ARAM

Aram is a region mentioned in the Bible located in central Syria, including where the city
of Aleppo (aka Halab) now stands. Aram stretched from the Lebanon mountains eastward across
the Euphrates, including the Khabur River valley in northwestern Mesopotamia on the border
of Assyria.
Judeo-Christian tradition claims the name is derived from the biblical Aram, son of Shem, a
grandson of Noah in the Bible.[2] No ancient records of the time have been found mentioning such a
person, however there are records of various Semitic peoples to the west of Mesopotamia such
as Ahlamu and Amurru.[3]
The toponym A-ra-mu appears in an inscription at Ebla listing geographical names, and the
term Armi, which is the Eblaite term for nearby Aleppo, occurs frequently in the Ebla tablets (ca.
2300 BC). One of the annals of Naram-Sin of Akkad (c. 2250 BC) mentions that he captured "Dubul,
the ensi of A-ra-me" (Arame is seemingly a genitive form), in the course of a campaign
against Simurrum in the northern mountains.[4] Other early references to a place or people of "Aram"
have appeared at the archives of Mari (c. 1900 BC) and at Ugarit (c. 1300 BC). There is little
agreement concerning what, if any, relationship there was between these places, or if the Aramu
were actually Aramaeans; the earliest undisputed mention of Aramaeans as a people is in the
inscriptions of the Assyrian king, Tiglath Pileser I (11141076 BC).[5]
Several of the Aramaean territories located within Aram are also referenced in the Hebrew Bible.
These include Aram-Naharaim, Paddan-Aram, Aram-Damascus,Aram-Rehob, and Aram-Zobah.
The Arameans appear to have displaced the earlier Semitic Amorite populations of ancient Syria
during the period from 1200 BC to 900 BC, which was a dark age for the entire Near East, North
Africa, Caucasus, Mediterranean regions, with great upheavals and mass movements of people. The
Arameans were attacked and conquered by Tiglath-Pileser I (1115- 1077 BC) of Assyria, and were
incorporated into the Middle Assyrian Empire which encompassed much of the Near East.[6] Two
medium-sized Aramaean kingdoms, Aram-Damascus and Hamath, along with several smaller
kingdoms and independent city-states, developed in the region during the early first millennium BCE.
There was some synthesis with neo Hittite populations in northern Syria and south central Anatolia,
and a number of small Syro-Hittite states arose in the region, such as Tabal.
During the period 1200 - 900 BC Arameans came to dominate most of what is now Syria. With the
advent of the Neo Assyrian Empire (911 - 605 BC), the region fell fully under the control of Assyria in
732 BC.[7] Large numbers of people living there were deported into Assyria and Babylonia. A
few steles that name kings of this period have been found, such as the 8th century Zakkur stele.

In 332 BC the region was conquered by the Greek ruler, Alexander the Great. Upon his death in 323
BC this area became part of the Greek Seleucid Empire, at which point Greek replaced Aramaic as
the official language of Empire. This area and other parts of the former Assyrian Empire to the east
were renamed Syria, aHurrian, Luwian and Greek corruption of Assyria.[8] It is from this period that
the later Syria vs Assyria naming controversy arises, the Seleucids confusingly applied the name not
only to the Mesopotamian land of Assyria itself, but also to the lands west of Euphrates which had
never been part of Assyria itself, but merely Aramean inhabited colonies. When they lost control of
Assyria itself to the Parthians, the name Syria survived and was applied only to the land west
of Euphrates, that had once been part of the Assyrian empire, while Assyria went back to being
called Assyria (and also Athura/Assuristan). However, this situation led to both Assyrians and
Arameans being dubbed Syrians in Greco-Roman culture.
This area, by now called Syria, was fought over by Seleucids and Parthians during the 2nd century
BC, and later still by the Romans and Sassanid Persians.Palmyra, a powerful Aramean kingdom
arose during this period, and for a time it dominated the area and successfully resisted Roman and
Persian attempts at conquest.[6] The region eventually came under the control of the Byzantine
Empire. Christianity began to take hold from the 1st to 3rd Centuries AD, and the Aramaic language
gradually supplanted Canaanite in Phoenecia and Hebrew in Israel/Palestine.
The Nabateans dominated the region between 100 BC and 100 AD, its most famous city
being Petra. The Nabatean kingdom was eventually conquered by Rome.
In the mid 7th century AD the region fell to the Arab Islamic conquest. The Aramaic language
and Christianity survived among a sizable portion of the population of Syria, who
resisted Arabization and Islamification. However, the native Western Aramaic of the Aramean
Christian population of Syria is spoken today by only a few thousand people, the majority having
now adopted the Arabic language, if not an Arab identity. Mesopotamian Eastern Aramaic, which still
contains a number of loan words from the Akkadian language, as well as structural similarities, still
survives among the majority of ethnically distinct Assyrians, who are mainly based in northernIraq,
north east Syria, south east Turkey and north west Iran.

MOAB
Moab (/mob/; Moabite: Mb; Arabic Mu'b; Hebrew: ,, Modern Mo'av Tiberian M
; "seed of father";Greek Mav; Assyrian Mu'aba, Ma'ba, Ma'ab; Egyptian Mu'ab) is the
historical name for a mountainous strip of land in Jordan. The land lies alongside much of the
eastern shore of the Dead Sea. The existence of the Kingdom of Moab is attested to by numerous
archeological findings, most notably the Mesha Stele, which describes the Moabite victory over an

unnamed son of King Omri of Israel.[1] The Moabite capital was Dibon. According to the Bible, Moab
was often in conflict with its Israelite neighbours to the west.
The Moabites were likely settling in the Transjordanian highlands. Whether they were among the
nations referred to in the Ancient Egyptian language as Shutu or Shasu is a matter of some debate
among scholars. Despite a scarcity of archaeological evidence, the existence of Moab prior to the
rise of the Israelite state has been deduced from a colossal statue erected
at Luxor by Pharaoh Ramesses II, in the 13th century BCE, which lists Mu'ab among a series of
nations conquered during a campaign.
According to the biblical account, Moab and Ammon were born to Lot and Lot's elder and younger
daughters, respectively, in the aftermath of the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah. The Bible refers
to both the Moabites and Ammonites as Lot's sons Genesis 19:37-38.
The Moabites first inhabited the rich highlands at the eastern side of the chasm of the Dead Sea,
extending as far north as the mountain of Gilead, from which country they expelled the Emim, the
original inhabitants,[2] but they themselves were afterward driven southward by warlike tribes
of Amorites, who had crossed the river Jordan. These Amorites, described in the Bible as being ruled
by King Sihon, confined the Moabites to the country south of the river Arnon, which formed their
northern boundary.[3]
The Israelites, in entering the "promised land", did not pass through the land of the Moabites
(Judges 11:18), but conquered Sihon's kingdom and his capital at Heshbon. After the conquest
of Canaan the relations of Moab with Israel were of a mixed character, sometimes warlike and
sometimes peaceable. With the tribe of Benjamin they had at least one severe struggle, in union with
their kindred the Ammonites and the Amalekites.[4] The Benjaminite shofet Ehud ben
Gera assassinated the Moabite king Eglon and led an Israelite army against the Moabites at a ford
of the Jordan river, killing many of them.
The Book of Ruth, on the other hand, testifies to the existence of a friendly intercourse between
Moab and Bethlehem, one of the towns of the tribe of Judah. By his descent from Ruth, David may
be said to have had Moabite blood in his veins. He committed his parents to the protection of the
king of Moab (who may have been his kinsman), when hard pressed by King Saul. (1 Samuel
22:3,4) But here all friendly relations stop forever. The next time the name is mentioned is in the
account of David's war, who made the Moabites tributary.[5] Moab may have been under the rule of
an Israelite governor during this period; among the exiles who returned to Judea
from Babylonia were a clan descended from Pahath-Moab, whose name means "ruler of Moab".
After the destruction of the First Temple, the knowledge of which people belonged to which nation
was lost and the Moabites were treated the same as other gentiles. As a result, all members of the
nations could convert to Judaism without restriction. The problem in Ezra and Nehemiah occurred

because Jewish men married women from the various nations without their first converting to
Judaism.
At the disruption of the kingdom under the reign of Rehoboam, Moab seems to have been absorbed
into the northern realm. It continued in vassalage to the Kingdom of Israel until the death
of Ahab which according to E. R. Thiele's reckoning was in about 853 BCE,[6] when the Moabites
refused to pay tribute and asserted their independence, making war upon the kingdom of Judah. [7]
After the death of Ahab in about 853 BCE, the Moabites under Mesha rebelled against Jehoram,
who allied himself with Jehoshaphat, King of the Kingdom of Judah, and with the King of Edom.
According to the Bible, the prophetElisha directed the Israelites to dig a series of ditches between
themselves and the enemy, and during the night these channels were miraculously filled with water
which was as red as blood. Deceived by the crimson color into the belief that their opponents had
attacked one another, the Moabites became overconfident and were entrapped and utterly defeated
at Ziz, near En Gedi,[8] which states that the Moabites and their allies, the Ammonites and the
inhabitants of Mount Seir, mistook one another for the enemy, and so destroyed one another).
According to Mesha's inscription on the Mesha Stele, however, he was completely victorious and
regained all the territory of which Israel had deprived him. The battle of Ziz is the last important date
in the history of the Moabites as recorded in the Bible. In the year of Elisha's death they invaded
Israel.[9] and later aided Nebuchadnezzar in his expedition againstJehoiakim.[10]
Although allusions to Moab are frequent in the prophetical books[11] and although two chapters of
Isaiah (xv.-xvi.) and one of Jeremiah (xlviii.) are devoted to the "burden of Moab," they give little
information about the land. Its prosperity and pride, which the Israelites believed incurred the wrath
of God, are frequently mentioned;[12] and their contempt for Israel is once expressly noted. [13]
In the Nimrud clay inscription of Tiglath-pileser III the Moabite king Salmanu(perhaps the Shalman
who sacked Beth-arbel in Hosea x. 14) is mentioned as tributary to Assyria. Sargon II mentions on a
clay prism a revolt against him by Moab together with Philistia, Judah, and Edom; but on the Taylor
prism, which recounts the expedition against Hezekiah, Kammusu-Nadbi (Chemosh-nadab), King of
Moab, brings tribute to Sargon as his suzerain. Another Moabite king, Mutzuri ("the Egyptian" ?), is
mentioned as one of the subject princes at the courts of Esarhaddon and Assurbanipal,
whileKaashalta, possibly his successor, is named on cylinder B of Assurbanipal.
Sometime during the Persian period Moab disappears from the extant historical record. Its territory
was subsequently overrun by waves of tribes from northern Arabia, including the Kedarites and
(later) the Nabataeans. In Nehemiah 4:1 the Arabs are mentioned instead of the Moabites as the
allies of the Ammonites.[14] Their region, however, continued to be known by its biblical name for
some time. For example, when theCrusaders occupied the area, the castle they built to defend the
eastern part of the Kingdom of Jerusalem was called Krak des Moabites.

EDOM
Edom (/idm/[1] or /i.dm/;[2] Hebrew: ,
, Modern Edom Tiberian m;
"red"; Assyrian: Udumi; Syriac: )orIdumea (Greek: , Idoumaa; Latin: Idmaea) was
a Semite-inhabited historical region of the Southern Levant located south of Judea and the Dead
Sea mostly in the Negev. It is mentioned in biblical records as a 1st millennium BC Iron Age kingdom
of Edom,[3] and in classical antiquity the cognate name Idumea was used to refer to a smaller area in
the same region. The name Edom means "red" in Hebrew, and was given to Esau, the elder son of
the Hebrew patriarch Isaac, once he ate the "red pottage", which the Bible used in irony at the fact
he was born "red all over".[4] The Torah, Tanakh and New Testament thus describe the Edomites as
descendants of Esau.
The Edomites may have been connected with the Shasu and Shutu, nomadic raiders mentioned
in Egyptian sources. Indeed, a letter from an Egyptian scribe at a border fortress in the Wadi
Tumilat during the reign of Merneptahreports movement of nomadic "shasu-tribes of Edom" to
watering holes in Egyptian territory.[5] The earliest Iron Age settlementspossibly copper mining
campsdate to the 9th century BC. Settlement intensified by the late 8th century BC and the main
sites so far excavated have been dated between the 8th and 6th centuries BC. The last
unambiguous reference to Edom is an Assyrian inscription of 667 BC; it has thus been unclear
when, how and why Edom ceased to exist as a state, although many scholars point to scriptural
references in the Bible, specifically the historical Book of Obadiah, to explain this fact.[3]
Edom is mentioned in Assyrian cuneiform inscriptions in the form "Udumi" or "Udumu"; three of its
kings are known from the same source: Kaus-malaka at the time of Tiglath-pileser III (c.
745 BC), Malik-rammu at the time of Sennacherib (c. 705 BC), and Kaus-gabri at the time
of Esarhaddon (c. 680 BC). According to the Egyptian inscriptions, the "Aduma" at times extended
their possessions to the borders of Egypt.[6] After the conquest of Judah by the Babylonians,
Edomites settled in the region of Hebron. They prospered in this new country, called by the Greeks
and Romans "Idumaea" or "Idumea", for more than four centuries.[7] Strabo, writing around the time
of Christ, held that the Idumaeans, whom he identified as of Nabataean origin, constituted the
majority of the population of Western Judea, where they commingled with the Judaeans and
adopted their customs.
The Edomites' original country, according to the Tanakh, stretched from the Sinai peninsula as far
as Kadesh Barnea. Southward it reached as far as Eilat, which was the seaport of Edom.[9] On the
north of Edom was the territory of Moab.[10] The boundary between Moab and Edom was the Wadi
Zered.[11] The ancient capital of Edom was Bozrah.[12] According to Genesis, Esau's descendants
settled in this land after displacing the Horites. It was also called the land of Seir; Mount
Seir appears to have been strongly identified with them and may have been a cultic site. In the time

of Amaziah (838 BC), Selah (Petra) was its principal stronghold,[13] Eilat and Eziongeber its seaports.[14]
Genesis 36 lists the kings of Edom:
These are the kings who ruled in the land of Edom before a king ruled the children of Israel.
And Bela ben Beor ruled in Edom, and the name of his city was Dinhabah. And Bela died, and Jobab
ben Zerah from Bozrah ruled in his place. AndJobab died, and Husham of the land of Temani ruled
in his place. And Husham died, and Hadad ben Bedad, who struckMidian in the field of Moab, ruled
in his place, and the name of his city was Avith. And Hadad died, and Samlah of Masrekah ruled in
his place. And Samlah died, and Saul of Rehoboth on the river ruled in his place. And Saul died,
andBaal-hanan ben Achbor ruled in his place. And Baal-hanan ben Achbor died, and Hadar ruled in
his place, and the name of his city was Pau, and his wife's name was Mehetabel bat Matred bat
Mezahab. And these are the names of the clans ofEsau by their families, by their places, by their
names: clan Timnah, clan Alvah, clan Jetheth, clan Aholibamah, clan Elah, clan Pinon, clan Kenaz,
clan Teman, clan Mibzar, clan Magdiel, clan Iram.[15]
The Hebrew word translated as leader of a clan is aluf, used solely to describe the Dukes of Edom
and Moab, in the first five books of Moses. However beginning in the books of the later prophets the
word is used to describe Judean generals, for example, in the prophecies of Zachariah twice (9:7,
12:56) it had evolved to describe Jewish captains, the word also is used multiple times as a general
term for teacher or guide for example in Psalm 55:13.[16] Today it is used for a description of high rank
in the Israeli Defence Force, and as a surname. However the modern Hebrew word may come from
the root elph (thousands) rather than alph (to teach or to guide) as Strong connects the Edomite root
used in the 5 books of Moses. Aluph as it is used to denote teach or guide from the Edomite word for
Duke is used 69 times in the Tanakh.
If the account may be taken at face value, the kingship of Edom was, at least in early times,
not hereditary,[17] perhaps elective.[18] First Chronicles mentions both a king and chieftains.[19] When the
King of Edom refused to allow the children of Israel[20] to pass through his land on their way
to Canaan, they detoured around the country because of his show of force [21] or because God
ordered them to do so rather than wage war.[22] The King of Edom did not attack the Israelites, though
he prepared to resist aggression.
Nothing further is recorded of the Edomites in the Tanakh until their defeat by King Saul[23] of Israel in
the late 11th century BC. Forty years later King David and his general Joab defeated the Edomites in
the "Valley of Salt", (probably near the Dead Sea).[24] An Edomite prince named Hadad escaped and
fled to Egypt, and after David's death returned and tried to start a rebellion, but failed and went to
Syria (Aramea).[25] From that time Edom remained a vassal of Israel. David placed over the Edomites

Israelite governors or prefects,[26] and this form of government seems to have continued
under Solomon. When Israel divided into two kingdoms Edom became a dependency of
the Kingdom of Judah. In the time of Jehoshaphat (c. 914 BC) the Tanakh mentions a king of Edom,
[27]

who was probably an Israelite appointed by the King of Judah. It also states[28] that the inhabitants

of Mount Seir invaded Judea in conjunction with Ammon and Moab, and that the invaders turned
against one another and were all destroyed. Edom revolted against Jehoram and elected a king of
its own.[29] Amaziah attacked and defeated the Edomites, seizing Selah, but the Israelites never
subdued Edom completely.[30]
In the time of Nebuchadnezzar II the Edomites helped plunder Jerusalem and slaughter the
Judaeans.[31] For this reason the Prophets denounced Edom violently.[32]
Although the Idumaeans controlled the lands to the east and south of the Dead Sea, their peoples
were held in contempt by the Israelites. Hence the Book of Psalmssays "Moab is my washpot: over
Edom will I cast out my shoe".[33] According to the Torah,[34] the congregation could not receive
descendants of a marriage between an Israelite and an Edomite until the fourth generation. This law
was a subject of controversy between Shimon ben Yohai, who said it applied only to male
descendants, and other Tannaim, who said female descendants were also excluded[35] for 4
generations. From these, some early conversion laws in halacha were derived.
During the revolt of the Maccabees against the Seleucid kingdom (early 2nd century BE), II
Maccabees refers to a Seleucid general named Gorgias as "Governor of Idumaea"; whether he was
a Greek or a Hellenized Edomite is unknown. Some scholars maintain that the reference to Idumaea
in that passage is an error altogether.Judas Maccabeus conquered their territory for a time around
163 BC.[36] They were again subdued by John Hyrcanus (c. 125 BC), who forcibly converted them,
among others, to Judaism,[37] and incorporated them into the Jewish nation,[18] despite the opposition
of the Pharisees. Antipater the Idumaean, the progenitor of theHerodian Dynasty along with Judean
progenitors, that ruled Judea after the Roman conquest, was of mixed Edomite/Judean origin.
Under Herod the Great, the Idumaea province was ruled for him by a series of governors, among
whom were his brother Joseph ben Antipater, and his brother-in-law Costobarus.
The evangelist Mark[38] includes Idumea, along with Judea, Jerusalem, Tyre, Sidon and lands east of
the Jordan as the communities from which the disciples of Jesuswere drawn.
According to Josephus, the siege of Jerusalem by Titus, 20,000 Idumaeans, under the leadership of
John, Simeon, Phinehas, and Jacob, helped the Zealots fight for independence from Rome, who
were besieged in the Temple.[39] See Zealot Temple Siege for more information. After the Jewish
Wars, the Idumaean people are no longer mentioned in history, though the geographical region of
"Idumea" is still referred to at the time of St. Jerome.

