV §25; ELH §3; 3, FI §727. It is possible that four-wheeled vehicles survived for religious and civic processions after they had disappeared from the battlefield.
27. MM 31–2; MK 159–65.
28. M. Civil, “Isme-Dagan and Enlil's Chariot”, Journal of the American Oriental Society, 88 (1968):3–14, translation on pages 6–7.
29. Four-wheeled vehicles are eriqqum (Sumerian GIS.mar.gid.da); the two wheeled vehicle is a narkabtum (Sumerian GIS.gigir), MM 31. There is not a clear linguistic distinction in terms of the function as opposed to the structure of the vehicle.
Chapter Six
1. Non-Mesopotamian military aristocracies which ruled Mesopotamia at various times over the past four thousand years include the Amorites, Kassites, Achaemenid Persians, Seleucid Greeks, Parthians, Sasanids, Arabs, Daylamites, Selchuq Turks, Mongols, Timurids, Jalayrid Turks, Safavids, Ottoman Turks, and British.
2. AUP; M. Anbar, Les Tribus Ammorites de Mari, Orbis Biblicus et Orientalis 108. (Freiburg: Gottingen, 1991); M. Liverani, “The Amorites”, Peoples of the Old Testament World, D. Wiseman (editor) (Oxford, 1973), pp. 100–33; SHP 37–8, 160–74; DANE 16–17; CANE 1231–42; EANE 1:107–11; M. Streck, Das amurritische Onomastikon der altbabylonischen Zeit, (Münster: Ugarit-Verlag, 2000); on the archaeological problems of dealing with archaeology of nomads and semi-nomads, see Roger Cribb, Nomads in Archaeology, 2nd edn (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2004).
3. This description is collated from a number of texts given in AUP 92–3, 330–2.
4. DANE 215; EA 4:253–6; Victor Matthews, Pastoral Nomadism in the Mari Kingdom, c. 1830–1760 (Cambridge MA: American Schools of Oriental Research, 1978).
5. DANE 64; EANE 1:407–8. Keith H. Beebe, The Dromedary Revolution, (Claremont, CA: Institute for Antiquity and Christianity, 1990). Richard W. Bulliet, The Camel and the Wheel, (New York: Columbia University Press, 1975).
6. Sources cited in Liverani, “Amorites”, 104–5.
7. Specific details of the military encounters between the Amorites and Mesopotamians from the Akkadian to Ur III periods have been described in Chapters Three and Four.
8. DANE 156–7; AI 181–5; C1/2:631–43.
9. R4:6–14, IYN 13–21; CAH 1/2:613–17.
10. J. van Dijk, “Ishbi-Erra, Kindattu, l'homme d'Elam, et la chute de la ville d'Ur”, JCS 30 (1978): 189–208.
11. Year names in IYN; royal inscriptions, nearly all dealing with religion in R4:15–106.
12. FSW, upon which I base my description. Four color maps based on Frayne can be found in CAM 109; the year names have been collected and collated in IYN and LYN. Many Mesopotamian year names can be found online at: http://cdli.ucla.edu/dl/yearnames/yn_index.htm (accessed 8.7.2005).
13. DANE 175; RA 6:500–6; EA 3:331–3; AI 181–5, 199–200; C1/2:631–42.
14. R4:270–316; LYN 37–60; FSW 26–8; C1/2:641–3.
15. EA 1:225–33; ANE 1:81–9.
16. A1:7–46, AR1:1–19, CS 1:463–4. OAC; H. Saggs, The Might that was Assyria (London: Sidgwick & Jackson, 1984), 23–34.
17. AR 1:1–8, RLA 6:101–16, CS 1:463–4; OAC 34–40.
18. The chronology of the Old Assyrian kings before Shamshi-Adad is quite uncertain. The dates given here roughly follow AI; OAC 40–3 and CAH 1/2:740–62 give slightly higher dates.
19. Military conquest theories are summarized by OAC 63–71; for Larsen's interpretation see OAC 71–80.
20. A1:47–76; PH; CAH 2/1:1–8; CANE 2:873–83; DANE 264–5; EDS 204–12.
21. OAC 42, EANE 5:188–90.
22. C1/2:636, C2/1:1; AI 190; CANE 2:873.
23. CAH 1/2:762, DANE 264; R4:560.
24. AR 1:18–28; A1:47–76; PH; C2/1:1–8; CANE 2:873–83; DANE 264–5; M = CAM 116.
25. R4:324–31; AI 181–94; C2/1:1–28; PH; M = CAM 120; D. Edzard, Die “zweite Zwischenzeit” Babyloniens (Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz, 1957), 122–53.
26. For a summary of our limited knowledge of Sippar during this period, see ASD 1–10.
27. Sabium {1844–1831}; Apil-Sin {1830–1813}; Sin-muballit {1812–1793}, R4:327–31.
28. Primary: R4:332–72, LC 71–142; ANET 269–71; L; Secondary: ANE 1:108–17, CAH 2/1:176–227; CANE 2:901–15; DANE 138–9, WANE 65–6; M. van de Mieroop, King Hammurabi of Babylon, (Oxford: Blackwell, 2005).
29. The letters of Zimri-Lim's last years, which provide great detail on military affairs in Mesopotamia, have been recently translated with numerous notes and commentary by Wolfgang Heimpel, Letters to the King of Mari (Winona Lake: Eisenbrauns, 2003), cited as L.
30. MK, 1–29; M.-H. Gates, “The Legacy of Mari”, Biblical Archaeologist 47 (1984).
31. The official title of the rulers of Elam was sukkalmah, often translated as “vizier” or “grand regent” (PAE 160–3); for simplicity I will simply translate it as king. On Siwe-palar-huppak's reign, see PAE 166–71.
32. PAE 169–71; for more details, see D. Charpin, “Les Elamites a Shubat-Enlil”, In Fragmenta Historiae Elamicae: Melanges Offerts a M. J. Steve, edited by L. De Meyer (Paris: Editions Recherche sur les Civilisations, 1986), 129–37.
33. I generally follow the translation in LC 76–140, but occasionally prefer ANET 16380.
34. This perhaps has reference to an inauspicious eclipse on the day of battle. Conversely, Yahweh prolongs daylight to intensify the Israelite victory on the field of Gibeon (Joshua 10.12–15).
35. In this passage the god Zababa serves as Hammurabi's bodyguard (“on my right side”), while Ishtar is Hammurabi's arms bearer; Ishtar is frequently depicted in contemporary art with a mace, axe, and sickle-sword in a quiver on her back.
36. Middle Bronze art relating to war-carts and chariots are discussed in Chapter Five.
37. FI §167, 199, 538, 772, 784; SDA 285.
38. SDA §380, 383; FI §191, 794; AAM G5.
39. R4:372–403, ANET 271; C2/1:220–2; AI 243–4.
40. AI 241–52; RA 5:464–73; EA 3:270–5; DANE 164–5; CANE 2:917–30; J. Brinkman, Materials and Studies for Kassite History I (Chicago: Oriental Institute, 1976).
Chapter Seven
1. For general background on Mari see DANE 189–90; CANE 2:885–99; EA 3:413–16, 419–21; MK; MM.
2. Wolfgang Heimpel, Letters to the King of Mari: A New Translation, with Historical Introduction, Notes, and Commentary (Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 2003), hereafter cited as L. When possible I will cite Heimpel's translation by page number. The standard edition of the tablets, with French translation, is published in the Archives Royales de Mari, (Paris, 1950ff), (cited as ARM).
3. MM 36–7; WM 128–38; on Mesopotamian magic and divination in general, see CANE 3:1782–3, 1895–1909, 2013–17, 2071–4; DANE 218–19; MK 112–38.
4. CANE 3:1904–6; MK 127–33; L 656–7 gives a chart with technical terms. Letters reporting the results of extispicy are common in the Mari archive.
5. At the battle of Drepanum in the First Punic War {249}, the Roman commander Claudius Pulcher sailed into battle despite bad auguries and was soundly defeated, Cicero, De Natura Deorum, 2.3.
6. Mary Beard, John North and Simon Price, Religions of Rome, 2 vols (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1998), 1:21–8, 55–8, 188; 2:205; on the importance of divination and prophecy in Roman Empire, see David Potter, Prophets and Emperors, (Cambridge MA: Harvard University Press, 1994).
7. On Greek martial divination, see W. Kendrick Pritchett, The Greek State at War, Part III: Religion (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1979).
8. Ammianus Marcellinus, Res Gestae, trans. Walter Hamilton, The Later Roman Empire (A.D. 354–378) (Penguin, 1986), 25.2.
9. Timothy D. Barnes, Constantine and Eusebius (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1981), 42–3.
10. In Israel, king David's census to determine the military strength of his new kingdom was condemned as an act of impiety, bringing plague upon Israel, 2 Samuel 24.
11. Heimpel describes these groups in L 34–6, 15–18, and provides an index to all references in L 882–4; MK 142–5.
12. The administrative records of Sippar provide us some insights into military organization in the Old Babylonian state {1894–1595} (ASD 86–116).
13. L 508; MM 15; WM 91; L 578, index, where Heimpel translates this term as “division commander”, which to the modern reader sounds like an officer in charge of more than 100 men; I consistently use the term “captain” where Heimpel uses “division commander”.
14. L 438, 508; L 586, index; ASD 88, 93; MM 15; WM 91–2; ASD 91–3.
15. W. Hallo, “The Road to Emar”, JCS 18 (1964): 57–88.
16. §26–38 = ANET 167–8; Meek translates ba'irum as “commissary”, reflecting his understanding that they were to collect food for the army.
