Читать книгу A Companion to the Achaemenid Persian Empire, 2 Volume Set - Группа авторов - Страница 77

At two junctures, the documentation from Uruk (Jursa 2005b: pp. 138–149) reflects the far‐ranging consequences of the Persian government's interventions in the affairs of a provincial city and in the textual record left by local institutions and local families. The largest archive from Uruk is that of the Eanna temple (c. 8000 published and unpublished tablets and many more unpublished fragments). The chronological range is similar to that of the Ebabbar archive: it starts in the late seventh century and ends toward the end of the reign of Darius I (the latest known text dates to the twenty‐ninth year of this king). However, the revolts against Darius at the beginning of his reign and a reorganization of the temple administration in the king's second year mark an important juncture: the main temple archive that was recovered by controlled excavations and by illicit diggers breaks off in this year; there is only a handful of tablets from Darius' later years (van Driel 1998; Frahm and Jursa 2011: pp. 24–29). In the aftermath of the rebellion against Xerxes, reprisals targeted those leading families of the city who had come from Babylon. The northerners were removed from their offices, the importance of the northern Babylonian gods Marduk and Nabû in the local cult was drastically reduced, and the local god Anu was promoted to chief deity in Uruk. The Urukean priesthood transferred their offices from Eanna to the Anu temple which experienced a steep ascendency at the time while the old Eanna temple was allowed to fall into ruin (Kessler 2004: pp. 250–251; Kose 1998: pp. 9–16).⁴ The Early Achaemenid private archives of priests (belonging to northern clans) that were excavated in private houses in the vicinity of the Eanna temple and archives that were found intermingled with the Eanna temple archive follow this “end‐of‐archives” pattern: there is no Late Achaemenid material; 484 BCE is a major watershed also in this case. The most important of these archives is the Egibi archive (the Egibis were a northern family) of some 200 tablets, of which none postdates the thirty‐third year of Darius I. In contrast, there is at least one archive of a local priestly family that was excavated in another part of the site (U 18) and that spans the juncture of 484 BCE: the Gimil‐Nanāya B archive. Other U 18 groups are Late Achaemenid: note the contracts of the Ekur‐zākir family from the reign of Darius III and the early Seleucid area that belong with the large library of literary texts associated with the family. Overall Late Achaemenid material from Uruk is scarce (also in contrast to Seleucid material) even though there are a number of stray tablets that cannot be assigned to well‐defined archives (Stolper 1990; Hackl 2017).