gods wife of amun

At the beginning of the New Kingdom the title started to be held by royal women (usually the wife of
the king, but sometimes by the mother of the king), when its extreme power and prestige was first
evident. The New Kingdom began in 1550 BC with the eighteenth dynasty. These were the rulers
who drove the Hyksos out of Egypt and their native city was Thebes, which then became the leading
city in Egypt. They believed that their local deity, Amun, had guided them in their victory and the cult
rose to national importance. Adjustments to the rituals and myths followed.
The title, God's Wife of Amun, "referred to the myth of the divine birth of the king, according to which
his mother was impregnated by the god Amun."[1] While the office theoretically, was sacred, it was
essentially wielded as a political tool by the serving Egyptian pharaoh to ensure "royal authority over
the Theban region and the powerful priesthood of Amun" there. [2] The royal lineage was traced
through its women and, the rulers and the religious institutions were inexorably woven together in
traditions that remained quite stable over a period of three thousand years. This title was used in
preference to the title, Great Royal Wife, which was the title of the queen who was the consort to the
pharaoh and who officiated at the temple. The new title conveyed that the pharaoh would be
a demigod upon birth. Previously the pharaoh was considered to become divine only at death.
The first royal wife to hold this new title (not to be mistaken with the title of God's Wife) was
Queen Ahmose-Nefertari, the wife of Ahmose I, and this event is recorded in a stela in
thetemple of Amun at Karnak, and the role was a priestly post of importance in the temple
of Amun in Thebes. She then passed it on to her daughter Meritamen, who in turn handed it
toHatshepsut, who used it before she ascended the throne as pharaoh.
Both Ahmose-Nefertari and Hatshepsut sometimes used the title as an alternative to that of "King's
Principal Wife", which shows how important they felt the role was. Hatshepsut passed the title on to
her daughter Neferure.
A series of scenes in Hatshepsut's Chapelle Rouge show the God's Wife of Amun (her daughter)
and a male priest undergoing a ritual or ceremony that seems to be aimed at destroying the names
of enemies. Other scenes elsewhere show the God's Wife of Amun worshiping the deities, being
purified in the sacred lake, and following the king into the sanctuary. These again show the
importance of the role, but give very little indication of the tasks and responsibilities involved.
Hatshepsut was the daughter of Thutmose I and, upon his death, she became the wife of the
youthful Thutmose II who was her young half-brother, born to a lesser wife than her mother. She
seems to have been a de facto co-regent with him, having a great deal of influence upon the affairs

of state. They had only one child who survived childhood, a daughter, Neferure, to whom the title
of God's Wife of Amun was passed.
Upon the death of her husband Thutmose II, Hatshepsut was appointed regent for the very
youthful Thutmose III, who was not born to herthe royal wife and queen of his fatherrather, he
was born of a lesser wife. He was her stepson and cousin. Shortly thereafter, Hatshepsut was
named pharaoh.
Her daughter, Neferure, took her place in many functions that required a royal queen serving as
the Great Royal Wife and, as God's Wife of Amun in the temple, while Thutmose IIIremained as coregent to Hatshepsut. He became the head of the armies.
Hatshepsut died after a 22-year reign and, Thutmose III became pharaoh. At the end of a thirty year
reign of his own, he entered into a co-regency with a son by a lesser wife who would
become, Amenhotep II. Neferure had died without leaving another heir, but there were others in line
to become pharaoh,[who?] so the co-regency assured that these royal offspring with closer ties to
Hatshepsut would be removed from the line of descent, and Thutmose III's chosen heir would rule.
The records of holders of the title, God's Wife of Amun, after Thutmose III became pharaoh deviate
from the established pattern, perhaps because of the line of royalty issue. After Neferure the list
notes, Iset, the mother of Tuthmosis III, but it is quite certain that she never officiated, and was
awarded the title after her death. Next is, Satiah, a lesser wife of Tuthmosis III in the early part of his
reign. She is followed by, Merytre-Hatshepsut, another lesser wife of Tuthmosis III, who became the
mother of his ultimate heir. She was the daughter of the Divine Adoratrice of Amun, Huy. Next on the
list is, Meritamen, a daughter of Tuthmosis III and Merytre-Hatshepsut, thereby the sister of his
ultimate heir. After all of those changes during his long reign, the office holder was the daughter of
Thutmose III, returning to the traditional association.
Amenhotep II seems to be the one who initiated the attempts to remove records of Hatshepsut's
reign while his father was an old man and continued these efforts after he became pharaoh in his
own right, claiming many of her achievements as his own, but failing to be thorough.
Amenhotep II also tried to break traditions by preventing the names of his wives from being recorded
and introducing women who were not from the royal lineage into the line of descentwithout
successas his designated heir was overlooked. After his death, which is estimated as 1400 BC,
Tuthmosis IV was selected from the royal lineage as the next pharaoh.
The power and prestige of the role of the God's Wife of Amun was greatly diminished by Amenhotep
II. He may have declined to have one, unless it remained as his sister, Meritamen. The woman listed

as holding the office next is, Tiaa. That is the name of a wife of his who was the mother of Tuthmosis
IV and it is possible that she was named to this title by her son since he gave her other titles,
however, the daughter of Tuthmosis IV also was named, Tiaa.
Later in that dynasty, with religious changes affecting the status of the cult, the title then fell out of
favour. The pharaoh Amenhotep IV ruling from 1353 or 1351 initially followed the religious traditions.
Soon he instituted a new religion that elevated Aten, not only to become the dominant cult, but as
a monotheistic cult, suppressing the worship of others. The pharaoh changed his name
to Akhenaten and moved his court to a new capital he had built, Akhetaten Horizon of Aten, at the
site known today as Amarna. He and his royal wife,Nefertiti (whom he treated as a co-regent)
became the intermediaries between Aten and the people. The worship of Amun was especially
targeted for suppression and many of his temples were defaced and no idols were permitted. Aten
became The Aten, represented only as a solar disk. Religious rituals were performed in open air
settings.
The death of Akhenaten occurred circa 1336 BC and it was not long before the traditional religious
practices began to resume. It is possible that Nefertiti ruled under another name and, perhaps, was
an influence in the royal family until near the end of the rule of Tutankhamun (1333-1324 BC), but if
she did, she did not prevent the revival. Tutankhamun began ruling as a child of nine under the
name of Tutankhaten. Some think that he was the son of Akhenaten by a minor wife. During his
reign his name was changed away from the deity of his father, replacing aten with amun. This marks
the beginning of a transition back to Thebes as the capital as well.
The last ruler of the eighteenth dynasty, Horemheb (1320-1292 BC), restored the priesthood of
Amun, but he prevented the Amun priesthood from resuming the powerful position they had held
before Akhenaten dissolved the powerful cult and moved the capital away from their city. Horemheb
had reformed the army and had developed a loyal chain of command within it. By appointing priests
to the cult of Amun from the high ranks of his trusted army, he avoided any attempts to reestablish
the powerful relationships that had provoked the drastic change made by Akhenaten.

Twosret
Theodore Davis identified the Queen and her husband in a cache of jewelry found in tomb KV56 in
the Valley of the Kings. This tomb also contained objects bearing the name of Rameses II. There is
no consensus about the nature of this tomb. Some (Aldred) thought this was the tomb of a daughter

of Seti II and Tawosret, but others (Maspero) thought this was a cache of objects originally belonging
with the tomb of Tawosret herself.[6]
After her husband's death, she became first regent to Seti's heir Siptah jointly with Chancellor Bay,
whom some have identified as the Irsu mentioned in the Harris Papyrus. Siptah was likely a stepson
of Twosret since his mother is now known to be a certain Sutailja or Shoteraja from Louvre Relief E
26901.[7] When Siptah died, Twosret officially assumed the throne for herself, as the "Daughter of Re,
Lady of Ta-merit, Twosret of Mut",[8] and assumed the role of a Pharaoh.
While it was commonly believed that she ruled Egypt with the aid of Chancellor Bay, a recently
published document by Pierre Grandet in a BIFAO 100 (2000) paper shows that Bay was executed
on Siptah's orders during Year 5 of this king's reign. The document is a hieratic ostracon or
inscribed potshard and contains an announcement to the workmen of Deir El-Medina of the king's
actions. No immediate reason was given to show what caused Siptah to turn against "the great
enemy Bay," as the ostracon states. The recto of the document reads thus:
Year 5 III Shemu the 27th. On this day, the scribe of the tomb Paser came announcing
'Pharaoh, life, prosperity, and health!, has killed the great enemy Bay'.[9]
This date accords well with Bay's last known public appearance in Year 4 of Siptah. The
ostraca's information was essentially a royal order for the workmen to stop all further work on
Bay's tomb since the latter had now been deemed a traitor to the state. [10]

Twosret's reign ended in a civil war which is documented in the Elephantine stela of her
successor Setnakhte who became the founder of the Twentieth dynasty. It is not known if she
was overthrown by Setnakhte or whether she died peacefully in her short reign; if the latter is the
case, then a struggle must have ensued among various factions at court for the throne in which
Setnakhte emerged victorious. However, Setnakhte and his son Ramesses III described the late
19th dynasty as a time of chaos. Setnakhte usurped the joint KV14tomb of Seti II and Twosret
but reburied Seti II in tomb KV15, while deliberately replastering and redrawing all images of
Twosret in tomb KV14 with those of himself. Setnakhte's decisions here demonstrate his dislike
and presumably hatred for Twosret since he chose to reinter Seti II but not Twosret. [11]
Setnakhte's son, Ramesses III, later excluded Twosret and even Siptah of the 19th dynasty from
his Medinet Habu list of Egyptian kings thereby delegitimizing them in the eyes of the citizenry.
[12]

It appears more likely that Setnakhte overthrew Twosret from power in a civil war.

Twosret's highest known date is a Year 8 II Shemu day 29 hieratic inscription found on one of
the foundation blocks (FB 2) of her mortuary temple at Gournah in 2011 by Richard Wilkinson's
University of Arizona Egypt expedition team.[13] Since this was only a foundation inscription and
Twosret's temple, although never finished as planned, was at least partially completed, it is
logical to assume that some time must have passed before her downfall and the termination of

work on her temple project. Richard Wilkinson stressed that Twosret's mortuary temple was
"largely structurally completed," although bearing minimal decoration, [14] therefore, she would
have ruled for several more months beyond II Shemu 29 of her 8th Year for her temple to reach
completion. She could, hence, have possibly ruled for 6 more months and nearly started her 9th
regnal year around the interval of IV Akhet/I Peretwhen her husband died (since she assumed
Siptah's reign as her own)--before she was overthrown by Setnakhte. Or she could have even
started a brief 9th regnal year and had 8 full years of rule (a figure which includes the 6 year
reign of Siptah her predecessor).

20th dynasty Egypt

The Pharaohs of the 20th dynasty ruled for approximately 120 years: from ca 1187 to 1064 BC. The
dates and names in the table are mostly taken from Chronological Table for the Dynastic Period" in
Erik Hornung, Rolf Krauss & David Warburton (editors), Ancient Egyptian Chronology (Handbook of
Oriental Studies), Brill, 2006. Many of the pharaohs were buried in the Valley of the Kings in Thebes
(designated KV). More information can be found on the Theban Mapping Project website. [1]

name of King

Horus (Throne) Name

Setnakhte

Userkhaure

Ramesses III

Usermaatre-Meryamun

date
1189
1186 BC
1186
1155 BC

User/Heqamaatre

1155

Setepenamun

1149 BC

Ramesses

Usermaatre

1149

VAmenhirkhepeshef I

Sekheperenre

1145 BC

Ramesses IV

Ramesses
VIAmenhirkhepeshef II

Nebmaatre Meryamun

1145
1137 BC

Burial

KV14

KV11

KV2

KV9

KV9

Queen(s)

Tiy-merenese

Iset Ta-Hemdjert
Tiye

Duatentopet

Henutwati
Tawerettenru

Nubkhesbed

Ramesses VII Itamun

Ramesses
VIIISethhirkhepeshef
Ramesses
IXKhaemwaset I

Usermaatre Setepenre

1137

Meryamun

1130 BC

Usermaatre Akhenamun

Neferkare Setepenre

1130
1129 BC
1129
1111 BC

Ramesses

Khepermaatre

1111

XAmenhirkhepeshef III

Setepenre

1107 BC

Ramesses
XIKhaemwaset II

Menmaatre Setpenptah

KV1

1107
1077 BC

KV6

Baketwernel

KV18

Tyti

KV4

Tentamun

Pharaoh Setnakhte was likely already middle aged when he took the throne after Queen Twosret.
He ruled for only around 4 years when he was succeeded by his son Ramesses III. Egypt was
threatened by the Sea Peoples during this time period, but Ramesses III was able to defeat this
confederacy from the Near East. The king is also known for a harem conspiracy in which
Queen Tiye attempted to assassinate the king and put her son Pentawere on the throne. The coup
was not successful in the end. The king may have died from the attempt on his life, but it was his
legitimate heir Ramesses IV who succeeded him to the throne. After this a succession of kings
named Ramesses take the throne, but none would truly achieve greatness. [2]

The period of these rulers is notable for the beginning of the systematic robbing of the royal tombs.
Many surviving administrative documents from this period are records of investigations and
punishment for these crimes, especially in the reigns of Ramses IX and Ramses XI.[3]

As happened under the earlier Nineteenth Dynasty, this group struggled under the effects of the
bickering between the heirs of Ramesses III. For instance, three different sons of Ramesses III are
known to have assumed power as Ramesses IV, Ramesses VI and Ramesses VIII respectively.

However, at this time Egypt was also increasingly beset by a series of droughts, below-normal
flooding levels of the Nile, famine, civil unrest and official corruption all of which would limit the
managerial abilities of any king. The power of the last king, Ramesses XI, grew so weak that in the
south the High Priests of Amun at Thebes became the effective defacto rulers of Upper Egypt,
while Smendes controlled Lower Egypteven before Ramesses XI's death. Smendes would
eventually found the Twenty-First dynasty at Tanis.

CIMMERIANS, a nomadic people, most likely of Iranian origin, who flourished in the 8th-7th
centuries b.c.e.
The name. The English form is ultimately derived from Gk. Kimmrioi via Lat.Cimmerii. In Assyrian
and Babylonian sources various forms are found: Ga-mir,Gamir-(r)a, Gi-mir-a-a, Gi-mir-ra-a-a,
and so on (see, e.g. Parpola, 1970a, pp. 122-33; cf. Pinches, p. 611). The Hebrew Bible (Genesis 10:2,
Ezekiel 38:6) has gmr, masoretic Gmr (erroneously assimilated to Gmr, name of the wife of
Hosea (Hosea 1:3; Dyakonov, 1981, p. 109 no. 12); in the Septuagint the forms Gmer(Genesis)
and Gmer (Ezekiel) are used (cf. Josephus, Antiquitates Iudaicae 1.123:Gmaros, and
1.126: Gomares), and the Vulgate has Gomer (cf. also Ezekiel 27.17:gmdym [read gmrym?; cf
Lagarde, p. 367], Jeremiah 25.25: zmry [read gmry?; cf. Dyakonov, 1981, p. 112]). I. M. Dyakonov
attributes the variation a/i in the first syllable of the word to vowel gradation (see below). It is
possible that the name was preserved in Arm. Garmik, referring to Cappadocia south of the river
Halys (Adontz, pp. 316ff.; Dyakonov, 1981, p. 111; cf., however, Nldeke, p. 324).
Origin. The first mention of Cimmerians in western sources is in The Odyssey of Homer (11.14),
where they are described as inhabitants of the opposite side of the Oceanus river surrounding the
earth, a country forever deprived of sunshine, thus at the entrance to the kingdom of Hades, toward
which Odysseus sails to obtain an oracle from the soul of the seer Teiresias. The western Greeks very
early localized Odysseuss wanderings to the seas around Italy and Sicily and placed the Cimmerians
around Lake Avernus near Cumae in Campania; near Avernus there was an ancient oracle of the
dead, and, because of its physical peculiarities, the lake was considered to be one of the entrances to
Hades (Ephorus [ca. 405-330 b.c.e.], in Jacoby, Fragmente, no. 70, fr. 134; Strabo, 5.4.5). Nearly all
authors of the Hellenistic and Roman periods looked at the Cimmerians through the prism of the
Homeric evidence; specifically it is often used to date Homer. The fictive identification of the

Cimmerians with the Celtic (or Germanic) tribe of the Cimbri, made by Poseidonius (128-45 b.c.e.),
ultimately depended on this evidence (Jacoby,Fragmente, no. 87, fr. 31).
Nevertheless, prevailing opinion among the ancients was that the Cimmerians had once inhabited
the steppes on the northern shore of the Black Sea. The first surviving evidence of this view is found
in the poem Arimaspaea by Aristeas of Proconnesus (ca. 550 b.c.e.), in which the Scythians are said
to have driven the Cimmerians from their country in southern Russia (Bernab, p. 151, fr. 2; cf.
Herodotus, 4.11-13; cf. 1.15, 1.103-04, 4.1, 7.20). According to Herodotus (4.11-12), the Cimmerian
aristocrats, reluctant to abandon their homeland, killed one another and were buried in a tumulus
beside the river Tyres (modern Dniester), after which the common people migrated to Asia to
escape the Scythians, proceeding along the Black Sea coast of Caucasia (see caucasus i. geography,
population, and economy) to the peninsula of Sinope and leaving traces in the form of toponyms on
the shores of the Cimmerian Bosporus. The idea that the Black Sea steppes had been the former
homeland of the Cimmerians was probably already current at the beginning of the period of the
Ionian colonization of Scythia, in the second part of the 7th century b.c.e. Initially two different
versions about the starting point of the Cimmerian flight were current among the colonists, that of
the Tyrits and that of the Bosporans. Later these were combined by the historians, as in the work of
Herodotus. Later authors, influenced by the large number of Cimmerian toponyms in the region of
the Bosporus, connected the Cimmerians mainly with that region (see, e.g., Strabo,1.1.10, 1.2.9,
3.2.12, 7.4.3, 11.2.5). Probably it was before the time of Herodotus that reports about the Cimmerians
on the northern shores of the Black Sea were connected with the evidence in The Odyssey; it seemed
natural to consider that Homer had depicted this cold northern country in poetic imagery as
deprived of sunshine and near Hades (Strabo, 1.1.10; 1.2.9).
This opinion has been accepted by the majority of scholars in modern times. Archeologists have
logically concluded that finds dating from before the appearance of the Scythians (i.e., the culture of
Scythian type) in southern Russia must be Cimmerian. Especially since A. I. Terenozhkin published
his work on these pre-Scythian finds, Soviet archeologists, as well as many from abroad, have
identified a nomadic culture that flourished mainly in the Ukraine during the period of transition
from the Bronze to the Iron Age as that of the Cimmerians. Two chronological phases have been
recognized: Chernaya Gora (ca. 900-750 b.c.e.) and Novocherkassk (ca. 750-700 b.c.e.; for this
dating see Ilinskaya and Terenozhkin, p. 19; for a more convincing dating of the second phase to the
9th-8th centuries, see Kossak, pp. 35ff., 84).
Some scholars, however, have considered the classical tradition to be imaginary, pointing, for
example, to glaring errors in Herodotuss narrative, for example, his report (4.11) that the
Cimmerians had fled eastward from the Scythians, who were in fact coming from the east, and his
report of the troops march along the Caucasian shore of the Black Sea, which would have been
impassable if they were coming directly from the strait of Kerch (Dyakonov, 1981, pp. 135-36). Karl