17. Heimpel translates this term as “shock troops” (L 595, index; MM 17); my sense is more of elite troops.
18. Specific passages for armies of 10,000–20,000 can be found in the index in L 599; ARM 1.42.
19. See EA 2:142–4 for discussion and bibliography. A hectare is 100 ares, an are 100x 100 meters, or 10,000 square meters, equivalent of 2.47 acres. Based on ethnoarchaeological studies, scholars have determined a population average of 250 people per hectare (or 100 per acre) in ancient Near Eastern towns. However, some sites might have had a density of as high as 500 people per hectare.
20. In the index on pages 599–601, Heimpel provides a complete list of all numbers mentioned in the texts he translates. Of these, there are fifteen references to armies ranging from 3000 to 6000 men, twenty-four references to armies from 1000 to 2000, thirty-five references to armies from 100 to 1000 men, and twenty-five references to under 100 men.
21. L 383; see also ARM 6.32, 13.54; MM 25; MK 148.
22. By comparison, six jars of wine cost one shekel (L 407); a house could be bought for five shekels (L 412). A captain of 100 men was paid 20 shekels in a campaign season.
23. L 175, 239, 306, 308, 360, 364, 393, 513.
24. Other encounters likewise point to low casualties, fifty in one case (L 342).
Chapter Eight
1. WAM 25–38; AW 1:69–71; RLA 1:471–2; MK 145–7; MM 33–4.
2. FI §749 = Brussels O. 437. It was originally published in L. Speleers, Catalogue des intaillés et empreintes orientales des Musèes Royaux du Cinquantenaire (Bruxelles, 1917), 213. I would like to thank Professor Doctor Eric Gubel, Senior Keeper in the Antiquity Department of the Royal Museums of Art and History, Brussels, for sharing with me a recent clear digital photo of this seal, which was a great help.
3. Some examples (which could be further multiplied): Durum, R4:42; Isin, R4:79, 92, 103; Dunnum R4:98; Larsa, R4:118, 125, 191; Bad-tibara, R4:176; general R4:253.
4. R4:149, 160, 166, 240, 243.
5. R4:243, with additions from 237; cf. 237–43.
6. WM 173–5, 181 n18, with illustration; O. Neugebauer, Mathematische Keilschrift-Texte (Berlin, 1935), 1:149, 182–4; H. Waschow, “Wehrwissenschaft und Mathematik im alten Babylonien”, Unterrichts-blätter für Mathematik und Naturwissenschaften, 39 (1939), 370; FA 97.
7. This figure of 22 meters for the height of the wall presumably includes the height of the tell (since by this time most cities were already on artificial mounds composed of the ruins of former levels of the city), the earthen ramparts built around the city, and the actual brick or stone wall which was built on top of the earthen rampart. Including all three of these elements together makes the target height of the siege ramp reasonable based on archaeological evidence.
8. David Ussishkin, The Conquest of Lachish by Sennacherib (Tel-Aviv: Tel Aviv University, Institute of Archaeology, 1982).
9. A device called the kiskisum may also have been used in siegecraft, but its precise nature is uncertain (L 364).
10. L 253, 331, 489; WM 156; CAD 1/2:428–9.
11. L 239, 253, 331; WM 156; CAD 3:144–7.
12. The meaning of xattassi is unknown. It is presumably a technical term for part of the siege engines, perhaps the main beam for a ram, or the large heavy corner beams for a tower.
13. AFC 158; Y. Yadin, “The Earliest Representation of a Siege Scene and a ‘Scythian Bow’ from Mari”, Israel Exploration Journal, 22/2–3 (1972): 89–94.
14. The exact meaning of the word lu'u hamannu is unknown. Heimpel translates it as a “frontal brace”, used to support steep packed earthworks (L 458). From the context I see it as some type of earthwork designed to counteract the siege ramp of the enemy, hence my term “counter-ramp”. Just such a counter-ramp was discovered at Lachish in Judea, see Ussishkin, The Conquest of Lachish (note 8 above).
Chapter Nine
1. AS; SHP; EDS; C1/2:315–62, 532–94; C2/1:1–41, EA 5:123–31; CANE 2:1195–1218; Mark Chavalas, “Ancient Syria: A Historical Sketch”, in Mark Chavalas and John Hayes (editors), New Horizons in the Study of Ancient Syria (Malibu, CA: Undena Publications, 1992), 1–22.
2. Based on AD; AS 102, 156, 186, 215, 236, 291–2; EDS 43; I use a simplified version here.
3. AS 181–210. Major Chalcolithic sites include: Abu Hureyra, Bouqras, Chagar Bazar (DANE 69–70), Halaf (EA 2:460–2), Mureybit, Tell Brak (EA 1:335–6; AS 185–90).
4. Guillermo Algaze, The Uruk World System: the Dynamics of Expansion of Early Mesopotamian Civilization (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1993).
5. AS 211–87; EDS 122–33; major archaeological sites of Early Bronze Age Syria include: Aleppo; Byblos; Ebla; Homs; Mari; Qatna; Tell Brak; Tell Chuera (EA 1:149–2); Tell Hamoukar; Tell Leilan (EDS 128–9; EA 3:341–7; DANE 179–80); Tell Mozan.
6. Aleppo (EA 1:63–5), Damascus (EA 2:103–6), Hama (EA 2:466–8), Mari (EA 3:41317), Qatna (EA 4:35–6), Ugarit (EA 5:255–66); other important Early Bronze fortified sites include Tell Ashara, Tell Chuera (EA 1:491–2), Tell Khoshi, Tell Hamoukar, and Tell Mozan (EA 4:60–3).
7. HE1; HE2; AS 235–46; SHP 21–38; EA 2:180–6; CANE 2:1219–30; DANE 88–9; EDS 134–48; Paolo Matthiae, Ebla: An Empire Rediscovered (Garden City, NY: Doubleday, 1981); Paolo Matthiae et al., Ebla: alle origini della civilta urbana (Milan: Electa, 1995).
8. Michael Astour, “The Date of the Destruction of Palace G at Ebla”, in Mark Chavalas and John Hayes (editors), New Horizons in the Study of Ancient Syria (Malibu, CA: Undena Publications, 1992), 23–40, (and in HE2 58–76) argues that the palace was actually destroyed before the Akkadian invasions.
9. HE1 25, 51–52; the client kingdoms included: Emar, Burman, Ra'aq, Abarsil, Gasur, Hazuwan, Sugurum, Ebal and Manuwat (HE1 32–6).
10. HE1 26–51, M= HE1 27; Giovanni Pettinato, “Bollettino militare della campagna di Ebla contro la citta di Mari”, Oriens Antiquus, 19 (1980): 231–45; SHP 28 n35.
11. PI 86–9; KS 329; EA 3:413–17; AS 262–7; AFC 135–64; EDS 129–33.
12. PI 86–9; KS 328; HE1 28, 50; CANE 2:1222 the precise dates of these kings of Mari are not known. The six numbered kings are assumed to be those from the Sumerian King-list, where most names are lost but the regnal years survive (KS 328).
13. The god is presumably Ba'al (SAF 146–7), though the precise god may differ in different chronological, regional, cultural and ritual settings (SAF 145–50). Some of the armed figurines are female, probably representing the warrior goddess Ashtarte – Ishtar in Mesopotamia (SAF 145–6). Like Athena of the Greeks, Ashtarte-Ishtar was a goddess of war. For purposes of the study of arms and armor, I will simply call all the figurines gods. Excellent photographs of several of these gods (unfortunately without weapons) are found in AANE §69–73.
14. AFC 157. An eighteenth-century mural painting from Mari has a column of (mostly lost) small soldiers marching beneath the main scene; one of them has a kilt, cape, and some type of bundle hanging from a weapon on his shoulder (SDA 275, 282) – though this has been interpreted as a fisherman carrying a net. The Urnammu stele has a man with a bundle of construction equipment slung from an axe he is carrying on his back (AFC §317). It is likely that hanging bundles from weapons carried on the shoulder was a standard practice, a type of Bronze Age pack.
15. AFC 157–60; AW 1:137–9; SDA 142; AM §75.
16. AFC 158; Y. Yadin, “The Earliest Representation of a Siege Scene and a ‘Scythian Bow’ from Mari”, Israel Exploration Journal, 22/2–3 (1972): 89–94.
17. For illustrations see MW 2, figs. 1–58; AW 1:12, 41–2, 60–1, 136–40, 148–9, 156–7.
18. On weapons in third millennium Syria, see MW; warrior burials at Carchemish and Tel Barsip, MW 1:188; metal helmets at Ur, AFC §56; AW 1:49; the golden helmet/crown of Ur: AM §xvi; AANE §45.
19. See Chapter Four; AS 277–82; SHP 33–35; C1/2:321–7; HE2 78–80.
20. AS 282–7; HE2 164–71; H. Weiss et al., “The Genesis and Collapse of Third Millennium North Mesopotamian Civilization”, Science, 261 (1993): 995–1004; Nuzhet Dalfes et al. (editors), Third Millennium BC Climate Change and Old World Collapse (Berlin: Springer Verlag, 1997); more generally, N. Yoffee and J. Clark (editors), Collapse of Ancient States and Civilizations (Tucson, TX: University of Arizona Press, 1988).
21. SHP 36–7; HE2 101–33. Ebla (EA 2:180–6); Aleppo (EA 1:63–5); Byblos (EA 1:3904); Carchemish (EA 1:423–4); Qatna (Tell Mishrifeh) (EA 4:35–6).
22. EDS 186–91; for the origin and background of the Amorites, see pp. 155–7.
23. AS 288–326; SHP 39–83; EDS 185–244; C2/1:1–41; CANE 2:1201–5.
24. Dagger blades (SAF §120, 124, 128; LMB 216–19); javelin and spear heads (SAF §123–5; LMB 215; AW 1:156–7); “duckbill” axe (SAF §126; LMB 211; AW 1:148; EDS 243, with a mold for casting bronze axes in EDS 183); “eye” axe (SAF §123, 128; LMB 211;); narrow-headed socketed axes (LMB 213).
