‘People that know not metal, people that know not (precious) stones’; ‘People that know not oil, people that know not milk’; ‘the mountain gods eat people, do not build houses like humans, do not build cities like humans’; ‘their hearts know not oven-baked bread, their stomachs know not beer’.
Figure 10.1 A group of Asiatic nomads (‘Amu) entering Egypt, ca. 1900 bc.
The second kind of evidence is attested in administrative and historical sources. Administrative texts describe the Martu as working for the cities as shepherds, mercenaries and even sellers of their own products, especially metal objects (such as the typical ‘Amorite dagger’) and leather. The sources recount the history of the relations between pastoral groups and sedentary communities as a one-sided series of expeditions aimed at pushing these nomadic groups as far away as possible, but in vain. The Martu are already attested in the texts of Ebla, and then in those of the empires of Akkad and Ur. Already at that time their pressure on Mesopotamia was strong, implying their already successful expansion in Syria. From the other side of the Near East, contemporary Egyptian sources of the Middle Kingdom show that the Egyptians had similar worries for these nomadic incursions and took similar measures against them (Figure 10.1). Many military expeditions were sent against them, but these nomadic groups were too mobile and elusive to be completely removed or even conquered. Consequently, several fortifications were built to protect the Nile Delta from incursions coming from the Sinai, clearly mirroring the wall that the kings of Ur had built to protect Mesopotamia.
The sedentary states’ attempt at containing these nomadic groups was a recurrent phenomenon in the history of the Near East. On the one hand, in order to reassure the population of their security against incursions, the problem was dealt with by a propagandistic celebration of sedentary states. On the other hand, the administrative texts reveal a completely different picture, whereby nomadic groups contributed to the economy and armies of sedentary states. However, at the end of the third millennium bc the situation became increasingly more dangerous, with nomadic groups placing increasingly more pressure on sedentary states. The situation eventually developed into a series of expansionistic outbursts into urbanised areas, both in Egypt, at the beginning of the Second Intermediate period, and in Mesopotamia, at the time of the fall of Ur.
Traces of this increase in nomadic presence at the end of the third millennium bc have been investigated archaeologically. At this time, Palestine (the region that has been more thoroughly excavated) was experiencing a particular phase, defined as the ‘Intermediate Early Bronze-Middle Bronze period’. All of a sudden, the network of cities of the Early Bronze III, which had managed to reach the marginal areas in the south and in the Transjordan Plateau, collapsed. Before the return to urbanisation, through the rise of the Middle Bronze culture coming from the north and the Lebanese coast, the area experienced an intermediate period. The archaeological evidence for this period has been mainly found in necropolises, characterised by grave goods and funerary practices similar to the ones attested for nomadic groups. In particular, Jericho’s necropolis features several groups of tombs with different sets of grave goods for different tribal groups. It also shows the practice of secondary inhumations, possibly due to the use of the necropolis by transhumant groups. The
Necropolis also features the presence of military elites, equipped with high-quality weapons and types of pottery completely different from the previous or later types known from the area (Figure 10.2).
The consideration of this intermediate period as a phase in which the whole area had recessed from urbanised settlements to pastoral groups has undergone several revisions. First, certain specific points of this analysis have been rectified. Second, it has been discovered that some urban settlements, such as Megiddo, actually managed to survive in this period. Nonetheless, the interpretation of Palestine, located close to the south-western frontier of urbanisation, as a region marked by the strong tribal and pastoral presence in this intermediate period has to be correct, while the application of this interpretation to the whole of Syria and Upper Mesopotamia is far less acceptable.
In Syria, the collapse of the second urbanisation cannot be only due to the fall of Ebla. It was rather the effect of a migration towards more fertile and arable lands. This was generally a long-term phenomenon, but in this case it began abruptly at the end of the Early Bronze Age. In some Syrian areas nomadic pressures managed to spread more easily, causing a strong Amorite influence on Syrian culture. This influence is visible in the personal names attested between the end of the Ebla archives and the Ur III and Isin-Larsa documentation. However, the continuity of the surviving urban centres in Syria is certain and so is the continuity of their pottery types. This continuity remained during that evolution, both in terms of techniques and taste, which marked the beginning of the Middle Bronze Age. A similar situation can be found in Upper Mesopotamia, with the decline and organisational difficulties of its urban centres. Therefore, nomadic incursions took over the territories left vacant by the city-states. There was some sort of cultural continuity, which was however marked by visible changes in production and taste. These changes were not due to external factors, but were the result of an internal development.
The Amorite expansionistic wave developed in successive phases, first invading Palestine, then Syria and Upper Mesopotamia and finally reaching Lower Mesopotamia. The violent nature of the Amorite incursion in Lower Mesopotamia, attested in Neo-Sumerian texts, was a necessity when facing the solid political and military organisation of the Third Dynasty of Ur. Earlier phases of Amorite expansion could
Figure 10.2 Pottery and weapons of the intermediary period between the Early and Middle Bronze Age, from the necropolis ofJericho.
Have been different, with situations presenting less resistance and better opportunities to conquer the area. At the beginning of the second millennium bc, however, the Amorite expansion brought a visible predominance of Amorite names in Syria and Upper Mesopotamia and to a lesser degree in Lower Mesopotamia. On a political level, we find Amorite kings ruling over various Syrian and Mesopotamian cities.
Due to the socio-cultural influence of the Amorites taking place in that period, the tribal origins of these kings, however, cannot be assumed a priori. This Amorite influence was prevailing in those territories that were formerly part of the kingdom of Ebla and belonged to the ‘Kish tradition’. However, in the Sumerian area, Akkadian culture was becoming increasingly influential. The rise of the Amorites in Syria and Upper Mesopotamia was not the reason why the Akkadians moved further south. By then, Akkadian culture was already a strong presence in Lower Mesopotamia. It has to be borne in mind that the scribal and political traditions of the Third Dynasty of Ur over-represented the Sumerian element of the area, which was significantly decreasing. The arrival of the Amorites kick-started a political and cultural fragmentation, which allowed Akkadian culture to rise to prominence. Akkadian culture thus visibly emerged in the scribal tradition, making Sumerian an erudite language only used for religious and literary compositions. Consequently, an Akkadian and Amorite symbiosis substituted the former Sumerian and Akkadian one.
World History
