Traditionally, studies of Samarra pottery have mainly focused on collections from Iraqi sites, from which most examples of Samarra pottery have been uncovered. However, recent excavations in Syria have revealed rich assemblages of Samarra pottery, in which unique regional attributes can be seen. These assemblages can be distinguished from ‘classic’ Samarra pottery in Iraq and may be identified as a ‘west variety’ of Samarra pottery. However, an examination of the ‘western’ Samarra pottery in the collection of the National Museum of Aleppo and from several excavated sites, has demonstrated that ‘western’ Samarra assemblages from different sites do not always share particular attributes and the ‘western’ traits are observed only randomly among them. Also, it is known that Samarra pottery is usually quite rare among the pottery assemblages at sites in the ‘west', except for Tell Sabi Abyad I. This suggests two hypotheses. 1) The ‘western variety’ of Samarra pottery was produced at a limited number of production centers, such as Tell Sabi Abyad I, and unique local traits were individually developed at each of these centers. The ‘western’ traits of Samarra pottery should therefore be regarded as an aggregate of this varied local development. 2) Furthermore, inhabitants of other ‘western’ sites imported Samarra pottery from more than one production center, which resulted in the uneven occurrence of the ‘western’ traits within the small quantities of Samarra pottery at these sites. These hypotheses do not coincide with a recent view of the origin of Halaf pottery, which claims that it was derived from Samarra pottery and that this process can be observed in the vast area, including the ‘west,’ where incipient Halaf ceramics are known. They suggest instead that the preceding Samarra pottery in the ‘west’ underwent diverse developments, not all of which resulted in the establishment of Halaf pottery.
Scholars have discussed the individual roles of Ay and Horemheb, who were the most influential persons during Tutankhamun’s reign and its aftermath, as well as the relationship between them for ages. Did they work together cooperatively or did some form of competition or hostility exist between them? This article examines the interaction between Ay and Horemheb and their attitudes towards one another through a review of all the available evidence. The first part focuses on their relationship under Tutankhamun and the second with their interactions following Tutankhamun’s death. I demonstrate that they were the most prominent figures in different social groups, suggesting that Ay was the fatherly advisor of the king at the court, while Horemheb was the actual governor of all the administration in the country as the “Regent” and “Generalissimo” under Tutankhamun. By the end of Tutankhamun’s reign, however, Ay seems to have obtained the title “Vizier” and the epithets “doer of maat” and “the one who unites the hands of the god,” representing that he is now capable of governing the country. Ay was indeed on the verge of becoming the successor of Tutankhamun. Therefore, I do not agree with the recent suggestion that Horemheb was the designate successor of Tutankhamun while he was the regent of Tutankhamun. In the second part, I argue that there was strong antagonism between Ay and Horemheb after Tutankhamun’s death. The evidence indicates that Horemheb sought to discredit Ay as proper successor to the king. As a result, Ay appears to have excluded Horemheb from greater courtly influence by appointing Nakhtmin not only as his “Generalissimo” but also as “King’s son.” This squabbling even continued after Ay’s death as Horemheb, once ascended to the throne, soon endeavored to erase all memory of Ay, his men and even Queen Ankhesenamun in revenge.
This paper examines the exact power the Safavid authority exercised over Georgia. Particular attention is paid to the activities of Papuna Tsitsishvili, a gholam who returned to Georgia and settled there. He served the Shah directly, but came back to Georgia around 1633 and recovered his fief. At the same time, he maintained the status of royal gholam with the special condition that King Rostom (Rostam Khan vali) of Georgia supervise him. He was receiving a stipend from neighboring Shirvan as a royal gholam. The way he rehabilitated his domain in Georgia is worthy of attention. King Rostom reconciled him with his close kin and foe Manuchar Tsitsishvili and his brothers. The document recording the reconciliation was written in Georgian. Papuna describes in detail how he was forced to leave his native country and depart for “the land of Qizilbash”. Furthermore, to defend the privileges (people and land) given by Safavid Shahs he repeatedly sought their confirmation by the Safavid authority. The petitions of Papuna and his successor to the Shah mostly coincided with the changes of Georgian rulers. Thus they were mostly concerned with internal changes of the Georgian circumstance, but the supreme authority of the Safavid Shah was also needed. These observations lead us to conclude that the internal dynamism of Georgian noble society was preserved under the supervision of the Safavid authority. However, there were many privileges given directly by the Safavid Shahs, especially at the times of the forceful reconstructions of the regional order by Shah Tahmasp and Shah Abbas I. Georgian nobility also exploited Safavid connections to preserve or broaden their interests. Thus on one hand, the institution of the royal gholam was a channel uniting the Safavid central court and the Georgian landed nobility. On the other hand, there was a vertain distance between the systems. It is clear that references to accumulated precedents were important, and mutilayered authorities functioned in Georgian society under Safavid suzerainty.