Mllenhoff (pp. 19-31) argued that the location of the Cimmerians on the north shore of the Black
Sea was based solely on an attempt at rationalization of the Homeric evidence by the Greeks, citing
the Avernian location as an analogy (see also, Rohde, pp. 99-100; Aly, pp. 122-23; Cozzoli, p. 67 et
passim). Nevertheless, it seems that this interpretation could have had only secondary importance in
the evolution of the classical tradition; it is significant that there are no legends about Odysseuss
wanderings on the Black Sea, in contrast to the western Mediterranean. More important is archeological evidence that both shores of the strait, as well as the lower Dniester, were largely uninhabited
from the 10th century b.c.e. until the arrival of the Scythians, the period of the Novocherkassk
culture previously associated with the Cimmerians (Vinogradov, pp. 370ff.; Tokhtasev, 1984a, pp.
142-43). It is clear that the Greeks ascribed to the Cimmerians a tumulus beside the river Tyres, just
as, for example, they ascribed various ancient buildings to the half-mythical Pelasgians (cf. Uslar, p.
277; Dyakonov, 1956, p. 239). A similar interpretation was given to some ruins that were
reminiscent of defensive structures, Kimmria tekhea (Cimmerian fortifications; Herodotus, 4.12;
Tokhtasev, 1984b, pp. 144-45). Excavators of the Bosporan settlement Kimmerikon (late 6th century
b.c.e.-3rd century c.e.) discovered a stratum dated to the second half of the 2nd millennium b.c.e.,
which had been disturbed by Greek colonists (Kruglikova; for dating, see Sharafutdinova, pp. 11516); the name of the later settlement is evidence that the Greeks considered these antiquities to be
Cimmerian. The assertion that Cimmerians had lived there was founded partly on findings of this
sort and was reflected in the name of another locality on the Bosporus, Kimmer khr (Cimmerian
land; Herodotus, 4.12; cf. Tokhtasev, 1984b, pp. 142ff.). Just as the Thracian Bosporus received its
name from adjoining Thrace, the Cimmerian Bosporus took its name from Cimmeria.
Confidence in the classical tradition was finally shaken by the fact that no artifacts of the
Novocherkassk type have been found in the Transcaucasian, Near Eastern, or Anatolian regions
connected with later Cimmerian activity (see below). Only artifacts of early Scythian type have been
found in those areas (Kossak, pp. 47-48, 63, 66, 67; Dyakonov, 1981, pp. 133ff.; Kleiner et al., pp. 94,
135ff.). The most ancient such finds (probably from the end of the 9th century b.c.e.) were discovered
in Tuva (southern Siberia). In the second half of the 8th century the bearers of this culture were
moving westward. One group reached the land that is now Bulgaria; another halted in northern
Caucasia and at the same time partly penetrated into Transcaucasia and, in the 7th century, as far as
Anatolia. This last group is to be identified with the Cimmerians of the written sources (for material,
see Ilinskaya and Terenozhkin, pp. 18-86; Murzin; for chronology, see Kossak, pp. 25ff. and passim).
As the Cimmerians cannot be differentiated archeologically from the Scythians, it is possible to
speculate about their Iranian origins. In the Neo-Babylonian texts (according to Dyakonov,
including at least some of the Assyrian texts in Babylonian dialect) Gimirri and similar forms
designate the Scythians and Central Asian Saka, reflecting the perception among inhabitants of
Mesopotamia that Cimmerians and Scythians represented a single cultural and economic group
(Dyakonov, 1981, pp. 118ff.; Dandamayev, pp. 95-105). Unfortunately, the proposed etymologies of

the names of Cimmerian kingsTeupa, Tug/k/Dg/k-dam-m-i, and Sa-an-dak-KURru (read Sandakatru?)are not completely reliable, though they could be Iranian (Dyakonov, 1981,
pp. 112 n. 20, 116-17 n. 30; cf. Mayrhofer, pp. 187ff.). The ingenious etymology proposed for the
ethnonym itself, from Iranian *gmra-/*gmra- mobile unit (Dyakonov, 1981, pp. 131-32),
cannot be verified, but no other satisfactory suggestion has been put forward. The widely held
opinion that the Cimmerians were of Thracian origin depends in fact only on the confused
information of Strabo: The Cimmerians, who are also called Treres, or some people of them
(1.3.21); . . . Treres, a Cimmerian people (14.1.40). In all other references, however, Strabo and
other authors treated Treres and Cimmerians as separate peoples (cf. Strabo, 1.3.21, 12.3.24, 12.8.7,
and 13.4.8; cf. Callisthenes, in Jacoby,Fragmente, no. 124, fr. 29; for more detail, see Cozzoli, pp.
75ff). Some scholars have considered the word rgillai underground dwellings, which Ephorus
applied to the habitations of the Avernian Cimmerians, as of Thracian origin, but those Cimmerians
were not directly related to the historical people (see above); the same word, attested this time as a
Greek word, has a convincing Greek etymology (cf. Chantraine, p. 103).
Cimmerians in Transcaucasia and the Near East. According to intelligence reports sent to the
Assyrian king Sargon II between 720 and 714 b.c.e., King Rus I of Uraru marched his troops
to KUR Gamir(ra) land of the Cimmerians but was defeated (Parpola, 1987, nos. 30-32;
Lanfranchi and Parpola, nos. 92, 144, 174; Deller, pp. 98ff.); a modern attempt at more precise
dating of these events to August-September 714 (Lanfranchi) is hardly convincing. KUR
Gamir(ra) was reliably localized by Dyakonov on the territory of modern Georgia, most probably in
its central part (Dyakonov, 1984, pp. 90, 175 n. 253; idem, 1981, p. 108; idem and Kashkai, p. 71);
the opposing view of Mirjo Salvini (pp. 45-46) and his arguments for a location south or southeast of
lake Urmia do not seem well founded. It is in central Georgia that archeologists have found the
greatest concentration of materials of the Scythian type (Dyakonov, 1981, p. 135; Esayan and
Pogrebova, p. 20 map), the earliest dating from about 700 b.c.e. (Kossak, pp. 43-48). The Homeric
evidence for the Cimmerians (see above) was apparently drawn from a more ancient Greek
epic, Argonautica (see Von der Mhll, pp. 148ff.), which may have recorded the actual presence of
Cimmerians in the general region immediately to the east ofColchis in the 8th century b.c.e.
According to another Assyrian intelligence report (Lanfranchi and Parpola, no. 145; Deller, no. 2.1),
Cimmerians did invade Uraru from the territory of Mannea (the country south of Lake Urmia); the
document is datable to the same years (720-14 b.c.e.), but, as the context differs from that of Russ
campaign against the country of Cimmerians, it is probable that it deals with a different phase of
the conflict.
Transcaucasia was in fact the base from which Cimmerian troops marched, probably until the
beginning of the reign of Aurbanipal (668-ca. 625 b.c.e.). In 679 the Cimmerian king Teupa was
defeated by the Assyrians near the city ubusnu (perhaps in Cappadocia; see, e.g., Borger, pp. 33 l.

18, 51 l. 43, 100 l. 23; Heidel, p. 14, col. 2 ll. 1-3; Grayson, p. 125, chron. 14.9); in the same year
Cimmerian detachments of individual soldiers (probably captives) were serving in the Assyrian army
(Dyakonov, 1984, p. 175 no. 259; idem, 1981, p. 113). In 675 they were present on the border of
Mannea (Fales and Lanfranchi; cf. Starr, no. 269) and in about 667 on Mannean territory (Parpola,
1983, p. 420). ubria (the country west of Lake Van) was perhaps subject to invasion by the
Cimmerians in about 672-69 (Starr, no. 18, referring to an alliance with Uraru.
In the period of the
Median revolt against Assyria (ca. 674-72) even Parsu (west of Media; Starr, no. 39, 40) and
probably Ellipi (between Media and Elam, Starr, nos. 79, 80; cf. nos. 65, 97) were open to attack by
the Cimmerians, who were allies of the Medes (cf. Starr, nos. 36, 43, 45, 48, 50, 51, pp. lxi-lxii;
Parpola, 1983, pp. 192-93 and n. 196). Cimmerians were serving as contingents in the Assyrian army
in 671-70 (Starr, nos. 139, 142, 144, p. lxiii).
Cimmerians in Anatolia. Strabo (1.3.21) synchronized the suicide of King Midas of Phrygia with the
invasion of his country by the Cimmerians. Owing to contradictory and dubious reports about the
date of Midass death, however, it is impossible to date this event more precisely than 700-675 b.c.e.
The apparent synchronism most likely results from chronographic speculations, in which ancient
and popular conceptions about Midas and Homer as contemporaries were connected with the no less
widely accepted synchronism between Homer and the Cimmerian invasion. Other evidence about the
arrival of the Cimmerians in Phrygia (Stephanus Byzantius, s.v. Syasss) offers no grounds for
dating. An Assyrian oracular text of 676-60 b.c.e. has been interpreted as referring to a conjectural
alliance between the Cimmerians and Phrygians against Melitene, URU Meldi (modern Eski
Malatya in eastern Turkey; Starr, no. 1, cf. pp. lvii-lviii; see also Starr, no. 17, a document probably
related to the same events, mentioning Cimmerians in the same connection with Cilicians). It is
equally difficult to determine when the Cimmerians appeared in the region of Sinope (Ehrhardt, pp.
55, 326ff.). As noted above, Cimmerians were defeated by Assyrians in eastern Anatolia as early as
679 b.c.e., but in the reign of Esarhaddon (680-69 b.c.e.) they remained active, mainly on the
northern and eastern borders of Assyria. The first reliable information about their permanent
establishment in Anatolia is from the early reign of Aurbanipal: in about 665 they attacked Lydia
but were defeated by King Gyges, with Aurbanipals support (Cogan and Tadmor, p. 84; Spalinger,
p. 402). In the spring of 657 the Assyrians expected the Cimmerians to march against Lydia,
probably from eastern Anatolia (apparently from Cappadocia, which was their base; cf.
Arm. Gamirk), whence they also exercised hegemony over at least a part of Syria (Parpola, 1970b,
nos. 110, 300; idem, 1983, pp. 307ff.). In 644 they defeated the Lydians and took Sardis, the Lydian
capital; Gyges died during this battle. It is possible that, when the Treres and the Lycians seized
Sardis once again in 637, the Cimmerians were their allies (Spalinger, pp. 406-09; Cogan and
Tadmor, pp. 78-79 nos. 25, 84).
In the 640s, under the leadership of King Lygdamis (Akkad. Dugdamm) and sometimes in alliance
with the Treres under King Kobos, the Cimmerians attacked the Greek city-states of Ionia and Aeolis

(Herodotus, 1.6; Callimachus, Hymn to Diana 255ff.; Welles, no. 7; Strabo, 1.3.21, 3.2.12, 11.2.5;
Kleiner et al., pp. 135ff.). They were also active in Paphlagonia (Strabo, 1.3.21), especially in the
region of Sinope (cf. above); in Bithynia (Arrian, in Jacoby, Fragmente, no. 156, frs. 60, 76; scholia
in Apollonius of Rhodes, Argonautica 1.1126; Heracleides Ponticus, in Wehrli, pp. 103-04, fr. 129);
and in the Troad (Aristotle, in Stephenus Byzantius, s.v. Antandros; in Pliny, Natural History 5.123).
In about 640 they tried to enter into an alliance with the state of Tabal, a faithless vassal of Assyria,
and twice attacked the imperial forces; during the second campaign, in 640, Lygdamis was taken
seriously ill and killed himself (according to Strabo, 1.3.21, he died in Cilicia), being succeeded by his
son Sa-an-dak-KUR-ru (Thompson, 1933, pp. 88-89; idem, 1940, pp. 106-07 no. 33 l. 10-11, 109 no.
35 ll. 6-12; Millard, pp. 109-10; Cogan and Tadmor, pp. 80-81, 84; Spalinger, p. 407).
In the 630s or 620s b.c.e. the Scythian king Madyes defeated the Treres (Strabo, 1.3.21), probably in
eastern Anatolia, and at the end of the 7th or beginning of the 6th century the Lydian king Alyattes
defeated the Cimmerians (Herodotus, 1.16; Polyaenus, 7.2.1), after which nothing more was heard of
them.

The Scythians were an ancient Iranic people of horse-riding nomadic

pastoralists who, throughout classical antiquity, dominated the PonticCaspian steppe, known at the time asScythia.
The Scythians are thought to have originated from the Central Asian
region of Persia, as a branch of the ancient Iranian peoples expanding
north into the steppe regions from around 1000 BCE. The Scythians
first appeared in the historical record in the 8th century BCE.
The Histories of Herodotus provide the most important literary
sources relating to ancient Scyths. He reported three versions as to
the origins of the Scythians, but placed greatest faith in this version:
"There is also another different story, now to be related, in which I am
more inclined to put faith than in any other. It is that the wandering
Scythians once dwelt in Asia, and there warred with the Massagetae,
but with ill success; they therefore quitted their homes, crossed the
Araxes, and entered the land of Cimmeria."
Around 676 BCE, the Scythians in alliance with the Mannaens
attacked Assyria. The group first appears in Assyrian annals under the
name Ishkuzai. According to the brief assertion of Esarhaddon's
inscription, the Assyrian Empiredefeated the alliance. Subsequent

mention of Scythians in Babylonian and Assyrian texts occur in

connection withMedia. Both Old Persian and Greek sources mention
them during the period of the Achaemenid empires, with Greek
sources locating them in the steppe between the Dnieper and Don
rivers.
In 512 BCE, when King Darius the Great of Persia attacked the
Scythians, he allegedly penetrated into their land after crossing the
Danube. Herodotus relates that the nomadic Scythians succeeded in
frustrating the designs of the Persian army by letting it march through
the entire country without an engagement. According to Herodotus,
Darius in this manner came as far as the Volga River.
During the 5th to 3rd centuries BCE the Scythians evidently prospered.
When Herodotus wrote his Histories in the 5th century BCE, Greeks
distinguished Scythia Minor in present-day Romania and Bulgaria from
a Greater Scythia that extended eastwards for a 20 day ride from the
Danube River, across the steppes of today's East Ukraine to the lower
Don basin. The Scythians apparently obtained their wealth from their
control over the slave trade from the north to Greece through the
Greek Black Sea colonial ports of Olvia, Chersonesos, Cimmerian
Bosporus, and Gorgippia. They also grew grain, and shipped wheat,
flocks, and cheese to Greece.
Strabo (c. 63 BCE - 24 CE) reports that King Ateas united under his
power the Scythian tribes living between the Maeotian marshes and
the Danube. His westward expansion brought him in conflict
with Philip II of Macedon(reigned 359 to 336 BCE), who took
military action against the Scythians in 339 BCE. Ateas died
in battle and his empire disintegrated. In the aftermath of this defeat,
the Celts seem to have displaced the Scythians from the Balkans,
while in south Russia a kindred tribe, the Sarmatians, gradually
overwhelmed them.
By the time of Strabo's account (the first decades of the first
millennium CE), the Crimean Scythians had created a new kingdom

extending from the lower Dnieper to the Crimea. The kings Skilurus
and Palakus waged wars with Mithridates the Great (reigned 12063
BCE) for control of the Crimean littoral, including Chersonesos and the
Cimmerian Bosporus. Their capital city, Scythian Neapolis, stood on
the outskirts of modern Simferopol. TheGoths destroyed it later, in the
mid-3rd century CE.
In the 2nd century BCE, a group of Scythian tribes, known as the
Indo-Scythians, migrated into Bactria, Sogdianaand Arachosia. Led
by their king, Maues, they ultimately settled in modern-day Punjab
and Kashmir from around 85 BCE, where they replaced the kingdom of
the Indo-Greeks by the time of Azes II (reigned circa 35 - 12 BCE).
In late antiquity the notion of a Scythian ethnicity grew more vague,
and outsiders might dub any people inhabiting the Pontic-Caspian
steppe as "Scythians", regardless of their language.
First Scythian kingdom[edit]
In the 7th century BC Scythians penetrated from the territories north of the Black Sea across the
Caucasus. The early Scythian kingdoms were dominated by inter-ethnic forms of dependency based
on subjugation of agricultural populations in eastern South Caucasia, plunder and taxes
(occasionally, as far as Syria), regular tribute (Media), tribute disguised as gifts (Egypt), and possibly
also payments for military support (Assyria).[citation needed]
It is likely that the same dynasty ruled in Scythia during most of its history. The name of Koloksai, a
legendary founder of a royal dynasty, is mentioned by Alcman in the
7th century BC. Prototi and Madis, Scythian kings in the Near Eastern period of their history, and
their successors in the north Pontic steppes belonged to the same dynasty.Herodotus lists five
generations of a royal clan that probably reigned at the end of the 7th to 6th centuries BC:
prince Anacharsis, Saulius, Idanthyrsus, Gnurus ( (ru)), Lycus, and Spargapithes.[7]
After being defeated by the Chinese and driven from the Near East, in the first half of the
6th century BCE, Scythians had to re-conquer lands north of the Black Sea. In the second half of
that century, Scythians succeeded in dominating the agricultural tribes of the forest-steppe and
placed them under tribute. As a result their state was reconstructed with the appearance of the

Second Scythian Kingdom which reached its zenith in the 4th century BC. (see further: History of
Xinjiang)

Second Scythian kingdom[edit]

Scythia's social development at the end of the 5th century BC and in the 4th century BC involved its
privileged stratum in trade with Greeks, efforts to control this trade, and consequences partly
stemming from these two: aggressive external policy, intensified exploitation of dependent
population, progressing stratification among the nomadic rulers. Trading with Greeks also stimulated
sedentarization processes.
The proximity of the Greek city-states on the Black Sea coast (Pontic Olbia, Cimmerian
Bosporus, Chersonesos, Sindica, Tanais) was a powerful incentive for slavery in the Scythian
society, but only in one direction: the sale of slaves to Greeks, instead of use in their economy.
Accordingly, the trade become a stimulus for capture of slaves as war spoils in numerous wars.
The Scythian state reached its greatest extent in the 4th century BC during the reign
of Ateas. Isocrates[8]believed that Scythians, and also Thracians and Persians, are "the most able to
power, and are the peoples with the greatest might." In the 4th century BC, under king Ateas, the
tribune structure of the state was eliminated, and the ruling power became more centralized. The
later sources do not mention three basileusesany more. Strabo tells[9] that Ateas ruled over majority
of the North Pontic barbarians.
Written sources tell that expansion of the Scythian state before the 4th century BC was mainly to the
west. In this respect Ateas continued the policy of his predecessors in the 5th century BC. During
western expansion,Ateas fought the Triballi.[10] An area of Thrace was subjugated and levied with
severe duties. During the 90 year life of Ateas, the Scythians settled firmly in Thrace and became an
important factor in political games in theBalkans. At the same time, both the nomadic and agricultural
Scythian populations increased along the Dniesterriver. A war with the Bosporian Kingdom increased
Scythian pressure on the Greek cities along the North Pontic littoral.
Materials from the site near Kamianka-Dniprovska, purportedly the capital of the Ateas state, show
that metallurgists were free members of the society, even if burdened with imposed obligations. The
metallurgy was the most advanced and the only distinct craft speciality among the Scythians. From
the story of Polyaenus and Frontin, it follows that in the 4th century BC Scythia had a layer of
dependent population, which consisted of impoverished Scythian nomads and local indigenous
agricultural tribes, socially deprived, dependent and exploited, who did not participate in the wars,
but were engaged in servile agriculture and cattle husbandry.
The year 339 BC was a culminating year for the Second Scythian Kingdom, and the beginning of its
decline. The war with Philip II of Macedon ended in a victory by the father ofAlexander the Great, the

Scythian king Ateas fell in battle well into his nineties.[11] Many royal kurgans (Chertomlyk, Kul-Oba,
Aleksandropol, Krasnokut) are dated from after Ateass time and previous traditions were continued,
and life in the settlements of Western Scythia show that the state survived until the 250s BC. When
in 331 BC Zopyrion, Alexander's viceroy in Thrace, "not wishing to sit idle", invaded Scythia and
besieged Pontic Olbia, he suffered a crushing defeat from the Scythians and lost his life. [12]
The fall of the Second Scythian Kingdom came about in the second half of the 3rd century BC under
the onslaught of Celts and Thracians from the west and Sarmatians from the east. With their
increased forces, the Sarmatians devastated significant parts of Scythia and, "annihilating the
defeated, transformed a larger part of the country into a desert". [13]
The dependent forest-steppe tribes, subjected to exaction burdens, freed themselves at the first
opportunity. The Dnieper and Buh populace ruled by the Scythians did not become Scythians. They
continued to live their original life which was alien to Scythian ways. From the 3rd century BC for
many centuries the histories of the steppe and forest-steppe zones of North Pontic diverged. The
material culture of the populations quickly lost their common features. And in the steppe, reflecting
the end of nomad hegemony in Scythian society, the royal kurgans were no longer built.
Archeologically, late Scythia appears first of all as a conglomerate of fortified and non-fortified
settlements with abutting agricultural zones.
The development of the Scythian society was marked by the following trends:

An intensified settlement process, evidenced by the appearance of numerous kurgan burials

in the steppe zone of North Pontic, some of them dated to the end of the 5th century BC, but the
majority belonging to the 4th or 3rd centuries BC, reflecting the establishment of permanent
pastoral coaching routes and a tendency to semi-nomadic pasturing. The Lower Dnieper area
contained mostly unfortified settlements, while in Crimea and Western Scythia the agricultural
population grew. The Dnieper settlements developed in what were previously nomadic winter
villages, and in uninhabited lands.

