Talugaeš witteš Ancient Near Eastern Studies Presented to Stefano de Martino on the Occasion of his 65th Birthday
←
→
Page content transcription
If your browser does not render page correctly, please read the page content below
Kasion 2
talugaeš witteš
talugaeš witteš
Ancient Near Eastern Studies
Presented to Stefano de Martino
Ancient Near Eastern Studies
Presented to Stefano de Martino
on the Occasion of his 65th Birthday
Edited by Michele Cammarosano,
Elena Devecchi and Maurizio Viano
Κάσιον Kasion 2
Zaphon
Kasion-2-FS-de-Martino-Cover.indd 1 18.02.2020 14:28:42talugaeš witteš
Ancient Near Eastern Studies
Presented to Stefano de Martino
on the Occasion of his 65th Birthday
Edited by Michele Cammarosano,
Elena Devecchi and Maurizio Viano
© 2020, Zaphon, Münster
ISBN 978-3-96327-110-6 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-111-3 (E-Book)Kasion
Publikationen zur ostmediterranen Antike
Publications on Eastern Mediterranean Antiquity
Band 2
Herausgegeben von Sebastian Fink,
Ingo Kottsieper und Kai A. Metzler
© 2020, Zaphon, Münster
ISBN 978-3-96327-110-6 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-111-3 (E-Book)talugaeš witteš
Ancient Near Eastern Studies
Presented to Stefano de Martino
on the Occasion of his 65th Birthday
Edited by Michele Cammarosano,
Elena Devecchi and Maurizio Viano
Zaphon
Münster
2020
© 2020, Zaphon, Münster
ISBN 978-3-96327-110-6 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-111-3 (E-Book)Illustration auf dem Einband: Auschnitt aus KBo 21.22 (406/c).
Courtesy Hethitologie-Portal Mainz: hethiter.net/:3DArchiv 406-c.
talugaeš witteš
Ancient Near Eastern Studies Presented to Stefano de Martino
on the Occasion of his 65th Birthday
Edited by Michele Cammarosano, Elena Devecchi and Maurizio Viano
Kasion 2
© 2020 Zaphon, Münster (www.zaphon.de)
All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced,
stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted, in any form or by any means,
electronic, mechanical, photo-copying, recording, or otherwise,
without the prior permission of the publisher.
Printed in Germany
Printed on acid-free paper
ISBN 978-3-96327-110-6
ISSN 2626-7179
© 2020, Zaphon, Münster
ISBN 978-3-96327-110-6 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-111-3 (E-Book)Indice
Prefazione .......................................................................................................... XI
Pubblicazioni di Stefano de Martino................................................................. XV
Silvia Alaura
La vera storia di un clamoroso falso ittita di fine Ottocento ............... ................. 1
Metin Alparslan – Meltem Doğan-Alparslan
Ein neues Tontafelfragment aus Boğazköy: Boğazkale 1-1-2018 ...................... 23
Alfonso Archi
Personal Names of Proto-Anatolian Indo-European-Speaking Populations
East of the Euphrates (24th Cent. BC) ................................................................ 27
Giorgio Buccellati
“Awīliš īwē”: L’uomo mesopotamico come figlio della città ............................. 37
Alessandra Cellerino
Il sigillo a cilindro IM 115642 dalla Tomba Reale III a Nimrud:
Una raffigurazione enigmatica ............................................................................ 51
Yoram Cohen – Netanel Anor
Forging an Empire: The Borders of Carchemish According to CTH 50
(KUB 19.27) ...................................................................................................... 71
Lorenzo d’Alfonso
Reorganization vs. Resilience in Early Iron Age Monumental Art
of Central Anatolia.............................................................................................. 81
Belkıs Dinçol – Hasan Peker
Sealings from Renewed Excavations at Alalakh .............................................. 103
Rita Dolce
Visual Communication and the Audience: An Observation Point
on Mesopotamia................................................................................................ 109
© 2020, Zaphon, Münster
ISBN 978-3-96327-110-6 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-111-3 (E-Book)VIII Indice
Frederick Mario Fales
The Rural Hinterland of Assyrian Cities: Clusters of Toponyms ..................... 121
Massimo Forlanini
Il contesto storico delle istruzioni “umanitarie” hittite e l’“invasione”
dei caschei (Kaška) ........................................................................................... 141
Rita Francia
The Name of Babylon in Hittite Texts .............................................................. 175
Helmut Freydank – Doris Prechel
Nochmals zum Brief des Labarna an Tunija von Tikunani .............................. 193
Amir Gilan
“She did not call me father, so I will not call her my daughter!”
The Episode of the “Daughter” in CTH 6 and Its Historical Significance ........ 203
Federico Giusfredi
On the Old Assyrian tuzzinnum ........................................................................ 215
Fatma Kaynar
KUB 32.121: il quinto frammento del rituale di Šalašu? ................................. 225
Marilyn Kelly-Buccellati
The Urkesh Mittani Horizon: Ceramic Evidence ............................................. 237
Jörg Klinger
Nochmals zur Schreibung der Konjunktion maḫḫan und ihrer Geschichte ...... 257
Carlo Lippolis – Roberta Menegazzi
From Turin to Karakorum: Archaeology for the Public through Asia.............. 275
Romolo Loreto
Sulle origini del commercio carovaniero tra la Penisola Arabica e
il Vicino Oriente antico..................................................................................... 287
Massimiliano Marazzi
PORTA, PORTA2 und „Hofeingang“ in den Hieroglypheninschriften
des 2. Jts. v. Chr. .............................................................................................. 301
Paolo Matthiae
On the Historical Events of the Hurro-Hittite “Song of Release”.................... 317
© 2020, Zaphon, Münster
ISBN 978-3-96327-110-6 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-111-3 (E-Book)Indice IX
Vito Messina
A Statue of the mušḫuššu of Marduk at Babylon? ........................................... 331
Jared L. Miller
Two Notes on Kizzuwatna’s Status as a Hittite Vassal
in the Middle Hittite Period ............................................................................. 345
Clelia Mora
Cylinder Seals as a Status Symbol in Hittite Anatolia ...................................... 351
Frances Pinnock
Far nascere una statua, uccidere una statua: Ebla e gli Ittiti (?)