25. The qurpissum/gurpissum has been traditionally translated as “hauberk” (CAD vol. G:139b; WM 157, 165 n26), but is now thought to be a helmet (MM 30–1). There is no artistic evidence for metal body armor until the very late Middle Bronze period; Glock's interpretation of a royal statue with a robe with triangular markings as scale armor (WM 157, 162) is unlikely, since the king is wearing the robe on one shoulder which would have been impossible for a ten-kilogram robe of scale armor extending to the ankles. The robe would constantly fall off the shoulder. Furthermore, a woman wears the same type of dress (AFC §92), which undoubtedly represents sheep fleece.
26. Unfortunately, we are not given time of service in the pay documents from the Mari archive (L 498–500, 508). In reality, the pay could be as low as a fifth of a shekel (2 shekels per ten men) per campaign season (three months? L 312). This would make a soldier's wages for three months the same as four bronze arrowheads.
27. SDA 275; AANE §61; AM §166; SDA 270–1; AAM §206; see related paintings of elite dress at Mari in EDS 178–9.
28. FI §728–9; see Chapter Five for a full discussion of chariots.
29. Shelley Wachsmann, Seagoing Ships and Seamanship in the Bronze Age Levant (College Station: Texas A&M University Press, 1998); Marie-Christine De Graeve, The Ships of the Ancient Near East, c. 2000–500 B.C. (Louvain: Department Orientalistiek, 1981).
30. Major Early Bronze maritime sites include: Ashkelon (EA 1:220–3); Beirut (EA 1:292–5); Byblos (EA 1:390–4); Tel Gerisa (EA 2:394–6); Tell Sukas (EA 5:90–1); Tyre (EA 5:247–50); Ugarit (EA 5:255–62); most of these sites continued to be inhabited during the Middle Bronze period as well.
31. Major Middle Bronze maritime sites include: Achziv (EA 1:13–14); Akko (EA 1:545); Amrit (EA 1:111–13); Ashdod (EA 1:219–20); Gaza (Tell el-Ajjul) (EA 1:38–40); Jaffa (EA 1:206–7); Sidon (EA 5:38–41); Tel Michal (EA 2:20–2); Tel Mor (EA 4:4950); Tel Nami (EA 4:96–7); Tell el-Kazel (Sumur) (EA 3:275–6); Yavneh-Yam (EA 5:374). Some of these cities, such as Sidon, have dense modern populations over the ancient sites, making detailed archaeological study difficult; some were probably inhabited in the Early Bronze period as well.
32. Alalakh (EA 1:55–61), Aleppo (EA 1:63–5), Byblos (EA 1:390–4), Carchemish (EA 1:423–4), Damascus (EA 2:103–6), Ebla (EA 2:180–3), Hama (EA 2:466–8), Khana (EA 5:188–90; AS 317–18), Mari (EA 3:413–17), Nagar (Tell Brak; EA 1:355–6), Qatna (EA 4:35–6), Shekhna (Tell Leilan; EA 3:341–7), Ugarit (EA 5:255–66), Urkesh (EA 4:60–3).
33. R4:779–97; SHP 49–64, F. Abdallah, Les relations internationals entre le royaume d'Alep/Yamhad et les villes de Syrie du Nord, 1800 a 1594 av. J.-C. (Paris, 1985); EA 1:63–5; CANE 2:1201–3; DANE 325–6; EDS 191–4.
34. AS 313–17; L; ARM; WM; DANE 189–90; CANE 2:885–99; EA 3:413–16, 419–21; MK; MM.
35. SHP 65–70; DANE 236–7; EA 4:34–5.
36. AT 2–4; R4:798–802; DANE 10–11; EA 1:55–9; AS 304–5.
37. WM 95–6; ARM 2.131 = ANET 483a.
38. AT 180; CS 3:237, 276–7; they are frequently mentioned in the fourteenth century Amarna Letters; see the index of William Moran (translator), The Amarna Letters (Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 1992), 392–3; DANE 135.
39. SHP 77–8; EA 255–62; DANE 305–6; CANE 2:1255–66.
40. CS 1:357; SHP 39, 43, 45, 77–8. Assuming a date of around 2000 for the establishment of the dynasty, the kings, with very rough estimates of their dates, are: Yaqaru {c. 1900}, Niqmaddu {c. 1880}, Ibiranu I {c. 1860}, Niqmepa I {c. 1840}, Ibiranu II {c. 1820}, Niqmepa II {c. 1800}, Ammurapi I {c. 1780}, Ibiranu III {c. 1760}, Niqmepa III {c. 1740}, Ya'duraddu {c. 1720}, Ibiranu IV {c. 1700}, Ammurapi II {c. 1680}, Niqmepa IV {c. 1660}, Ammittamuru {c. 1640–1620}. The next several names for the Middle Bronze period are lost; many other kings for the better documented Late Bronze period are also known. K. Kitchen, “The King List of Ugarit”, Ugarit-Forschungen, 9 (1977):131–42; CANE 2:1260. Egyptian Execration Texts mention several cities and kings of southern Syria (CS 1:50–2).
41. SHP 79–80; DANE 62; EA 1:390–4; C1/2:343–51; see also the discussion om p. 410 on the relationship between Byblos and Egypt.
42. Possible exceptions are the enigmatic Byblos Syllabic Texts. George E. Mendenhall, The Syllabic Inscriptions from Byblos (Beirut: American University of Beirut, 1985), has provided an interpretation which has not met universal acceptance. If his interpretation is correct, the following passage represents a late Early Bronze royal inscription: “The words of Huru-Ba'il [king of Byblos]: I brought the lands into covenant to which they have bound themselves submissively because of my mighty deeds [of war]. Therefore you shall guard the ordinance of my kingship. Whoever enters honorably among us becomes one with the multitude. Thus the house has become the tribe of Huhash, and they shall be the loyal followers of [king] Huru-Ba'il” (Mendenhall, Syllabic Inscriptions, 33).
43. LMB 103; SHP 36, 45, 79: the kings of Byblos, with very rough estimates for dates, are: Ibdadi {c.2000}, Huru-Ba'il {19C?}, ? {1980–1820}, Abi-shemu I {c. 1820–1795}, Yapi-shemu-abi I {c. 1795–1780}, Yakin-El {c. 1780–1765}, Yantin-Ammu {c. 1765–1735}, Ilim-yapi {c. 1735–1720}, Abi-shemu II {c. 1720–1700}, Yapi-shuemu-abi II {c. 1700–1690}, cEgel/cEgliya (Akery) {c. 1690–1670}, RYNTY {c. 1670–1650}, Ka'in {c. 1650–1630}, Hasrurum {c. 1630–1610}.
44. SHP 70–4; EA 1:423–4; DANE 65.
45. HE2; P. Matthiae, “Ebla and Syria in the Middle Bronze Age”, in E. Oren, The Hyksos: New Historical and Archaeological Perspectives (Philadelphia: University Museum, 1997), 379–414; E4:807–8; EDS 213–16.
46. I follow Astour's interpretation, HE2 133–64. There is a synchronism between year 7 of Amar-Suena {2040} and the reign of Mekum (HE2 133, 155); many earlier scholars have understood Ibbit-Lim, the writer of the inscription, to be the king, EER 58–9; SHP 39, 41.
Chapter Ten
1. ALB 35–231; EAE 3:335–43; C1/2:208–37.
2. Based on ALB 30. Note that the dates of each archaeological period can vary from half a century to a century among different scholars; see MW 3.
3. ALB 59–90; M = MBA §16.
4. COT; P. Moorey, “The Chalcolithic Hoard from Nahal Mishmar, Israel, in Context”, World Archaeology, 20/2 (1988): 171–89; ALB 72–5; AW 1:126.
5. ALB 91–150; M = MBA §17,21.
6. MW 1:164–5; AW 1:148–9; ALB 103–4; C1/2:227–9.
7. The major Early Bronze city-states larger than about 8 hectares include: Ai (el-Tell) (EA 1:32–3); Arad (EA 1:169–76); Bab el-Dhra’ (EA 1:248–51); Beth-Shean (EA 1:305–9); Beth-Yerah (Khirbet Karak) (EA 1:312–14); Dan (EA 2:107–12); Ein-Besor (EA 2:219–20); Hazor (EA 3:1–5); Jericho (EA 3:220–4); Lachish (EA 3:317–24); Megiddo (EA 3:460–9); Tel Erani (EA 2:256–8); Tel Halif (Lahav) (EA 3:325–6); Tell el-Far'ah (north; Tirzah) (EA 2:304–5); Tell el-Sa'idiyeh (EA 4:452–5); M = ALB 95; MBA 17.
8. ECI 36–37; ALB 117; EA 1:170; THL 89.
9. PS 134–5 = ARE 1:64; EDE 92, 160; EAE 1:219–21; ALB 117.
10. ALB 151–173; ECI 63–9; C1/2:532–7.
11. EA 1:107–11; CANE 2:1231–42; later biblical tradition describes Amorites living in Canaan during the Israelite migration.
12. AEL 1:18–23 = ANET 227–8; EAE 3:496; M = MBA §22.
13. ALB 174–231; ECI 69–97; EAE 3:337–8; C 1/2:537–94; J. Weinstein, “Egyptian Relations with Palestine in the Middle Kingdom”, Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Research, 217 (1975): 1–16; M = MBA §21.