Tendency for social inequality, ascent of the nobility, and further stratification among free
Scythian nomads. The majority of royal kurgans are dated from the 4th century BC.

Increase in subjugation of the forest-steppe population, archeologically traced. In the

4th century BC in the Dnieper forest-steppe zone, steppe-type burials appear. In addition to the
nomadic advance in the north in search of the new pastures, they show an increase of pressure
on the farmers of the forest-steppe belt. The Boryspil kurgans belong almost entirely to soldiers
and sometimes even women warriors. The bloom of steppe Scythia coincides with decline of
forest-steppe. From the second half of the 5th century BC, importing of antique goods to the
Middle Dnieper decreased because of the pauperization of the dependent farmers. In the foreststeppe, kurgans of the 4th century BC are poorer than during previous times. At the same time,

the cultural influence of the steppe nomads grew. The Senkov kurgans in the Kiev area, left by
the local agricultural population, are low and contain poor female and empty male burials, in a
striking contrast with the nearby Boryspil kurgans of the same era left by the Scythian
conquerors.

Beginning of city life in Scythia.

Growth of trade with Northern Black Sea Greek cities, and increase in Hellenization of the
Scythian aristocracy. After the defeat of Athens in the Peloponnesian war, Attican agriculture was
ruined. Demosthenes wrote that about 400,000 medimns (63,000 tonne) of grain was exported
annually from the Bosporus to Athens. The Scythian nomadic aristocracy not only served a
middleman role, but also actively participated in the trade of grain (produced by dependent
farmers as well as slaves), skins, and other goods.

Scythia's later history is mainly dominated by sedentary agrarian and city elements. As a result of the
defeats suffered by Scythians two separate states were formed, two Lesser Scythias, one
in Thrace (Dobrudja), and the other in the Crimea and the Lower Dnieper area.[14]

Later Scythian kingdoms[edit]

Having settled this Scythia Minor in Thrace, the former Scythian nomads (or rather their nobility)
abandoned their nomadic way of life, retaining their power over the agrarian population. This little
polity should be distinguished from the Third Scythian Kingdom in Crimea and Lower Dnieper area,
whose inhabitants likewise underwent a massive sedentarization. The interethnic dependence was
replaced by developing forms of dependence within the society.
The enmity of the Third Scythian Kingdom, centred on Scythian Neapolis, towards the Greek
settlements of the northern Black Sea steadily increased. The Scythian king apparently regarded the
Greek colonies as unnecessary intermediaries in the wheat trade with mainland Greece. Besides,
the settling cattlemen were attracted by the Greek agricultural belt in Southern Crimea. The later
Scythia was both culturally and socio-economically far less advanced than its Greek neighbors such
as Olvia or Chersonesos.
The continuity of the royal line is less clear in the Lesser Scythias of Crimea and Thrace than it had
been previously. In the 2nd century BC, Olvia became a Scythian dependency. That event was
marked in the city by minting of coins bearing the name of the Scythian king Skilurus. He was a son
of a king and a father of a king, but the relation of his dynasty with the former dynasty is not known.
Either Skilurus or his son and successor Palakus were buried in the mausoleum of Scythian Neapol
that was used from c. 100 BC to c. 100 AD. However, the last burials are so poor that they do not
seem to be royal, indicating a change in the dynasty or royal burials in another place.

Later, at the end of the 2nd century BC, Olvia was freed from the Scythian domination, but became a
subject to Mithridates I of Parthia. By the end of the 1st century BC, Olbia, rebuilt after its sack by
the Getae, became a dependency of the Dacian barbarian kings, who minted their own coins in the
city. Later from the 2nd century AD Olbia belonged to the Roman Empire. Scythia was the first state
north of the Black Sea to collapse with the invasion of the Goths in the 2nd century AD (see Oium).
Scythia was a loose state that originated as early as 8th century BC. Little is known of them and their
rulers. Most detailed description came from Herodotus.

Scylas (c. 500 BC) Herodotus describes him as a Scythian whose mother was Greek, he
was expelled by his people

Octamasadas (c. 450 BC) was put on the throne after Scylas

Ateas (c. 429339 BC) defeated by the Macedonians; his empire fell apart

Skilurus (c. 125110 BC) died during a war against Mithridates VI of Pontus

Palacus (c. 100 BC) the last Scythian ruler, defeated by Mithridates

Lydia arose as a Neo-Hittite kingdom following the collapse of the

Hittite Empire in the twelfth century BC. According to Greeksources,
the original name of the Lydian kingdom was
Maionia.Herodotus relates that that the "Maiones" were renamed
Lydians after their king, Lydus (Greek: ), son of Attis, in the
mythical epoch that preceded the rise of the Heracleid dynasty. The
boundaries of historical Lydia varied across the centuries. It was first
bounded by Mysia, Caria, Phrygia and coastal Ionia. Later on, the
military power of Alyattes and Croesus expanded Lydia into an
empire, with its capital at Sardis, which controlled allAsia Minor west
of the River Halys, except Lycia. After the Persian conquest the
Maeander was regarded as its southern boundary, and under Rome,
Lydia comprised the country between Mysia and Caria on the one side
and Phrygia and the Aegean on the other. According to Herodotus, the
Lydians were the first people to introduce the use of gold and

silver coins and the first to establish retail shops in permanent

locations. The dating of these first stamped coins is one of the most
frequently debated topics in ancient numismatics, with dates ranging
from 700 BC to 550 BC, but the most commonly held view is that they
were minted at or near the beginning of the reign of King Alyattes,
who ruled Lydia c. 609-560 BC. Alyattes' son was Croesus (Greek:
, reigned 560-547 BC), who became synonymous with wealth
-- thus the expression "rich as Croesus". The Lydian capital Sardis was
renowned as a rich and beautiful city. Around 550 BC, near the
beginning of his reign, Croesus paid for the construction of
the temple of Artemis at Ephesus, which became one of the Seven
Wonders of the Ancient World. Croesus is also famous for asking the
Oracle at Delphi whether he should go to war against Persia. With
typical ambiguity the oracle answered that if Croesus attacked the
Persians, he would destroy a great empire. He went to war and was
defeated in battle by Cyrus II of Persia in 546 BC, with the Lydian
kingdom losing its autonomy and becoming a Persian satrapy... thus
destroying his own empire.

Early history: Maeonia and Lydia[edit]

Lydia developed as a Neo-Hittite kingdom after the hi of the Hittite Empire in the 12th century BC. In
Hittite times, the name for the region had been Arzawa; it was a Luwian-speaking area. According to
Greek source, the original name of the Lydian kingdom was Maionia (),
or Maeonia: Homer (Iliad ii. 865; v. 43, xi. 431) refers to the inhabitants of Lydia
as Maiones ().[6] Homer describes their capital not as Sardis but as Hyde (Iliad xx. 385);
Hyde may have been the name of the district in which Sardis was located.
[7]

Later, Herodotus (Histories i. 7) adds that the "Meiones" were renamed Lydians after their

king Lydus (), son of Atys, during the mythical epoch that preceded the Heracleid dynasty.
This etiological eponym served to account for the Greek ethnic name Lydoi ().
The Hebrew term for Lydians, Lm (,), as found in the Book of Jeremiah(46.9), has been
similarly considered, beginning with Flavius Josephus, to be derived from Lud son of Shem;
[8]

however Hippolytus of Rome (AD 234) offered an alternative opinion that the Lydians were

descended from Ludim, son of Mizraim. During Biblical times, the Lydian warriors were famous
archers. Some Maeones still existed during historical times in the upland interior along the River

Hermus, where a town named Maeonia existed, according to Pliny the Elder (Natural History book
v:30) and Hierocles (author of Synecdemus).

Lydia in Greek mythology[edit]

Lydian mythology is virtually unknown, and their literature and rituals lost, in the absence of any
monuments or archaeological finds with extensive inscriptions; therefore myths involving Lydia are
mainly from Greek mythology.
For the Greeks, Tantalus was a primordial ruler of mythic Lydia, and Niobe his proud daughter; her
husband Amphion associated Lydia with Thebes in Greece, and through Pelopsthe line of Tantalus
was part of the founding myths of Mycenae's second dynasty. (In reference to the myth
of Bellerophon, Karl Kerenyi remarked, in The Heroes of The Greeks1959, p. 83. "As Lykia was thus
connected with Crete, and as the person of Pelops, the hero of Olympia, connected Lydia with the
Peloponnesos, so Bellerophontes connected another Asian country, or rather two, Lykia and Karia,
with the kingdom of Argos".)
In Greek myth, Lydia was also the origin-place of the double-axe, the labrys.[9] Omphale, daughter of
the river Iardanos, was a ruler of Lydia, whom Heracles was required to serve for a time. His
adventures in Lydia are the adventures of a Greek hero in a peripheral and foreign land: during his
stay, Heracles enslaved the Itones, killed Syleus who forced passers-by to hoe his vineyard; slew
the serpent of the river Sangarios (which appears in the heavens as the constellation Ophiucus)
[10]

and captured the simian tricksters, theCercopes. Accounts tell of at least one son born to

Omphale and Heracles: Diodorus Siculus (4.31.8) and Ovid (Heroides 9.54) mention a son Lamos,
while pseudo-Apollodorus (Bibliotheke 2.7.8) gives the name Agelaus, and Pausanias (2.21.3)
names Tyrsenus son of Heracles by "the Lydian woman."
All three heroic ancestors indicate a Lydian dynasty claiming Heracles as their ancestor. Herodotus
(1.7) refers to a Heraclid dynasty of kings who ruled Lydia, yet were perhaps not descended from
Omphale. He also mentions (1.94) the recurring legend that the Etruscan civilization was founded by
colonists from Lydia led by Tyrrhenus, brother of Lydus. However, Dionysius of Halicarnassus was
skeptical of this story, indicating that the Etruscan language and customs were known to be totally
dissimilar to those of the Lydians. Later chronographers also ignored Herodotus's statement
that Agron was the first to be a king, and included Alcaeus, Belus, and Ninus in their list of kings of
Lydia. Strabo (5.2.2) makes Atys, father of Lydus and Tyrrhenus, to be a descendant of Heracles and
Omphale. All other accounts name Atys, Lydus, and Tyrrhenus as being among the pre-Heraclid
kings of Lydia. The gold deposits in the river Pactolus that were the source of the proverbial wealth
of Croesus (Lydia's last king) were said to have been left there when the legendary

kingMidas of Phrygia washed away the "Midas touch" in its waters. In Euripides' tragedy The
Bacchae, Dionysus, while he is maintaining his human disguise, declares his country to be Lydia. [11]

According to Herodotus, the Lydians were the first people to use gold and silver coins and the first to
establish retail shops in permanent locations.[12] It is not known, however, whether Herodotus meant
that the Lydians were the first to use coins of pure gold and pure silver or the first precious metal
coins in general. Despite this ambiguity, this statement of Herodotus is one of the pieces of evidence
often cited in behalf of the argument that Lydians invented coinage, at least in the West, even though
the first coins were neither gold nor silver but an alloy of the two.[13]
The dating of these first stamped coins is one of the most frequently debated topics of ancient
numismatics,[14] with dates ranging from 700 BC to 550 BC, but the most common opinion is that they
were minted at or near the beginning of the reign of King Alyattes (sometimes referred to incorrectly
as Alyattes II), who ruled Lydia c. 610-550 BC.[15] The first coins were made of electrum, an alloy of
gold and silver that occurs naturally but that was further debased by the Lydians with added silver
and copper.[16]
The largest of these coins are commonly referred to as a 1/3 stater (trite) denomination, weighing
around 4.7 grams, though no full staters of this type have ever been found, and the 1/3 stater
probably should be referred to more correctly as a stater, after a type of a transversely held scale,
the weights used in such a scale (from ancient Greek =to stand), which also means
"standard."[17] These coins were stamped with a lion's head adorned with what is likely a sunburst,
which was the king's symbol.[18] To complement the largest denomination, fractions were made,
including a hekte (sixth), hemihekte (twelfth), and so forth down to a 96th, with the 1/96 stater
weighing only about 0.15 grams. There is disagreement, however, over whether the fractions below
the twelfth are actually Lydian.[19]
Alyattes' son was Croesus, who became associated with great wealth. Sardis was renowned as a
beautiful city. Around 550 BC, near the beginning of his reign, Croesus paid for the construction of
the temple of Artemis at Ephesus, which became one of the Seven Wonders of the ancient world.
Croesus was defeated in battle by Cyrus II of Persia in 546 BC, with the Lydian kingdom losing its
autonomy and becoming a Persian satrapy.

Lydia was ruled by three dynasties:

Atyads (1300 BC or earlier) Heraclids (Tylonids) (to 687 BC)

According to Herodotus the Heraclids ruled for 22 generations during the period from 1185 BC,
lasting for 505 years). Alyattes was the king of Lydia in 776 BC.[20] The last king of this dynasty was
Myrsilos or Candaules.

Candaules - After ruling for seventeen years he was assassinated by his former friend
Gyges, who succeeded him on the throne of Lydia.

Mermnads

Gyges, called Gugu of Luddu in Assyrian inscriptions (687-652 BC or 690-657 BC) - Once
established on the throne, Gyges devoted himself to consolidating his kingdom and making it a
military power. The capital was relocated from Hyde to Sardis. Barbarian Cimmerians sacked
many Lydian cities, except for Sardis. Gyges was the son of Dascylus, who, when recalled from
banishment in Cappadocia by the Lydian king Myrsiloscalled Candaules "the Dog-strangler" (a
title of the Lydian Hermes) by the Greekssent his son back to Lydia instead of himself. Gyges
turned to Egypt, sending his faithful Carian troops along with Ionian mercenaries to assist
Psammetichus in ending Assyrian domination. Some Bible scholars believe that Gyges of Lydia
was the Biblical character Gog, ruler of Magog, who is mentioned in the Book of Ezekiel and
the Book of Revelation.

Ardys II (652-621 BC).

Sadyattes (621-609 BC) or (624-610 BC) - Herodotus wrote (in his Inquiries) that he fought
with Cyaxares, the descendant of Deioces, and with the Medes, drove out theCimmerians from
Asia, captured Smyrna, which had been founded by colonists from Colophon, and invaded the
city-states Clazomenae and Miletus.

Alyattes II (609 or 619-560 BC) - one of the greatest kings of Lydia. When Cyaxares attacked
Lydia, the kings of Cilicia and Babylon intervened and negotiated a peace in 585 BC, whereby
the River Halys was established as the Medes' frontier with Lydia. Herodotus writes:
"On the refusal of Alyattes to give up his supplicants when Cyaxares sent to demand them of
him, war broke out between the Lydians and the Medes, and continued for five years, with
various success. In the course of it the Medes gained many victories over the Lydians, and
the Lydians also gained many victories over the Medes."
The Battle of the Eclipse was the final battle in a five year[21] war between Alyattes II of Lydia
and Cyaxares of the Medes. It took place on May 28, 585 BC, and ended abruptly due to a total
solar eclipse.

Croesus (560-546 BC) - the expression "rich as Croesus" refers to this king. The Lydian
Empire ended when Croesus attacked the Persian Empire of Cyrus II and was defeated in
546 BC.

Persian Empire[edit]
Main article: Lydia (satrapy)
In 547 BC, the Lydian king Croesus besieged and captured the Persian city of Pteria in
Cappadocia and enslaved its inhabitants. The Persian king Cyrus The Great marched with his
army against the Lydians. The Battle of Pteria resulted in a stalemate, thus forcing the Lydians to
retreat to their capital city of Sardis. Some months later the Persian and Lydian kings met at
the Battle of Thymbra. Cyrus won and captured the capital city of Sardis.

Hellenistic Empire[edit]
Lydia remained a satrapy after Persia's conquest by the Macedonian king Alexander III (the
Great) of Macedon. When Alexander's empire ended after his death, Lydia was possessed by
the major Asian diadoch dynasty, the Seleucids, and when it was unable to maintain its territory
in Asia Minor, Lydia was acquired by the Attalid dynasty of Pergamum. Its last king avoided the
spoils and ravage of a Roman war of conquest by leaving the realm by testament to the Roman
Empire.
When the Romans entered the capital Sardis in 133 BC, Lydia, as the other western parts of the
Attalid legacy, became part of the province of Asia, a very rich Roman province, worthy of a governor
with the high rank of proconsul. The whole west of Asia Minor had Jewish colonies very early, and
Christianity was also soon present there. Acts of the Apostles 16:14-15 mentions the baptism of a
merchant woman called "Lydia" from Thyatira, known as Lydia of Thyatira, in what had once been
the satrapy of Lydia. Christianity spread rapidly during the 3rd century AD, based on the nearby
Exarchate of Ephesus.
Lydia had numerous Christian communities, and after Christianity became the official religion of the
Roman Empire in the 4th century became one of the provinces of the diocese of Asia in the
patriarchate of Constantinople. The ecclesiastical province of Lydia had a metropolitan diocese
at Sardis and suffragan dioceses
for Philadelphia, Thyatira, Tripolis, Settae, Gordus, Tralles, Silandus, Maeonia, Apollonos
Hierum, Mostene,Apollonias, Attalia, Hyrcania,
Bage, Balandus, Hermocapella, Hierocaesarea, Acrassus, Dalda, Stratonicia, Cerasa, Gabala, Satal
a, Aureliopolisand Hellenopolis. Bishops from the various dioceses of Lydia were well represented at
the Council of Nicaea in 325 and at the later ecumenical councils.[22]

Under the tetrarchy reform of Emperor Diocletian in 296 AD, Lydia was revived as the name of a
separate Roman province, much smaller than the former satrapy, with its capital at Sardis. Together
with the provinces of Caria, Hellespontus, Lycia, Pamphylia, Phrygia prima and secunda, Pisidia and
the Insulae (Ionian islands), it formed the diocese (under a vicarius) of Asiana, which was part of
the praetorian prefecture of Oriens, together with the dioceses Pontiana (most of the rest of Asia
Minor), Oriens proper (mainly Syria), Aegyptus and Thraciae (on the Balkans, roughly Bulgaria).
Under the Byzantine emperor Heraclius (610-641), Lydia became part of Anatolikon, one of the
original themata, and later ofThrakesion. Although the Seljuk Turks conquered most of the rest of
Anatolia, forming the Sultanate of Ikonion, Lydia remained part of the Byzantine Empire. During the
occupation of Constantinople in the Fourth Crusade, Lydia continued to be a part of the Byzantine
orthodox 'Greek Empire' based at Nicaea.

Under Turkish rule[edit]

Lydia was captured finally by Turkish beyliks, which were all absorbed by the Ottoman state in 1390.
The area became part of the Ottoman Aydn Province (vilayet), and is now the westernmost part of
the modern republic of Turkey.

