Elam (ancient times)

from Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Map of Elam

The country name Elam comes from the Greek name Elymaía, which in turn was borrowed from the Hebrew word Elam . The name was Haltamti or Hatamti and means "land of kings, princely land".

The kingdom of Elam ( Sumerian NIM.MA KI , Akkadian KUR Elammatum ; Greek Ἐλυμαία Elymaía or Ἐλυμαΐς Elymaḯs) with the capital Susa (or Shusim) lay east of the Tigris in an area that is now called Chusistan (in modern-day Iran ). In its eventful history - between 3000 and 640 BC BC - it was conquered again and again by the powers of the Mesopotamia ( Sumerians , Akkadians , Babylonians , Assyrians ) and in turn often invaded Mesopotamia .

history

The fertile crescent around 2000 BC Chr.

The main settlement area of ​​the Elamites was the lowlands in the southwest of present-day Iran, essentially the present-day provinces of Ilam , Chuzestan and Luristan . The area of ​​ancient Elam also included the mountainous region around Anzan , which includes parts of today's Kohgiluyeh and Boyer Ahmad Province and the west of Fars .

Proto-Elamite (2900-2750 BC)

The Proto-Elamite language, like Sumerian , was neither Indo-European nor Semitic. So far it has not been possible to decipher the script and therefore it cannot be proven with certainty that it is a predecessor of Elamite. One argument for continuity are some characters that are similar in both scriptures. One argument against this is the long hiatus between the scriptures. Proto-Elamic is therefore a problematic but established technical term.

Proto-Elamic is dated relatively to the Susa III phase in the Susiana plain with a center in Susa. On the Iranian Plateau it falls in the middle and late Banesh phase . Here the site of Tal-i Malyan is the center. It becomes absolute in about the first third of the 3rd millennium BC. Dated. Since both sites were found simultaneously at the beginning of the 3rd millennium. Proto-Elamic, the origin of Proto-Elamic could not be conclusively clarified.

In addition to the Proto-Elamite script, there are other legacies that belong to the Proto-Elamite culture. Above all, this is the characteristic iconography. The main sources are cylinder seals and figurines, monumental art is unknown. Cylinder seal impressions have been found in large numbers on Proto-Elamite tablets. They show animals that act like humans. Examples are weaving, marching or fishing. The lion and the bull play a special role, often portrayed in a kind of "eternal struggle" in which sometimes the bull and sometimes the lion wins. In addition to the seals, there are some well-crafted sculptures that also depict animals. These are on the one hand simple animals and on the other hand anthropomorphic animals that wear clothes and are also shown performing typical human actions.

Before the beginning of the Proto-Elamite culture, Susa's material culture was strongly influenced by the Uruk culture of Mesopotamia. Until the collapse of Uruk, Susa II is regarded as a site belonging to this culture. At the end of this phase, however, some Proto-Elamite traits can be observed. In Susa III it comes in 2950 BC. To a clear break in material culture. There are several hypotheses for this abrupt change. Amiet assumes that the Uruk-Susa was conquered by the highlands. Steve, on the other hand, suspects that Susa has freed herself from Uruk rule. Potts notes that there is no archaeological evidence of armed conflict or the clash of ethnicities claimed by Amiet.

At the same time as the late Uruk culture and Susa II, the early Banesh phase existed in Fars , which is characterized by little settlement and little centralization. Tal-i Malyan does not play a special role in the settlement pattern. The middle and late Banesh phases coincide with Susa III and her Proto-Elamite culture. In the middle Banesh phase, Tal-i Malyan becomes a small town of 45 hectares with public buildings of craft specialization and central administration. In the late Banesh phase it even grew to 200 hectares and was enclosed by a massive wall.

From the two centers of Susa and Tal-i Malyan, the Proto-Elamite culture spreads across the entire Iranian plateau to the southern edge of the Lut desert. There are even some proto-Elamite objects in the Sistan Basin.

At the end of the first half of the 3rd millennium, the Proto-Elamite culture collapsed. At the same time as the early dynastic period in Mesopotamia, Susa IV begins around 2800 BC. BC Susa IV has neither Proto-Elamite script nor the typical iconography, and according to its material culture, Susa now belongs more to Mesopotamia. At the end of the Banesh period, 2600 BC BC, Tal-i Malyan and many other settlements in Fars simply break off and the Proto-Elamite culture disappears. An interim period of several hundred years follows until the beginning of the ancient Elamite culture.