nel periodo paleosiriano .................................................................................... 361
Simonetta Ponchia
Essere senza un padre: Una nota su Gilgamesh ................................................ 377
Robert Rollinger
Some Considerations on Empire and Mental Mapping:
Conceptualizing the Ends of the World in the First Millennium BCE ............. 383
Andreas Schachner
The Power of Geography: Criteria for Selecting the Location of Hattuša,
the Capital City of the Hittite Empire ............................................................... 399
Aygül Süel
A Mould from Ortaköy/Šapinuwa .................................................................... 421
Giulia Torri
Potters and Pottery in Hittite Society, According to Written Sources .............. 433
Roberta Venco Ricciardi – Enrico Foietta
Cinture di sovrani, nobili e cavalieri nella statuaria di Hatra ............................ 453
Mark Weeden
Hurrian in a Tablet from Tigunānum ................................................................ 469
Gernot Wilhelm
Allaituraḫe ........................................................................................................ 489
© 2020, Zaphon, Münster
ISBN 978-3-96327-110-6 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-111-3 (E-Book)© 2020, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-110-6 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-111-3 (E-Book)
Some Considerations on Empire and Mental Mapping
Conceptualizing the Ends of the World
in the First Millennium BCE*
Robert Rollinger
1. Setting the stage: Gilgameš as model
In a famous passage of the Standard Babylonian version of the epic of Gil-
gameš the hero and king of Uruk reaches the edge of the known world in his quest
for eternal life. It is at this very place at the shores of the ocean encircling the
world where he encounters the ale-wife Šiduri whom he asks for the way to Ūta-
napišti, the flood hero and only living person who received the blessing of eternal
life. The evolving dialogue is a major testimony to the Babylonian mental map-
ping of the world in the first millennium BCE:1
Standard Babylonian Epic, Tablet x 72–862
72. [dGIŠ-gim]-maš a-na šá-ši-ma izakkara(mu)ra ana sa-b[it]
73. [e-nin-n]a-ma sa-bit mi-nu-ú ḫar-ra-an šá UD-napi[šti(zi)]
74. [mi-nu]-˹ú˺ it-ta-šá ia-a-ši id-ni
75. id-nim-ma it-ta-šá ia-a-ši
76. šum-ma na-ṭu-ma tâmta(a.ab.ba) lu-bir
77. šum-ma la -na-ṭu-ma ṣēra(edin) lu-ur-pu-ud
78. sa-bit a-na šá-šu-ma izakkara(mu)ra a-na dGIŠ-gím-maš
79. ul ib-ši dGIŠ-gím-maš né-bé-ru ma-ti-ma
80. u ma-am-ma šá ul-tu u4-um ṣa-at {KUR} la ib-bi-ru tam-ta
81. e-bir tam-ti dšamaš(utu) qu-ra-du-um-mu
82. ba-lu dšamaš(utu) e-bir tam-tim man-nu
* This piece was written during my stay at the Getty Villa as a Getty Guest Scholar for
which I would like to express my gratitude. For comments and discussions I am grateful
to Reinhold Bichler (Innsbruck), Julian Degen (Innsbruck), and Josef Wiesehöfer (Kiel). I
would also like to thank Roselyn Campbell for improving my English.
1
An appropriate definition of mental maps can be found with Romney 2017, 864: “the
mental structures or processes by which individuals acquire, store, and use information
about their geographical environment.”
2
After George 2003, 682f.
© 2020, Zaphon, Münster
ISBN 978-3-96327-110-6 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-111-3 (E-Book)384 R. Rollinger
83. pa-áš-qat né-ber-tum šup-šu-qat ú-ru-uḫ-šá
84. ù bi-ra-a mê(a)meš mu-ti šá pa-na-as-sa par-ku
85. a-ḫum-ma dGIŠ-gím-maš te-te-bir tam-ta
“Gilgameš spoke to her, to the ale-wife:
‘Now, ale-wife, what is the road to Ūta-napišti?
What is the landmark? Give it to me!
Do give me its landmark!
If it may be done, I will cross the ocean!
If it may not be done, I will roam the wild!’
The ale-wife spoke to him, to Gilgameš
‘There never was, O Gilgameš, a way across,
And since the days of old none who can cross the ocean.
The one who crosses the ocean is the hero Šamaš:
Apart from Šamaš, who is there can cross the ocean?
The crossing is perilous, its way full of hazard,
And in between are the Waters of Death, that lie across the passage forward.
So besides, Gilgameš, (once) you have crossed the ocean,
When you reach the Waters of Death, what will you do?”
Apparently the world is, in a way, conceptulaized as it has been visualized by
the “Babylonian Map of the World.”3 It is surrounded by a circular ocean that is
regarded as infinite and intransgressible. However, there are also regions beyond
this great ocean. In one of them lives Ūta-napišti. Another one is the Netherworld.
Whether the Waters of Death (mê mūti) are thought to be identical with the great
encircling ocean or whether they represent something like its outer rim is not en-
tirely clear.4 In any case, Gilgameš’s intention to cross the ocean (x 76: A.AB.BA
lu-bir) has to be characterized as an act of haughtiness since, as Šiduri explains,
it is only the sungod Šamaš who is able to do so.
But Gilgameš remains stubborn and, accidentally, Ur-šanabi, Ūta-napišti’s
boatman, is just in the forest nearby. Gilgameš immediately approaches the ferry-
man with impetuous force and thereby smashes his crew who were actually nec-
essary for a safe passage across the ocean. This crew bears the enigmatic name
the “Stone Ones” (šūt abni). By identifying their main instrument as urnu, “a tim-
ber-bearing tree,” according to line x 88, Andrew George was able to demonstrate
that they have to be regarded as sailors assisting Ur-šanabi in his task to cross the
great ocean: “Thus it is the urnu tree that provided the instruments of propulsion
and the Stone Ones are identified, by default, as the crew who wield them. The
3
See Delnero 2017. However, there the ocean is determined as marratu whereas Gilgameš
crosses the tâmtu. Yet, the two terms appear to be nearly synonymous: Murray 2016, 51.
4
See George 2003, 499f.
© 2020, Zaphon, Münster
ISBN 978-3-96327-110-6 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-111-3 (E-Book)Some Considerations on Empire and Mental Mapping 385
new detail, that the Stone Ones maintained Ur-šanabi’s boat in seaworthy condi-
tion (l. 102), confirms their function as sailors.”5
But what was their precise activity for which they needed to prepare the urnu
in order to cross the ocean? This becomes apparent when Gilgameš, after having
smashed the Stones Ones, enters the boat expectantly waiting for the passage. For
Ur-šanabi instructs the king of Uruk that, since he has killed the crew, it is now
upon him to perform their task. But first he has to prepare the urnu adequately:
Standard Babylonian Epic, Tablet x 159–1616
159. i-ši dGIŠ-gím-maš ḫa-ṣi-in-na ana i-[di-ka]
160. e-rid ana gišqistim(tir)-ma pa-ri-ši šá 5 nindanā(nindan)ta.àm [5.gìš ik-sa]
161. ku-pur-ma šu-kun tu-la-a
“Take up, Gilgameš, the axe in [your] hand,
Go down to the forest and [cut me three hundred] punting-poles, each five rods
long
Trim and furnish (each) with a boss, bring [them to …].”
