P. A. Deimel's contributions relating to the land system of the Sumerian city-state of Lagash in “Orientalia” about half a century before are sometimes referred to and quoted from by Western scholars as the most fundamental on this subject to this day. But on the other hand, particularly as to his conclusive conception of the socio-economic structure of the Sumerian city-state, so called ‘Tempelwirtschaft’, he has been often criticiyed for the reason that he made mistakes in the interpretation of individual materials as well as in the process of building up the conception. In consideration of such state of diversified evaluations of his achievements, the present writer discusses in this paper the following items so as to discriminate the points in question from his acceptable results relating to the land system.
(1) Deimel's elucidation of ‘níg-en-na’; the propriety of the point of view that ‘gán-níg-en-na’ was cultivated and harvested by the labour organization of ‘gán-kur₆’-holders. (2) The interpretation of ‘kur₆’; the reason why ‘übernehmen’ than ‘festgesetzt’ should be adopted as the interpretation of ‘dab₅’ between Deimel's duplicate presentation. (3) Questions about Deimel's proposition that ‘gán-kur₆’-holders were as a whole 'militärkolonen or military husbandmen, and that all of them were under the obligation of corvée and military services. (4) The writer's points to demonstrate are as follows. Among the ‘gán-kur₆’-holders, there were, to a not inconsiderable extent, administrators, officials, and higher religious personalities who did not appeared in še-ba lú-kur₆-dab₅-ba' lists or the records concerning mass labour and appreciably more who did not appeared in the recruitment lists. The ‘šub-lugal’ people in the narrower sence, most of whom appeared in both of the še-ba lists and of recruitment lists, were only one specific sort of ‘gán-kur₆’-holders, Of course, the writer, too, does not deny the existence of the ‘gán-kur₆’-holders as a social order, considering them in view of the people of the other social orders who did not hold ‘gán-kur₆’. The writer's central aim in this paper is to make clear the complexity of this order.

抄録全体を表示

Drehem war das grosse Zentrum der Vieh-und Schafverwaltung in dem ganzen Ur-III-Königtum, das Mesopotamien am Ende des dritten Jahrtausends herrschte. Diese Stadtruine, die darnals nach ihren Urkunden Selluš-Dagan hiess, lag in der Nähe von Nippur (Nibru), der religiösen Hauptstadt, und hatte das Geben und Nehmen der verschiedenen Arten Haustiere wie Rinder, Schafe, Esel usw. (manchmal auch Wildtiere, z. B. Bär) für Götter als ihre Hauptfunktion. Obwohl der Zeitraum ihrer Aktivität ziemlich kurz war, gibt sie uns zahllose Tontafeln, deren Analyse uns es möglich macht, die Organisation der Tiereverwaltung wiederaufzubauen.
Um dieses Ziel zu erreichen, bemüht sich der Autor zuerst Tiereurkunden in die fünf Haupttypen nach ihren sumerischen Fachwörtern einzuteilen. Dies sind mu-tù-ì-dab₅-, zi-ga/ba-zi-, šu ba-ti-Typen und noch ein anderer Typ, dessen Inhalt verschieden ist.
Einige von ihnen zeigen mit der Zeit leise Veränderung des Formulars, was uns hilft, die Zeit, wo die einzelnen Urkunden geschrieben wurden, festzusetzen. Vor allem ist dies gültig z. B. für solche Urkunden, deren Datum durch denselben Jahresnamen wie «Jahr, in dern Shashrum zerstört wurde» gegeben ist, den man für beide Jahre Shulgi 42 und Amarsin 6 benutzte.

