Differences

This shows you the differences between two versions of the page.

--- early_dynastic_iiib [2010/01/09 06:36] – ong
+++ early_dynastic_iiib [2015/01/27 17:02] (current) – external edit 127.0.0.1
@@ Line 5: / Line 5: @@
 ===== Defining the ED IIIb period =====
-The traditional schema outlined for the Early Dynastic period is based, above all, on a somewhat problematic assignment of major archaeological sites and text-artifactual corpora to ... Bauer (1998, 431) refers to two distinct models (?) / definitions (?) of the beginning of the ED IIIb period: the theory that . . . proposed by [[Falkenstein]] and his students and the alternative model suggested by [[Hallo]]. These efforts to define the start of the period in political rather than archaeological terms may well be misguided and Van De Mieroop has recently argued that the entire Early Dynastic Period should be treated as a single organic whole from a historical perspective.\\
+The traditional schema outlined for the Early Dynastic period is based, above all, on a somewhat problematic assignment of major archaeological sites and text-artifactual corpora to ... Bauer (1998, 431) refers to two distinct models (?) / definitions (?) of the beginning of the ED IIIb period: the theory that . . . proposed by [[falkenstein_adam|Falkenstein]] and his students and the alternative model suggested by Hallo. These efforts to define the start of the period in political rather than archaeological terms may well be misguided and Van De Mieroop has recently argued that the entire Early Dynastic Period should be treated as a single organic whole from a historical perspective.\\
 This period is often subdivided into Early Dynastic I (ca. 2900-2750), II (ca. 2750-2600), IIIa (2600-2450), and IIIb (ca. 2450-2350), but these are archaeological distinctions based on stylistic changes in the material remains that have little historical value. The period should be regarded as a unit in political terms, displaying the same basic characteristics for its entire duration (Van De Mieroop 2004, 39-40).\\
@@ Line 47: / Line 47: @@
 ==== Enannatum I ====
-Enannatum I was the brother of Eannatum and another son of Akurgal.  During his reign, Lagash was plagued by war with Umma, under the leadership of Ur-Lumma.
+Enanatum I was the brother of Eanatum and another son of Akurgal. Like his predecessors he faced conflict with Umma over control of the Guedina, and like his brother, he defeated the rival state, imposing heavy fiscal penalties on it and forcing its king Enakale to swear an oath to the gods that he would respect the established boundaries. However as the Enmetena cone goes on to describe
 ==== Entemena ====