14. Major Middle Bronze II sites with fortifications include: Acre (Akko) (EA 1:54–5); Aphek (EA 1:147–51); Ashkelon (EA 1:220–3); Beth-Shean (EA 1:305–9); Beth-Shemesh (EA 1:311–12); Dan (EA 2:107–12); Dor (EA 2:168–70); Gezer (EA 2:396–400); Hazor (EA EA 3:1–5); Jericho (EA 3:220–4); Kabri (EA 3:261); Lachish (EA 3:317–24); Megiddo (EA 3:460–9); Sharuhen (Tell el-’Ajjul) (EA 1:38–40); Shechem (EA 5:19–23); Shiloh (EA 5:28–9); Tel Gerisa (EA 2:394–6); Tel Masos (EA 3:437–9; Tel Zeror (EA 5:389–90); Tell Beit Mirsim (EA 1:295–7); Tell el-Far'ah (north) (EA 2:303–4); Tell el-Far'ah (south) (EA 2:304–5); Timnah (Tel Batash) (EA 1:281–3); Yavneh-Yam (EA 5:374–5); Yoqneam (EA 5:381–3).
15. Peter Parr, “The Origin of the Rampart Fortifications of the Middle Bronze Age Palestine and Syria”, Zeitschrift des Deutscher Palaestina-verein, 84 (1968): 18–45.
16. Barbara Gregori, “ ‘Three-Entrance’ City-gates of the Middle Bronze Age in Syria and Palestine”, Levant, 18 (1986): 83–102.
17. Major Middle Kingdom art depicting Canaanites include: Tomb of Antef (Theban Tomb 386, EWW 38; NEA 38–9, Figure 3); Pectoral of Mereret (TEM 150–1); and several scenes from the Beni Hasan tombs, 2 (BH 1 §16; AW 1:169), 3 (AW 1:166–7; OHAE 192), 14 (BH 1 §47; AW 1:59), 15 (BH 2 §5), and 17 (BH 2 §15; AW 1:158–9).
18. Alternatively this figure may hold an ankh, an Egyptian religious symbol.
19. For an overview of the debate and a defense of the moderate historicist position, see William G. Dever, What Did the Biblical Writers Know and When Did They Know It? What Archaeology Can Tell Us about the Reality of Ancient Israel (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 2001). Dever deals mainly with the royal period in Israel, after c. 1000. He is more dubious about the historical reliability of earlier biblical narratives; see his Who Were the Early Israelites and Where Did They Come From? (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 2003). For a minimalist view, see Thomas L. Thompson, The Mythic Past: Biblical Archaeology and the Myth of Israel (London: Basic Books, 1999); Dever reviews the major minimalist literature on pp. 23–52; for a moderate inerrantist approach, see Alfred J. Hoerth, Archaeology and the Old Testament (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Books, 1998).
20. E. Hostetter, Nations Mightier and More Numerous: The Biblical View of Palestine's Pre Israelite Peoples (Richmond Hills, TX: BIBAL Press, 1995).
21. The Execration Texts are discussed in detail on pp. 415–8; MAEM 136–90; EAE 1:487–9. Partial translations: CS 1:50–2, ANET 328–9, VAE 125–6. M = MBA §23. On interpreting the Canaanite geography of the Execration Texts in Canaan, see ECI 87–93, and Yohanan Aharoni, The Land of the Bible: a Historical Geography, 2nd edn (Philadelphia: Westminster Press, 1979), 144–7; M= MBA §23.
22. An introductory bibliography on the Hyksos is given on p. 493, n. 9.
Chapter Eleven
1. Based on AFC xx.
2. C1/2:363–7.
3. John Garstang, Prehistoric Mersin: Yumuk Tepe in Southern Turkey (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1953), 130–41, plates xvii-xxi; ET 128–30; EA 1:124–5, 2:8–11; PA 130–5. A photo of the fortress remains can be found in S. Lloyd, Ancient Turkey (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1989) 29.
4. C1/2:368–410; C2/1:228–55; EA 1:127–31; KH 7–14.
5. Irina Antonova, The Gold of Troy (New York: Abrams, 1996); the Aegean coast of Anatolia will not be examined in detail in this study.
6. Mellaart, C1/2:390–5; Yadin also accepts them as authentic in AW 1:142–5.
7. CG; KH 9–14; C1/2:406–10; EA 3:385–6.
8. G. Steiner, “The immigration of the first Indo-Europeans into Anatolia Reconsidered”, Journal of Indo-European Studies, 18 (1990): 185–214.
9. M. Larsen, The Old Assyrian City-State and its Colonies (Copenhagen: Akadmisk Forlag, 1976); KH 21–43; ANE 1:90–5; CANE 2:859–71, DANE 163–4, EA 3:266–8; C1/2:707–28.
10. KH 35; all dates for the Anatolian kings of the eighteenth century in this section are conjectural, to give a sense of the relative chronology.
11. KH; GH; J. Macqueen, The Hittites and their Contemporaries in Asia Minor 2nd edn (London: Thames and Hudson, 1986). Trevor Bryce, Life and Society in the Hittite World (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2002); EA 3:84–8; C2/1:228–55, 659–85.
12. KH 66–72; events in Labarna's reign are retrospectively described in the Telipinu Proclamation (CS 1:194a) and the Testament of Hattusilis (CS 2:81a). Labarna/Tabarna became a royal title among the Hittites, rather like Caesar among the Romans.
13. KH 72–89. We have three main sources (KH 66–7) for the reign of Hattusilis I: the Annals of Hattusilis (MHT 50–5 = HW2 47–55); the Testament of Hattusilis (MHT 100–7 = CS 2:79–82); these two are supplemented by a later retrospective summary in the Proclamation of Tilipinu (MHT 132–39 = CS 1:194–8).
14. Tawananna was a title of the leading female member of the Hittite royal family (KH 96–9).
15. Kurt Bittel, Hattusha: The Capital of the Hittites (New York, 1970); EA 1:333–5; DANE 54–5.
16. GH 148–9; KH 77–8; HW2 66–9; siegecraft in the Mari documents is discussed in Chapter Eight, exhibiting numerous parallels with the Hittite account. G. Beckman, “The Siege of Ursu Text (CHT 7)”, JCS, 47 (1995): 23–34.
17. This practice is mentioned frequently in the Bible (where it is called herem, “utter destruction”) and in the Mesha Stele (CS 2:137–8; ANET 320–1); P. Stern, The Biblical Herem (Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1989); S.-M. Kang, Divine War in the Old Testament and in the Ancient Near East (Berlin: de Gruyter, 1989). The practice was continued in classical warfare, such as in Alexander's destruction of Thebes {335} and Persepolis {330}, and the Romans’ destruction of Carthage {146}, Corinth {146}, and Jerusalem {70 CE}.
18. WH2; For Late Bronze Age Hittite military organization, some of which probably reflects earlier practices, see Richard H. Beal, The Organisation ofthe Hittite Military, Texte der Hethiter 20 (Heidelberg: Carl Winter, 1992) and summary in CANE 1:545–554.
19. Cylinder Seal, Kultepe (Karum), Anatolia, MBI, (WV §29; ELH §4); cylinder seal, Anatolia, MBII (FI 57, §841).
20. The standard study is WH; see also DANE 150; EA 3:125–30; AS 284–7 for more recent bibliography.
21. For a summary of the theories on the origin and homeland of the Hurrians, see C. Burney, “Hurrians and Proto-Indo-Europeans: the Ethnic Context of the Early Tras-Caucasian Culture”, in K. Emre et al. (editors), Anatolia and the Near East (Ankara: Türk Tarih Kurumu Basimevi, 1989), 45–51.
22. Kharbe (Tell Chuera, EA 1:491–2), Nagar/Nawar (Tell Brak, EA 1:355–6), and Urkesh (Tell Mozan, EA 4:60–3).
23. W. Hallo, “Simurrum and the Hurrian Frontier”, Revue Hittite et Asianique, 36 (1978): 71–83.
24. N. Na'aman, “The Hurrians and the End of the Middle Bronze Age in Palestine”, Levant, 26 (1994): 175–87.
25. The site of the Mitanni capital at Washukanni has not been identified; it is perhaps Tell Fakhariyah, EA 2:300–1. For bibliography on the Mitanni, see: DANE 200; CANE 2:1243–54; texts from fifteenth and fourteenth century Nuzi (EA 4:171–5; DANE 216; CANE 2:931–48) reflect Mitanni Hurrian culture, and include numerous items of military interest for Late Bronze warfare: T. Kendall, Warfare and Military Matters in the Nuzi Tablets, Ph.D dissertation (Waltham, MA: Brandeis University, 1974).
Chapter Twelve
1. For a popularized natural history of the Sahara, see Marq De Villiers and Sheila Hirtle, Sahara: A Natural History (New York: Walker & Co., 2002).
2. EAE 63–4; EBP; LA 4:344–8, 6:1069–76; EE 17–33.
3. EAE 2:493–4. Methodologically it should be emphasized that in the ancient Near East we are at the mercy of the happenstance of archaeological survival and discovery in attempting to reconstruct the origins of warfare. Although Naqada's importance in these developments should not be underestimated, it is quite possible that other equally or even more important sites existed, the remains of which have either not survived – potentially buried under several meters of Nile sediment – or have not yet been discovered or excavated. As a general principle, this applies to much of our historical knowledge of the military history of the ancient Near East.
4. EAE 1:200, 295; M= AAE 21 and HAAE 18, showing the major natural resources available to ancient Egypt.
5. DAE 226–8; EAE 3:61–5; LA 6:1069–76.
6. EAE 1:552–9, DAE 102–3; For the Pre-Dynastic period, see HEA 1:46–8 and A. Lawrence, “Ancient Egyptian Fortresses", JEA, 51 (1965): 69–70.