The passage is of major importance since it identifies the instrument of the
Stone Ones as “punting-poles” (parīsu).7 This is already true for the Old Babylo-
nian version of the epic where the Stone Ones wield exactly this kind of naviga-
tion tool (Old Babylonian version iv 27; George 2003, 280). Gilgameš has to make
a whole set of 300 of these punting-poles since they will have to be exchanged
again and again in order to avoid splashing oneself with the lethal water (x 174–
180). And even this astonishingly high quantity will not suffice wherefore Gil-
gameš will have to invent sailing to reach Ūta-napišti’s land of the blessed (x 181–
183). Obviously, the Stone Ones were much more skillfull in using these tools
than the king of Uruk but Gilgameš was inventive enough to finally achieve his
aim.
The passage bears important pieces of information concerning the worldview
about the ends of the world for the times the text had relevance. This worldview
is intrinsically connected with the instruments which the Stone Ones used to han-
dle and which were later acquired by Gilgameš. Punting-poles are practical tools
only if the water becomes shallow. Obviously, this is exactly what the passage is
about. At the very end of the world the ocean is replete with shallows, the circum-
navigation of which is a challenge and a rather difficult task. In order to guarantee
further movement, punting-poles therefore become an essential instrument.8
5
George 2003, 502. CAD U/W 234 s.v. urnu A: “a variety of cedar.”
6
After George 2003, 688f.
7
CAD P 186 s.v. parīsu A, offers a very general meaning: “picket, plank.” AHw 833 s.v.
parīsu(m) I, has “Ruderstange.”
8
Cf. George 2003, 285 ad iv 26–27.
© 2020, Zaphon, Münster
ISBN 978-3-96327-110-6 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-111-3 (E-Book)386 R. Rollinger
As Andrew George has already noticed, Gilgameš’s punting-poles are excep-
tionally long, about 30 metres. On the one side, this is due to the enhanced epic
dimensions. The enormous length is just the appropriate size for a hero like Gil-
gameš. On the other side, punting-poles are only useful if they have an adequate
length. They not only need to be long enough to reach the ocean floor9 but also to
keep the boat away from the shallows and to navigate it safely through the deeper
“channels.” For this reason they serve as a means of propulsion in these deeper
passages but also as repelling instruments deployed more horizontally at both
sides of the boat to keep it on track. The need for this sort of tools might also be
due to the fact that the body of water separating the Netherworld from the land of
the living was traditionally thought to be a river.10 This river, mostly anonymous
but sometimes called Ḫubur/Ḫabur, might have become identical with the outer
rim of the great ocean, for Gilgameš’s journey betrays a threefold division of the
outer ocean.
The first part of the ocean is trasversed with incredible speed. This speed also
applies to the narration, for the poet only spends one line to explain that Gilgameš
and Ur-šanabi travelled a journey of one month and a half within three days (x
171). He also wastes no words about the techniques of propulsion along this route.
This is certainly because this track represents the known world and there is noth-
ing spectacular to be recounted about this part of the journey. The story only be-
comes exciting when Ur-šanabi and Gilgameš reach the second part of their jour-
ney and the poet makes clear that they have now entered the uncharted world:
“Then Ur-šanabi arrived at the Waters of [Death]” (x 172).11 It is these Waters of
Death where the punting-poles become necessary and the poet needs at least 8
lines to report how Ur-šanabi and Gilgameš managed to get across this major ob-
stacle (x 173–180). The last part is either already beyond the shallows or just a
continuation of them where the two only face the problem of propulsion, ingen-
iously solved by the invention of sailing (x 182-break of the tablet). Unfortu-
nately, the poet does not reveal how the Stone Ones traditionally managed to pass
through this last part of the journey. But they might still have been able to use the
punting-poles, thus acting in a much more efficient way than Gilgameš, and suc-
ceeded in reaching Ūta-napišti.
This episode of the Gilgameš epic is an intriguing example of geographical
mental mapping designed within a mythical framework.12 It is an astonishing tes-
timony for a very specific worldview about the edges of the world, the regions
beyond, and the way to get there. This worldview gains momentum when it is
transformed into a language of power and world dominion.13 Although there was
9
This is their main task according to George 2003, 285 ad iv 26–27.
10
Cf. Katz 2003, 17–20, 38–40, 47, 91.
11
George 2003, 688: 172 ik-šu-dam-ma m˹ur-šánabi˺ mê(a)meš m[u-ú-ti].
12
On mental mapping see Redepenning 2016 and Konstantopoulos 2017.
13
Cf. Mitchell 22002, Livingstone 2003, 1–16, Müller 2014, Rollinger 2016.
© 2020, Zaphon, Münster
ISBN 978-3-96327-110-6 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-111-3 (E-Book)Some Considerations on Empire and Mental Mapping 387
an imperial prelude in the third millennium BCE, it is the first millennium BCE
in the history of the ancient Near East when empire and the claim to rule the world
became dominant forces in a political discourse of ongoing imperial conquest.
With the establishment of the Neo-Assyrian empire conquest and imperial state
building defined the political discourse in a completely new dimension. In this
context it was of major importance for any Assyrian king to outdo the accom-
plishments of his predecessor and to control regions that were previously neither
known nor part of the empire.14 With this worldview the sea was not a border
anymore and the regions beyond it attracted attention. Since Gilgameš was always
a model for ideal kingship, his feats set the stage in the Mesopotamian worldview
that had to be followed by kings and their visions of empire.15 This became espe-
cially relevant when Assyrian kings started to claim to rule regions beyond the
great ocean.16
2. World rule, heroic kingship, and crossing the ocean after
Gilgameš
Apart from Gilgameš the kings of Agade of the third millennium BCE have
always been a role model for ancient Near Eastern kings, be it Babylonian, As-
syrian, or Hittite monarchs.17 Two of them, Maništūsu (2275–2261 BCE)18 and
Narām-Sîn (2260–2224 BCE),19 were the first with the claim to have crossed the
(upper) ocean and to have conquered regions beyond the sea.20 As with Gilgameš
this was a yardstick for the performance of kingship in the first millennium BCE.
