Title of paper is lacking?

Introduction In the period of the 14th century to the 7th century BC some very special stones were in use in Babylonia, more accurately southern Mesopotamia (Iraq). These stones are nowadays known by the name Kudurrus which is an Akkadian word that means: boundary. The original thought were that the Kudurrus was used as a boundary marker for a specific land area, but several theories tell us that they probably were used for more than that. In this essay I will describe the essence and function of the Kudurrus and my aim will be to point out why it is more than just a boundary stone by discussing the different theories that supports this. The Kudurrus had roots going back to 3000 BC where relief carving had been done on stone objects with an administrative aim (Aruz, 2008, P. 202 Aruz 2008:202) but it were was the Kassites that introduced the Kudurrus as we know them. After having defeated the Babylonians and starting the Kassite Dynasty they took over many of the Babylonian traditions and even their language, Akkadian. It is easily recognized on the Kudurrus that it resembles Babylonian style and imagery, noticeable the multiple strips or rows and the symbolizing of Gods and lions?. The Kassites ruled until King Shutruk-Nahhunte of the Elamites led a campaign in Mesopotamia and defeated the Kassites (when?) (Pouyssgur, P. www.louvre.fr/en/oeuvre-notices/kudurru-king-melishipak-ii). As of today 160 have been found and they all share some of the same characteristics. (Rutz, T.M, 2008 from www.worldartmuseum.cn/content/918/4064_1.shtml). The Kudurrus have from 39 to 390 lines of texts and vary from 10 cm to almost 1 m in height (Slanski, 2002, P. 97). Some confusion about the size range exists though, since others claims they range from 30 cm to 70 cm in height (Leick, 2009, P. 162). But either way they are relatively small and would at first thought not be easily noticed, but thisat were was not the case, because they were made of stone. The aArchaeologist Seidl has examined 110 Kudurrus and 88 were made of limestone (24 of white limestone and 48 of black limestone), 4 of diorite, 1 of pink granite and 17 undocumented (Moorey, 1994, P. 30). They could also be made of black basalt (Leick, 2009, P. 162). When something is made of stone it makes it very special in the alluvial plains of southern Mesopotamia1. Stones do not appear naturally here, and they have to be imported from elsewhere. In this case Seidl suggests
Comment [A6]: Nothing in footnote

Comment [AA1]: You have the word Kudurru plural where it should be in singular Comment [AA2]: Either italics or inverted commas

Comment [AA3]: You are actually reffering to the article written by Evans in the Aruz book, therefore Evans name should be written here

Comment [AA4]: This is how it should be don with reference (surname of author year: page number) Comment [AA5]: Are there symbolic representations of lions???

a source in the Zagros mountain range (Moorey, 1994, P. 30-31). So when a stone was seen in ancient Mesopotamia it was clear that this was not just a rock, but that it probably had a function or symbolized something. Also the reality The fact that they were built of stones gives us an idea about the intention. The Kudurrus were built to last, they were monumental. The Kudurrus are cylindrically shaped with relatively uneven sides (except from the sides that are chiseled to be even for the inscriptions), and have a pointed top which at a point in time led to the interpretation that they were phallus symbols (Buccellati, G, 1994, P. 284). From what we know now they were most likely not, unless Babylonians liked records of their land transactions to symbolize a penis. As for the aesthetical aspect of the Kudurrus, it is limited only to the surface, and this way it is differentiating itself from the stelaes, obelisks and columns where the shapes of the stone itself are decorative. This fact puts light to an interesting theory about the Kudurrus. If we assume that the Kudurrus originally were used as boundary stones out in the alluvial plains of Mesopotamia, they would already have been unusual enough to be noticed without being stylistically cut or inscribed, by just being a stone, as stated earlier. Later the Kudurrus then have evolved to being inscribed and put in temples, but it kept their original shape (reference). Babylonian temples both functioned as storehouses for community wealth as well as public spaces where the public could look at monuments placed in the temple. As mentioned earlier the Kudurrus had both inscriptions and reliefs/symbols carved in. The inscriptions on the Kudurrus tell us that these stones both had an administrative, religious and historical function. The inscriptions were divided in two main parts. Part one would be the operative division that provided concrete information about events commemorated by the Kudurrus, such as a royal grant of land, a resolution of a legal case, etc. Part two is the imprecative division (the part wishing misfortune), which consists of prohibitions and a series of divine curses calling the Gods upon the one who violate the Kudurrus (Rutz, T.M, 2008 from www.worldartmuseum.cn/content/918/4064_1.shtml). These inscriptions were supported by symbols depicting the Gods mentioned (but not all gods mentioned are necessarily depicted). The deity symbols were arranged randomly or in rows. The iconography of the Kudurrus are unique, in the way that many deity symbols are found only on the Kudurrus, while other symbols used elsewhere in Mesopotamia are also are carved. But the combination of the symbols is new, too (in relation to what?). In fact the Kudurrus are very important for understanding religion in ancient Babylonia since many else unknown