7. EAE 1:256–8; DAE 166–7; LA 3:414–15.
8. EG 510; AW 1:40, DAE 167, FP 33–5; EAE 2:407; disk-shaped mace heads remained in use largely for ritual purposes.
9. EDE 32, EWA 1; EWP 20–1, EE 36–7, AW 1:117, MB 44–5; PSE Figures 5–6; BAH 17.
10. DAE 109, EWP 26; AW 1:116, FP 157.
11. Hunter's Palette: EE 57; MB 93–118. Compare with figures depicted in GP 79.
12. See the “Towns” or “Libyan” Palette and the Bull Palette, discussed on pages 319 and 326. The depiction of two Horus banners among the hunters may imply some type of military function.
13. EE 54; EWP 29, MB 119–44; EWA 2; ISP 22–3.
14. Barbara Adams, Ancient Nekhen: Garstang in the City of Hierakonpolis (New Malden: Egyptian Studies Association, 1995); EDE 36–51; OHAE 61–7; DAE 226–8; EAE 2:98–100, 3:61–5; LA 2:1182–6; M= HAAE 22–3; AAE 30–1.
15. All dates given for this period are problematic estimates that could be higher or lower by as much as fifty years.
16. The name of this king of Abydos is actually unknown; Uj is apparently the name of the tomb that I am here using for the tomb's owner.
17. EDE 56–7; EE 56–7; AE 42–3; EBP 312–17. The name “Scorpion” derives from a hieroglyphic sign on his ceremonial mace-head; the Egyptian pronunciation is uncertain, perhaps something vaguely like Daret (d3rt).
18. EE 56, AW 1:121, MB 226–7, EAE 1:257; ISP 28–9.
19. EDE 39–40; AAA 28–34; Bruce Williams interprets some elements of Egyptian kingship as originating in Nubia: “Qustul: The Lost Pharaohs of Nubia”, Archaeology, 33/5 (1980): 13–21, with a more technical presentation in Excavations Between Abu Simbel and the Sudan Frontier. The A-Group Royal Cemetery at Qustul: Cemetary L (Chicago: University of Chicago, 1986), 163–90; for critiques of Williams's theory, see the summary and bibliography in EDE 39–40. The Kingdom of Ta-Sety, or Qustul, is associated by archaeologists with the “A-Group” Nubian culture (EAE 1:44–6).
20. EWP 36, MB 127, AE 60; EDE, 48, 51, 177–9.
21. For translation of the Palermo Stone (hereafter PS), with detailed commentary, see Toby A. H. Wilkinson, Royal Annals of Ancient Egypt: the Palermo Stone and its Associated Fragments (London: Kegan Paul International, 2000). A dated translation can be found in ARE 1:57–72; DAE 218 gives references to recent studies; EWP 24.
22. Using Classical historians as evidence for Egyptian history two millennia earlier is certainly fraught with difficulties; see J. Dillery, “The First Egyptian Narrative History: Manetho and Greek historiography”, Zeitschrift für Papyrologie und Epigraphik, 127 (1999): 93–116.
23. General surveys: OHAE 67–85; EDE 60–82, HAE, 52–4; LA 6:486–93, 1069–76.
24. EDE 67–70; EAE 2:494–5, 377–8; DAE 181,196–7; AE 43–9; LA 4:348–50.
25. Her. 2.4, 99; Man. 33; Diod. 1.45.
26. There is some controversy over whether the Menes of later Egyptian tradition should be associated with Narmer or with his son and successor Aha, or even with a conflation of several legendary kings (see discussions found in bibliography in EDE 68; EAE 2:377–8; DAE 17–18, 181, 196–7). For narrative purposes I here tentatively accept the link with Narmer.
27. TEM 40–1; AW 1.122, 124; MB 161–200; EWP 29; ISP 14–15.
28. EE 53, EWP 28, ECI 26, AW 1:51, FP 139; MB 229–32.
29. EDE 357–62; EAE 2:373–6; DAE 180, Her. 2.99; seals of Narmer's father Ka have been found in cemeteries near Memphis, indicating some type of settlement there before Narmer; Narmer probably greatly expanded the settlement and made it his capital, rather than creating an absolutely new city, EDE 58.
30. Remains of an additional Early Dynastic fortress have been found at Elephantine Island at Aswan, showing some of the characteristics of Early Dynastic fortifications, and may represent the southern frontier garrison of the new state; EWP 34.
31. Narmer's campaign – or that of a near successor – into Libya is memorialized in the “Cities (or Libyan) Palette” mentioned on p. 319 (EE 53, EWP 28, AW 1:51; TEM 38).
32. ECI 25; see also Yadin's interpretation of a symbol on the Narmer Palette as representing, in part, a campaign in Palestine, AW 1:124–5.
33. Or Hor-Aha; the name means “[the wargod] Horus fights”. EDE 70–1; DAE 17–18; AE 49–56; LA 1:94–6. As noted above (note 26), some scholars equate Aha, rather than his father Narmer, with the legendary Menes.
34. EDE 71–3; DAE 86; AE 56–64; LA 1:1109–11.
35. PS 190 = ARE 1:58; EDE 71.
36. Djer Palette, AE 60; PSE Figure 7; label depicting head-smiting of a naked enemy, EWA 9; LA 6:1126–7.
37. On Djet, see EDE 73–4; DAE 86–7; AE 69–73; on Merneith, see EDE 74–5; AE 65–9.
38. EDE 75–8; EAE 1:416; DAE 18, 84; AE 73–80; EWA 10–16; LA 1:1071–2.
39. EDE 76–7; EE 87, AW 1:125, FP 164, EWP 34, EDE 156, MB 214, EWA 12. It is traditional in Egyptology to describe the peoples of the Sinai, Canaan and Syria as “Asiatics” (c3mw), based on Classical Greek conceptualizations of “Asia” as the lands east of Europe (LA 1:462–71). In modern English, however, the term Asia(n) brings to mind India, China and Japan rather than Syria and Palestine. I therefore prefer the term “Easterner” and have changed all references in translations from “Asiatics” to “Easterners”.
40. EDE 78–80; DAE 33, 257–8; AE 80–6; early interpretations of an inscription of Semerkhet in the Sinai at Wadi al-Mughara have now been shown to be from Sekhemkhet of the Third Dynasty, discussed on p. 330.
41. EDE 80–1; DAE 236; AE 86–91; EWA 17.
42. For general summaries of Second Dynasty, see EDE 82–94; Aidan Dodson, “The Mysterious Second Dynasty”, KMT, 7/2 (1996): 19–31; OHAE 85–8; C1/2:29–35; AE 91–111; EAE 1:417–18.
43. PS 125–6 = ARE 1:62; EDE 85; EWA 18.
44. ECI, 36–7; ALB 117; EA 1:170.
45. Both the chronology of the Early Bronze Age in Canaan and that of the Egyptian kings of the early dynasties are quite uncertain. Depending on how one interprets the various possible chronologies, if Arad fell to Egyptians it could have been to any king in the Second or even the late First Dynasty.
46. EDE 89–91; AE 95–7; DAE 220. I here follow the suggestion of Wilkinson and DAE that Sekhemib-perenmaat is an alternative name for Peribsen. If not, then Sekhemib-perenmaat should be included as an additional king before Peribsen.
47. ANET 228a = EDE 89–90. In EWA 19–23, Redford interprets inw as “benevolence”, euphemistically referring to tribute. From the Egyptian perspective, tribute and conquest were inseparably bound.
48. Some scholars believe that the myth of the war between Seth and Horus found in later Egyptian documents is in part a reflection of the cultic struggles and wars of the late Second Dynasty. H. te Velde, Seth, God of Confusion (Leiden: E. J. Brill, 1967); C1/2:33; LA 3:25–7, 6:84–6.
49. EDE 91–4; EBP, 348–54; EAE 2:231; LA 1:910–12; AE 98–103, who follows older views that Khasekhem is a different ruler than Khasekhemwy – it is now understood that they are the same person and the second name was taken by the king after his reunification of Egypt.
50. The major sources for the arms and army of Early Dynastic Egyptian warriors are: “Painted tomb”, EE 36–7, AW 1:117; Gebal el-’Araq knife handle, AW 1:116; Battlefield Palette, EE 54; Hunter's Palette, EE 57, AW 1:118–19, FP 155; Narmer Palette, EE 52, AW 1:122–4; Libyan or Cities Palette, EE 53. Each of these has been discussed in this chapter.
51. PSE summarizes the evidence. The most prominent examples include: Narmer Palette: EE 52, AW 1.122–4, EWP 29; Den inscription, EE 87, AW 1:125, EDE 156; Cylinder seal from Hierakonpolis, AW 1:125.
52. The military art of this period includes numerous examples of icons for cities as walled enclosures; see ECI 27; EDE 119. The “City Palette” is the most famous; ECI 26; MB 230; EWA 4.
53. EWP 38, FP 128; AEA 71; HEA 1:46–8, EE 60,72–3; site plans of many tomb enclosures, presumably broadly paralleling fortification techniques, can be found in AE 38–104.
54. Bull Palette: AW 1:123; MB 144; EWA 3.
55. PS 92, 134, 136 = ARE 1:58, 64; EDE 210; LA 5:279–80.
56. SP 11–25; EBS 11–20; EAE3:281–4.
57. Conveniently collected in SP 12–25 and GP 68–74, 151–4, 192 and plates 9, 11–13, 15–16, 18–21, 23; EBS 11–20.
58. Lionel Casson, The Ancient Mariners, 2nd edn (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1991), Figure 1; EBS 16.
59. DAE 109; EWP 26, AW 1:116, EBS 18.
60. PSE 4–7 discusses major examples; MB. See EWA 134–40 for a list of all Early Dynastic and Old Kingdom sources depicting the ritual execution of enemies. Other forms of early human sacrifice are discussed in EDE 265–7. Although the Narmer Palette is the most striking and famous example from the period of the iconography of the victorious pharaoh ritually slaughtering his defeated foes, it was already the culmination of several centuries of artistic and ideological development.