In their royal inscriptions the Neo-Assyrian kings came close to this claim alt-
hough they never asserted that they conquered regions beyond the ocean. Ashur-
banipal (668–627 BCE) came closest to this aspiration when he maintained to
have received a messenger from Gyges (Gugu) of Lydia (Luddu), “a region (nagû)
beyond the sea, a distant place, the name of which the kings, my ancestors, had
never heard.”21 It is only the Persian-Achaemenid king Darius (521–486 BCE)
14
Cf. Parker 2011.
15
Cf. Lanfranchi 2007.
16
Cf. for details Rollinger – Lang 2010, Rollinger 2014a, Rollinger 2020a.
17
Cf. Foster 2016; for the Hittites see Haas 2006, 40f.
18
RIME 2.1.3.1, 9–24.
19
RIME 2.1.4.3, iv 19–32.
20
See the discussion in Rollinger 2014a and Rollinger 2020a.
21
RINAP 5, Ashurbanipal 3 (Prism B), ii 87f: (ii 87) na-gu-ú šá né-ber-ti A.AB.BA áš-ru
ru-u-qu (ii 88) šá LUGAL.MEŠ AD.MEŠ-ia la iš-mu-u zi-kir MU-šúwith parallel versions
in Ashurbanipal 4 (Prism D) ii 61’–63’; Ashurbanipal 7 (Prism Kh) iii 17’’–19’’; Ashur-
banipal 9 (Prism F) ii 10f.; Ashurbanipal 11 (Prism A) ii 95f.; Ashurbanipal 74 (Assyrian
Tablet 3 = Large Egyptian Tablet) r. 19–20. Cf. also Ashurbanipal 2 (Prism E2) vi 14–19;
Ashurbanipal 23 (Inscription from the Ištar Temple, 86–89). See also Borger 1996, 30, 218
(Prism B ii 93f.), Onasch 1994, Vol. 1, 110f., Vol. 2, 80 (Large Egyptian Tablet r. 19f.). In
© 2020, Zaphon, Münster
ISBN 978-3-96327-110-6 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-111-3 (E-Book)388 R. Rollinger
who again dared to put forward such a claim, thus outdoing all his royal prede-
cessors.22
However, there are intermediary testimonies that gain momentum when
placed in their proper contexts. With Sargon II (721–705 BCE) a new area of royal
aspiration started.23 This became relevant when the borders of his empire had to
be defined, borders which were regarded to be identical with the borders of the
world. For the first time these borders were marked by two “remote” islands in
the great ocean, Iadnana (i.e. Cyprus) and Dilmun (i.e. Bahrain), both related to
each other in a kind of parallel composition. Although Esarhaddon’s (680–669
BCE) and Ashurbanipal’s (668–627 BCE) claims went far beyond these markers24
they never went as far as to maintain the crossing of the sea. Such a claim might
have been regarded as haughty since it was, as we have already seen, only the sun
god Šamaš who was in charge of such a performance. This is also notified in the
Šamaš hymn as it is preserved from the library of Ashurbanipal: “You make a
habit of constantly crossing the great, vast ocean” (tētenibir tâmtum rapaštum
šadilta).25
However, apart from royal inscriptions, such a royal endeavour in competing
with the sun god appears to have been possible indeed. An important document
in this respect is the so called “Sargon geography” which appears to originate
from the reign of Esarhaddon.26 The text which is playing with the different con-
notations of the name “Sargon,” i.e. Sargon of Agade vs. the Assyrian king Sargon
II, develops a mappa mundi whose layout is designed in symmetric opposition
along the two oceans marking the two ends of the world:
Sargon Geography, 41–44:27
41. a-na-kùki kap-ta-raki mātātu(kur.kur) eberti(bal.ri) [tâm]ti elīti(an.ta)
42. tilmunki má-gan-naki mātātu eberti tâmti šaplīti(ki.ta)
43. ù mātātu ultu ṣīt dša[mši] (dutu.˹è!˺.[a]) adi ereb dšamši (dutu.šú.a)
44. ša šarru-kēn šàr kišša[ti](ki[š]) adi 3-šú qat-su ik-šu!-du.
“Anaku and Kaptara, the lands (KUR.KUR) across (BAL.RI) the Upper Sea,
Dilmun and Magan, the lands (KUR.KUR) across (BAL.RI) the Lower Sea
the Babylonian mappa mundi (Delnero 2017) the nagû refer to regions on the other side of
the sea (marratu). Therefore, nagû bears also the connotations of an island. Cf. CAD N1
121 s.v. nagû A. See also Rollinger 2003.
22
Rollinger 2014b, 198 on DB §74. See also Degen 2018, 12–15.
23
Cf. Galter 2014.
24
See Rollinger 2014a.
25
Lambert 1960, 128f., l. 35.
26
Thus with Liverani 1999–2001. Horowitz 1998, 93 and van de Mieroop 1999 date the
text in the reign of Sargon II.
27
Horowitz 1998, 72f.
© 2020, Zaphon, Münster
ISBN 978-3-96327-110-6 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-111-3 (E-Book)Some Considerations on Empire and Mental Mapping 389
And the lands from sunri[se] to sunset, the sum total of all lands,
Which Sargon, King of the Univer[se], conquered three times.”28
The text rather clearly deals with the apex of royal performance. Even regions
(mātātu = KUR.KUR) across (eberti = BAL.RI) the sea have been conquered alt-
hough this claim is only indirectly related to a contemporary king. This fancy
touch of the passage also relates to the names of the regions beyond the sea.
Dilmun and Magan might have been easily identified by contemporaries with
Bahrain and Oman (or regions close to it), but a precise localization was more
difficult with Anaku and Kaptara. It is still difficult for modern scholars, although
there is some agreement that Kaptara refers to Crete whereas the location of
Anaku remains a question of debate.29 However, the central message of the text
is not the localization of these toponyms but the assertion that Mesopotamian
kingship has reached beyond the sea and had thus become synonymous with the
reach of the sun god Šamaš.