Trans-Elamish (2900-2100 BC)

Chlorite vessel from the art trade in the Trans-Elamite style

The term trans-Elamish is an alternative to the terms “intercultural style” or “serie ancien”. It describes a certain style that is widespread in a wide area from Mesopotamia and the Arabian Peninsula to the Indus Valley. One of its production centers is Tepe Yahya . The style dates to the middle of the 3rd millennium BC. It is thus at the same time as the early dynastic period in Mesopotamia.

This style is a very characteristic iconography, which is predominantly on steatite or chlorite vessels . Some metal vessels in this style have also been preserved. The term was introduced by Amiet. Due to the origin of this style from southeast Iran, he assumed that it was the successor of the Proto-Elamite style and thus closes the gap to the Old Elamite culture, with which these objects also overlap in time. However, there is a temporal gap between Proto-Elamite and Trans-Elamite styles that make continuity unlikely. Nevertheless, the term is established in science and is used synonymously with the term “intercultural style”.

Old Elamite period (2600–1900 BC)

The ancient Elamite period covers a period from 2600 to 1900 BC. There are two Elamite dynasties: the first are the kings of Awan , the second those of Simashki . Throughout the ancient Elamite period, Elam was repeatedly conquered by Mesopotamian rulers. It was seldom independent.

The Awan dynasty

In the early dynastic period in the first half of the 3rd millennium BC There are several city-states in Mesopotamia, which alternately dominate Mesopotamia. This dominance is expressed by “kingship” on the Sumerian King List. Awan also owned the kingship, but then lost it again. It seems that there was constant conflict among the city-states that Awan was sometimes drawn into.

Since the founding of the Akkadian Empire, it has been at war with its eastern neighbors almost constantly. Sargon , the founder of the Akkadian Kingdom, led from around 2300 BC. Several campaigns against Elamite-speaking kings. He subjugated 13 cities in the east of his empire and partially incorporated them into the Akkadian Empire. His sons Rimuš and Maništušu continued this tradition. Naram-Sin was the first ruler known to have signed a treaty with one of the kings of Awan to ensure his loyalty. For unknown reasons, however, this treaty was broken and Naram-sin again waged war against the people in the east. With Naram-sin's successor, Šar-kali-šarri , the war shifted to the Akkadian Empire for the first time.

The end of Akkad around 2150 BC A great instability precedes it. Incursions of the Guteans and constantly changing kings characterize this time. Eventually, Puzur-Inšušinak , the last king of Awan, conquered large parts of the crumbling Akkadian Empire. He is the only king of Awan about whom noteworthy news has come down to us. In the further course of his reign he wages war against Ur-Nammu , who had also conquered an empire in the crumbling Akkadian Empire.

Archaeological considerations of the area east of Mesopotamia at the time of the kings of Awan and the Akkadian Empire are sobering. There are neither cities nor indications of a centralized administration directed towards a king. So what it meant to be King of Awan must be seriously questioned. It could also be that the kings were the misinterpretation of the Akkadians, who were used to central rule.

Under Puzur-Inšušinak there is monumental art for the first time. The Linear Elamite script with which he inscribes his works of art is associated with him. Because of the small corpus of 21 documents, it has not yet been deciphered. A common hypothesis is that a secondary state emerged under Puzur-Inšušinak. That is, in response to the constant aggression of the Akkadian state, the people of the highlands are organizing to resist it. The formation of the Elamite state and an Elamite ethnic group could largely be traced back to Akkad's many wars of aggression.

The Simashki dynasty

Ur-Nammu conquered Mesopotamia and Susa around 2100 BC BC and thus establishes the third dynasty of Ur . With the conquest of Susa, the way for further campaigns to the east is paved. The name Simashki is mentioned for the first time during the reign of Šulgi , the great son of Nammu. Šulgi has a comparatively differentiated relationship with the societies living in the east. Some belong to taxable border colonies, some are independent but are made loyal by marrying Šulgi's daughters, and some are at war with Šulgi. The Simashki are initially listed as taxpayers. Ambassadors from the East were frequently visiting Mesopotamia.

However, the following King Šu-Sin of the third dynasty of Ur leads several campaigns against the eastern areas. Under this pressure, an anti-primeval coalition emerged, whose head or deputy are the kings of Simashki. When there were internal political conflicts around 1950 BC during the time of the subsequent King Ibbi-Sin , the kings of Simashki seized the opportunity and attacked Mesopotamia. They devastate Sumer and Ur, rob several temples and kidnap Ibbi-Sin into the mountains. This is the end of the third dynasty of Ur. The time that followed is historically less secure. However, trade between Mesopotamia and Elam is again being conducted and interdynastic marriages take place.