Median Empire

he Median Empire, was the first Iranian dynasty corresponding to

the northeastern section of present-day Iran, Northern-Khvarvarana

and Asuristan (now days known as Iraq), and South and Eastern
Anatolia. The inhabitants, who were known as Medes, and their
neighbors, the Persians, spoke Median languages that were closely
related to Aryan (Old Persian). Historians know very little about the
Iranian culture under the Median dynasty, except that
Zoroastrianism as well as a polytheistic religion was practiced, and a
priestly caste called the Magi existed.
Traditionally, the creator of the Median kingdom was one Deioces,
who, according to Herodotus, reigned from 728 to 675 BCE and
founded the Median capital Ecbatana (Hgmatna or modern
Hamadan). Attempts have been made to associate Daiaukku, a local
Zagros king mentioned in a cuneiform text as one of the captives
deported to Assyria by Sargon II in 714 BCE, with the Deioces of
Herodotus, but such an association is highly unlikely. To judge from
the Assyrian sources, no Median kingdom such as Herodotus
describes for the reign of Deioces existed in the early 7th century
BCE; at best, he is reporting a Median legend of the founding of their
kingdom. According to Herodotus (History of Herodotus), Deioces
was succeeded by his son Phraortes (675-653 BCE), who subjugated
the Persians and lost his life in a premature attack against the
Assyrians. Some of this tale may be true. Assyrian texts speak of a
Kashtariti as the leader of a conglomerate group of Medes,
Scythians, Mannaeans, and miscellaneous other local Zagros
peoples that seriously threatened the peace of Assyria's eastern
borderlands during the reign of Esarhaddon (680-669 BCE). It is
possible that Phraortes is this Kashtariti, though the suggestion
cannot be proved either historically or linguistically. That a Median
king in this period exerted political and military control over the
Persians is entirely reasonable, though it cannot be proved.
Beginning as early as the 9th century, and with increasing impact in
the late 8th and early 7th centuries, groups of nomadic warriors
entered western Iran, probably from across the Caucasus. Dominant
among these groups were the Scythians, and their entrance into the
affairs of the western plateau during the 7th century may perhaps

mark one of the important turning points in Iron Age history.

Herodotus speaks in some detail of a period of Scythian domination,
the so-called Scythian interregnum in Median dynasty history. His
dating of this event remains uncertain, but traditionally it is seen as
falling between the reigns of Phraortes and Cyaxares and as
covering the years 653 to 625 BCE. Whether such an interregnum
ever actually occurred and, if it did, whether it should not be dated
later than this are open questions. What is clear is that, by the mid7th century BCE, there were a great many Scythians in western Iran,
that they, along with the Medes and other groups, posed a serious
threat to Assyria, and that their appearance threw previous power
alignments quite out of balance. Herodotus reports how, under
Cyaxares of Media (625-585 BCE), the Scythians were overthrown
when their kings were induced at a supper party to get so drunk that
they were then easily slain. It is more likely that about this time
either the Scythians withdrew voluntarily from western Iran and
went off to plunder elsewhere or they were simply absorbed into a
rapidly developing confederation under Median hegemony. Cyaxares
is a fully historical figure who appears in the cuneiform sources as
Uvakhshatra. Herodotus speaks of how Cyaxares reorganized the
Median army into units built around specialized armaments:
spearmen, bowmen, and cavalry. The unified and reorganized Medes
were a match for the Assyrians. They attacked one of the important
Assyrian border cities, Arrapkha, in 615 BCE, surrounded Nineveh in
614 BCE but were unable to capture it, and instead successfully
stormed the Assyrian religious capital, Ashur. An alliance between
Babylon and the Medes was sealed by the betrothal of Cyaxares'
granddaughter to Nabopolassar's son, Nebuchadrezzar II (605-562
BCE). In 612 BCE the attack on Nineveh was renewed, and the city
fell in late August (the Babylonians arrived rather too late to
participate fully in the battle). The Babylonians and the Medes
together pursued the fleeing Assyrians westward into Syria. Assyrian
appeals to Egypt for help came to nought, and the last Assyrian
ruler, Ashur-uballit II, disappeared from history in 609 BCE.

The problem, of course, was how to divide the spoils among the
victors. The cuneiform sources are comparatively silent, but it would
seem that the Babylonians fell heir to all of the Assyrian holdings
within the fertile crescent, while their allies took over all of the
highland areas. The Medes gained control over the lands in eastern
Anatolia that had once been part of Urartu and eventually became
embroiled in war with the Lydians, the dominant political power in
western Asia Minor. In 585 BCE, probably through the mediation of
the Babylonians, peace was established between Media and Lydia,
and the Halys (Kizil) River was fixed as the boundary between the
two kingdoms. Thus a new balance of power was established in the
Middle East among Medes, Lydians, Babylonians, and, far to the
south, Egyptians. At his death, Cyaxares controlled vast territories:
all of Anatolia to the Halys, the whole of western Iran eastward,
perhaps as far as the area of modern Tehran, and all of southwestern Iran, including Fars. Whether it is appropriate to call these
holdings a kingdom is debatable; one suspects that authority over
the various peoples, Iranian and non-Iranian, who occupied these
territories was exerted in the form of a confederation such as is
implied by the ancient Iranian royal title, king of kings.
Astyages followed his father, Cyaxares, on the Median throne (585550 BCE). Comparatively little is known of his reign. All was not well
with the alliance with Babylon, and there is some evidence to
suggest that Babylonia may have feared Median power. The latter,
however, was soon in no position to threaten others, for Astyages
was himself under attack. Indeed, Astyages and the Medians were
soon overthrown by the rise to power in the Iranian world of Cyrus II
the Great.

Media (Old Persian Mda): old, tribal kingdom in the west of

modern Iran; capital Ecbatana (modern Hamadan).
Mediaposesaproblemtothescholarwhotriestodescribethisancientempire:the
evidenceisunreliable.Itconsistsofthearchaeologicalrecord,severalreferences

inAssyrianandBabyloniancuneiformtexts,thePersianBehistuninscription,
theHistoriesbytheGreekresearcherHerodotusofHalicarnassus,thePersian
historybyCtesiasofCnidus,andacoupleofchaptersintheBible.Thetroubleisthat
thearchaeologicalrecordisunclear,thattheorientaltextsoffernotmuchinformation,
thattheGreekauthorsareunreliable,andthatseveralBiblicalbooksappeartohave
beeninfluencedbyHerodotus.Butlet'sstartwithadescriptionofthelandscape
itself.

The Country

Although the boundaries of Media were never completely fixed, it is

more or less identical to the northwest of modern Iran. Its
capitalEcbatana is modern Hamadan; its western part is dominated
by theZagros mountains and border on Assyria; to the south are
Elam and Persis; in the arid east, the Caspian Gate is the boundary
with Parthia; and Media is separated from the Caspian Sea
and Armenia by theElburz mountains.
The country was (and is) dominated by the east-west route that was,
in the Middle Ages, known as the Silk road; it connected Media to
Babylonia, Assyria, Armenia, and the Mediterranean in the west, and
to Parthia, Aria, Bactria, Sogdia, and China in the east. Another
important road connected Ecbatana with the capitals of Persis,
like Persepolis andPasargadae.
Media controlled the east-west trade, but was also rich in
agricultural products. The valleys and plains in the Zagros are fertile,
and Media was well-known for clover (which is still called medicago),
sheep, goats, and the horses of the Nisaean plain. The country could
support a large population and boasted many villages and a few
cities (Ecbatana,Rhagae, Gabae). The Greek author Polybius of
Megalopolis correctly calls it the most powerful of all Asian
countries, and it was generally recognized as one of the most
important parts of the Seleucid andParthian Empires.

Early History

Media is archaeologically poorly understood. Often, researchers

have simply called those objects Median that were discovered under
the stratum they had identified as Achaemenid. It would have been
helpful if we could establish that certain types of archaeological
remains (like house forms, ornaments, pottery, and burial rites) in
the entire area of Media constantly recurred together, but until now
this definition of a material culture has not been possible.
Still,itisreasonablyclearthatinthefirstquarterofthefirstmillennium,nomadic
cattleherdersspeakinganIndoIranianlanguageinfiltratedtheZagrosandsettled
amongthenativepopulation.(Thelanguageofthenewcomerscanbereconstructed
fromloanwords,personalnamesandtoponyms.)Thetribalwarriorsarementioned
forthefirsttimeintheAssyrianAnnalsasenemiesofalmaneserIII(858
824). Madaa("thelandoftheMedes")includedtheZagros,"borderedonthesalt
desert"and"continuedasfarastheedgeofMountBikni"(i.e.,MountDamavand,
eastofTehran);itsinhabitantsweredividedintoseveralsmallerclans,andalthough
theAssyriankingswereabletosubdueseveralofthem,theyneverconqueredallof
Media.
KUR

Infact,itislikelythattheAssyrianswerethemselvesresponsiblefortheunification
oftheMediantribes.TherepeatedAssyrianattacksforcedthevariousinhabitantsof
theZagrosandthecountrybeyondtocooperateanddevelopmoreeffective
leadership.TheAssyriansalsoappreciatedproductsfromtheeast,likeBactrianlapis
lazuli,andtheeastwestroutethroughMediabecameincreasinglyimportant.Tribal
chiefsalongtheroadcouldmakesubstantialprofitsifonlytheywerewillingtogive
uptheirnomadicwayoflifeandsettleinmorepermanentresidences.Trademay
explaintheriseofEcbatana(Hgmatna,'gatheringplace')asthecentraltownof
Media,andmayhavebeenthetriggerthatstartedtheprocessofunification.Other
townsthatmayhavegrownasaresponsetothedemandsoftheAssyrianmarketare
HasanluandZiwiyeinthenorthwest.TepeNusheJanappearstohavebeena
fortifiedsanctuary.AnotherearlysettlementisGodinTepe.

Empire?

If we are to believe Herodotus, Media was unified by a man named

Deioces, the first of four kings who were to rule a true empire that
included large parts of Iran and eastern Anatolia. Their names sound
convincingly Median: a Daiaukku and a Uksatar (Deioces and
Cyaxares) are mentioned in texts from the eighth century. Using the
number of regnal years mentioned by the Greek researcher and
counting backward from the year in which the last Median leader
(who is mentioned in the Babylonian Nabonidus Chronicle) lost his
throne, we obtain this list:
Deioces

53 years

700/699 to 647/646

Phraortes

22 years

647/646 to 625/624

Cyaxares

40 years

625/624 to 585/584

Astyages

35 years

585/584 to 550/549

Unfortunately,thereareseveralproblems.Inthefirstplace,Ctesiasoffersanotherlist
ofkings.Secondly,thereissomethingwrongwiththechronology:theDaiaukkuand
Uksatarmentionedabovelivedinc.715.Evenworse,DaiaukkulivednearLake
Urmia,notinEcbatana.Besides,thestoryofDeioceslookssuspiciouslylikeamyth
orsagaabouttheoriginsofcivilization.Finally,Herodotus'figuresaresuspect:
(53+22)+(40+35)=75+75=150years.Thereisnoneedtodoubttheexistenceof
thetwolastrulers,whoarealsomentionedinBabyloniantexts,butwemayaskwhat
kindofleaderstheyhavebeen.
OneclueisalittlelistthatHerodotusinsertedinhisHistories,inwhichhestatesthat
Deioces"unitedtheMedesandwasrulerofthetribeswhichherefollow,namely,the
Busae,Paretacenians,Struchates,Arizantians,Budians,andMagians"(1.102).But
wasDeiocestheonlyleadertouniteseveraltribes?Itisnotastrangeornovelideato
interpretthevariouspersonalnameswehaveasanindicationofafluid,still
developingcentralleadership.
Herodotus'listcanbeseenasanattempttocreateorderinaconfusedoraltradition
aboutearlierleaders;hisdescriptionofMedianhistoryprobablyprojectsbackaspects
ofthelater,Achaemenidempireuponaloosetribalfederation.Hetookthestories

toldbyhisPersianinformersabouttheearlyhistoryofIranabittooliterally.Which
doesnotmeanthattheleadersoftribalfederationswerenotcapableofexercising
greatpoliticalinfluence.
AlthoughanArbacesmayhaveunitedseveralMediantribestoo,Cyaxaresand
Astyagesaregenerallyrecognizedasthetwolastrulersofthefederationoftribes.
AccordingtotheFallofNinevehChronicle,Cyaxares(calledUmakitar)destroyed
theAssyrianreligiouscenterAurinthesummerof614:
The Medes went along the Tigris and encamped against Aur. They
did battle against the city and destroyed it. They inflicted a terrible
defeat upon a great people, plundered and sacked them. The king of
Babylonia and his army, who had gone to help the Medes, did not
reach the battle in time.
From this moment on, Cyaxares and the Babylonian
king Nabopolassarjoined forces, and two years later, the Assyrian
capital Nineveh was captured by the allies:
The king of Babylonia and Cyaxares [...] encamped against Nineveh.
From the month Simanu [May/June] until the
month bu [July/August] -for three months- they subjected the city
to a heavy siege. On the [lacuna] day of the month Abu they
inflicted a major defeat upon a great people. At that time Sin-arikun, king of Assyria, died. They carried off the vast booty of the
city and the temple and turned the city into a ruin heap. [...] On the
twentieth day of the month Ullu [10 August 612] Cyaxares and his
army went home.
This proves that Cyaxares was more than just a tribal chief: he was a
real king, capable of building an army that was strong enough to
capture a city. Probably, the Persians, Armenians, Parthians, and
Arians all paid tribute to the Medes. In other words, he controlled a
large part of the Silk Road and had expanded his realm to Persis and
Armenia, which appears to have been brought in submission after
609 and probably before 605.

Cyaxares'latestrecordedactisthebattleoftheHalys,whichhefoughtagainst
theLydiankingAlyattesandcanbedatedto30May585BCE.Thisandthecapture
ofAurin614fitwithinHerodotus'framework,whichgives40and35yearstothe
twolastkings,butitisremarkablethatCyaxareswasstillfirmlyinchargein585/584,
andhadbeensucceededbyAstyagesin584/583.
AboutthereignofAstyages,Herodotustellsanorientalfairytale,whichexplains
whyhelostthethrone.However,althoughthestorymaybemorecharmingthan
reliable,thefactthatAstyageslosthiskingdomisconfirmedbytheChronicleof
Nabonidus,wherewereadthatinthesixthyearoftheBabylonian
kingNabonidus(550/549)
king Astyages called up his troops and marched againstCyrus, king
of Anan [i.e., Persia], in order to meet him in battle. The army of
Astyages revolted against him and delivered him in fetters to Cyrus.
Cyrus marched against the country Ecbatana; the royal residence he
seized; silver, gold, other valuables of the country Ecbatana he took
as booty and brought to Anan.
It is possible that the rise of Persia and the demise of Media had
deeper, economic causes. It seems that in the mid-sixth
century, qanats were dug in Persis, which gave this part of Iran a
competetive advantage compared to Media. However, dating the
villages near qanats is not easy, and it may be that this
development in fact postdates Cyrus' victory.
Anyhow,CyrustookoverthelooselyorganizedMedianempire,includingseveral
subjectcountries:Armenia,Cappadocia,Parthia,andperhapsAria.Theywere
probablyruledbyvassalkingscalledsatraps.In547,CyrusaddedLydiatohis
possessions,astatethathadamongitsvassalstheGreekandCariantownsinthewest
andsouthwestofwhatisnowTurkey.
Eightyearslater,hecapturedBabylon,andCyrusunderstoodthatcitieswerenotonly
theretobelootedbynomadsasCyaxareshaddonewithNinevehbutcouldbe
integratedinanempire.ThePersiankingalsofoundedacityofhisown,Pasargadae,

anditisnotexaggeratedtosaythattheevolutionfromtribalsocietytoearlystatethat
hadstartedinMedia,reacheditsconclusioninPersis.
The evidence from Daniel

In the Biblical book Daniel, we encounter a famous summary of the

history of the ancient Near East: the vision of the four beasts (text),
which all represent an eastern monarchy that dominated the sacred
city of Babylon.
1. The lion with eagle's wings: the Babylonian empire (which
existed until 539 BCE). The image is well chosen, because
animals like these were depicted in Babylonian art.
2. The bear: the Median empire.
3. The four-headed leopard with fowl's wings: the Achaemenid
empire (539-330).
4. The ten-horned beast with iron teeth: the empire of Alexander
the Great (336-323). Alexander was often depicted with the
ram's horns of his divine father Ammon.
There is little doubt about this interpretation, but there is one
problem: the Medes were only an important world empire in
the Histories ofHerodotus of Halicarnassus, who is also the first
author to ignored the difference between Assyria and Babylonia.
Elsewhere, the author ofDaniel makes a king with the strange name
"Darius the Mede" conquer Babylon. As we have already seen, the
"real" Medes were a tribal federation and never captured Babylon. It
is very likely that the author of Daniel, who wrote in c.165 BCE, was
influenced by the Greek view of history, and gave the Medes more
importance than they deserved.
Media in the Behistun Inscription

However this may be, after 550/549 Media was part of the empire
ofCyrus the Great. There must have been resentments against the
new rulers, and the Medes revolted when Cyrus' son and
successorCambyses had died in 522. He was succeeded by his
brother Bardiya, the Smerdis of the Greek sources, who announced

that the provinces were for three years released from their
obligation to pay tribute and took the Median citadel Sikayauvati as
his residence.
This caused great indignation among the Persian elite, and a distant
relative of Bardiya named Darius, together with six conspirators,
assassinated the new king. Darius' own story can be read in
theBehistun inscription and is also known from Herodotus' Histories.
Both men agree that the man who had been killed was not the
lawful ruler Bardiya, but his double, a Magian named Gaumta. As
the "Magians" were not only a group of religious specialists, but also
a Median tribe, and the killed man's policy seemed to favor Media,
Darius may be right.
Whaever Bardiya/Gauma's ideniy, his deah mean he beginning of several
revols. In Babylonia, a man named Nidinu-Bl proclaimed himself king, and when
Darius had gone o Babylon, a new rebel leader sood up in Media, Phraores, who
descended from one of he Median kings of old, Cyaxares, and gained suppor
in Sagaria, Parhia andHyrcania. There were also insurrecions in Armenia, Elam, and
Persis.
Itlookedlikeaformidablerevolt,butPhraorteswasdefeatedbythePersian
generalHydarneson12January521.ItwasnotadecisivePersianvictory,however,
andPhraortesmanagedtostandhisgroundduringthewinter,untilDariustookcharge
ofthewarpersonally:on8May,hedefeatedtheMediansnearKunduru,which
seemstohavebeentheancientnameofmodernKangavar.ThePersianvictorywas
complete,andwhileDariussackedEcbatana,PhraortesfledtoRhagae(modern
Tehrn),wherehewasintercepted;therebelkingwascrucifiedinhisformercapital.
ASagartiannamedTritantaechmes,whoalsoclaimedtodescendfromtheMedian
leaderCyaxarescontinuedtherebellion,butwasdefeatedbyDarius'Median
generalTakhmasp

da.ThisrebelwascrucifiedinArbela.
This was the end of the latest Median insurrection. It seems that the
Medes now acquiesced in the rule of their Persian overlord. They
had a special position in the Achaemenid Empire, belonging to the
elite. Ecbatana was one of Darius' residences, and in another
capital,Persepolis, the Medes are often depicted as equals of the
Persians. In the Biblical book Esther, the two nations are juxtaposed

in the famous expression "laws of Medes and Persians". In Greek,

the names of the two Iranian nations were used as synonyms: the
conflict we know as "Persian war", was known to the Greeks as
"Median war".
Later history

In the first years after the coup of Darius, the Persian general
Hydarnes was satrap of Media. After this, the country more or less
disappears from sight. The cuneiform archives of Babylon are less
informative after 484 (which may have something to do with the
repression of the revolt of ama-eriba); there are no Assyrian
archives; the Persepolis fortification tablets do not reach beyond
493; Herodotus' story ends in 479; other Greek authors (e.g., Ctesias
of Cnidus, Xenophon) ignored Media; and -finally- of all Achaemenid
kings,only Darius left a historical inscription.
Archaeologicalresearchisnoteasy,too.WeknowthatEcbatanawasanimportant
cityinthePersianage,butnotmanyexcavationshavebeenconducted.The
AchaemenidkingsDariusIINothus(424404)andArtaxerxesIIMnemon(404358)
haveleftinscriptionsthatprovethattheywereinterestedinthisresidence,butthisis
abouteverythingweknow.
MediabecomesvisibleagainduringthewarbetweentheMacedoniankingAlexander
theGreatandhisillfatedPersianopponentDariusIIICodomannus.Afterthelatter's
defeatatGaugamela(331),hetriedtoreassembleanarmyatEcbatana,butinthe
springof330,hewasforcedtoretreattotheeast,andwasmurdered.Alexander
initiallyleftcontrolofMedia,whichwasstrategicallyimportantasitcontrolledthe
Macedonianlinesofcontact,tohistrustedgeneralParmenion,who,however,was
assassinatedwhenAlexanderbecamesuspiciousofhissonPhilotas.
ItisknownthatParmenionandlatertwootherMacedonianofficers,Sitalcesand
Cleander,attackednativeZoroastriansanctuaries.In325,alocalleadernamed
Baryaxesrevoltedagainstthenewrulers,buthisrebellionwassuppressedby
Alexander'ssatrapofMedia,Atropates.Torestoreorder,healsohadtochargethe
twoofficers,whowereindeedconvictedbyAlexanderandeventuallyexecuted.