Of course, this statement is also a reference to Gilgameš and his journey to
Ūta-napišti towards the ends of the world. Yet, there is one further text which
even develops a closer connection to the famous episode of the Gilgameš epic
quoted obove outlining the dimensions of the “world.” The text originates from
Ashurbanipal’s library at Nineveh. It is a passage of the chapter Multābiltu of the
Babylonian extispicy series (Tablet 14–15, Text 11, lines A 22–26):30
A 22. [be bà gim sag.du] ur.maḫ it-tab-ši bà-ut lugal-gi.na šá ina uzu an-ni-[i]
A 23. [ina bal d15] i-la-am-ma šá-ni-na gaba.ri nu tuk-ši šá-lum-mat-su ugu
A 24. [kur.meš it-bu-ku] a.ab.ba šá dutu-šú.a i-bi-ru-ma mu-3-kám ina dutu-
šú.a
A 25. [a-di qí-ti-šú š]u-su kur-du ka-šu a-šar 1-en ú-ki-nu alan.meš-šú ina
d
utu-šú.a
A 26. [úš-zi-i]z-zu šal-la-su-nu ina -ma-a-ti a.ab.ba ú-še-bi-ra
“[If the Liver is like] a lion’s [head]: Omen of Sargon, who by this omen rose
[in the reign of Ištar] and had neither rival nor equal, [who poured out] his
splendor on [all lands], who crossed the sea in the west and in his third year
28
Cf. Liverani 1999–2001, 65–67.
29
See Rollinger 2020a with a suggestion of localization in Southern Spain; communis
opinio opts for a localization in western Anatolia. Cf. also Wittke – Olshausen – Szydlak
2010, 3 Map B with a minimalistic view of the “Mediterranean.”
30
Koch 2005, 228. This entry doubles a passage of the “Chronicle of Early Kings” A.1–6,
see Glassner 2004, 268f.: (A 1) Ilugal.gin šàr A-kà-dèki ina bala dIš-tar i-lam-ma (A 2) šá-
ni-na u ma-ḫi-ri ul i-ši šá-lum-mat-su ugu kurmeš (A 3) it-bu-uk a.ab.ba ina dUtu.è i-bi-ir-
ma (A 4) mu 11.kám kur dutu.šú.a a-di qí-ti-šú šu-su kurud (A 5) pi-i-šú a-na iš-ten ú-kin
numeš-šú ina dutu.šú.a uš-zi-iz (A 6) šal-lat-su-nu ina a-ma-a-ti ú-še-bi-ra.
© 2020, Zaphon, Münster
ISBN 978-3-96327-110-6 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-111-3 (E-Book)390 R. Rollinger
conquered the west [to its farthest reaches], who established his authority and
put up his statues in the west, who made their booty cross the sea on rafts.”
Two aspects are of major importance. Apparently, the first one is the claim to
have crossed the ocean and conquered the world beyond. With this royal feat the
text exemplifies what ruling the “world” really means. It implies to traverse the
sea (A.AB.BA šá dUTU-ŠÚ.A i-bi-ru-ma) and subdue regions to the world’s
“farest reaches” (a-di qí-ti-šú), to erect statues/steles (ALAN.MEŠ-šú) at the ends
of the world, and to receive “tribute” from there is to rule the whole world. All
this has been achieved by “Sargon,” again an acronym for Mesopotamian king-
ship par excellence when the king becomes a Gilgameš-like figure.
But there is another aspect that deserves our attention. Sargon is only able to
accomplish his feat by using “rafts:” ina -ma-a-ti A.AB.BA ú-še-bi-ra. At
first glance this is as strange as the text is clear.31 Sargon does not use ships but
rafts when he crosses the ocean.32 These rafts (amātu) are generally made out of
wood and reed and are perfectly appropriate for travelling along the rivers of Mes-
opotamia.33 Using these devices for crossing the ocean only makes sense within
the framework of a worldview that corresponds to the mental mapping already
outlined in the famous episode of the Gilgameš epic: at the end of the world the
great ocean is replete with shallows, and if the royal hero wants to get beyond he
has to be equipped appropriately. Such a task demands heroic kingship at its per-
fection. Gilgameš staged the model and the paradigmatic “Sargon” was able to
follow it. There is one further example for this specific mental mapping, however
in this case the heroic king is not able to master the challenge.
3. Epilogue, or a story of failure
The last text to be discussed in this contribution does not belong to the ancient
Near Eastern world stricto sensu. It is part of a larger discourse on empire in a
passage of Herodotus’ Histories published during the penultimate decade of the
5th c. BCE or even later. Two important observations have to be made apparent in
advance. First, Herodotus is not the naïve rapporteur of “facts” as he has been put
in pigeonholes by earlier scholarship, and sometimes still is. Much to the contrary
he is an ingenious storyteller whose Histories are a sophisticated masterpiece of
arrangement and presentation that echoes the most recent philosophical, political
31
Therefore, Grayson 1975, 153 thought “i-na a-ma-a-ti” (line A 6) to represent a toponym
“into Amati” which, however, makes no sense at all. See for correct translations Glassner
2004, 268f., and https://www.livius.org/sources/content/mesopotamian-chronicles-content/
abc-20-chronicle-of-early-kings/: both translate i-na a-ma-a-ti as “on barges.” Moreover,
Grayson 1975, 235f. misunderstood the ideological and iconic (and thus fictitious) dimen-
sion of the passage when he tried to make use of it as a historical source.
32
CAD A2 85 s.v. amu: “raft.”
33
See Weszeli 2009, 161. Cf. also Rollinger 2013a, 49.
© 2020, Zaphon, Münster
ISBN 978-3-96327-110-6 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-111-3 (E-Book)Some Considerations on Empire and Mental Mapping 391
and “scientific” discussions of his time. His Histories are not a “historical” work
in its modern sense as Herodotus does not follow the principles of modern histo-
riography which, of course, he could not have yet known.34
Second, although the Histories are a well-composed piece of their own, infor-
mation originating from ancient Near Eastern contexts abound, albeit many times
reworked, reshaped and reinterpreted.35 This has especially become apparent for
the geographical outline of the Histories that follow, especially for the mapping
of “Asia,” a conception that originates in Persian-Achaemenid contexts.36
From this backdrop a specific episode revolving around the legendary Egyp-
tian pharaoh Sesostris becomes interesting.37 Herodotus uses the tradition around
this pharaoh to make fun of the haughty Persian claims to rule the world in two
ways.
On the one hand, he exemplifies that the lands the Great Kings rule are not
identical with the world at all. He does so by highlighting the Persian kings’ fail-
ures to enlarge their empire towards nearly all points of the compass: Cyrus in the
East against the Massagetae, Darius and Xerxes in the West against a coalition of
Greeks, Darius in the North against the Scythians, and Cambyses in the South
against the Ethiopians.
On the other hand, he also challenges the Persian kings’ aspiration to have
surpassed all kings and empires of the past and to have conquered the largest em-
pire the world has ever seen. This is where Sesostris comes in. For the legendary
Egyptian pharaoh is successful wherever the Great Kings fail. He has subdued all
of Asia as well as Scythia, and even Ethiopia which lies “at the ends of the earth”
(τὰ ἔσχατα γῆς; Hdt. 3.25.1). Thus, Sesostris not only has left many more monu-
ments than Darius, at least according to Herodotus, but is the only one who has
been truly successful in conquering the fringes of the world.