O. R. Gurney published UET 7, 1-72, a collection of tablets from Ur of about 1200 B. C., in 1974, and their translations and notes for them in 1983. These tablets were excavated from the family archive which belonged to the brewers of the god Sîn. The ginû (regular offering) which I discuss in this paper is mentioned in one of these tablets, UET 7, 41, which records the settlemeut of a dispute between the brewers and a certain Sîn-lēqi-unninni. It is obvious that the blame for this trouble was placed on the brewers, because Sîn-lēqi-unninni received several articles from each of six brewers. However, the cause of this trouble is not stated. And what the description of the ginû means is not obvious. The description of the ginil is as follows: 10 gur ŠE-MAŠ/BAR gišbán 5 sìla ša gi-né-e šam.dutu-e-ṭi-irm.dXXX-le-qu-nik-ni in-du-di. I think the description of the ginû is concerned with the cause of the trouble and that the brewers and Sîn-lēqi-unninni were arguing about the ginû. Also, in UET 7, 63, a different brewer and Sîn-lēqi-unninni argued about ginû. The trouble in UET 7, 63 the cessation of the ginû caused by Sîn-lēqi-unninni. I think Sîn-lēqi-unninni diverted the ginû on its way to the temple of the national god.
Temple × Sîn-lēqi-unninni ← brewer (the national god) (ceased)
It is possible that the trouble in UET 7, 41 also involved the cessation or shortage of the ginû. However, in UET 7, 41 the trouble was caused by the brewers.
Temple Sîn-lēqi-unninni x brewer (the national god) (ceased)
It seems that in this case the unpaid ginû was delivered to the temple of the national god through Sîn-lēqi-unninni. In other words, Sîn-lēqi-unninni measured out (in-du-di) the unpaid ginû (10 gur ŠE-MAŠ/BAR gišbán 5 sìla ša gi-né-e šam.dutu-e-ṭi-ir) to the temple of the national god. The description of the ginû probably refers to this process.
The aim of this paper is to analyze the characteristics of the elongated horse frontlets found in the North Pontic Region. The results are as follows: 1. The elongated horse frontlets can be divided into three types: 1) Type A is made of bronze and has a rectangular shape slightly wider in the upper part which has overhangs on either side. It belongs to the fifth and fourth centuries B. C. 2) Type B, whose shape is similar to Type A, has a wooden core and richly adorned gold overlay. It belongs to the fourth century B. C. 3) Type C, whose material is the same as Type B, takes the form of a fish. It belongs to the late fifth-fourth century B. C. 2. While Type A is of functional form and simple appearance, Types B and C are luxurious and rich in adornment. At the first stage, during the fifth century B. C., only the functional and simple Type A existed. Later, from the late fifth century B. C., luxurious Types B and C appeared and coexisted with Type A. 3. Types B and C appeared at the same time as other luxurious horse accessories, including gold and silver bridle ornaments. Such goods are often found in the huge burial mounds usually referred to as royal tombs. The appearance of the royal tombs can be explained by the growth of a stratified society in that region. Therefore, this suggests that the appearance of the luxurious and richly adorned Types B and C is connected to social change among the Scythians. 4. To grasp the position of elongated horse frontlets among the Scythians, the author considered the number of examples excavated in the North Pontic Region. The fact that the number of elongated horse ft-ontlets is very few led the author to conclude that they were rare among the Scythians.
Codex Vaticanus Graecus 2219 is a collection of the letters of the Patriarch Athanasios I of Constantinople (1289-93, 1303-09). Is there any possibility that Athanasios himself was directly involved in the making of the codex? Athanasios is known not only as an idiosyncratic reformer of the late Byzantine church but also as an energetic letter-writer. The above-mentioned codex is presumably the oldest and largest manuscript collection of his letters, which are of primary importance for the study of the society in his age as well as his thought and experiences, but a large part of it remains unpublished. The lack of a colophon makes it impossible to have solid evidence of its scribe(s), date and purpose of copying, but some scholars have attempted to determine the process by which the manuscript was created. Concerning the problem of Athanasios’ involvement, two antithetical hypotheses have been propounded thus far. In the introduction to her critical edition of 115 letters of Athanasios, Dr. A.-M. M. Talbot rejects the possibility that the Vatican manuscript includes Athanasios’ autograph on the basis of some testimonies of his deteriorating health and eyesight. This hypothesis has recently been seriously challenged by another editor of his letters, Dr. Manolis Patedakis, who claims that Athanasios participated in the copying project as a scribe. This article examines the validity of Patedakis’ hypothesis, based on a historical study of the physical condition of Athanasios in later life and a palaeographical study of the handwriting of the Vatican manuscript. It concludes that Athanasios had sufficient eyesight for letter-writing even in his last years and that the handwriting of the third part of the manuscript resembles that in one manuscript (Codex Parisinus Graecus 857) copied by a monk named Athanasios in 1261, as is stated by Patedakis. Thus, this article supports the validity of his hypothesis.