Chapter Thirteen
1. For general surveys and additional bibliography, see C1/2:145–207; EAE 2:585–605; EDE 94–105; EOK; HAE 63–101; OHAE 89–117; M= HAAE 27.
2. For general surveys and additional bibliography, see C1/2:145–60; EAE 2:585–6, 5913; EDE 94–105; EOK; HAE 63–7; OHAE 90–3. Most of these accounts understandably focus on the great religious and cultural achievements, and funerary monuments such as Djoser's Step Pyramid at Saqqara.
3. Illustrations and translations of all these inscriptions from Wadi al-Mughara can be found in IS; hereafter I will provide only additional references to more accessible sources for illustrations of the Sinai martial reliefs; M= AAE 188.
4. EDE 94–5; king Djoser is more properly named Netjerikhet, but he is widely known today by the name Djoser, as preserved in later king-lists.
5. EDE 95–8; EOK 32–4; DAE 87; EWA 25a, FP 165.
6. MB 215, FP 166, PSE Figure 12; EDE 98–9; EOK 35; DAE 256–7; EWA 25b. I here follow Wilkinson's ordering of the kings.
7. EDE 101–3; EOK 36; EE 101, MB 215; PSE fig 10.
8. Inscription at Elephantine summarized in EAE 586a; a drawing of the fortress can be found in EWP 34.
9. For recent general overviews of the Fourth Dynasty with additional bibliography see: C1/2:160–79; EAE 2:586–8, 593–7; HAE 66–75; OHAE 93–109.
10. EAE 3:299–300; HAE 67–9.
11. PS 141 = ARE 1:66; the “sheep and goats” are ‘wt, meaning literally “small cattle”. On the dating and relative chronology of the fragments of the Palermo Stone, see PS 140, 259.
12. On Buhen, see the magnificent study by W. B. Emery et al., The Fortress of Buhen, 2 vols (London, Egypt Exploration Society, 1977–79), and discussion on pp. 443–5.
13. ANET 227b; EWP 40 and IS, figs 8 and 9, FP 167, PSE figs 13–14; EWA 27.
14. PS 235; the numbers are a bit obscure and have alternatively been read as 11,000 captives with 13,000 animals. Given the standard human-to-animal ratio of pastoral societies, Wilkinson's reading, given above, seems to be more accurate, and is also broadly proportional to the plunder figures from Nubia; see also EWA 26.
15. PS 141–3 = ANET 227a = ARE 1:65–6; for illustrations of such vessels from the Middle Kingdom, EBS 35.
16. EOK 43–5; PE 98–121; C1/2:169–72; HAE 69–71; EAE 2:234, 586; DAE 152. Greek writers (Her. 2.124–6; Man. 14–16; Diod. 1.63, calling him Chemmis) all tell tales about the Great Pyramid; none record any military legends. Unfortunately, the registers on the Palermo Stone covering the reigns of Fourth Dynasty kings after Sneferu are largely lost. Inscriptions of Khufu and subsequent rulers are largely funerary, with no military data (see ARE 1:83–95).
17. ANET 227b = ARE 1:83; IS Figure 7; FP 168; PSE, Figure 15; EWA 28.
18. On the late Fourth Dynasty, with additional bibliography, see: EAE 2:587–8, 591–3; HAE 66–75; C1/2:160–79.
19. PE 121–37; C1/2:174–6; HAE 73–4; EAE 2:229–31, 378–9, 588; DAE 149; Her. 2.127; Diod. 1.64.
20. EAE 2:378; PE 137–51; C1/2:176–8; DAE 181–2; Diod. 1.64.
21. For general overviews of the Fifth Dynasty with additional bibliography see: C1/2:180–9; EAE 2:588–90, 597–601; HAE 75–80; OHAE 109–13.
22. Stephen Quirke, The Cult of Ra: Sun Worship in Ancient Egypt (New York: Thames and Hudson, 2001); on Heliopolis, see AEA 105–6; EAE 2:88–9; LA 2:1111–13.
23. HAE 76–7; EAE 2:588–9, 598; C1/2:182–3.
24. PS 168 = ARE 1:70, 108; PSE Figure 16; EWA 31–2.
25. NEA 23; Ludwig Borchardt, Das Grabdenkmal des Königs Sahu-re (Leipzig: J. C. Hinrichs'sche Buchhandlung, 1910), plate 1. In part this scene is reconstructed by a close copy found in the Mortuary Temple of Pepi II (NEA 23).
26. NEA 24; Borchadt, Sahu-Re, plates 11 and 12; EWA 33.
27. HAE 77–8; EAE 2:589a, 599; EWA 35a. Evidence for expeditions from funerary temple: AEA 159; Miroslav Verner, Forgotten Pharaohs, Lost Pyramids, Abusir (Prague: Academia Skodaexport, 1974), pp. 133–54.
28. HAE 78–9; EAE 2:589–90, 600.
29. For recent general overviews of the Sixth Dynasty with additional bibliography see: EAE 3:33–4, 2:590–1, 602–4; HAE 80–9; C1/2:189–97; OHAE 113–17.
30. I will cite Lichtheim's translation, AEL 1:18–23; see alternatively: ANET 227–8; ARE 1:134–5, 140–4, 146–50; EAE 3:496; M = MBA §22. No chronological information is given in Weni's autobiography, so precise dates for his five campaigns are unknown, and are simply roughly estimated here.
31. The dates given here are a very rough estimate. Weni began service under Teti {2374–2354}; assuming he began his service late in Teti's reign {c. 2360} at around the age of 20 it would put his birth between 2380–2375. Weni apparently died during the reign of Merenre {2310–2300} (AEL 1:22) – the last king mentioned in his autobiography – which would put his death in his seventies, a venerable age for the time. His minimal dates are 2370–2310.
32. M = HAAE 27. This roughly corresponds to the modern area from Aswan in Egypt to Firka in Sudan.
33. Thomas Barfield, The Perilous Frontier: Nomadic Empires and China, 221 BC to AD 1757 (Cambridge: Blackwell, 1989), 87.
34. 34 Lichtheim translates imy-r cw as “chief of scouts”; I prefer “commander of foreigners", or even “ commander of foreign mercenaries”, on which see AAA 37, 95–6, n. 55 for extensive bibliography. The term imy-r is translated in different contexts as “commander”, “overseer”, or “chief”, while cw is translated “scouts”, “foreigners”, or “dragomans” (interpreter) (EMO 34). I will consistently change such variants to “commander of foreigners” throughout quotations from translations without further notification.
35. EAE 2:603–4; AEN.
36. AEL 1:23–7 = ARE 1:150–4, 157–61; EAE 2:116–17; LA 2:1129; Hans Goedicke, “Harkhuf's Travels”, JNES, 40 (1981):1–20; for map of Horkhuf's expeditions, see HAAE 27.
37. A. Spalinger, “Some notes on the Libyans of the Old Kingdom and later historical reflexes”, Society for the Study of Egyptian Antiquities Journal, 9 (1979): 125–60; LA 3:1015–33; EAE 2:290–3, 3:497–501; maps: HAAE 27; HAE 86. For general background on this region, see Lisa Giddy, Egyptian Oases (Warminster: Aris & Phillips, 1987).
38. EAE 2:291; Technically, the ethnonym Libyan derives from the Libu, a different, though probably related ethnic group which displaced the Tjehenu by about the Eighteenth Dynasty {beginning 1569}.
39. AE 53, EWP 28, ECI 26; MB 229–32.
40. EAE 3:34–5, 2:604; DAE 220; LA 4:928.
41. These figures are from Man. 21, but are supported by some contemporary evidence; other scholars suggest a total reign of 64 years.
42. AEAB 15–16 = ARE 1:161–4; EAE 3:33; LA 4:929; M = HAAE 27.
43. MAEM 139, 149–50; related rituals may be found in the Pyramid Texts, 244, 476, as well as in numerous Coffin Texts.
44. My spelling of the names is an approximate transliteration; the original, purely consonantal spellings are given by MAEM, 139.
45. The text is somewhat obscure; a variant reading might be 200 soldiers and workers in total.
46. EAE 1:32–7. Proper treatment of war dead – or, alternatively, acts of ritual abuse and mutilation of corpses – has been a serious religious and cultural issue from ancient times to the present streets of Falluja in Iraq. For the vastly greater evidence from classical Greece, see W. Kendrick Pritchett, The Greek State at War: pt. 4, Religion (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1985), 94–259; the Bible also reflects this concern in the treatment of the corpses of Saul and Jonathan, 1 Samuel 31.8–13.
47. The term “scout” appears to be a technical term for Nubian light infantry mercenaries, reflecting their frequent military function.
48. German readers should consult R. Müller-Wollermann, Krisenfaktoren im ägyptischen Staat des ausgehenden Alten Reiches, Dissertation (Tuübingen: 1986).
49. LA 4:513–14; BDAE 93; HAE 89; for later legends see Man. 21, Her. 2.100, 134; Diod. 1.64.14.
Chapter Fourteen
1. For a translation of the Pyramid Texts, see PT; for general background with references to major studies, see Erik Hornung, The Ancient Egyptian Books of the Afterlife, trans. David Lorton (Ithaca NY: Cornell University Press, 1999), 1–6, and the bibliography on 159–62; EAE 3:95–7.
2. On the myth of the combat of Horus and Seth, H. W. Fairman, The Triumph of Horus: an Ancient Egyptian Sacred Drama (London: Batsford, 1974), J. G. Griffiths, The Conflict of Horus and Seth from Egyptian and Classical Sources (Liverpool: Liverpool University Press, 1960); EAE 1:294–5, 2:119–22.
