Александров Борис Евгеньевич

кандидат исторических наук

Старший научный сотрудник кафедры истории древнего мира исторического факультета МГУ им. М.В.Ломоносова. 

Ист.: Scripta antique. Вопросы древней истории, филологии, искусства и материальной культуры: альманах. Том V. 2016. Москва: Собрание, 2016.


Царская династия Мари в контексте политической истории Верхней Месопотамии XIII в. до н.э.

Scripta antique. Вопросы древней истории, филологии, искусства и материальной культуры. Том V. 2016. Москва: Собрание, 2016. С. 111–131.

В результате публикации текстов из Табету (совр. Телль-Табан) и Дур-Ашшур-кетти-лешера (совр. Телль-Бдери) стало известно о существовании царской династии, правившей страной Мари на Среднем Хабуре во второй половине II тыс. до н.э. Последние исследования Д.Шибаты показали, что истоки династии восходят к концу XIV в. до н.э., а ее первые представители носили хурритские имена. В статье предпринимается попытка вписать новые данные о царях Мари в более широкий контекст политической истории Верхней Месопотамии.


The newly published texts from Ṭābetu (modern Tell Ṭāban) and Dūr-Aššur-kettī-lēšer (Tell Bdēri) on the Middle Habur river brought evidence on the dynasty of local rulers whose country bore the name of Māri. As was convincingly demonstrated by D.Shibata, the origins of the dynasty went back to the end of the XIVth century BCE. Another important fact is that its first rulers had Hurrian names. The present article seeks to examine these new data in a more wide perspective of the political developments in the XIIIth century BCE Upper Mesopotamia. One of the intriguing events of the history of that period was usurpation of the throne of Hanigalbat by a certain Shubrian (i.e. Hurrian) king who is mentioned in Akkadian letter KBo 1.20 found in the Hittite capital Hattusa/Boğazköy. As was already argued, this ruler cannot be identified with any of the kings of Hanigalbat known from other sources, i.e. with Shattuara I, his son Wasashatta and Shattuara II. The same is true for the unnamed king of Hanigalbat who sent his Hittite overlord a self-justification letter known as IBoT 1.34: the information which the author provides of himself does not match with the data on Shattuara I, Wasashatta and Shattuara II. Meanwhile, the contents of KBo 1.20 and IBoT 1.34 are mutually compatible and can be seen as presentation of one and the same situation viewed through the eyes of its different participants. This leads to an assumption that the main protagonists of two texts, i.e. Shubrian king and unnamed king of Hanigalbat, could be one and the same person not identical with any of the three other rulers of Hanigalbat. The political activity of this person could have fallen within the last years of Adad-nērārī I and the very beginning of Shalmaneser I’s rule. Of course, the lack of relevant sources doesn’t permit to establish the identity of this mysterious ruler. One is only left with highly hypothetical assumptions one of which was to equate the Shubrian king with […]-Sharruma, a king / or a man of Shubri who sent gifts to Assur according to the administrative text Assur.2001.D-2279. With the new data on the history of Middle Assyrian Māri on Habur it becomes tempting to take into consideration her early kings as well, especially Zumiya and Adad-bēl-gabbe I. The reasons which allow comparison of the said Māri rulers with the king of Hanigalbat of KBo 1.20 & IBoT 1.34 are geographical proximity of two lands, Hurrian origin and some sort of cooperation with Assyria on the both sides. The chronological context of KBo 1.20 & IBoT 1.34 fits the approximate dates of Zumiya and especially that of Adad-bēl-gabbe I. Needless to say, every scenario which means  Māri kings’ active engagement in the international politics outside their home region will remain highly speculative: the Habur archives still lack explicit information in this regard. We must wait for new material either to prove, or to dismiss once and for all a possibility of equating the enigmatic king of Hanigalbat with some of the Māri dynasts.

Джойны к хетто-митаннийскому договору CTH. 51. I