r/Assyriology

A text I find really interesting for the era is Shulgi B, where the languages he lists are Elamite, Sumerian, Meluhhan, Amorite and Subartian. Notably, Akkadian is not mentioned at all, which raises the question of whether the label at the time would've applied to a national identity, to the specific dynasty of Sargon, or to the city of Agade. Moreover, would the people we know as Akkadians have been considered black headed people during the EDP?

Before the time of Sargon, was there any label that would've refered to the Semitic peoples north of Nippur? As far as I understand, they seem to have been culturally very similar to the Sumerians, as opposed to the situation at Ebla (where the temple was a much weaker institution). Then, where did the title of King of Sumer and Akkad come from? By the time it appeared there had to be at least some notion of there being two distinct societies which had been united, but I'm not sure that framing would've made a lot of sense centuries prior.

Of course, the case of the Akkadians is a very strong contrast to how the Amorites were viewed in Mesopotamian history. The narrative of Hammurabi's dynasty definitely did rely on them being entrusted with divine kingship, expressed in the patronage of local Mesopotamian institutions, but at least these Mesopotamian institutions did exist in contrast to the tribal style of leadership seen to the West. I'm not sure any such dynamic could've applied to the earlier Akkadians outside the ruling dynasty (which brings us back to the question: was anyone outside the ruling dynasty considered to be an Akkadian?)

One last related question regards how later Mesopotamians would've understood the period of coexistence between both populations. I doubt the people of the Iron Age would've considered themselves to have been descended from the people who replaced the Sumerians, but did that mean they believed Sumerian people disappeared at some point? This even brings up the question of metalinguistical awareness: could they have imagined Sumerian having once been a living vernacular? I'm aware of the narrative of the confusion of tongues, but I'm less certain that was the explanation they would've given for why people no longer spoke Sumerian.

TL;DR: The archaeology PI and two textual specialists agreed to co-author the first publication of an excavated text under a written policy tying authorship and author order to contribution. Now, as publication approaches, the senior specialist is repeatedly questioning whether the director should be an author at all, despite the director’s contributions and the previously agreed upon policy.

An archaeological project director (Associate Professor at an R1) collaborates with a senior textual specialist (Professor at an elite Ivy) and a junior textual specialist (doctoral student) on the publication of newly excavated written material.

The director is an archaeologist and historian, and her contributions to the proposed publication include history of excavation, stratigraphic interpretation, archaeological analysis, chronology, historical geography, and historical interpretation. The textual specialists are responsible for transliteration, translation, and philological commentary on this, the first publication of a text.

The project also has a written authorship policy, circulated to collaborators, that bases authorship on substantive intellectual contribution, determines author order by contribution, requires article-specific MOUs, and provides procedures for nonperformance. The senior specialist acknowledged receipt of the policy at the time and indicated his acceptance of it.

Approximately a year before the current dispute, the director asked the senior textual specialist to clarify authorship and author order by preparing an MOU, which, under the policy, should be prepared by the intended first author. She told him that she hoped he would be first author and take the lead on the publication.

He agreed that the publication would have three authors, but said that he found it difficult to determine author order in advance because contributions might develop over the course of the work. The collaboration proceeded with three authors understood, and because author order was unresolved, no MOU in place.

Based upon the agreement, the project director dedicated time and funding to the restoration of the texts and to extensive photo documentation, successfully writing a grant for these.

When publication of an important text became imminent, the collaborators discussed a division of labor. As agreed, the director would write the archaeological context and stratigraphy and lead the historical interpretation. The textual specialists would prepare the transliteration, translation, and philological commentary.

However, during the same discussion, the senior text specialist questioned whether the director should be an author and suggested that her inclusion might be unusual enough to require explanation or justification to journal editors.

He invoked disciplinary custom, arguing that first publications of newly excavated texts are conventionally authored by textual specialists alone rather than co-authored with excavators. It is a humanities field with no written disciplinary scholarship or guidelines about co-authorship.

The project director countered that the publication policy in place gave author credit to all contributors who qualified for authorship, and suggested a specific archaeology journal where this would be a routine type of publication. She said that her policies were based upon best practices rather than customary practice.

The senior specialist then insisted that he and the doctoral student should be first and second author and still has not responded to renewed requests for an MOU. The senior specialist raises the question of whether the director should be an author in every email with the doctoral student copied.

1. What should the project director do?
2. Can a discipline-specific custom override contribution-based standards for authorship, particularly when the project itself has adopted a written contribution-based policy, that the authors received and agreed to?
3. How much weight should be given to the prior agreement that this would be a three-author publication, given that substantial work and project resources were subsequently committed on that understanding?

Hi everyone, I am quite new to Assiriology (without any real academic training) but really want to learn the basicest of Sumerian to translate very daily texts (receipts etc) that sometimes aren't translated.

In the unlikely event you haven’t already bankrupted yourself shopping for Hittite reference materials, you can own a reproduction cuneiform (NOT Hittite, alas) tablet!

The Penn Museum (formerly the University Museum) in Philadelphia is one of the most interesting museums I have ever visited. It is amazing — real Indiana Jones stuff. What I deeply appreciate about the joint is that it keeps all of the mummies in one room and has a big sign over the door, saying, “Beware, mummies, keep out if you don’t want to see mummies!” (Okay, I fibbed about the last part. But they do keep the dead bodies separate. They even have cat mummies.) It has an excellent specialized library, which I have visited in order to spend hours slaving over a hot xerox machine. It also has a gift shop.

If you click on the link for the gift shop, you will find on offer about half a dozen reproduction cuneiform tablets, reasonably priced, from roughly $10-$35. I have one myself, the small square black one with the white incisions, and it’s very nice.

Hi everyone! I’m a non-history major in uni looking to teach myself world history chronologically. Being from Turkey, I want a genuinely global overview rather than just the standard Western-centric narrative.

I know trying to cover "all civilizations" sounds overly ambitious, but I’m in no rush and I don't need to know every single historical detail like a historian. I just want to learn enough to understand how philosophy, theology, politics, and art evolved and connected across the globe.

I’m currently building a syllabus for my first major stop which is the Ancient Near East. There are a lot of well-regarded books as far as my research goes, but I haven't been able to find a clear comparison between them. I would love some help choosing my core textbook(s). It doesn't have to be just one, but I’d like to understand how they differ in focus and style:

• Amanda Podany – Weavers, Scribes, and Kings: A New History of the Ancient Near East
• Marc Van De Mieroop – A History of the Ancient Near East: ca. 3000–323 BC
• Mario Liverani – The Ancient Near East: History, Society and Economy
• Gwendolyn Leick – Mesopotamia: The Invention of the City

For supplementary reading on theology and religious thought, I'm also planning to read:

• Thorkild Jacobsen – The Treasures of Darkness
• Jean Bottéro – Religion in Ancient Mesopotamia

A few questions for the sub:

1. How do these core textbooks compare, and which ones would best fit my goal of understanding structural ideas without getting drowned in details?
2. Do you have a recommended reading order?
3. Are there any critical books I've missed that fit my goals?

Thanks so much in advance for any insights!

Hello everyone, I’m really new to this topic ,and I would love to learn more. so if anyone of you has a book recommendation about anything regarding Mesopotamia whether it’s about the languages or religions or anything really I would really appreciate it.