抄録全体を表示

The Abusir Papyri are the oldest body of papyri at present known. it was discovered at the funerary temple of Neferirkara Kakai at Abusir. Though fragmentary, their importance to Egyptology lies in furnishing the earliest examples of the hieratic script and giving informations for the administration of a Pyramid temple. But they had fallen into the hands of many museums and only a few fragments had been published till 1968. In this year all these important documents were fully published by P. Posener-Kriéger and J. L. de Cenival, Hieratic Papyri in the British Musenm, 5th series: The Abu Sir Papyri, London 1968. So now we can study these documents for the first time. In this article I treated of the date of these papyri, their contents and their significance to Egyptological studies.
As for the date of the papyri, comparing the clear dates (those of Isesi and Teti), other dates without the name of the reigning pharaoh (ranging from the 2nd “numbering of the cattle” to the 21st), and the cartouches of pharaohs without dates, we can deduce that the highest date of the papyri is the year 3 or 5 under Isesi and the lowest is the year 2 or 12 under Teti. But because of the close similarities in the script and the small number of the cartouches of Unas and Teti, I suppose that the most of the papyri should be ascribed to a relatively short period, that is, to the reign of Isesi.
As for the contents of the papyri, they consist of four types of documents, 1) duty-tables (the compilation of the every day allotment of the tasks of each member of the temple staff on duty), 2) inventories (charaterized by the records of inspections on the change of phylae), 3) accounts (of most varied classes registering income and expenses of the temple), and 4) the other documents) including a copy of a letter, a permit, rituals, and many unclassified fragments).
I think duty-tables are the most interesting of these four types of documents because of its uniqueness, and examined from four points of view what kind of informations we could expect to derive from them. Firstly we have the oldest record of the practise of “Stundenpriesterschaft” (rotation-system in religious services of the temple staff divided into phylae) in these duty-tables. I suppose that this system had been introduced from royal labour-system into funerary temples for management of its economy and spread over other temples. Secondly we can reconstruct the organization of the temple staff from their titles, and thirdly gather informations on their duties, especially the priests called hm-ntr and hntj-š. Lastly, concerning the reform of the organization of funerary temples under Nyuserra, I think there is some possibility that hntjw-š were introduced by this reform.
In short, by studying personal names, their titles and their duties recorded in duty-tables, we can make out the kind of their services and the forms of its performance. This will be a important step to reconstruct the actual operation of the administrative system of funerary temples and to approach many unsolved problems concerning the state-structure under the Old Kingdom.

抄録全体を表示

The Seleucid kingdom under the successors of Antiochus IV was in a state of political decay and gradually reduced to a small territory in Syria. The kings made efforts to suppress the rise of internal native monarchies and to check the advance and intrigue of foreign enemies, but the great factor which hastened political decay was dynastic strife, which continued among rival claimants to the throne after the battle between Demetrius I and Alexander Balas. On the contrary the prosperity of Syria never declined; many cities were still wealthy, probably wealthier than before. This was the remarkable politico-social aspect of the Syrian State in the last decades of the second century B. C.
Under such a state of affairs it was natural that the cities in Syria secured the right of asylia, that is to say, recognition of holiness and inviolability by kings. There was furthermore the progress from holiness and inviolability to autonomy, which was characteristic in the history of many Syrian cities. It seems that such a tendency was comparatively striking in the last of the second century B. C. Considering this reason we can see that the cities made use of the long strife between Antiochus VIII and Antiochus IX.
At any rate, the kings, financially supported by Syrian prosperity, were well-off. Accordingly the kings had many mercenaries, for example, from literary sources we infer that the military strength of Antiochus VII was never inferior to that of Antiochus III, who had been one of the powerful Seleucid kings. Nevertheless our information on the substantial relations of the late Seleucid kings and the cities are scanty. It is therefore needless to say that the Delian inscriptions relating to the Seleucids are important.

抄録全体を表示

As for the origins of Kharijites, many of Islamists have laid strss on their fanaticism and a narchy, and have attrbuted, in relaton to the effects of tue First Civil War, their origins, to the relization of the nomadic Arabs' inclination for the anarchy. Aocording to their opinions, the First Civil War was causeb by the clash of interests among vorious faction, but it's basic impulse was the reclamation of nomadic tribalism, and the outbreak of Kharijites movement should be considered as an expression of anarchistic tribalism. My opinion is that the origions of Kharijisnom was a form of Islamization of nomadic Arabs (“The First Civil Wat and the Kharijites”, World of Islam, VI, Tokyo, 1968, pp. 11-34). Many treatises on the Kharijites discussed the problem from the viewpoint of Itlamic Government. But in the present monograph I like to amplify my opinion in the former article on the tignificance of the First Civil War and the origins of Kharijites as examined from the nomadic Arabs' viewpoint, so as to find that the basic impulse of the First Civil War was not the tribalism, but the economic motives, and that the origins of Kharijism was based on the Islamization of nomadic Arabs.