3. Khafre, EWP 67, TEM 69; Menkaure, EWP 68, 77, TEM 70–1.
4. The “Nine Bows” generally is a reference to all the traditional enemies of Egypt (DAE 203–4; EAE 2:164–5; LA 1:844–5, 4:472–3).
5. One text describes the “sword which is in your hand when you ascend from the Netherworld” (PT 247), but “sword” here is an anachronistic translation.
6. PT 21, 424, 461, 483, 509, 536, 610, 667, 667A, 669, 689.
7. See also PT 666A, 667, 667A, 724.
8. AW 1:146, FP 141–2; EWA §52; NEA 30–2, Figure 2a; AAK 2/1.4.
9. A famous scene from the tomb of Niankhkhnum at Saqqara {c. 2450} depicts workmen smelting metal, confirming its increasing importance in Egyptian society by that time (EWP 88; ISP 80–1; FP 25).
10. The more narrow and elongated blade of the New Kingdom era (AW 1:180–1, 184–5; FP 47–8), designed for penetrating rather than cutting, called 3khw (EG 511, sign T7), is not known in the Middle Kingdom.
11. AEA 91–3; EAE 1:552–3; LA 2:194–204. A. W. Lawrence, “Ancient Egyptian Fortifications”, JEA, 51 (1965): 69–71. References in this section to AEA provide bibliography for the archaeological reports for each site.
12. PT 665, 665B, 611, 665A, 715, 720.
13. AW 1:146, FP 141–2; EWA §52; NEA 30–2, Figure 2a; AAK 2/1.4
14. AW 1:147, FP 140. EWW 38; EWA §53; NEA 30–2.
15. Gaballa (NEA 31) interprets the scene as people and animals entering a shelter. I see the objects at the right and left of the third and fourth panels as piles of grain; they bear broad resemblance to related hieroglyphs for a “heap of corn” (EG 483, sign M35), “sandy hill” (EG 489, sign N29) and “half-loaf of bread” (EG 532, sign X7). The animals are clearly thrusting their heads into the object, possibly eating from the grain pile.
16. Gaballa (NEA 31) sees the women as berating and striking the men who ran from the battle; this may be implied in a couple of instances, but in others the women seem clearly to be caring for the wounded.
17. Other passages also describe a ladder by which the king ascends into heaven: PT 271, 306, 478, 530, 572, 586A, 625.
18. P. Lipke, The Royal Ships of Cheops (Oxford: BAR, 1984); SP 26–34; EBS 21–2; EAE 3:281–4; OHAE 97; ISP 104–5; FP 169. Shipbuilding is mentioned in the royal annals of Khufu (PS 223). This remarkable boat has been restored and can be seen in a museum beside the Great Pyramid.
19. SP 94–7; EWP 90–3; TEM 52–3; SGAE 101–3; ISP 41.
Chapter Fifteen
1. For general surveys see OHAE 118–47, 457–9; EAE 1:526–32; LA 6:1437–42; C1/2:464–531; HAE 137–54; Barbara Bell, “The Dark Ages in Ancient History I: The First Dark Age in Egypt”, American Journal of Archaeology, 75/1 (1971): 1–26.
2. Modern scholars view Manetho's Ninth and Tenth dynasties (Man. 27–30) as a single dynasty, mistakenly divided in two by later Egyptian tradition (EAE 1:527–8). Here I will simply call both dynasties the Ninth, or Herakleopolitan Dynasty; there will thus be no discussion of a Tenth Dynasty. Its capital, known by its Greek name Herakleopolis (ancient: Heneneswe; modern: Ihnasiya), was the capital of the twentieth nome in middle Egypt; see EAE 2:91–3; LA 2:1124–8; DAE 124. M = HAAE 31.
3. AF 29–41 = AEAB 24–6 = AEL 1:85–6 (abridged) = HAE 142; EAE 1:94–5; LA 1:267–8.
4. John and Deborah Darnell, “New Inscriptions of the Late First Intermediate Period from the Theban Western Desert and the Beginnings of the Northern Expansion of the Eleventh Dynasty”, JNES, 56 (1997): 241–58, quotation on 251.
5. Darnell and Darnell, “New Inscriptions”, 244; EAE 1:528.
6. C2/1:466–8; HAE 143–7.
7. Background, EAE 2:169–70; translation TS 212–34 = VAE 52–4 = AEL 1:97–109 (abridged).
8. Lichtheim agrees that the text contains “valid, rather than fictitious, historical information” (AEL 1:97); Grimal also accepts its historicity (HAE 140–6).
9. Ralph D. Sawyer (trans.), Seven Military Classics of Ancient China (Boulder, CO: Westview, 1993), 145–186. Sun Tzu is traditionally said to have written in the early fifth century BC, but many scholars feel the text attributed to him was actually written in the third century BC (Sawyer, 149–50).
10. Adrian Goldsworth, The Complete Roman Army (London: Thames and Hudson, 2003), 27.
11. Henry Fischer, “Nubian Mercenaries of Gebelein during the First Intermediate Period”, Kush, 9 (1961): 44–80.
Chapter Sixteen
1. C1/2:464–531; CANE 2:735–48; EAE 2:393–400; HAE 155–81; OHAE 148–83; MKT; Janine Bourriau, Pharaohs and Mortals: Egyptian Art in the Middle Kingdom (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1988).
2. C1/2:472–95; HAE 155–8; OHAE 148–57.
3. EAE 2:436–8; C1/2:479–88; HAE 155–8; DAE 183; AEA 149–50; LA 6:66. His names mean “[The Theban war god] Montu is content”. Some scholars reckon this Montuhotep as the second, counting his distant ancestor, a nomarch at Thebes, as Montuhotep I.
4. ITM 26–7; as noted on p. 489, n. 2, following current historical interpretation I am calling the combined Ninth and Tenth Dynasties the “Ninth” Dynasty.
5. Redford, ECI 70, believes the term “Easterners of D3ty” in Tjehemau's inscription has reference to Canaanites rather than to a Nubian tribe.
6. C1/2:488–92; HAE 157–8; OHAE 155–7; LA 6:68.
7. AEAB 52–4 = ARE 1:208–10; W. C. Hayes “The Career of the Great Steward Henenu under Nabhepetre, Mentuhotpe”, JEA, 35 (1949): 43–9.
8. Wadi Hammamat Inscription of Amenemhet I (ARE 1:211–16 = AEL 1:113–15 and ECI 71–2 (both partial). The expedition lasted at least a month, with dates on the inscriptions ranging from day three to day twenty-eight of the “second month”.
9. “Prophecy of Neferti” = TS 131–43 = AEL 1:139–45 = CS 1:106–10 = VAE 34–6; EAE 2:512–13; LA 4:380–1.
10. For general overviews with additional bibliography, see: EAE 3:453–7; C1/2:495–31; HAE 158–81; OHAE 158–83.
11. AIB; EAE 1:68–9; C1/2:492–499; HAE 158–64; OHAE 158–60; LA 1:188.
12. TS 203–11 = AEL 1:135–9 = ANET 418–19 = VAE 48–52; EAE 2:171.
13. The best study of the military affairs in the reign of Senwosret I is SI (in French); LA 5:890–9; EAE 3:266–8; C1/2:499–505; HAE 161–5; OHAE 160–2.
14. AEA 138 = ARE 1:251; See also the fragmentary inscription of the nomarch Sir-enpowet from an Aswan tomb, ARE 1:247, note b.
15. Peter Green, Alexander of Macedon, 356–323 BC: A Historical Biography (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1991), 402–11.
16. C1/2:502–4; HAE 165–6; LA 1:189; OHAE 163–4.
17. Donald Redford, Pharaonic King-lists, Annals and Day-books (Mississauga, Ontario: Benben Publications, 1986); EAE 1:95–7, 2:105–6.
18. C1/2:503; LA 5:899–903; OHAE 164–5.
19. Robert D. Delia, “A Study of the Reign of Senwosret III”, Ph.D. dissertation (New York: Columbia University, 1980); C1/2:505–9; EAE 3:268–9; HAE 166–9; LA 5:903–6; OHAE 165–7.
20. Her. 2.101–7, 137; Man. 34–6; Diod. 1.53–8; Diodorus gives an extraordinarily exaggerated and anachronistic size for the Syrian campaign army – 600,000 infantry, 24,000 cavalry, and 27,000 war-chariots (1.53).
21. AAA 58–63; M = HAAE 51, CAAE 41. His achievements in Nubia led to his later deification as a patron god of Nubia. Late Greek legends on the Nubian campaign: Diod. 1.55.
22. An inundation mark from Dal near the Third Cataract, dated to year 10 {1868}, indicates ongoing Egyptian administrative activity in the area, probably associated with the building of the fortification complex.
23. On the early Kingdom of Kush, see Stuart Smith, Askut in Nubia: The Economics and Ideology of Egyptian Imperialism in the Second Millennium B.C. (London: Kegan Paul International, 1995); Timothy Kendall, Kerma and the Kingdom of Kush, 2500–1500 BC (Washington, DC: ational Museum of African Art, Smithsonian Institution, 1997); Barry J. Kemp, “Old Kingdom, Middle Kingdom and Second Intermediate Period in Egypt,” in J. D. Clark (editor), The Cambridge History of Africa, vol. 1: From the Earliest Times to c. 500 BC (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1982), 658–769; EAE 2:250–2; LA 3:888–901; M= AAE 187, HAAE 51.
24. Herodotus 2.100–110; Diodorus 1.53–58. K. Lange, Sesostris (Munich: 1954), reviews these classical legends.
25. It appears that the Greeks attributed a number of unknown stele and inscriptions to Senwosret (Diodorus 1.55), much in the same way that medieval Arabs would attribute many ancient monuments to the ubiquitous “Pharaoh”.
