Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-v9fdk Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-16T23:11:05.872Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The Early Dynastic-Akkadian transition, Part 1. When did the Akkadian period begin?*

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  07 August 2014

Donald Matthews
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

We may want to recognise an “Akkadian period” in archaeology for two reasons. A sequence of periods is used as a system of chronological reference, and the Akkadian period conventionally represents the time from 2334–2154 BC (Walker 1995, 234). Periods are also used to define fields of analysis in which studies of social structure or other synchronic investigations may be conducted. The Akkadian period is known as the “first empire” which saw major political and administrative innovations. In archaeology periods have to be defined from the changes in artefact types, so a concordance is needed between the historical and artefactual phases. During the last thirty years McG. Gibson has persistently addressed questions of chronology, and has made an especially important contribution to the chronology of the Akkadian period. A new article (Gibson and McMahon 1995) represents the present state of this issue, based on excavations in the Diyala and Hamrin regions, and in the vicinity of Nippur. Dr McMahon has subjected thousands of sherds from stratified occupation surfaces to statistical analysis, and publication of their distribution and comparanda is expected. The resulting pottery sequence, exhaustively constructed, and summarised in that article, will constitute the principal reference sequence for archaeological sites of this period in southern Iraq. In this article, while accepting the validity and importance of this achievement, I will examine how the Akkadian period should be defined and how pottery sequences should be calibrated with respect to historical periods. I will suggest that the Akkadian pottery should be calibrated by ultimate reference to the glyptic sequence, and that this results in a different dating for the strata in question.

Type
Research Article
Information
IRAQ , Volume 59 , 1997 , pp. 1 - 7
Copyright
Copyright © The British Institute for the Study of Iraq 1997 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Footnotes

*

This article is a reaction to McG. Gibson and A. McMahon, Investigation of the Early Dynastic-Akkadian transition: report of the 18th and 19th seasons of excavation in Area WF, Nippur, Iraq 57 1995, 1–39. The arguments are given in more detail in Matthews 1997, 11–32.

References

1 Traditionally, this has been the primary approach to time in archaeology, but more recently it has been challenged by absolute methods such as radiocarbon and dendrochronology which appear to offer the promise of a neutral dating system more like historical dates. This promise should be viewed with more caution than is normal today. Absolute dates should be used to calibrate conventional archaeological periods representing relative chronology: they should not be used to replace them.

2 There is a list of types in Gibson 1982, 537; but the distributions of examples are not given.

3 Cf. Tell Melebiya (Lebeau 1987 etc.) for an exception.

4 Gibson and McMahon 1995, 3. The dating evidence for this site has not been published.

5 Statistical analysis is also very expensive and impracticable (cf. Moon 1993, 149).

6 Collon 1982, No. 469; Collon 1987, No. 531; Amiet 1976, No. 32.

7 Wilcke 1987, 108–11; Dittmann 1994, 80–1, 100 n. 79.

8 Watelin and Langdon 1934, Pl. 34:3 (Moore 37); Gibson 1982, Pl. 67:3; Matthews 1991, No. 34 = Matthews 1997, No. 346; Van Loon 1979, Fig. 21.

9 Watelin and Langdon 1934, Pl. 34:3; Frankfort 1955, No. 377; Matthews 1991, No. 34 = Matthews 1997, No. 346; Al-Gailani Werr 1992, No. 50.

10 This material is studied in detail in Matthews 1997, 20–8.

11 In Matthews 1997, 18–20, 28–30 I have suggested a more refined interpretation of the Diyala material, rejecting some glyptic from places which were not architecturally well defined. This widens the scope for “ED IIIB” strata.

12 Dated by associated tablets.

13 Eannatum to Urukagina, including such parts of Urukagina's reign as are earlier than whatever definition is adopted for the beginning of the Akkad period.