抄録全体を表示

Omar Khayyam is not a sufi. This is my conclusion.
In the “Rubaiyat”, Omar Khayyam compares our life to travels. Sufic poets do it in the same way. Or Omar says, “Enjoy the moment”. The word “moment” —‹hal› in Persian— is also used by sufis. And Jan Rypka, in his famous work “A History of Iranian Literature”, said that Omar followed the same path as Avicenna, which bore a strong resemblance to the Isma'ili doctrine and sufism. These things explain why he had long been regarded as a sufi by many people. Nevertheless, he was not a sufi.
Firstly, we can hardly apply the allegory of the mystical Iyric to the poem of Omar Khayyam. Inhis rubaiyat the word ‹sharab; wine›, for instance, cannot be understood that it means the ecstatic experience due to the revelation of the True Beloved.
Secondly, Omar's ‹nisti› or ‹adam› which mean nothingness do not accord with the concept of so-called ‹fana;› annihilations or ‹Das Nichts› in the West.
Thirdly, his notion of ‹falk; the sky› is closely akin to the one of us Japanese. It differs from ‹xoda; Gods› in Islam.
Lastly, the greatest differrence between the Omar's thought and the sufism is Love for God. A sufi loves God fiercely as if he were a youth who was caught in a net of love. We can't feel such a passion in the rubaiyat of Omar Khayyam.
Thus I think he is not a sufi. However, we can also say that he is not a simple atheist. There is no proof that he completely denied the unique Reality. He merely does not use the word of God like Plotinos.
P. S.; I wrote this monograph using Heron-Allen's “The Ruba'iyat of Omar Khayyam” as a reliable text.

抄録全体を表示

Cyprus has received attentions of many foreign powers because of her copper and her suitable location for the trade and the strategic point in the east Mediterranean.
Her relation with Mycenaean civilization can be roughly divided into three stages as follows;
1) the trade. Its zenith was shown by the overwhelming appearance of the Pictorial style pottery in Cyprus, wherever the homeland of this style might be. Not as the colonists but as the residents, especially at Enkomi and Kition, the Mycenaean merchants and craftmen were engagedin the trade with the Mycenaean world and the Levant. Though this trade brought Cyprus prosperity, it seems that they had not so great political power in Cyprus. And by the 13th century B. C. they became independent from the Mainland to some extent. Cyprus had not belonged to the Mycenaean world yet.
2) the refuge of the Mycenaean civilization. Soon after a series of the destructions in the Mycenaean world at the end of the 13th century B. C., Cyprus also suffered from destructions but in the rebuilt cities we can see the high standard of the technique of LH. IIIB which no more in the Mainland. Before the culture of the Mycenaean refugees gave influences on that of Cyprus fundamentally, there happened the second destruction in Cyprus and many destricts were desolated. Both destructions in Cyprus, I think, were caused by the Sea People. The Mycenaean Greeks among them played the leading part in their movements toward the east. The Trojan war, for instance, was one of the conflicts between them and the great powers of the east. After the final destruction in c. 1150 B. C., the Mycenaean Greeks again began to immigrate in Cyprus and other places. This series of immigrants succeeded in establishing themselves in Cyprus and introduced the Granary class pottery which influenced on the Cypriot ones. When Cyprus got out of the following Dark Ages, she had been almost completely hellenized.
3) influence on the Greek world. Though the center of the culture had disappeared and the so called Dark Ages had begun, the Mycenaean way of life in the Mainland still continued in narrow streams untill the middle of the 11th century B. C., when iron used as working tools and the Protogeometric pottery appeared. These novelities, which seem to have received some influences from Cyprus or through Cyprus from somewhere in the east, introduced the new era.

抄録全体を表示