Similar to the Awan dynasty, no state in Elam can be identified archaeologically in the Simashki dynasty. The geographical region associated with the Simashkis is not uniform. It has a number of different archaeological cultures, such as the Kafari culture in Fars. These findings are interpreted as a confederation of different tribes that did not have a fixed central kingship, but functioned according to the concept of a segmental state, i.e. were only temporarily united for a common goal under a charismatic ruler.

Middle Elamite Period (1900–1100 BC)

King Untash-Napirischa from the Igehalkid dynasty built around 1250 BC. A new capital ( Dur Untasch ).

The empire was organized as a federal state : at the head was an upper king who was subordinate to several vassal princes. His deputy (viceroy) was his next younger brother; Prince of Susa was the son of the upper king. If the upper king died, his son was by no means the successor, but the viceroy and in his place the next younger brother moved again. Thus, disputes within the ruling families could hardly be avoided - the viceroy often overthrew his older brother and thus gained rule.

However, Elam reached the height of his power development under the Schutrukid dynasty (12th century BC). Schutruk-Nahhunte (1185 to 1155 BC) conquered hundreds of Babylonian places, including Babylon itself and Sippar, and imposed the enormous tribute of 120 talents in gold and 480 talents in silver on the vanquished . The famous legal stele of Hammurapi I (with the Hammurapis code) found its way into the king's stele collection in the capital Susa, where it was uncovered by French archaeologists over three millennia later . End of the 12th century BC Chr. Subject Hutelutuš-Inšušinak the Babylonians under Nebuchadnezzar I. For the next three centuries have no further information on Elam before.

Neo-Elamite Period (800–646 BC)

Relief fragment with a spinner , Neo-Elamite period

Since the middle of the eighth century, with Humban-igaš I , the sources flow richer again, as Elam was in a constant battle against the aspiring Empire of the Assyrians and they are precisely reporting on the events. The royal residence was now mostly Madaktu , a city that was perhaps easier to defend and therefore offered better protection than Susa. The Elamites supported together with the Arameans the Chaldean prince Merodach-Baladan of Bit Jakin , so that this 721 BC. Could become king of Babylon .

During this time, a slow decline followed, which culminated in the final annihilation of the Elamite Empire by the Assyrian king Ashurbanipal around 646 BC. Found. It was one of the last triumphs that an Assyrian ruler could proclaim. Towards the end of the long reign of Ashurbanipal, Mesopotamia sank into a dark age for a decade (approx. 635-626 BC).

Elam in the Achaemenid Empire

In the 6th century BC Elam was absorbed in the Persian empire and still played an important role as the third satrapy alongside Persia and the media . Since then, its history has been inextricably linked with the history of Iran . The Greeks called this province Elymais , which even played a certain political role under the Parthians and was probably also temporarily independent.

Arabic chroniclers report about the last offshoots of the Elamite language around the year 1000 AD.

language

The Elamite language - also called Elamite -, which is not related to any other language in the ancient Orient , was one of the official languages ​​of the Persian Empire. Dareios I had almost all inscriptions written in three languages: Old Persian , Elamite and Babylonian .

mythology

The main deities were Pinikir (who was equated with the Babylonian Ishtar ), Humban , Inšušinak (originally the city god Susas ), and the sun god Nahundi .

See also

literature

  • Walther Hinz : The kingdom of Elam. Kohlhammer, Stuttgart 1964.
  • Heidemarie Koch : Women and Snakes. Mysterious culture of the Elamites in old Iran. von Zabern, Mainz 2007, ISBN 3-8053-3737-X .
  • PL Kohl: Carved Chlorite Vessels: A Trade in Finished Commodities in the Mid-Third Millennium. In: Expedition 18. 1975, pp. 18-31 ( [1] ).
  • David McAlpin: Elamite and Dravidian, Further Evidence of Relationships. In: Current Anthropology . Chicago 1975.
  • Daniel T. Potts: The Archeology of Elam. Formation and Transformation of an Ancient Iranian State. Cambridge 1999, ISBN 0-521-56358-5 .
  • Mahmoud Rashad: Iran. History, culture and living traditions - ancient sites and Islamic culture in Persia. 6th edition, DuMont, Ostfildern 2011.
  • Michael Sommer: The Phoenicians. Alfred Kröner Publishing House.