This also applies to the claim to rule the world beyond the borders of the main-
land. According to the Histories, Darius moved two times out into the sea, in both
cases at the very ends of his empire. In the east, he sent Scylax of Caryanda to
explore the sea route from the river Indus to the west (Hdt. 4.44). Thereby Darius
“made use of this sea” (τῇ θαλάσσῃ ταύτῃ ἐχρᾶτο) which may imply that the Per-
sian king went out into the sea even by himself.38 Such a movement in person is
34
Modern literature on Herodotus has become legion: pars pro toto I just refer to Bichler
2000, Bichler 2007, Bichler – Rollinger 2011, Dunsch – Ruffing 2013, Harrison – Irwin
2018, Irwin 2017, Rollinger – Truschnegg – Bichler 2011, Ruffing 2009, Ruffing 2016,
Wiesehöfer 2017.
35
Cf., e.g. Degen 2017, Degen – Rollinger 2019, Murray 2016, Rollinger 2000, Rollinger
2013b, Rollinger 2018.
36
See the landmark study of Dan 2013. Cf. also Rollinger 2016, 152–155 and Romney
2017.
37
For further details, see Rollinger 2020b.
38
Rollinger 2013b, 96.
© 2020, Zaphon, Münster
ISBN 978-3-96327-110-6 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-111-3 (E-Book)392 R. Rollinger
apparent in the west, when Darius moves out into the Bosporus to watch the Pon-
tus (Hdt. 4.85).
But even these endeavors become ridiculous when compared with Sesostris’
feats. For the Egyptian pharaoh did not content himself with using just navigable
waterways:
τὸν ἔλεγον οἱ ἱρέες πρῶτον μὲν πλοίοισι μακροῖσι ὁρμηθέντα ἐκ τοῦ Ἀραβίου
κόλπου τοὺς παρὰ τὴν Ἐρυθρὴν θάλασσαν κατοικημένους καταστρέφεσθαι,
ἐς ὃ πλέοντά μιν πρόσω ἀπικέσθαι ἐς θάλασσαν οὐκέτι πλωτὴν ὑπὸ βραχέων
“This king, said the priests, set out with a fleet of long ships from the Arabian
Gulf and subdued all the dwellers of the Red Sea, till as he sailed on he came
to a sea which was too shallow for his vessels” (Hdt. 2.102.2).39
This is the only passage in the Histories where Herodotus makes use of the
term βράχεα, i.e. shallows. The message is as clear as it is important for the gen-
eral discourse of the Histories. Sesostris was outstandingly more successful than
Darius for he really reached the fringes of the world. He even did so with an army
and staged himself as true ruler of the world.40 However, he was not as successful
as Gilgameš or the paradigmatic “Sargon,” for he was not able to cross the ocean
and get beyond the shallows to the definite ends of the world. Whether Herodotus
was aware of this aspect of failure may be doubted. However, in a second and
somehow similar episode, this becomes more apparent.
This is the story about Sataspes, an “Achaemenid” as Herodotus informs us,
his mother being a sister of Darius (Hdt. 4.44). This Sataspes is in charge to sail
around Libya. He starts from Egypt, travels past the Pillars of Heracles and from
there southward. After many months of an obviously endless journey he fails and
has to return. He has to justify this failure towards Xerxes and the reason for this
is very telling:
τοῦ δὲ μὴ περιπλῶσαι Λιβύην παντελέως αἴτιον τόδε ἔλεγε, τὸ πλοῖον τὸ
πρόσω οὐ δυνατὸν ἔτι εἶναι προβαίνειν ἀλλ᾽ ἐνίσχεσθαι
“As to his not sailing completely around Libya, the reason (he said) was that
the ship could move no farther, but was stopped.” (Hdt. 4.43.6)41
Since Xerxes does not believe him and thinks he makes excuses he has Sa-
taspes impaled. Xerxes’ incredulity may even have a funny note: how can some-
one who claims to rule the world not know at all how the ends of the worlds look
39
After Godley 1920.
40
Liotsakis 2014, 502–507 misunderstood this episode as an alleged failure of Sesostris’
endeavors which is only “partly” the case.
41
After Godley 1920.
© 2020, Zaphon, Münster
ISBN 978-3-96327-110-6 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-111-3 (E-Book)Some Considerations on Empire and Mental Mapping 393
like!42 There are shallows the passage of which is nearly impossible. The story’s
connection with imperial rulership is not as obvious as it is in the case of Sesostris
but it is nevertheless there as well.
In both cases, Herodotus apparently picked up an ancient Near Eastern tradi-
tion that conceptualized a distant barrier of shallows out in the ocean just before
the very ends of the world. This tradition had always combined the geographical
mapping of the world with a language of power deeply interwined with the claim
to rule the world in its entirety. Both aspects are essential parts of Herodotus’
episodes around Sesostris and Sataspes. But in both cases, the stories have become
integral parts of Herodotus’ Histories. They have been transformed into a dis-
course that did not anymore highlight and praise the heroic conquest to the out-
most liminal zones of the world. On the contrary they present a critical and likely
also funny parable about this very claim. This critical attitude is not only directed
towards the contemporary empire of “Asia,” i.e. the realm of the Persian kings but
also towards the overblown aspirations of the Athenian empire of Herodotus’ very
own time. Without any doubt this message was well understood by his contem-
poraries.43 Whether they also realized that the elementary ingredients of Herodo-
tus’ story were of ancient Near Eastern origin is another issue.
Bibliography and bibliographical abbreviations
Bichler, R.
2000 Herodots Welt. Der Aufbau der Historie am Bild der fremden Län-
der und Völker, ihrer Zivilisation und ihrer Geschichte. Berlin.
2007 Historiographie – Ethnographie – Utopie. Gesammelte Schriften,
Teil 1: Studien zu Herodots Kunst der Historie (Philippika. Marbur-
ger altertumskundliche Abhandlungen 18.1). Wiesbaden.
Bichler, R. and R. Rollinger
2011 Herodot. Eine Einführung (Studienbücher Antike 3). Hildesheim–
Zürich–New York (completely revised third edition).
Borger, R.
1996 Beiträge zum Inschriftenwerk Ashurbanipals. Wiesbaden.
Dan, A.
