Modern historiography has long abandoned those mythical motivations emphasising the uniqueness of the Near East (for theological reasons, as an anthropological categorisation, or as an issue of ‘original’ primacy). It now aims, at least in its most conscious trends, for a normalisation of this phase of history, to be analysed and evaluated in the same way as other phases and other cultures. This process of normalisation implies the abandonment of simplistic models (often too easy to apply, and thus tempting), in order to gain a variety of perspectives, allowing a more holistic reconstruction of the history of the Near East. Consequently, landscapes and material remains are analysed in conjunction with social, economic, and political aspects, as well as ideologies and symbolic systems, in an attempt to reconstruct the whole network of interconnections and motivations linking these elements to each other.
Unlike other ancient periods of history (Ancient Greece and Rome in particular), for the Near East this task is influenced, both positively and negatively, by two factors: one of absence, and one of presence. On the one hand, we lack an ancient historiography able to provide a sort of guideline for our reconstruction. This substantial, yet not total, lack is, however, a useful aspect. It forces the reconstruction of a guideline from a responsible evaluation of the sources, rather than encouraging a lazy reliance on pre-existing guidelines that are often unrealistic, biased, and reductive. In fact, when such a biased picture exists (such as in the case of Greco-Roman history), it turns a large part of modern historical research into a mere exegesis of ancient historiography. On the contrary, the history of the Near East has to be reconstructed ex novo from primary sources, unmediated by later historians. It is here that the availability of primary sources becomes an influential factor. In this regard, administrative texts (as well as commercial, legal, and, in general, archival material) have survived in large amounts. This is due to the trivial, yet essential, fact that the writing material used (i. e. clay tablets) has endured fire and burial much better than other materials in use later or elsewhere (for example papyrus, parchment, and paper). The disadvantage of this fortunate availability of sources is the fact that every year new excavations, both legal and illegal, uncover new material. This forces — even with the inconvenience of a considerable and growing delay in publications — a constant revision of entire chapters of history with new details and more secure data.
Therefore, the absence of ancient historiographical guidelines, the constant publication of new sources, and the progress of philological knowledge and excavation methods make the history of the Near East a young and wide-ranging field of research, relatively free of traditional historiographical problems. The disadvantage of this situation is not really the constant out-datedness of current historical research (which is, on the contrary, a proof of its fast progress). It is the need for a vast array of specialised fields to access the primary sources, and the constant effort in the publication of the first editions of these sources. In fact, the majority of researchers specialised in the study of the Near East are focused on finding and publishing new material: they are therefore predominantly archaeologists and philologists. Fully-fledged historians — separate from the other two categories — are almost non-existent, and Italy is in this case a positive exception. The history produced is therefore anchored in strong philological foundations, and more faithful to the sources (possibly in the hope that they would speak for themselves), rather than guided by problems and issues of interpretation. The general histories of the Near East published today are a clear demonstration of this, since they convert more specialised studies in the field into a general synthesis.
However, this historiographical delay is contrasted by this field’s enormous potential, which has now begun to be applied. The lack of historiographical traditions and the constant influx of new material allows for the development of new approaches and methodologies, at times close to the most naive and reckless of improvisations. However, this field’s eclecticism and receptiveness for schemes developed elsewhere (for other phases in history, as well as completely different anthropological situations) are in great danger of causing misunderstandings and superficial approaches in the study of the Near East. Nonetheless, these schemes have to be considered constructive — at least for the phase of history that we can rightly consider as ‘pre-paradigmatic’ — for the potential reactions and innovative approaches they unleash in the field. It can be said that there has not been a single analytical method or theme in historiography, recent or not so recent, which has not been applied to the Near East: from neo-geographic spatial analysis to the structural analysis of the narratives; from acculturation to frontier studies; from modes of production to systems of exchange; from the structure of myths to political discourse; from settlement patterns to historical semantics; from systems theory to mental maps, and so on. This experimental phase will sooner or later have to be consolidated into coherent lines of research, and become a mature and less adventurous ‘paradigmatic’ historiography. However, the first essential objective towards an enrichment of the overall picture of this phase has been achieved, having overcome the restrictions that a too-strong tradition is still enforcing on other phases of ancient history.
Therefore, the history of the Near East also constitutes a sort of ‘fringe discipline’, creating the right environment for the circulation of different experiences and interpretations. In this regard, the complex set of materials available and the complementarity of the archaeological and textual evidence have prompted a more holistic reconstruction of the past (from material culture to ideology). This should long have been part of the work of the historian, but is so hard to find in many historical works. Therefore, the historian of the Ancient Near East is forced to take on the role of field archaeologist as well as philologist, to a degree unknown to other fields of research, whose areas of expertise appear better defined and seem to be working in a sort of consolidated production chain.
The reconstruction of late prehistoric phases in particular — characterised by the difficult task of reconstructing complex social structures on the basis of non-textual evidence — has acted as an incentive for the coordinated and in-depth application of ah the clues and evidence available: from data regarding ecology to pedology, paleo-botany, archaeo-zoology, ethno-archaeological comparisons, and experimental archaeology, along with all the refinements in prehistoric excavations (stratigraphic investigations as well as surveys), and all the problematic complexity of social, political, and economic anthropology. On the one hand, the results remain outside the margins of history, since the lack of textual evidence hinders an access to the historical events. On the other hand, these results open up a sort of ‘New History’, characterised by a desire to establish ‘laws’ (in a way similar to other, typically American, new sciences such as New Archaeology, New Geography, and New Economic History), aimed more at ‘predicting’ the past rather than reconstructing it. These trends manifest a tendency to detect laws instead of identifying exceptions. Moreover, the introduction of electronic programs has opened up a range of possibilities (and risks) through ‘simulations’ applied to the uncertainties of the past, rather than the uncertainties of the future. This has formed a generation of ‘demiurge’ historians who prefer to creatively construct the past, rather than reconstructing it.
In many respects, then, the history of the Near East is increasingly becoming a workshop for the study of highly interesting phenomena characterising the history of human societies. The concept of ‘workshop’ has to be understood as a place that allows the breaking down of complex phenomena in their constitutive factors, analysed on their own, in order to detect norms and recreate patterns of behaviour. Moreover, due to its place at the ‘dawn’ of history, the Near East can be considered a privileged workshop, since it deals with phenomena at the time when they were starting to become more complex. Yet this phase remains distant enough from our times to prevent an emotional or cultural attachment. The latter could in fact hinder a full understanding of the real development of the various factors. Therefore, apart from the immediate results gathered from an understanding of the historical facts examined, the study of the Near East constitutes an opportunity to gain a wider perspective on the results gathered, allowing a reconstruction of influential historical and anthropological patterns.
World History