Web links

Commons : Elam  - collection of images, videos and audio files

Individual evidence

  1. ^ Daniel T. Potts: The Archeology of Elam. Formation and Transformation of an Ancient Iranian State. Cambridge 1999, ISBN 0-521-56358-5 , p. 83.
  2. ↑ Pittman: The Proto-Elamit period In: The Royal City of Susa. 1992, pp. 68-69
  3. ^ Le Breton: The Early Periods of Susa, Mesopotamian Relations. In: The Royal City of Susa. 1957, pp. 112-113
  4. ^ A b Daniel T. Potts: The Archeology of Elam. Formation and Transformation of an Ancient Iranian State. Cambridge 1999, ISBN 0-521-56358-5 , pp. 79-81
  5. ↑ Pittmann: The Proto-Elamit period. In: The Royal City of Susa. 1992, p. 70.
  6. ↑ Porada: Art of Ancient Iran. 1969, pp. 34-39.
  7. ↑ Pittmann: The Proto-Elamit period. In: The Royal City of Susa. 1992, p. 70.
  8. ^ Le Breton: The Early Periods of Susa, Mesopotamian Relations. In: The Royal City of Susa. 1957, pp. 105-108.
  9. ↑ Aruz: Power and Protection: a little Proto Elamit Silver Bull Pendant. 2002, pp. 1-14.
  10. ↑ Pittmann: Proto-Elamite Seals and Sealings. In: The Royal City of Susa. 1992, pp. 69-70.
  11. ↑ Pittmann: The Proto-Elamit period. In: The Royal City of Susa. 1992, pp. 68-70.
  12. ^ Daniel T. Potts: The Archeology of Elam. Formation and Transformation of an Ancient Iranian State. Cambridge 1999, ISBN 0-521-56358-5 , pp. 71-79.
  13. ^ Daniel T. Potts: The Archeology of Elam. Formation and Transformation of an Ancient Iranian State. Cambridge 1999, ISBN 0-521-56358-5 , pp. 82-83.
  14. ↑ Pittmann: The Proto-Elamit period. In: The Royal City of Susa. 1992, p. 69.
  15. ^ Daniel T. Potts: The Archeology of Elam. Formation and Transformation of an Ancient Iranian State. Cambridge 1999, ISBN 0-521-56358-5 , p. 90.
  16. ^ A b c Daniel T. Potts: The Archeology of Elam. Formation and Transformation of an Ancient Iranian State. Cambridge 1999, ISBN 0-521-56358-5 , pp. 89-100.
  17. ^ Kohl: Carved Chlorite Vessels: A Trade in Finished Commodities in the Mid-Third Millennium. 1975, pp. 18-31.
  18. ^ Daniel T. Potts: The Archeology of Elam. Formation and Transformation of an Ancient Iranian State. Cambridge 1999, ISBN 0-521-56358-5 , pp. 90-92.
  19. ^ Daniel T. Potts: The Archeology of Elam. Formation and Transformation of an Ancient Iranian State. Cambridge 1999, ISBN 0-521-56358-5 , pp. 100-108.
  20. ^ Daniel T. Potts: The Archeology of Elam. Formation and Transformation of an Ancient Iranian State. Cambridge 1999, ISBN 0-521-56358-5 , pp. 121-125.
  21. ^ Daniel T. Potts: The Archeology of Elam. Formation and Transformation of an Ancient Iranian State. Cambridge 1999, ISBN 0-521-56358-5 , p. 121.
  22. ^ Daniel T. Potts: The Archeology of Elam. Formation and Transformation of an Ancient Iranian State. Cambridge 1999, ISBN 0-521-56358-5 , pp. 125-126.
  23. ^ Daniel T. Potts: The Archeology of Elam. Formation and Transformation of an Ancient Iranian State. Cambridge 1999, ISBN 0-521-56358-5 , p. 127.
  24. ^ Daniel T. Potts: The Archeology of Elam. Formation and Transformation of an Ancient Iranian State. Cambridge 1999, ISBN 0-521-56358-5 , pp. 130-239.
  25. ^ A b Daniel T. Potts: The Archeology of Elam. Formation and Transformation of an Ancient Iranian State. Cambridge 1999, ISBN 0-521-56358-5 , pp. 139-150.
  26. ^ Daniel T. Potts: The Archeology of Elam. Formation and Transformation of an Ancient Iranian State. Cambridge 1999, ISBN 0-521-56358-5 , pp. 150-157.
  27. ^ Daniel T. Potts: The Archeology of Elam. Formation and Transformation of an Ancient Iranian State. Cambridge 1999, ISBN 0-521-56358-5 , p. 272.