26. Ronald J. Leprohon, “The Reign of Amenemhet III”, PhD dissertation (Toronto: University of Toronto, 1980), hereafter RA3; C1/2:509–12; EAE 1:69–70; HAE 16970; LA 1:190; OHAE 167–70.
27. Her. 2.148–9; Man. 34–6; Strabo 17.1.3, 37, 42; Diod. 1.61, 66, 89, 97; Pliny, Natural History, 36.13; EAE 14.
28. RA3, 10–184, translates all known inscriptions from Amenemhet's reign.
29. EAE 1:219–21; DANE 62; RA3 228; LA 1:889–91.
30. EAE 3:301; HAE 171; LA 1:191; OHAE 170–1.
Chapter Seventeen
1. EAE 2:238–45; D. O'Connor and David P. Silverman (editors), Ancient Egyptian Kingship (Leiden: Brill Academic Publishers, 1995), Oleg Berlev, “The Eleventh Dynasty and the Egyptian concept of Kingship”, in Dwight Young (editor), Studies Presented to Hans Polotsky (East Gloucester, MA, 1981), 361–77.
2. Harakhty was a manifestation of Horus (EAE 2:146–7).
3. Divine support of Alexander the Great on his expedition to Siwa Oasis in the Western Desert was manifest by a similar unexpected rainstorm in the desert that saved the army from thirst; Peter Green, Alexander of Macedon, 356–323 BC: A Historical Biography (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1991), 274.
4. Descriptions by Diodorus (1.53) of oracular dreams concerning Senwosret III (Sesoosis) derive from the Greek worldview, but may parallel earlier ancient Egyptian traditions of prophecies and oracular dreams.
5. Partial translations: CS 1:50–2, ANET 328–9, VAE 125–6. Discussions: MAEM 13690, with detailed bibliography; EAE 1:487–9; C1/2:508–9. For general introductions to Egyptian magic see MAEM; EAE 2:321–36; Geraldine Pinch, Magic in Ancient Egypt (Austin: University of Texas Press, 1994); Bob Brier, Ancient Egyptian Magic (New York: Quill, 1981).
6. Jeremiah performs a similar ritual curse symbolized by the breaking of a pot, Jeremiah 19.1–11.
7. TEM 40–1; AW 1.122, 124; MB 161–200; EWP 29; ISP 14–15.
8. Although the Coffin Texts are mythic and magical rituals regarding the afterlife, I am here assuming that their descriptions of weapons and warfare reflect actual practices. On the background of the Coffin Texts, see EAE 1:287–8 and Erik Hornung, The Ancient Egyptian Books of the Afterlife (Ithaca: Cornell University Press, 1999), 7–12, 162–4.
9. Rituals of protection against enemies or cursing enemies are fairly common in the Coffin Texts; see, for example, CT 45, 49, 89, 313, 439, and 454, among many others.
10. EWW 31–9; EAE 2:406–12; BAH 20–59; FP 21–74.
11. Wallace McLeod, Self Bows and Other Archery Tackle from the Tomb of Tut'ankhamun, Tut'ankhamun's Tomb Series 4 (Oxford: Oxbow Books, 1982).
12. On the different designs and nomenclature of early bows, see Edward McEwen, Robert L. Miller and Christopher A. Bergman, “Early Bow design and construction”, Scientific American (June 1991), 264/6: 50–6.
13. The tomb of the Eighteenth Dynasty {1569–1315} Nubian archer Maiherperi in the Valley of the Kings has some well preserved Egyptian archery equipment (FP 44–6), much of which would have been similar to Middle Kingdom equipment.
14. BH 1 §13, §30; BH 2 §13, §34; BAH 53; FP 40–1. Observations on the different penetrating power derived from different methods of drawing the bow were made by the sixth-century Byzantine historian Procopius, History of the Wars, 1.1.6–17, trans. H. Dewing, Procopius, 7 vols (Cambridge MA: Harvard University Press, 1914–1940), 1:4–9.
15. BH 1 §30, BH 2 §4; FP 40, 47; AW 1:9; BAH 53–4.
16. Janine Bourriau, Pharaohs and Mortals: Egyptian Art in the Middle Kingdom (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1988), pp. 162–3, includes examples of daggers and axes from the Middle Kingdom.
17. EWW 35; AW 1:146–7, 154–5, 168–71; FP 49; BAH pl. 10.
18. FP 50–1; PSE figs 33–4, 50, 54–6, 63–6, 70–3, 85.
19. AW 1:158; FP 52; EWW 34; BAH 58.
20. SGAE 70–82, AW 1:71, EWP 120–1, 126; BH 1 §14–16; BH 2 §5, 8, 32.
21. This translation is a mixture of AEL 1:225–6 and TS 30–1, with my own interpretations added in square brackets.
22. Translations: TS 21–53; AEL 1:222–35; CS 1:77–82; ANET 18–22 (abridged). Studies: ECI 83–6; LA 5:950–5; EAE 3:292.
23. B. Fenik, Typical Battle Scenes in the Iliad (Wiesbaden: Steiner Verlag, 1968).
24. BH; EAE 1:175–7; EWP 120–1, 126; NEA 39–40.
25. BH 2 §15; AW 158–61; EWP 120; FA 94–5.
26. BH 2 §5; SGAE 75.
27. BH 1 §14–16; AW 169; EWP 121, 126.
28. BH 1 §47.
29. Theban Tomb 386: GJ §2; EWW 38; NEA 38–9, Figure 3.
30. There are also eleven Canaanite mercenaries in the mural of Tomb 15, which are discussed on pp. 279–80 and p. 438.
31. Christopher Spring, African Arms and Armor (Washington, DC: Smithsonian Institution Press, 1993), 29, pl. 4.
32. FB; BI; AEF; AW 1:16–24; EAE 1:552–9; AEA 90–3; LA 2:194–203; FP 127–38.
33. AEA 82–3; EAE 1:467–9; HEA 3:38–42; FP 128.
34. AEA 91–3; FP 130–4; HEA 3:200–29; Somers Clarke, “Ancient Egyptian Frontier Fortresses”, JEA, 3 (1916): 155–79.
35. The major fortresses will be listed by their modern archaeological name, followed by the ancient Egyptian name where known; the Egyptian names are taken from EAE 1:555. The rough size of each fortress is given in meters, along with a reference to AEA, where full bibliographic references to the major archaeological reports and studies are provided. M = HAAE 51.
36. SW; AW 1:69–71; LA 3:765–86; FP 138–48.
37. The fullest mural is from Tomb 17: BH 2 §15, AW 1:158–9, SW 14, FA 94–5; each of the murals have slight differences in detail, making them worth consulting individually; see also Tomb 15, BH 2 §5; and Tomb 2, BH 1 §14, FP 148.
38. SP 75–97; EWW 59–63; EBS 27–36; EAE 3:281–4.
39. BH 1 §14, §16, §29; BH 2 §12.
40. Dilwyn Jones, A Glossary of Ancient Egyptian Nautical Titles and Terms (London: Kegan Paul, 1988).
41. CT 398, 400, 404, 405, 409.
42. AW 2:340–1; SP 111–13; EBS 45; EAE 2:356–8; AEA 143–5; Harold Nelson (editor), Medinet Habu, vol. 1: Earlier Historical Records of Ramses III (Chicago: University of Chicago, 1930), pl. 37–41; AAK 2, pl. 115–17.
Chapter Eighteen
1. SIP; LA 6:1442–8; EAE 3:260–5; Barry J. Kemp, “Old Kingdom, Middle Kingdom and Second Intermediate Period in Egypt”, in J. D. Clark (editor), The Cambridge History of Africa, vol. 1: From the Earliest Times to c. 500 BC (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1982), 736–60.
2. On the Turin Canon king-list for this period, see SIP 9–33, 69–74, 94–9, 118–19, 151–6, 164–5 = CS 1:71–3; for the scarab seals see SIP 34–68. The Abydos King-lists ignore this period entirely, CS 1:69–70.
3. SIP; for alternative views, see EAE 3:260–5 and the bibliography found there.
4. This chart is based on SIP 6, 186–91. However, Ryholt follows a chronological interpretation that places the end of the Twelfth Dynasty in 1803, while EAE chronology, which I follow, places it in 1786. Ryholt also dates the accession of Ahmose to 1550, whereas the EAE dates it to 1569. Thus, according to the EAE chronology the Second Intermediate Period is twenty-six years shorter than in Ryholt's chronology. To be consistent I will follow the EAE chronology, taking the surplus twenty-six years from the period of the Thirteenth and Fourteenth Dynasties.
5. Stuart Smith, Askut in Nubia: The Economics and Ideology of Egyptian Imperialism in the Second Millennium B.C. (London: Kegan Paul International, 1995). 81–140; EAE 2:250–2; Kemp, “Old Kingdom, Middle Kingdom and Second Intermediate Period in Egypt,”: 747–60; AAA 64–72.
6. Summarized by AAA 67–70; Smith, Askut, 110–30.
7. Dates for all Fourteenth Dynasty kings are very rough estimates, based on SIP 114 (and elsewhere), and adjusted to match the difference between SIP chronology and that used in this book.
8. Thomas S. Burns, Rome and the Barbarians: 100 B.C. – A.D. 400 (Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 2003).
9. On the Hyksos, or Fifteenth Dynasty, see SIP 118–50, 256–8, 301–5, EAE 2:136–43, ECI 98–122, E. Oren (editor). The Hyksos: New Historical and Archaeological Perspectives (Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania, 1997); M. Bietak, Avaris, The Capital of the Hyksos (London: British Museum, 1996).