AfterthedeathofAlexanderin323,Atropateswasremovedfromofficeandreplaced
byamannamedPeithon,buthewasabletokeepthenorthernpartofMedia,which
wascalledAtropatene.(Today,Atropates'namelivesoninthenamezarbayjn,a
provinceinthenorthofmodernIranthatisnottobeconfusedwiththeformerSoviet
republicwiththesamename.)MediaAtropatenebecameoneofthemaincentersof
Zoroastrianism.
Afer he wars of he Diadochi, Media became par of he empire ofSeleucus I Nicaor,
which included pars of Anaolia and Syria, all ofMesopoamia, and he Iranian
plaform. This mean ha Media conined o be of he greaes imporance: i was quie
simply he hear of heSeleucid Empire, as i had been he core of he Achaemenid
empire. There are monumens from his period along he Silk Road (like he
charming reclining Heracles a Behisun) and elsewhere.
Inthecourseofthesecondhalfofthethirdcentury,theParninomadsbeganto
infiltrateParthia,eastofMedia,andstartedtoactincreasinglyindependently,calling
themselvesaftertheregiontheyhadjustconquered.TheParthiankingMithradatesI
theGreat(171138BCE)wasabletoconquerMediaand,havinggainedthis
strategicallyimportantsatrapy,crossedtheZagrosandproceededtoconquerallof
Mesopotamia.
For centuries, Media was the center of the Parthian Empire: even
though its capitals were at Hecatompylos in Parthia and Ctesiphon in
Mesopotamia, the kings always had to pass through Media, and we
know of Parthian building activities at Ecbatana. Other monuments
are known from Kangavar and Behistun.

SUMERIANS
In early Mesopotamia, women, even elite women, were generally described in relation to their husbands. For
example, the inscription on the cylinder seal of the wife of the ruler of the city-state of Lagash (to the east of Ur) reads
Bara-namtara, wife of Lugal-anda, ruler of the city-state of Lagash. The fact that Puabi is identified without the
mention of her husband may indicate that she was queen in her own right. If so, she probably reigned prior to the
time of the First Dynasty of Ur, whose first ruler is known from the Sumerian King List as Mesannepada. Inscribed
artifacts from the Seal Impression Strata (SIS) layers above the royal tombs at Ur name Mesannepada, King of Kish,
an honorific used by rulers claiming control over all of southern Mesopotamia.

The ancient country of Sumer was located in the southern part of the modern
state of Iraq. In early times, Sumerians like Egyptians, were fastidious about

cleanliness, and like the Egyptians, they were for the most part Head
Shavers. However, unlike the Egyptians, they did not wear wigs to cover their
shaved heads, they seem to have preferred wearing caps. It is not known if
they also practiced circumcision, as did the Egyptians.
In Sumer, society adhered to a class system comprised of three tiers: amelu,
mushkinu, and slaves. The amelu were at the top rung of the class system.
Nobles, government officials, professional soldiers, and priests were found in
this class. Next were the mushkinu, the "middle class" of Sumerian society.
These were the shopkeepers, farmers, merchants, and laborers. Slavery was
an integral part of life in Sumer, and slaves were the lowest in the class
system.
A person could find themselves a slave for several reasons, such as a prisoner
of war, people unable to pay their debts, or people born into slavery.
Husbands could sell their wives into slavery, and parents could sell their
children into slavery. However, slaves did hold a few rights, they could borrow
money, own property, engage in trade, serve as a witness in a legal matter,
and even buy their freedom. Slaves who purchased their freedom, or who
were freed by their owner, could not be forced back into slavery. The slave
class did not appear to hold any particular negative social stigma with
Sumerian citizens, they held the belief that persons who found themselves
slaves, did so out of misfortune, rather than any fault of their own.
Ancient Sumers civic structure, was comprised largely of freemen, who met in
concert to govern themselves. The citizens initially held power, and decisions
were made in an assembly. In times of need, such as war, a lugal (big man)
was elected only for the duration of that threat. Over time however, this
position became permanent and hereditary, a kingship: father to son.
Sumerian society and prosperity, was based on agriculture and commerce,
fields irrigated by man-made canals produced an assortment of crops. The
king, and the Temple of a cities patron god, - {thus the priests} - owned much
of the land, but it was very common for the "average" man to own property.
There was a large disparity between the rich and the poor, but even the poor,
could own their own land and livestock. Coins were not used, commerce was
accomplished through barter, or by payments of silver and gold. Purchases of
even the smallest things, were almost always confirmed in writing.

In family Life, Monogamy was the normal practice, although concubines were
tolerated. Family elders often arranged marriages. Part of the marriage
ceremony, consisted of the presentation of a sealed tablet, in which the
guidelines for the marriage, and later if necessary divorce, were laid out.

Marriage was a complex institution regulated by many laws. Children had no

legal rights, their parents, simply by publicly disowning them, could have them
banished from the community, in all likelihood there was age restrictions for
this practice. Normally however, children were loved and cared for, and
adoption was very common. But if necessary, children could also be disowned
and sold into slavery, to repay a debt.
Sumerian religion had its roots in the worship of nature, such as the wind and
water and animals. The ancient sages of Sumer found it necessary to bring
order, to that which they did not understand. And to this end, they came to the
natural conclusion that a greater force was at work. The forces of nature were
originally worshipped, as entities onto themselves. However over time, the
human form became associated with these forces. Gods in human form, were
then seen as having control over nature. As in Egypt, figures with human
bodies and animal heads are common.
Sumerian theologians believed that every intricacy of the cosmos, was
controlled by a divine and immortal being, and that the cosmos adhered to
established rules.
The world below was known as the nether world. The Sumerians believed that
the souls of the dead, descended into the nether world from their graves. But
there were also special entrances to the nether world, in the cities. A person
could enter the nether world from one of these special entrances, but once
there, could not leave, unless a substitute was found to take their place in the
world below. A person entering the nether world must adhere to certain rules:
He
He
He
He
He
He

must
must
must
must
must
must

not
not
not
not
not
not

make any noise.

carry any weapons.
wear clean clothes.
behave in a normal manner towards his family.
wear sandals.
douse himself with "good" oil.

Failure to adhere to these rules would cause the person to

be held fast by the denizens of the nether world, until a god intervened on
their behalf.
The gods of Sumer were human in form, and maintained human traits. They
ate, drank, married, and fought amongst themselves. Even though the gods
were immortal and all-powerful, it was apparent that under certain
circumstances, they could still be hurt and even killed.

Each god adhered to a set of rules of divine authority, known as the "Me". The
Me ensured that each god was able to keep the cosmos functioning, according
to the plans handed down to them by the paramount god "Enlil".
Hundreds of deities were recognized in the Sumerian pantheon. Many of these
were wives, children, and servants of the more powerful deities. The gods
were organized into a caste system, at the head of this system were the kings
or supreme gods. The four most important deities were An, Enlil, Enki, and
Ninhursag. These were the four creator deities who created all of the other
gods. "An" was initially the head of the pantheon, but he was eventually
seceded by Enlil. Enlil was then seen as the most important god. He is known
as "the king of heaven and earth," "the father of the gods," and "the king of
all the gods". Enlil was thought to have developed the broad designs for the
universe. However, it was Enki who further developed and carried out his
plans. Ninhursag was regarded as the mother of all living beings.
Under the four creator deities, there was the group of seven gods, who
"decree the fates." These were An, Enlil, Enki, Ninhursag, Nanna, Utu, and
Inanna. These were then followed by the 50 "great gods" or the Annunaki, the
children of An.
Sumerians believed that their role in the universe was to serve the gods. To
this end, the ancient Sumerians devoted much of their time, to ensuring favor
with the gods. This was done with worship and sacrifice. The high gods
however, were believed to have more important things to do, than to attend to
the common man's everyday prayers. And so personal gods were devised, as
intermediaries between man, and the high gods. The personal gods listened to
prayers and relayed them to the high gods.
Religion was an important part, of the daily life of a Sumerian citizen.
Accordingly, the largest and most important structure in the city was the
temple. Each city had a patron deity, to which its main temple was dedicated.
However, a multitude of Gods were recognized, and so some of them might
have shrines located in the main temple, while others might have their own
smaller temple nearby.
The temple served several purposes, most importantly worship and education.
Each temple had an educational center, in which students learned
mathematics and scribing (writing). The Mathematics taught, included simpler
skills such as addition and multiplication, but also went on through to the
more complex, such as geometry and square roots. Scribing students would
spend many years in study, learning the intricacies of grammar and the
thousands of cuneiform symbols. The Sumerian teacher was known as an
ummia.

Whether the Sumerians were the first to develop writing is uncertain, but
theirs is the oldest known writing system. The clay tablets on which they
wrote, were very durable when baked. Archaeologists have dug up many
thousands of them - some dated earlier than 3000 B.C. The earliest writing of
the Sumerians was picture writing, similar in some ways to Egyptian
hieroglyphs. They began to develop their own special style, when they found
that on soft wet clay, it was easier to impress a line than to scratch it. To draw
the pictures they used a stylus, probably a straight piece of reed with a frayed
end. An unexpected result came about: the stylus could best produce
triangular forms (wedges) and straight lines. They soon found that a set of
these wedges and straight lines, could more efficiently represent words and
thoughts. Pictures lost their usefulness and became stylized symbols. This
kind of writing on clay, came to be called cuneiform, from the Latin cuneus,
meaning "wedge."
Cylinder seals were another Sumerian invention; they were first used to roll
one's signature into the wet clay of a tablet, thus recording a commercial
transaction or a short inscription. Over time, Cylinder seals evolved so that
they could reproduce pictorial scenes such as banquets. Thousands of these
tablets and seals have been found in excavated temple compounds.
As said before, there is always an argument, as to whether it was the
Sumerians, Egyptians or Indus valley people, who invented writing,
mathematics, calendars etc. Suffice to say, that Sumer had developed a
complex commercial system, including contracts, grants of credit, loans with
interest, and business partnerships. Moreover, the planning of the vast public
works under their control, led priests to develop useful mathematics, including
both a decimal notation and a number system based upon 60, which has given
us our sixty-second minute, our sixty-minute hour and our division of the
circle into 360 degrees. They invented mathematical tables and used quadratic
equations. They studied the heavens, both for religious and agricultural
purposes, and they created a lunar calendar, with a day of 24 hours and a
week of seven days. Sumerians are also credited with inventing the Wheel and
the wagon, as well as the boat sail.
The average house of a Sumerian, was a one-story structure built from baked
or Sun-dried mud-brick. It consisted of several rooms surrounding an open
court, wealthier citizens lived in two-story brick structures. The typical
wealthy house included reception rooms, kitchens, lavatories, servants
quarters, and perhaps a private chapel. Music was an important part of life,
instruments included harps, drums, tambourines, and pipes. Poems and songs
dedicated to the gods were also very common.
The cities of Sumer, first built around 4,000 B.C, {maybe before}, provide the
world's first examples of genuine urban centers of large size. In these early

cities, especially in Eridu and Urak, people first manifested the high degree of
cooperative effort necessary, to make urban life possible. Both of these cities
were reflections of this cooperation in their dikes, walls, irrigation canals, and
temples. Their efficient agricultural system made it possible to free large
numbers of people from working the land. These people were now free to
engage in specialized occupations. The early Sumerian cities were
characterized by a high degree of social and economic diversity, which gave
rise to artisans, merchants, priests, bureaucrats, and for the first time in
history, professional soldiers. The almost constant occurrence of war among
the city-states of Sumer, spurred the development of military technology and
technique far beyond that found anywhere else at the time.
The main cities of Sumer were Kish, Uruk (in the Bible, Erech), Ur, Sippar,
Akshak, Larak, Nippur, Adab, Umma, Lagash, Bad-tibira, Larsa and others.
Each of these City-states was comprised of a walled city and its surrounding
villages and land. Each city worshiped its own deity, whose temple was the
central structure of the city. Political power originally belonged to the citizens,
as rivalry and wars between the various city-states increased, each adopted
the institution of kingship, so as to have ready and permanent leadership
when crisis arose.
Unlike the Egyptians, the Sumerians did not build pyramids, instead they built
Ziggurats. These Ziggurats were huge structures, made of brick and
comparable in size to a pyramid. In appearance they resembled a step
pyramid. But they were not tombs, these were temples, sometimes with
terraces planted with trees, scrubs and flowers. Similar in use to pyramid
temples in the Americas. <<Click here for details and pictures of a
Ziggurat>>
Pretty much all that we know of early Sumerian dynasties, is from Sumerian
epic stories and the Sumerian king list, (written about 2100 B.C.). According
to this king list - one of the earliest historical documents - eight kings of
Sumer reigned before the famous flood of old testament fame.
A great Part of the method of dating this civilization is through the
archeological record of a great flood of the Euphrates River, which happened
at about 3200 B.C. This is very risky science though. For it is more likely that
the flood the Sumerians were referring to in their kinglist, was an Ocean flood.
Which raised the water level of the Gulf and submerged cites on the coast.
It is indicated in the king list, that after the flood various city-states through
war, became the temporary seat of power. Until about 2,800 B.C, when they
were united under the rule of one king, Jucur of Kish. Nothing is known of the
first sixteen kings of Jucur's dynasty, until Etana, the seventeenth king. It was
he, who according to the ancient Sumerian - epic of Etana - with the aid of an

Eagle that he had helped, was carried high up into the sky. Etana reached
heaven and prostrated himself before the gods, (the tablet is broken, so we
don't know how the story ends).
In any event, unity was never a permanent thing with Sumerians, first one
king of a city would gain power by defeating the others, thus making himself
king of all the lands, then the next king of another city would do the same, etc
etc.
Continuing from the king list: Etana's dynasty was defeated by Meckiajgacer,
king of E-ana. He was succeeded by his son Enmerkar (2,650 B.C.). It is
apparently under the reign of Enmerkar, that the people of E-ana build
themselves a new city and named it Unug/Uruk.
As priest-king, Enmerkar is the Ensi (city king), of Uruk and the ritual husband
of the Great Goddess Inanna. Enmerkar has as his epithet "he who build
Uruk", and he is known from two epic stories, Enmerkar and the Lord of
Arratta, and Enmerkar and En-suhgir-ana.
There is no known inscription or plaque that bears his name, so there is no
archeological proof of his existence, other than the tablet texts of the epic
stories. These tablet texts, refer to commercial and military contacts with a
city called Aratta, (probably in modern day Iran), where the Sumerian goddess
Inanna, and the god "Dumuzi" were worshiped. This could mean that the
people of Aratta were also Sumerian. These epics are seen as proof of trade
contacts with other lands. Enmerkar was the first king, according to legend, to
write on clay tablets.
According to the researcher, David Robl: The original story of the Tower of
Babel, may describe the last phase of the building of the great temple for the
god Enki at Eridu, (biblical Babel). Which was begun in this Uruk Period { this
is the archaeological era, which has been argued as being the time
immediately following the biblical Great Flood}.
It was in this era, that a massive platform was built over the original shrine of
Enki, and the building of a new temple begun, on top of this platform. This was
the first platform-temple to be built in Mesopotamia, and the prototype of the
later stepped platform-temples which we know as the Ziggurats. When
finished, it towered above the surrounding countryside, and was certainly a
major architectural innovation. Robl believes that the biblical king Nimrod, son
of Cush, was in fact king Enmerkar.

He continues: Cush (biblical son of Ham and grandson of Noah), fathered

Nimrod, who was the first potentate on earth. Hence the saying, 'Like Nimrod
a mighty hunter in the eyes of Yahweh'.
Biblically, the mainstays of Nimrods Empire were Babel, Erech and Akkad
(Agade), all of them in the land of Shinar. Shinar is (biblical ancient Sumer),
Akkad was the capital of the later Akkadian empire, (that city is still to be
located). Biblical Erech is Uruk, and Babel, as we have seen, originally referred
to Eridu.
But Nimrod himself has always eluded identification - until now. The trick was
to realize that the element 'kar' in Enmerkar was the Sumerian word for
'hunter'. Thus the name consists of a nomen plus an epithet - Enmer 'the
hunter'. This was precisely the epithet in Genesis, used to describe Nimrod.
The next step was straightforward. Ancient Hebrew was originally written
without vowels (as in the Dead Sea Scrolls). Vowel indicators were only added
to the Masoretic manuscripts, from the 5th century A.D, onwards. So in early
copies of Genesis the name Nimrod would simply have been written "nmrd".
The name Enmer would also have been transcribed into Hebrew as 'nmr' identical to Nimrod but for the last 'd'.
The Bible is well known for its play on words. Hebrew writers often translated
foreign names into familiar Hebrew words, which they felt had appropriate
meaning. In this case, they changed Sumerian 'nmr' to Hebrew 'nmrd',
because the latter had the meaning 'rebel' - a perfect description for the king
who defied God, by building a tower up to heaven.

It is now, many dynasties and many kings later. The kingship has been taken
to the city of Lagash. "Uruk-agina" is the last and most pious king of this
dynasty in Lagash, he is also called Uru-Inimgina. Uruk-agina had introduced
many social reforms, and enacted edicts related to the problem of
enslavements caused by the running up of debts. High interest rates on capital
(as much as 33.3 percent), has often led to enslaving one's own children
temporarily, until the debts were paid off. Uruk-agina remits these debts by
decree.
Uruk-agina himself, was a usurper, The previous rulers of Lagash, especially
the previous two usurpers installed by the priesthood, had terribly oppressed
the people, both economically and militarily. There was excessive taxes on
such occasions as weddings and funerals, and land was "bought" by
government officials, at far below market value. He claimed to have been

chosen by the god Ningirsu, to end the oppression of the poor. He destroyed
much of the old bureaucracy. For the priests, he cut their income, and ended
their influence. He created a near idyllic state, but in so doing, he weakened
Lagash to the point where it could no longer defend itself, (not enough money
was coming to the royal treasury). This weakness encouraged Lugal-zaggessi
of Unug to attack.
Lugal-zaggessi of Unug sacked Lagash, and burnt all of its holy temples. The
priests of Lagash, who Uruk-agina had chastised, may have aided Lugalzaggessi. Uruk-agina fled to the town of Girsu, which was a possession of
Lagash, but did not seem to have fallen to Unug. Here he disappears from
history. The documents proclaiming his reforms are the oldest in history, to
speak of freedom.
After his victory, King Lugal-zaggesi offered a prayer.
May the lands lie peacefully in the meadows. May all mankind thrive like
plants and herbs; may the sheepfolds of "An" increase; may the people of the
Land look upon a fair earth; the good fortune which the gods have decreed for
me, may they never alter; and unto eternity may I be the foremost shepherd.