2013 “Achaemenid World Representations in Herodotus’ Histories: some
geographic examples of cultural translation,” in: K. Geus, E. Irwin
and T. Poiss (ed.), Herodots Wege des Erzählens. Logos und Topos
in den Historien. Frankfurt am Main, 83–121.
42
For this claim see Rollinger 2013b and Murray 2016, 59f.
43
Cf. Ruffing 2016 and Irwin 2017.
© 2020, Zaphon, Münster
ISBN 978-3-96327-110-6 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-111-3 (E-Book)394 R. Rollinger
Degen, J.
2017 “Wahrnehmung und Darstellung von Palästen in den Historien He-
rodots. Über den Isolationstopos des Deiokes, den angeblichen Pa-
last des Polykrates und die Akropolis des Gaumata,” in: R. Rollinger
(ed.), Die Sicht auf die Welt zwischen Ost und West (750 v. Chr.–
550 n. Chr.) / Looking at the World, from the East and the West (750
BCE–550 CE) (Classica et Orientalia 12). Wiesbaden, Teil A 31–
80.
Degen, J.
2018 “Alexander III., Dareios I. und das speererworbene Land (Diod. 17,
17, 2),” Journal of Ancient Near Eastern History 6, 1–43.
Degen, J. and R. Rollinger
2019 “How Greek the Medes were? Herodotus’ medikos logos, Athens
and the transformation of empire from symmachia to arche,” in: G.-
P. Basello (ed.), Festschrift Adriano Rossi. Naples, 559–574 (in
press).
Delnero, P.
2017 “A New Interpretation of the Babylonian ‘Map of the World’,”
Journal of Ancient Near Eastern History 4/1–2, 19–37.
Dunsch, B. and K. Ruffing (ed.)
2013 Herodots Quellen. Die Quellen Herodots (Classica et Orientalia 6).
Wiesbaden.
Foster, B.R.
2016 The Age of Agade. Inventing Empire in Ancient Mesopotamia. Lon-
don.
Frayne, D.R.
1993 Sargonic and Gutian Periods (2334–2113 BC) (RIME 2). Toronto–
Buffalo–London.
Galter, H.D.
2014 “Sargon II. und die Eroberung der Welt,” in: H. Neumann, R. Ditt-
mann, S. Paulus, G. Neumann and A. Schuster-Brandis (ed.), Krieg
und Frieden im Alten Vorderasien (CRRA 52 = AOAT 401). Mün-
ster, 329–343.
George, A.R.
2003 The Babylonian Gilgamesh Epic. Introduction, Critical Edition, and
Cuneiform Texts. 2 volumes. Oxford.
Glassner, J.-J.
2004 Mesopotamian Chronicles. Atlanta.
Grayson, A.K.
1975 Assyrian and Babylonian Chronicles. Locust Valley.
Haas, V.
2006 Die hethitische Literatur. Texte, Stilistik, Motive. Berlin–New York.
© 2020, Zaphon, Münster
ISBN 978-3-96327-110-6 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-111-3 (E-Book)Some Considerations on Empire and Mental Mapping 395
Harrison, Th. and E. Irwin (ed.)
2018 Interpreting Herodotus. Oxford.
Horowitz, W.
1998 Mesopotamian Cosmic Geography. Winona Lake.
Irwin, E.
2017 “Just why did Cambyses conquer Egypt? Herodotus’ logos of Cam-
byses’ Egyptian campaign: his story as history,” in: R. Rollinger
(ed.), Die Sicht auf die Welt zwischen Ost und West (750 v. Chr.–
550 n. Chr.) / Looking at the World, from the East and the West (750
BCE–550 CE) (Classica et Orientalia 12). Wiesbaden, Teil A 95–
141.
Katz, D.
2003 The Image of the Netherworld in the Sumerian Sources. Bethesda.
Koch, U.S.
2005 Secrets of Extispicy: The Chapter Multābiltu of the Babylonian Ex-
tispicy Series and niṣirti bārûti Texts Mainly from Aššurbanipal’s
Library (AOAT 326). Münster.
Konstantopoulos, G.
2017 “The Disciplines of Geography: Constructing Space in the Ancient
World,” JANEH 4/1–2, 1–18.
Lambert, W.G.
1960 Babylonian Wisdom Literature. Oxford.
Lanfranchi, G.B.
2007 “The king as a hero in ancient Mesoptamia,” in: A. Coppola (ed.),
Eroi, Eroismi, Eroizzazioni dalla Grecia antica a Padova e Venezia.
Padova, 17–25.
Liotsakis, V.
2014 “Notes on Herodotus’ Sesostris (Hdt. II 102–110),” Maia 66, 500–
517.
Liverani, M.
1999–2001 “The Sargon Geography and the Late Assyrian Mensuration of the
Earth,” SAAB 13, 57–85.
Livingstone, D.N.
2003 Putting Science in its Place: Geographies of Scientific Knowledge.
Chicago–London.
Mitchell, W.J.T.
2
2002 “Imperial Landscape,” in: W.J.T. Mitchell (ed.), Landscape and
Power. Chicago, 5–34.
Müller, S.
2014 “Alexanders indischer Schnee, Achaimenidische Wassersouvenirs
und Mental Mind Mapping,” Anabasis 4, 47–52.
© 2020, Zaphon, Münster
ISBN 978-3-96327-110-6 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-111-3 (E-Book)396 R. Rollinger
Murray, D.
2016 “The Waters at the End of the World: Herodotus and Mesopotamian
Cosmic Geography,” in: E. Barker, S. Bouzarovski, Ch. Pelling and
L. Isaksen (ed.), New Worlds from Old Texts. Revisiting Ancient
Space and Place. Oxford, 47–60.
Novotny, J. and G. Van Buylaere
2019 Ashurbanipal, Aššur-etel-ilani and Sin-šarru-iškun (preliminary un-
published editions without introduction or commentary): http://
oracc.museum.upenn.edu/rinap/rinap5/corpus.
Onasch, H.-U.
1994 Die assyrischen Eroberungen Ägyptens (AAT 27/1–2). Wiesbaden.
Parker, B.J.
2011 “The Construction and Performance of Kingship in the Neo-As-
syrian empire,” Journal of Anthropological Research 67/3, 357–
386.
Redepenning, M.
2016 “Raum: Einige Bemerkungen zur Komplexität von ‘Raum’ aus
Sicht der Sozialgeographie,” in: S. Schmidt-Hofner, C. Ambos and
P. Eich (ed.), Raum-Ordnung. Raum und soziopolitische Ordnungen
im Altertum. Heidelberg, 23–43.
RIME 2 = Frayne 1993.