Gods/Goddesses are introduced to us for the first time on these Kudurrus, and also because they sometimes are named by an inscription next to them. On many of the Kudurrus there were records of a land transaction. The inscriptions tell about the deed, and the reliefs supplement them by depicting the person involved in transaction. Often the land transactions are a royal gift from the king to a person who had done a great deed and therefore received a reward. As an example take the Kudurrus of Nebuchadnezzar I (c. 1125-c. 1104 BC). On this Kudurrus the inscription informs us how Nebuchadnezzar I, had rewarded a military leader for a campaign that he led in Elam. On the front of this Kudurrus, six divine registers (six registers with divine symbols) are carved to protect the monument (www.britishmuseum.org/explore/highlights/highlight_objects/me/b/boundary_stone_kudurru2.aspx). In a way the Kudurrus when used in royal connection are used as self praise. The king shows himself as a good king who acknowledges when someone has done a great deed, and that they will be rewarded. Not all of the Kudurrus that have been found are equipped with inscriptions, but this is due to the fact that some of them are unfinished (it is always good to give an example). The inscriptions are written in cuneiform and in the language of Akkadian, since this was the language the Kassites used at this point in history. They had not only inscriptions but there were also carved divine symbols of different deities and beautifully raised reliefs depicting the act described in the inscription. Some even had a plan of the estate. It is important to note that very few of the ancient Kassites who had the possibility of taking a look at the Kudurrus would have been able to read the carved inscriptions (Pouyssgur, P. www.louvre.fr/en/oeuvre-notices/kudurru-king-melishipak-ii). Just as when modern archaeologists first viewed the Kudurrus the visual image (the reliefs) would have played a major role in interpreting and understanding the object. Some of Tthe reliefs on the Kudurrus depict the persons involved in the transaction/deed, and that way illiterates would still be able to understand the essence of the inscriptions (Slanski, K, 2002, P. 101 (103)). Another physical feature worth mentioning is that the Kudurrus at the bottom had an inset base built for fitting the Kudurrus into something for structural support and it seems very likely that they had been standing on some sort of mud brick/plaster structure to make them more noticeable (reference). One half of the Kudurrus found so far have been recovered in archaeological excavations while the rest have been acquired from the antiquities market (which is a shame because we now cannot analyze the context). The sites in which the Kudurrus have been found are these: Susa, Uruk, Ur,
Formatted: Highlight

Comment [AA7]: You have somehow already mentioned that

Dur-Kurigalzu and Larsa Kudurrus (Rutz, T.M, 2008 from www.worldartmuseum.cn/content/918/4064_1.shtml). Almost half of the excavated objects come from Susa, while 20 come from Babylonian temples (Slanski, K, 2002, P. 97). This is curious since Susa, capital of the Elamites, lies in southern Iran and defies what we have stated so far, that the Kudurrus are from Babylonia in Iraq. Archaeologists found the answer to this riddle: the Elamites had taken the Kudurrus as war booty and placed them in their own temples after stealing them on raids in Mesopotamia. Sadly some of the inscriptions on the Kudurrus have been erased by the Elamites. Another problematic aspect for archaeologists is that not a single Kudurrus have beenwas found in situ Kudurrus (Rutz, T.M, 2008 from www.worldartmuseum.cn/content/918/4064_1.shtml). The fact that the Elamites acquired the Kudurrus from the Babylonians is one of the indicators that the Kudurrus were not only used as a boundary stone. It is unlikely that the Elamites were scouting the alluvial plains of Mesopotamia to obtain the Kudurrus. If it were used as a boundary stone it would be placed out in the fields, rather than simply having been stolen from a temple by the Elamites. It also makes perfect sense that the Kudurrus found in the Elamite temples were placed alongside other artifacts that came from Babylonian temples such as the Naram-Sin stele and the Law Stele of Hammurabi, also taken as war booty (Slanski, K, 2002, P. 96-97). It The kudurru was obviously seen as a temple object and not as an agricultural object. Another indicator is the polished surface of the Kudurrus (wax-coated) which does not seem to having been outsideto bear evidence of wear, i.e. exposed to wind and weather(reference). Inside a temple they were able to keep the new shiny look (reference). Today we call these stones Kudurrus, but in reality only 3 of the Kudurrus have been found where the inscriptions refer to them as Kudurrus (Slanski, K, 2002, P. 96). The rest refer to them as narus, which means stone monument. If the Kudurrus actually were monumental they would not be boundary stones, since they suggest an architectural provenance rather than an agricultural. Also some inscriptions on the Kudurrus refer to the objects as having been erected in the presence of the Gods (Slanski, K, 2002, P. 96). This may imply that they have been put up in temples where Gods were present and being worshipped. In the temples the Kudurrus would have divine sanction and the curses could be awoken by the Gods.