Now back to our history: By Lugal-zaggesi's time, the nearest Semites

(Speakers of the Egyptian Language, living in the land just north of Sumer),
were serving as mercenaries in the Sumerian armies. We do not know what
these people called their central Mesopotamian homeland. So we refer to them
as Akkadians, because of the city "Sargon I" will later build there, named
Agade.
Sargon is known almost entirely from the legends and tales that followed his
reputation throughout Mesopotamian history: not from documents that were
written during his lifetime. This lack of contemporary record is explained by
the fact that the capital city of Agade, which he built, has never been located
and excavated. It was destroyed at the end of the dynasty that Sargon
founded, and was never again inhabited, at least under the name of Agade.
According to folktale, Sargon was a self-made man of humble origins.
According to legend: a gardener, having found him as a baby floating in a
basket on the river, brought him up in his own calling (sound familiar?). His
father is unknown; his own name during his childhood is also unknown; his
mother is said to have been a minor priestess (temple prostitute?), in a town
on the middle Euphrates.

Rising therefore, without the help of influential relations, he attained the post
of cupbearer to the Ensi of the city of Kish, which is in the north of Sumer. The
event that would bring him to supremacy was the later defeat of King Lugalzaggisi of Uruk. Lugal-zaggisi had already united the city-states of Sumer by
defeating each in turn, and he claimed to rule the lands, not only of the
Sumerian city-states, but also those as far west as the Mediterranean sea. But
before Sargon can take on Lugal-zaggisi, he must first take Kish.
Now then, here is part of the story of how, Sargon I - "Sargon the Great"
became king of Kish. The tablet that this story is taken from was damaged and
incomplete.

One day, after the evening had arrived and Sargon had brought the regular
deliveries to the palace, Ur- Zababa of Kish, was sleeping (and dreaming) in
the holy bedchamber, his holy residence. He realized what the dream was
about, but did not put it into words, did not discuss it with anyone. After
Sargon had received the regular deliveries for the palace, Ur- Zababa
appointed him cupbearer, putting him in charge of the drinks cupboard. Holy
Inana did not cease to stand by him.
After five or ten days had passed, king Ur- Zababa ...(missing)... and became
frightened in his residence. Like a lion he urinated, sprinkling his legs, and the
urine contained blood and puss. He was troubled, he was afraid like a fish
floundering in brackish water.
It was then that the cupbearer of Ezina's wine-house - Sargon, lay down not to
sleep, but lay down to dream. In the dream, holy Inana drowned Ur- Zababa,
in a river of blood. The sleeping Sargon groaned and gnawed the ground.
When king Ur- Zababa heard about this groaning, Sargon was brought into the
king's holy presence, Sargon was brought into the presence of Ur- Zababa,
who said: "Cupbearer, was a dream revealed to you in the night?" Sargon
answered his king: My king, this is my dream, which I will tell you about:
There was a young woman, who was as high as the heavens and as broad as
the earth. She was as firmly set as the base of a wall. For me, she drowned
you in a great river, a river of blood.
Ur- Zababa chewed his lips, he became seriously afraid. He spoke to ...
(missing)..., his chancellor: "My royal sister, holy Inana, is going to change (?)
my finger into a ..(missing).... of blood; she will drown Sargon the cupbearer,
in the great river. Belic-tikal, chief smith, man of my choosing, who can write
tablets. I will give you orders, let my orders be carried out! Let my advice be
followed! Now then, when the cupbearer has delivered my bronze hand-mirror

(?) to you, in the E-sikil, the fated house, throw them (the mirror and Sargon)
into the mould like statues."
For lack of space, we must cut the story short. To summarize, Ur-Zababa's
plan fails, Sargon is not killed by Belic-tikal, but rather Sargon kills Ur-Zababa
and becomes king of Kish. With Kish as his base, he goes on to conquer the
other cities. Victory was ensured however, only by numerous battles, since
each city hoped to regain its independence from Lugalzaggisi without
submitting to the new overlord Sargon.
Thus, Sargon became king over all of southern Mesopotamia, the first great
ruler for whom, rather than Sumerian, the Semitic tongue known as Akkadian
was natural from birth. It may have been before these exploits, when he was
gathering followers and an army, that Sargon named himself Sharru-kin
(Rightful King) in support of an accession not achieved in this old
established city through normal hereditary succession. Historical records are
still so meager however, that there is a complete gap in information relating to
this period. After he is king, we get this bit of propaganda.
1. Sargon, the mighty king, king of Akkad am I,
2. My mother was lowly; my father I did not know;
3. The brother of my father dwelt in the mountain.
4. My city is Azupiranu, which is situated on the bank of the Purattu
[Euphrates],
5. My lowly mother conceived me, in secret she brought me forth.
6. She placed me in a basket of reeds, she closed my entrance with bitumen,
7. She cast me upon the rivers which did not overflow me.
8. The river carried me, it brought me to Akki, the irrigator.
9. Akki, the irrigator, in the goodness of his heart lifted me out,
10. Akki, the irrigator, as his own son brought me up;
11. Akki, the irrigator, as his gardener appointed me.
12. When I was a gardener the goddess Ishtar loved me,
13. And for four years I ruled the kingdom.

14. The black-headed peoples I ruled, I governed;

15. Mighty mountains with axes of bronze I destroyed (?). etc. etc. etc.
Upon Sargons death, Rimush (2315-2306 B.C.), son of Sargon became king.
Upon ascension he put down rebellions in Ur, Umma, Adab, Der, Lagash, and
Kazallu in Sumer. Also Elam and Barakhshi in Iran, but he probably lost Syria.
Palace intrigue led to his assassination, possibly by supporters of his
brother Manishtusu. He was assassinated by having his head bashed in with a
clay tablet.
Manishtusu (2306-2291 B.C.) - Either Rimush's older brother or his twin. The
power of the Empire continued to wane, Manishtusu had to put down a
coalition of 32 rebel kings. Though he did lose some ground, he did retain
control of Assyria and Sumer. He then invaded the Oman region and defeated
the local kings there. Court documents record him buying land from private
citizens, indicating that the Kings there were not absolute and they did not
control all of the land. An inscription was found from the reign of the Assyrian
king Shamshi-Adad I, that stated that Manishtushu founded the famous
temple of Ishtar in Nineveh. Manishtusu died in a palace revolt.
Naram-Sin (2291 2254 B.C.), Son of Manishtushu became king. He defeated a
rebel coalition in Sumer and re- established Akkadian power. Naram-Sin
pushed the boundaries of the Empire to the Zagros mountains. He reconquered Syria, the area now called Lebanon and the Taurus mountains,
destroying Aleppo and Mari in the process. The Oman area revolted, and
Naram-Sin had to invade and defeat their King Mandannu. He also invaded
Anatolia as far as Dierbakir. He called himself the "King of the Four Quarters"
and the "God of Agade", thus making himself the first Mesopotamian king
todeclare himself divine.
Naram-Sin appointed his daughters as Priestess' and sons as Governors. Even
with all this military expansion, he still had to continually put down rebellions.
In fact, the Lullubi, a people of the Sherizor plain in the Zagros Mountains of
western Iran, successfully pushed out the Akkadians under their king
Annubanin, just a short time after Naram-Sin had subjugated them.
The Gutians - a people from the mountains northeast of Sumer (modern Iran)
- invaded at the end of Naram-Sin's reign, causing great destruction and the
break down of communications. The Gutian invasion was said by the
Sumerians to be divine judgment for Naram-Sin's destruction of Enlil's temple
at Nippur. A Sumerian Poem "The cursing of Agade" was composed in
testament.
One of the first cities that the Gutians take is Umma, a city in the eastern part
of Sumer. Umma, which had experienced a resurgence in power during the
rebellion against Agade, once again fell upon hard times. It was not until
Umma submitted to Gutian rule did they begin to recover.

The "benign" subjection of Umma, probably prompted Ur-Bau, Ensi of Lagash,

(a nearby city which also controlled the old capital of Ur - photo left), to
establish a pro-Gutian government also. This move allowed Lagash to go
unmolested by the Gutians and prosper.
Upon the death of Naram-Sin, his son Shar-Kali-Sharri (2254-2230 B.C.)
became king. He tried to shore up the Empire and undo the damage caused by
his father's policy's. Shar-Kali-Sharri fought well to preserve the realm and he
won numerous battles, including one against the Amorites in Syria, but Elam
declared independence and threw off the Akkadian language.
Shar-Kali-Sharri continually had to fight the Lullubi, Amorites, and Gutians.
The Hurrians also contested with him for Assyria and northern Syria, Sumer
then exploded in revolt. The Empire disintegrated under rebellion and
invasion, he ended up ruling only the city of Agade. He is called the King of
Agade, instead of earlier grandiose claims. He was killed in a palace revolt, his
reign signaled the end of the Empire.
Of the Akkadian kings after Shar-kali-sharri, only the names and a few brief
inscriptions have survived. Quarrels arose over the succession, and the
dynasty went under, Two factors contributed to its downfall: the invasion of
the nomadic Amurrus (Amorites), called "Martu" by the Sumerians, and the
infiltration of the Gutians. According to the Sumerian king list, Sargons
dynasty lasted 157 years. The last king of his dynasty was Car-kali-carri. Then
there was a series of 11 other Akkadian kings who ruled for another 181
years.
Then the last Akkadian king, "Ilulu" was defeated by Sumerian king Ur-nijin of
Unug. In Unug 3 kings ruled for 47 years, then Unug also was defeated by the
Gutium. The Sumerians didn't think too much of the Gutians: here's what they
had to say about them.
"They are not classed among people, not reckoned as part of the land
Gutian people who know no inhibitions,
With human intelligence but canine instinct and monkey's features"
Now in Sumer, the Gutians have invaded and are in charge. But meanwhile,
the neighboring City-state of Lagash was somehow, unaffected by the Gutium
and enjoyed over a century of complete independence. The Ensi of Lagash was
"Gudea". Gudea was an energetic and benevolent ruler, who had the time,
power and wealth to carry out an extensive program of temple construction,
and other public works projects. He seems to have been regarded as a great
king, and there were many songs written about him, and also many statues
erected for him. This is an excerpt of a hymn written for him on the occasion
of the building of the goddess Ning
g irsu's temple. (.....indicates missing parts)
Gudea rose -- it was sleep; he shuddered -- it was a dream. Accepting
Ning
g irsu's words, he went to perform extispicy on a white kid. He performed it

on the kid and his omen was favourable. Ning

g irsu's intention became as clear
as daylight to Gudea.
He is wise, and able too to realise things. The ruler gave instructions to his city
as to one man. The land of Laga became of one accord for him, like children
of one mother. He opened manacles, removed fetters; established ,
rejected legal complaints, and locked up those guilty of capital offences
(instead of executing them).
He undid the tongue of the goad and the whip, replacing them with wool from
lamb-bearing sheep. No mother shouted at her child. No child answered its
mother back. No slave who was hit on the head by his master, no
misbehaving slave girl was slapped on the face by her mistress. Nobody could
make the ruler building the E-ninnu, Gudea, let fall a chance utterance. The
ruler cleansed the city, he let purifying fire loose over it. He expelled the
persons ritually unclean, unpleasant to look at, and from the city.
The citizens were purifying an area of 24 iku for him, they were cleansing that
area for him. He put juniper, the mountains' pure plant, onto the fire and
raised smoke with cedar resin, the scent of gods. For him the day was for
praying, and the night passed for him in supplications. In order to build the
house of Ning
g irsu, the Anuna gods of the land of Laga stood by Gudea in
prayer and supplication, and all this made the true shepherd Gudea extremely
happy.
After several generations, the Sumerians threw off the Gutian yoke, when in
Uruk, Utu-hegal (2133 B.C.) came to the throne. Utu-hegal succeeded in
driving out the Gutians, when he defeated the Gutian king Tirigan (in 2130
B.C.). Utu-hegal's victory revived the political and economic life of Sumer. It
was at this time that the Sumerian "King List" was inscribed.
Upon the death of Utu-Hegal, one Ur-Nammu declared himself King. UrNammu seized Uruk, and attacked and killed his competitor, Namhani of
Lagash, whom he called "the traitor of Lagash". Ur-Nammu eventually ruled all
of Sumer, and much of Assyria and Elam. Syria and Ebla paid tribute, and may
well have been part of the Empire. Even Byblos (in Canaan), was forced to pay.
This was the beginning of Ur III, (because by the Sumerian king list, this is
the third time that the kingship was taken by Ur). Ur-Nammu caused the
coveted overseas trade from Dilmun (Indus Valley), Magan, and Meluha
Meluha means black land, the name of Egypt, so in all probability, the
country that they are referring to is Egypt - to now flow through Ur, bringing
great wealth to that city.

Like all great rulers, he built much, including the very impressive ziggurats of
Ur and Uruk, which acquired their final monumental dimensions in his reign.
He took a new royal title "king of Sumer and Akkad". The remainder of his
rule, was relatively peaceful and he set about settling social issues as well as
embarking on rebuilding projects to fix the devastation caused by the Gutians.
He was also a social reformer and the originator of a law code that is the
earliest known law code, it predates that of the Babylonian king Hammurabi
by about three centuries. Below is an excerpt from a hymn written on the
occasion of his death. Click here for Ur-Nammu's Law Code <<Click>>
The mother, miserable because of her son, the mother of the king, holy
Ninsun, was crying: "Oh my heart!". Because of the fate decreed for UrNamma, because it made the trustworthy shepherd pass away, she was
weeping bitterly in the broad square, which is otherwise a place of
entertainment. Sweet sleep did not come to the people whose happiness ......;
they passed their time in lamentation over the trustworthy shepherd who had
been snatched away.
After Ur-Nammu died, his son Shulgi ascended the throne. By now the Gutians
had overrun Elam, causing a greater state of anarchy there, than they had
previously caused in Sumer. Shulgi wed his daughters to the rulers of Warshe
and Anshan (Elamite cities). And then invaded and occupied Susa (the main
Elamite city), he also installed a Sumerian governor there. Shulgi considered
himself something of a poet.
King Shulgi (2100 B.C.) on the future of Sumerian literature:
"Now, I swear by the sun god Utu on this very day -- and my younger brothers
shall be witness of it in foreign lands where the sons of Sumer are not known,
where people do not have the use of paved roads, where they have no access
to the written word -- that I, the firstborn son, am a fashioner of words, a
composer of songs, a composer of words, and that they will recite my songs as
heavenly writings, and that they will bow down before my words..."
He later had to put down an Elamite revolt in Anshan. After which, Elamites
were recruited into the Sumerian army, (willingly or unwillingly). He later led
an army into Canaan, to punish the locals there for not sending him tribute. He
may have tried to emulate Naram-Sin (an earlier king), for he took the title
"King of the Four Quarters", and had himself deified (declared a god). A praise
poem of Shulgi: translation.
The king sailed to Unug towards the princely divine powers. Sumer and Akkad
marvelled at him as he moored the boat at the quay of Kulaba. With a large

wild bull of the mountains with uplifted horns, and with a sheep led by the
hand of an en priest at his right side, with a dappled kid and a bearded kid
clasped to his breast, he entered before Inana in the shrine of E-ana.
Culgi, the good shepherd, a heart in love, dressed himself in the ma garment
and put a hili wig on his head as a crown. Inana looked at him with admiration
and spontaneously struck up a song, singing the words:
When I have bathed for the king, for the lord, when I have bathed for the
shepherd Dumuzid, when I have adorned my flanks (?) with ointment (?),
when I have anointed my mouth with balsamic oil, when I have painted my
eyes with kohl, when he has ...... my hips with his fair hands, when the lord
who lies down beside holy Inana, the shepherd Dumuzid, has ...... on his lap,
when he has relaxed (?) ...... in my pure (?) arms, when he has intercourse (?)
with me ...... like choice beer, when he ruffles my pubic hair for me, when he
plays with the hair of my head, when he lays his hands on my holy genitals,
when he lies down in the ...... of my sweet womb,
when he treats me tenderly on the bed, then I will too treat my lord tenderly.
I will decree a good fate for him! I will treat Culgi, the good shepherd,
tenderly! I will decree a good fate for him! I will treat him tenderly in his ......!
I will decree the shepherdship of all the lands as his destiny!"
The lady, the light of heaven, the delight of the black-headed, the youthful
woman who excels her mother, who was granted divine powers by her father,
Inana, the daughter of Suen, decreed a destiny for Culgi, the son of Ninsun:
In battle I will be the one who goes before you. In combat I will carry your
weapon like a personal attendant. In the assembly I will be your advocate. On
campaign I will be your encouragement. You are a shepherd chosen by
holy ....... You are the generous provider of E-ana. You are the pure (?) one of
An's Iri-gal. You are worthy of ....... You are one who is entitled to hold high
his head on the lofty dais. You are one who is worthy of sitting on the shining
throne. Your head is worthy of the brilliant crown. Your body is worthy of the
long fleecy garment. You are worthy of being dressed in the royal garb. You
are suited to hold the mitum weapon in your arm. You are suited to run fast
with the battle-mace. You are suited to hit accurately with the barbed arrows
and the bow. You are suited to fasten the throwstick and the sling to your
side. Your hand is worthy of the holy sceptre. Your feet are worthy of the holy
shoes. You are a fast runner suited to race on the road. You are worthy to
delight yourself on my holy breast like a pure calf. May your love be lasting! An
has determined this for you, and may he never alter it! May Enlil, the decreer
of fates, never change it!" Thus Inana treated him tenderly.

Sumerian and Akkadian inscriptions of the latter part of the 3rd millennium
B.C, refer to a people called (MAR.TU-Sumerian) or (Amurru-Akkadian), later
called Amorite.
These seem to have been a nomadic desert people, who moved systematically
in from the west. Their homeland was northwest of Sumer in the area
stretching from the west bank of the Euphrates River on westward along the
northern fringe of the Syrian Desert. The Sumerians called this land "Tidnum".
From the early part of the second millennium B.C. onward, these people
became more aggressive.
These Amorites were already well known to the Sumerians. They described
them as, "people who know not grain and do not live in houses". These
Amorite people, will come to have a great impact in Mesopotamia, and in Egypt
- where they will become known as Habiru or Hebrew! Now back to our
history.
By the time of Shulgi, the Amorites had become ever more aggressive until
finally, there was open warfare and constant raids. This situation prompts
Shulgi, to send his envoy Aradju, out into the country to visit his cities, and
ensure their defenses and the loyalty of his governors.
However Aradju, and this particular High-Official "Apillaca", do not get along.
In previous letters to Shulgi, Aradju has complained to Shulgi that Apillaca has
not made him welcome, and has been disrespectful to him (Aradju). This is
Shulgi's letter of reply.