RINAP 5 = Novotny – Van Buylaere 2019.
Rollinger, R.
2000 “Herodotus and the Intellectual Heritage of the Ancient Near East,”
in: S. Aro and R. M. Whiting (ed.), The Heirs of Assyria (Melammu
Symposia 1). Helsinki, 65–83.
2003 “Homer, Anatolien und die Levante: Die Frage der Beziehungen zu
den östlichen Nachbarkulturen im Spiegel der schriftlichen Quel-
len,” in: Ch. Ulf (ed.), Der neue Streit um Troia. Eine Bilanz. Mün-
chen, 330–348.
2013a Alexander und die großen Ströme. Die Flußüberquerungen im
Lichte altorientalischer Pioniertechniken (Schwimmschläuche,
Keleks und Pontonbrücken) (Classica et Orientalia 7). Wiesbaden.
2013b “Dareios und Xerxes an den Rändern der Welt und die Inszenierung
von Weltherrschaft. Altorientalisches bei Herodot,” in: B. Dunsch
and K. Ruffing (ed.), Herodots Quellen. Die Quellen Herodots
(Classica et Orientalia 6). Wiesbaden, 95–116.
2014a “The View from East to West: World View and Perception of Space
in the Neo-Assyrian Empire,” in: N. Zenzen, T. Hölscher and K.
Trampedach (ed.), Aneignung und Abgrenzung. Wechselnde Per-
spektiven auf die Antithese von ‘Ost’ und ‘West’ in der griechischen
Antike. Heidelberg, 93–161.
© 2020, Zaphon, Münster
ISBN 978-3-96327-110-6 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-111-3 (E-Book)Some Considerations on Empire and Mental Mapping 397
2014b “Thinking and Writing about History in Teispid and Acheaemenid
Persia,” in: K. Raaflaub (ed.), Thinking, Recording, and Writing
History in the Ancient World. Malden–Oxford–Chichester, 187–
212.
2016 “Megasthenes, Mental Maps and Seleucid Royal Ideology: The
Western Fringes of the World or How Ancient Near Eastern Em-
pires Conceptualized World Dominion,” in: J. Wiesehöfer, H.
Brinkhaus and R. Bichler (ed.), Megasthenes und seine Zeit / Meg-
astehenes and His Time. Wiesbaden, 129–164.
2018 “Herodotus and the Transformation of Ancient Near Eastern Motifs:
Darius I, Oebares, and the Neighing Horse,” in: Th. Harrison and E.
Irwin (ed.), Interpreting Herodotus. Oxford, 125–148.
2020a “How the Mediterranean became the Mediterranean. Some ne-
glected pieces of evidence for the history of the mental mapping of
an inland sea,” in: J. Boardman, J. Hargrave, A. Avram and A. Pod-
ossinov (ed.), Connecting the Ancient World West and East. Fest-
schrift Gocha Tsetskhladze. Leuven (in press).
2020b “Herodotus and Empire: Near Eastern Monuments and Their Cul-
tural Recycling in Herodotus’s Histories,” in: F.S. Rojas and J. Ben-
Dov (ed.), Carvings In and Out Of Time. Afterlives of Rock-Cut
Monuments in the Ancient Near East, Leiden–Boston–Köln (in
press).
Rollinger, R., B. Truschnegg and R. Bichler (ed.)
2011 Herodot und das Persische Weltreich – Herodotus and the Persian
Empire (Classica et Orientalia 3). Wiesbaden.
Rollinger, R. and M. Lang
2010 “Im Herzen der Meere und in der Mitte des Meeres. Das Buch Eze-
chiel und die in assyrischer Zeit fassbaren Vorstellungen von den
Grenzen der Welt,” in: R. Rollinger, B. Gufler, M. Lang and I. Mad-
reiter (ed.), Interkulturalität in der Alten Welt: Vorderasien, Hellas,
Ägypten und die vielfältigen Ebenen des Kontakts (Philippika. Mar-
burger altertumskundliche Abhandlungen 34). Wiesbaden, 207–
264.
Romney, J.M.
2017 “Herodotean Geography (4.36–45): A Persian Oikoumenē?,” Greek,
Roman, and Byzantine Studies 57, 862–881.
Ruffing, K.
2009 “Die ‘Satrapienliste’ des Dareios: Herodoteisches Konstrukt oder
Realität?,” Archäologischen Mitteilungen aus Iran und Turan 41,
323–339.
2016 “Alloisi douleuein und der Rat des Artembares. Überlegungen zum
Schlußkapitel in Herodots Historien,” in: C. Binder, H. Börm and
© 2020, Zaphon, Münster
ISBN 978-3-96327-110-6 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-111-3 (E-Book)398 R. Rollinger
A. Luther (ed.), Diwan. Untersuchungen zu Geschichte und Kultur
des Nahen Ostens und des östlichen Mittelmeerraumes im Altertum.
Festschrift für Josef Wiesehöfer zum 65. Geburtstag. Duisburg,
183–203.
Sieberer, W.
2017 “Herodots Blick auf die Welt. Eine karthographische Rekonstruk-
tion der Erde nach den geographischen Angaben der Historien,” in:
R. Rollinger (ed.), Die Sicht auf die Welt zwischen Ost und West
(750 v. Chr. – 550 n. Chr.) / Looking at the World from the East and
the West (750 BCE – 550 CE) (Classica et Orientalia 12). Wiesba-
den, Teil B 1–119.
van de Mieroop, M.
1999 “Literature and Political Discourse in Ancient Mesopotamia,” in: B.
Böck, E. Cancik-Kirschbaum and Th. Richter (ed.), Munuscula
Mesopotamica. Festschrift für Johannes Renger. Münster, 327–339.
Weszeli, M.
2009 “Schiff und Boot. B. In mesopotamischen Quellen des 2. und 1.
Jahrtausends,” RlA 12 1/2, 160–171.
Wiesehöfer, J.
2017 “Herodotus and Xerses’ hierosylia,” in: R. Rollinger (ed.), Die Sicht
auf die Welt zwischen Ost und West (750 v. Chr.–550 n. Chr.) / Loo-
king at the World, from the East and the West (750 BCE–550 CE)
(Classica et Orientalia 12). Wiesbaden, Teil A 211–220.
Wittke, A.-M., E. Olshausen and R. Szydlak
2010 Historical Atlas of the Ancient World (Brill’s New Pauly Supple-
ments). Leiden–Boston.
© 2020, Zaphon, Münster
ISBN 978-3-96327-110-6 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-111-3 (E-Book)You can also read