Letter from Shulgi to Aradju about Apillaca

Say to Aradju: this is what Shulgi, your lord, says:
The man to whom I have sent you is not your subordinate -- he will not accept
orders from your hand! How can you ignore what he himself has done too, and
that it is indeed so?
As I myself ordered, you were to secure the provinces, and to correctly guide
the people and secure the foundations of the provinces. When you approach
the cities of the provinces, inform yourself precisely of their intentions, and
inform yourself of the words of their dignitaries. Let my roar be emitted over
all the lands. Let my powerful arm, my heroic arm, fall upon all the lands. Let
my storm be released over the Land. Make the (Amorites?) disappear into the
desert, and the robbers into the fields! Until you reach Apillaca, my 'Sage of

the Assembly', (missing) Let (missing). That was how I had instructed you.
Why have you not acted as I ordered you?
If I do not make my 'Sage of the Assembly' feel just as important as I am, if he
does not sit on a throne on a dais, furnished with a high-quality cloth cover, if
his feet do not rest on a golden footstool, if he is not allowed by his own
highest authority both to appoint and then to remove a governor from his
function as governor, an official from his charge, if he does not kill or blind
anyone, if he does not elevate his favorite over others -- how else can he
secure the provinces? If you truly love me, you will not bear him a grudge!
You are important, and you even know the soldiers that are at Apillaca's
disposal. Your eyes have learnt something about Apillaca's men, and about
Apillaca's heroism. If you, Aradju and Apillaca, are indeed my servants, you
should both pay attention to my written communications. Come to an
understanding, you two! Secure the foundations of the provinces! It is urgent
That very interesting letter, sums up the situation for king Shulgi, pretty well.
After Shulgi died, his son Shu-Sin (2038 B.C.), became king, he also had
himself deified. More wars were fought with the Amorites. Shu-Sin lost Assyria
and erected a huge wall between the Tigris and Euphrates rivers, just north of
Babilla, to help keep out the Amorites. The wall was 170 miles long, and
breached the banks of both rivers. He also campaigned in the Zagros
mountains and defeated a coalition of local tribes there. He had extensive
trade relations with the Indus Valley and elsewhere. Later he had to build
additional walls around the cities of Ur and Nippur, to protect against the
Amorites.

It was later, during the reign of Ibbi-Sin, the fifth ruler of Ur III, that raiders
from the Mardu tribe (Amorites), finally broke through the walls. This resulted
in widespread panic, and a general breakdown in communications throughout
the Empire. Even before that, Ibbi-Sin's situation was insecure and even
pathetic at times, throughout much of his reign. With this Amorite attack, the
realm began to disintegrate almost immediately. Much of the time Ibbi-Sin
was left confined to his capital city of Ur.
The Elamite city of Eshnunna, broke away in 2028 B.C, and the rest of Elam the
next year. The Ensi's of most of his cities deserted him, and fended for
themselves against the Amorites, who were ravaging Sumer. Seeing this, one
of Ibbi-Sin's generals, Ishbi-Erra, rebelled and was given rule over the city of
Isin, in an attempt to placate him.

These calamities prompted Elam, which had earlier been invaded by Ibbi-Sin,
to resume hostilities. Ur came under attack from both Elam, and the Mardu
(Amorites). Ur was besieged, taken, and utterly destroyed by the invading
Elamites and their allies among the Iranian tribes. (It is not known what part
the Mardu in the northwest, played in the final battles). King Ibbi-Sin was led
away captive, and no more was ever heard of him. Sumerian songs and
hymns, record in moving fashion the unhappy end of Ur. (The sample below is
taken from the mid-point of the hymn.)

The lament for Ur: translation

On that day, when such a storm had pounded, when in the presence of the
queen her city had been destroyed, on that day, when such a storm had been
created, when they had pronounced the utter destruction of my city, when
they had pronounced the utter destruction of Urim, when they had directed
that its people be killed, on that day I did not abandon my city, I did not
forsake my land.
Truly I shed my tears before An. Truly I myself made supplication to Enlil. "Let
not my city be destroyed," I implored them. "Let not Urim be destroyed," I
implored them. "Let not its people perish," I implored them. But An did not
change that word. Enlil did not soothe my heart with an "It is good -- so be it".
A second time, when the council had settled itself in the pre-eminent place,
and the Anuna had seated themselves to ratify decisions, I prostrated (?)
myself and stretched out my arms. Truly I shed my tears before An. Truly I
myself made supplication to Enlil. "Let not my city be destroyed," I implored
them. "Let not Urim be destroyed," I implored them. "Let not its people
perish," I implored them. But An did not change that word. Enlil did not soothe
my heart with an "It is good -- so be it".
They gave instructions that my city should be utterly destroyed. They gave
instructions that Urim should be utterly destroyed. They decreed its destiny
that its people should be killed. In return for the speech (?) which I had given
them, they both bound me together with my city and also bound my Urim
together with me. An is not one to change his command, and Enlil does not
alter what he has uttered."
Sumer was now in a state of disarray, disunity, and under the Elamite yoke.
This lasted until Ishbi-Erra (the rebellious general of Isin), had consolidated
his power and then driven the Elamite garrison from Ur. After this victory, for
almost a century, the city of Isin predominated within the mosaic of Sumerian
states, that were slowly re-emerging from the Elamite destruction, and the
collapse of Ur III. Overseas trade started to revive and normalcy began to
return.

At about this same time, probably as a result of the disorder caused by the
Elamite invasion, Naplanum (an Amorite), became king of the city of Larsa,
and was a contemporary of Ishbi-Erra of Isin. Naplanum was able to establish
a dynasty in Larsa, and was succeeded by a line of 13 Amorite kings. Many of
whom exercised great authority in Sumer. (By now the Amorites had become
somewhat sedentary).

Hammurabi
As time goes on, ever more wars are fought. Then in the previously
unimportant Amorite city of Babilla, (later called Babylon), in the northern
part of Sumer, One "Hammurabi" became's king. When Hammurabi succeeded
his father, "Sin-muballit" as king of Babylon in 1792 B.C, he was still young.
But as was customary in Mesopotamian royal courts of the time, he probably
already had been entrusted with some official duties in the administration of
the city.
So when he became king, he was ready to hit the ground running. He spent
the next 29 years building coalitions and conquering other cities and
territories, thereby building Babylon into a powerful state. The next 20 years
were a time of relative calm. But the last 14 years of his life were spent in
almost constant warfare.
It should be understood that Amorite rule in Sumer, was not the result of
invasion and conquest, but rather, the result of coalition building and
conquest, as attested to by this excerpt of a letter found in Mari.
There is no king who is powerful for himself: with Hammurabi, the man of
Babylon,' go 10 or 15 kings, so with Rim-Sin, the man of Larsa'; with Ibalpiel,
the man of Eshunna,' go 20 kings.
Samsuiluna, the son of Hammurabi, took control even before the death of his
father, who had a long illness. But an outburst of revolts followed the death of
Hammurapi, and this led to the disintegration of the Amorite Empire. Although
he fought vigorously, Samsuiluna lost all but Babylonia proper, but Babylon
still had some power.
It appears that whatever arrangements and coalitions Hammurabi had made
which allowed for Amorite rule, also died with him. For the Sumerians, revolt
was in order, not only because of their ancient tradition of independence, but
also because of the heavy-handedness of Babylon's policy's and the economic
drain on the people.
Soon after, Samsuiluna also had to fight an adventurer who called himself
Rim-Sin II of Larsa - for five years. Most of this fighting took place on the

Elam/Sumer border, finally Rim-Sin II was captured and executed. The

Elamite city of Eshnunna had sided with him, and so it's ruler "Anni" was also
captured and strangled in Babylon.
During this war, Samsuiluna had pulled down the walls of Ur, set fire to the
temples and partially destroyed the city. He did the same to Uruk. It's
assumed that these cities also had sided with Rim-Sin II. Once again Elam,
upon seeing weakness, invaded and sacked the two of them, taking away a
statue of Inanna from Uruk.
A few years later (1732 B.C.), One Iluma-Ilu - pretending to be a descendent
of Damiq-Ilishu, the last King of Isin, took the throne of Isin and declared
independence. He ultimately gained the freedom of Sumer south of Nippur,
and founded the Dynasty of the Sealand (the southern region of Sumer).
Also called Chaldea, (see; biblical Ur of the Chaldees).

At about this same time, The Assyrians rebelled and gained their
independence.
In 1715 B.C. Samsuiluna crushed an invading Kassite army. After his death,
his son Abieshu defeated another Kassite attack, but allowed the peaceful
settling of Kassites in Babylonia as agricultural workers. He also dammed the
Tigris in an unsuccessful attempt to capture Iluma-Ilu, who had fled to the
swamps. After Samsuiluna's death, four more Amorite kings ruled.
The last of them, Samsuditana (1625-1595 B.C.) was overthrown when the
Hatti from Anatolia, under their king "Mursilis I" sacked Babylon.
It would be at about this time, after the fall of the Amorite dynasty of
Hammurabi, that (Terah or Thare) - Abrahams father - and his family, would
leave {Ur of the Chaldees}, and journey to Harran in Aram. The Amorites who
had settled in Sumer, may have now found themselves unwelcome, after the
fall of the Amorite kings. This sets in motion the reverse migration that will
take them to Aram, Canaan, Egypt, and then back to Canaan, culminating in
the creation of the Hebrew state.
Earlier, the Kassites had migrated into the northwestern part of Elam, (more
Indus Valley refuges?). By 1800 B.C, they had begun a westward movement
toward Mesopotamia from Elam. They at first tried making war, but after their
defeats by Samsuiluna and Abieshu, they instead quietly filtered into
Mesopotamia, and established their own towns and principalities. With the fall
of the amorite dynasty of Hammurabi, they found their opening and were able
to gradually take over the whole of mesopotamia. It was the Kassite king
Ulamburiash, who later campaigned in the south, and finally defeated the
Sumerian princes in the Sea Land (chaldea) in 1450 B.C.

Lets pause now to introduce the Assyrians - The Assyrians were a people who
lived in the northern-most part of Mesopotamia. All through their history, they
had tried to establish their own kingdom. And each time they tried, they were
beaten down by one of their stronger neighbors, or even some new invader.
During the Amorite dynasty of Hammurabi, they had been brutally repressed.
So when Hammurabi's dynasty collapsed, they rebelled and declared
independence. But they didn't stop there, after they had finally succeeded in
establishing their own kingdom. They then went on a campaign of conquest
and expansion with cruelty that was until then unknown.
Kassite King "Kurigalzu II" fought several wars against the Assyrians, but was
defeated by them. After his death, his successors sought to ally themselves
with the Hatti in order to stop the expansion of the Assyrians. During the reign
of Kassite king Kashtiliash IV (1232- 1225), Babylonia waged war on two
fronts at the same timeagainst Elam and Assyriait ended in the
catastrophic invasion and destruction of Babylon by Assyrian king "TukultiNinurta I".
It was not until the time of king Adad-shum-usur (1216-1187) that Babylon
was again, able to experience a period of peace and prosperity.

But his Kassite successors were again forced to fight, this time facing the
conqueror King Shutruk-Nahunte of Elam. The Elamites finally destroyed the
dynasty of the Kassites during these wars.
Meanwhile, in a series of heavy wars, about which not much is known, one
"Marduk-kabit-ahheshu" (1152-1135 B.C.), established what came to be
known as the 2nd dynasty of Isin. However, he and his successors were often
forced to continue the fighting against the Elamites. The most famous king of
this Isin dynasty was Nebuchadrezzar I (1119-1098 B.C.). He fought mainly
against Elam, which had conquered and ravaged a large part of Babylonia. His
first major attack against Elam miscarried because of an epidemic among his
troops, but in a later campaign, he conquered Susa the capital of Elam. Soon
thereafter the king of Elam was assassinated, and his kingdom once again, fell
apart into small states. After "Nebuchadrezzar I" died, he was succeeded by
his brother Marduk-nadin-ahhe (1093-1076). He was at first successful in
wars against Assyria, but he later experienced heavy defeat.

Then a famine of catastrophic proportions triggered an attack from Aramaean

tribes, (Aramaean is the name given to the confederation of Amorite tribes
which had evolved, perhaps as a result of the Hyksos expulsion, to form a
country called Aram). His successors made peace with Assyria, but the country

suffered more and more from repeated attacks by Aramaeans and semitic
nomads. Even though some of these Isin kings still assumed grand titles, they
were unable to stem the progressive disintegration of their empire.

It was at this time of chaos and confusion, that the Sumerian Princes in the
south re-asserted their independence. There followed the era known as the
2nd dynasty of the Sealand (or Chaldea, 10201000 B.C.) The "Sealand" or
Chaldea, referrers to the southern coastal area of Sumer.
The Assyrians meanwhile had defeated the kings of Mitanni, first Shattuara I,
then Wasashatta. This enabled them for a time to incorporate all Mesopotamia
into their empire. Although in later struggles they lost large parts to the Hatti

One of these Assyrian kings "Ashurnasirpal II" (883859), while continuing

the policy of conquest and expansion, left a detailed account of his campaigns,
via stella and carved wall relief's, which were impressive in their cruelty.
Defeated enemies were impaled, flayed, or beheaded in great numbers. Mass
deportations however, were found to serve the interests of the growing
empire better than terror. Through the systematic exchange of native
populations, conquered regions were denationalized and new people were
brought in.
Meanwhile, The Sumerians {now called Chaldeans}, who inhabited the coastal
area of Sumer near the Persian Gulf, had never been entirely pacified by the
Assyrians.
Marduk-apla-iddina II (the biblical Merodach-Baladan - "Marduk has given me
an Heir") (reigned 722 B.C. 710 B.C.)( 703 B.C. 702 B.C.) was a Chaldean
prince who usurped the Babylonian throne in 721 B.C. He maintained
Babylonian independence in the face of Assyrian military supremacy for more
than a decade. Sargon II suppressed the allies of Marduk-apla-iddina II in
Aram and Israel, and eventually drove him from Babylon in 710 B.C. After the
death of Sargon II, Marduk-apla-iddina II returned from Elam and ignited all
the Arameans in Babylon into rebellion. He was able to enter Babylon and be
declared king again. Nine months later he was defeated near Kish, but escaped
to Elam. He died in exile a couple of years later.
During his reign Sennacherib encountered various problems with Babylonia.
His first campaign took place in 703 BC against Marduk-apla-iddina II who had
seized the throne of Babylon and gathered an alliance supported by Chaldeans,
Aramaeans, and Elamites. We can date the visit of Babylonian ambassadors to

Hezekiah of Judah in this period. The allies wanted to make use of the unrest
that arose at the accession of Sennacherib. In his attack, Sennacherib split his
army and had one part attack the enemy stationed at Kish, while he and the
rest of the army proceeded to capture the city of Cutha. After that was done
the king returned swiftly to aid the rest of his army. The rebellion was
defeated and Marduk-apla-iddina II fled. Babylon was taken, and its palace
plundered but its citizens were left unharmed.

The Assyrians searched for Marduk-apla-iddina II, especially in the southern

marshes, but he was not found. The rebellious forces in the Babylonian cities
were wiped out, and a Babylonian named Bel-ibni, who was raised at the
Assyrian court was placed on the throne. When the Assyrians left, Mardukapla-iddina II started to prepare another rebellion. In 700 B.C. the Assyrian
army returned to fight the rebels in the marshes again. Not surprisingly,
Marduk-apla-iddina II fled again to Elam and died there.

Bel-Ibni proved to be disloyal to Assyria and was taken back a prisoner.

Sennacherib tried to solve the problem of the Babylonian rebellion by placing
someone loyal to him on the throne, namely his son Ashur-nadin-shumi. It
didnt help, another campaign was led six years later in 694 B.C, to destroy the
Elamite base on the shore of the Persian Gulf. To accomplish this, Sennacherib
had obtained Phoenician and Syrian boats which sailed with the rest of his
army down the Tigris to the sea. The Phoenicians were not used to the tide of
the Persian Gulf which caused a delay.
The Assyrians battled the Chaldeans at the river Ulaya and won the day. In
694 B.C, While the Assyrians were busy at the Persian Gulf, the Elamites
invaded northern Babylonia in a complete surprise. Sennacherib's son was
captured and taken to Elam where he was murdered, his throne was taken
over by Nergal-Ushezib. The Assyrians fought their way back north and
captured various cities, in the meanwhile a year had passed as it was now 693
B.C.
A large battle was fought against the Babylonian rebels at Nippur, their king
was captured and in turn taken to Nineveh. For the loss of his son Sennacherib
launched another campaign into Elam where his army started to plunder cities.
The Elamite king fled to the mountains and Sennacherib was forced to return
home because of the coming winter. Another rebellion leader, named
Mushezib-Marduk claimed the Babylonian throne and was supported by Elam.
The last great battle was fought in 691 B.C. with an uncertain result which

enabled Mushezib-Marduk to remain on the throne for another two years. This
was only a brief respite because shortly afterwards Babylon was again
besieged and felll in 689 BC. Sennacherib claimed to have destroyed the city
and indeed the city was unoccupied for several years.

At about 630 B.C, "Nabopolassar" became king of the Chaldeans, and in 626
B.C, he forced the Assyrians out of Uruk and crowned himself king of
Babylonia. He then began wars aimed at the destruction of Assyria. By
dynastic marriage, an alliance was made with Media, the two allies then
attacked and destroyed the Assyrian Empire. In 605 B.C, Nabopolassar died in
Babylon.
His son Nebuchadrezzar II, then became king. Nebuchadrezzar II's interest
however, was in conquest and booty. He did particular damage in Canaan,
where many Hebrews were forced into Babylonian exile.
Upon his death Awil-Marduk (called Evil-Merodach in the Old Testament)
became king. His policies, as well as those of the next king, his brother-in law,
"Neriglissar" were the same as those of Nebuchadrezzar II, namely conquest
and booty.
After the death of Neriglissar, an Aramaean from Harran named "Nabonidus"
became king, the circumstances of his ascension are unknown. He made a
defense treaty with Median king Astyages, as a defense against the Persians,
who were becoming a growing threat under their king Cyrus II. He devoted
himself to renovating old temples, taking a special interest in old inscriptions,
perhaps in reverence for the ancient Amorite dynasty of Hammurabi. He also
gave preference to the god Sin over the Babylonian god Marduk, thus creating
powerful enemies in the Marduk priesthood.
For reasons unknown, Nabonidus left Babylon to reside in northern Arabia,
leaving his son Belshazzar as viceroy in Babylon. Ten years later, Nabonidus
returned to Babylonia because of growing opposition to his rule, no doubt
incited by the Marduk priesthood. He appointed his daughter, high priestess of
the Sin temple in Ur, in an apparent attempt to bypass the Marduk priesthood.
With this, the priests of Marduk looked to Cyrus, hoping to have better
relations with him, than they had with Nabonidus. They promised Cyrus the
surrender of Babylon without a fight if he would restore their position and
privileges.
So with that, we end our Sumer section. The rest of Sumers history, will now
be told from the Persian view.

Eventually a new people "The Turks" will rule this land.

The Muslim conquest; of which Turks and Greeks were the major component,
will lead to the creation of the last great Middle-Eastern Empire, that of the
Ottoman Turks. The power and influence of the Turkic Ottoman Empire was
pervasive in all areas until it's breakup just after World War I.
As with all great Empires; the Ottoman Empire had it's own religion, the
Muslim religion of the Prophet Mohammad - Islam. Which during the duration
of the Ottoman Empire, was termed the Turkish religion, rather than the Arab
religion. Islam was spread as the Ottoman Empire expanded. Today, the
world-wide acceptance and practice of Islam is due to the power and influence
of the great Ottoman Empire.
This was in conformity with other Empires established by migrants from the
Eurasian plains.Earlier the Romans had accepted and adapted one branch of
the Hebrew religion (Christianity), and made it their own. Thus making it a de
facto European religion, Christianity was spread as the Roman Empire
expanded. Today, the world-wide acceptance and practice of Christianity is
due to the Romans and other Europeans they influenced, not to the Hebrews,
who considered Christianity, a Hebrew "only" religion.
Another Turkic group "the Khazars" who in the late 6th century A.D, had
established a major commercial Empire covering the Caucasus region of
Russia, accepted and adapted the Main Hebrew religion; thus also making it a
de facto European religion. It is often times calledJudaism or the Jewish
religion, the origin of the term "Jewish" is however unknown, Hebrews did not
call themselves Jews.
Today, because of the long duration of the Turkic Ottoman Empire (1299 1922), and the great influx of Turkic peoples throughout the centuries: The
ruling elite of Egypt, North Africa and the Entire Middle-East is predominantly
of Turkic stock, rather than the common perception of Arab stock. Though the
term "Arab" is used as the common unifier of the various ethnicity's of the
Middle-East. Please see the Anatolia-3 page, for a history of the Turkic
peoples.