Comment [AA8]: Here the webpage is not enough as reference. If you look at Seidls publication on kudurrus you would see that kudurrus are also found in Nimrud, Assur, Babylo and Nippur Comment [AA9]: Lidt for meget discovery channel sprog

Comment [AA10]: It is recommendable to wr three in stead fo 3 (this is recommended for the numbers 1 to 12) Comment [AA11]: Either italic or inverted commas Comment [AA12]: Not clear what you mean

On many of the Kudurrus there were records of a land transaction. The inscriptions tell about the deed, and the reliefs supplement them by depicting the person involved in transaction. Often the land transactions are a royal gift from the king to a person who had done a great deed and therefore received a reward. As an example take the Kudurrus of Nebuchadnezzar I (c1125-c1104 BC). On this Kudurrus the inscription informs us how the king, Nebuchadnezzar I, had rewarded a military leader for a campaign that he led in Elam. On the front of this Kudurrus, six divine registers are carved to protect the monument (Example already mentioned) (www.britishmuseum.org/explore/highlights/highlight_objects/me/b/boundary_stone_kudurru2.aspx). In a way the Kudurrus when used in royal connection are used as self praise. The king shows himself as a good king who acknowledges when someone has done a great deed, and that they will be rewarded. The Kudurrus are of great use for archaeologists when trying to understand how society worked back in the good old Babylonian days. They not only depict royal land grants but also tell us about purchases of land and solving of legal cases. They can be historiographic when they tell of battles fought or inform of other Babylonian history. An example of a Kudurrus that served the purpose of telling the resolution of a legal case and in that way tells us about life on a local scale would be from the Kudurrus: BBst 9 (Babylonian Boundary stone 9). It is from 979-944 BC, and represents a man, Arad-Sibitti, who had killed a female slave with an arrowshot (Slanski, K, 2002, P. 101). The killer Arad-Sibitti was sent to the King and then judged by him to pay damages to the slave owner. Since Arad-Sibitti was poor and had no resources to pay damages, some legal relations were set off between the plaintiff (slave-owner) and the defendant (Arad-Sibitti). The inscriptions read that 11 years later Arad-Sibitti had paid back some of his dues by granting a plot of his land as a marriage gift to his own daughter who was marrying the son of the slave-owner. Even later he would then help paying off a debt. Conclusion My conclusion is that the Kudurrus definitely are much more than a boundary stone, and the name kudurrus meaning boundary stone, is still being used only because of its previous function. This conclusion is based on the following: 1. They were stolen by the Elamites and placed in their temples. It is not likely that the Elamites searched the terrain of southern Mesopotamia to gather the Kudurrus. It is more

Comment [AA13]: You have already mention that

likely that they found them in temples, and emphasizing this is the fact they the Elamites put the Kudurrus up in their own temples side by side with other artefacts that are known for being in temples (the Law Stelae of Hammurabi and Naram-sin Stelae). 2. The inscriptions on the majority of the Kudurrus refer to them as narus and not Kudurrus. It is a misunderstanding to call them for Kudurrus. 3. The fact that they do not seem to have been exposed to weather because of their high polished surfaces. 4. Inscriptions tell us that they were erected in the presence of the Gods. That makes perfect sense then that they would have been placed in temples and not in the fields.
4.

As part of your conclusion you should also list the different functions kudurrus have.

Formatted: Font: (Default) Times New Rom 12 pt

Bibliography: Aruz, J. et al. (eds.) 2008. Beyond Babylon: Art, Trade, and Diplomacy in the Second Millennium B.C. London. P. 203-205. Bahrani, Z. 2009. The Babylonian visual image. In Leick, G. (ed.) The Babylonian World. Routledge: P . 155-170 Buccellati, G. 1994. The Kudurrus as Monuments. In Gasche, H. et al. (eds.) Cinquante-deux rflexions sur le Proche-Orient ancien Louvain: Peeters (ed.). Mesopotamian History and Environment. Occasional publications, Vol. 2. P. 283-291 Louvain: Peeters Moorey, P.R.S. 1994. The Stoneworking Crafts: The Common Stones. Ancient Mesopotamian Materials and Industries: the Archaeological Evidence. Clarendon Press. (pages) Slanski, K. 2002. Babylonian Entitlement Narus (Kudurrus) A Study in Their Form and Function. Journal of Cuneiform Studies 2000:American Schools of Oriental Research. P. 95-114 See the example given by Salwa for constructing website sources www.britishmuseum.org/explore/highlights/highlight_objects/me/b/boundary_stone_kudurru2.aspx www.louvre.fr/en/oeuvre-notices/kudurru-king-melishipak-ii www.worldartmuseum.cn/content/918/4064_1.shtml. Accessed August 10th , 2008.

Formatted: Normal, Indent: Left: 0.25", No bullets or numbering

Formatted: Danish Formatted: English (U.S.)

Formatted: Font: (Default) Times New Rom 12 pt, Not Bold, Italic, Font color: Auto, Englis (U.S.)

Formatted: Font: Not Italic

General comments: Where is your official front page????? Content You have a clear question/problem (problemformulering) which you want to discuss, and you discuss it. Your argumentation is acceptable. But you should have structured your paper better. E.g. first provide the reader with a full physical description of the kudurru, then a section where you discuss the different functions a kudurru might have had/have, and then discuss why the kudurru could not have been placed outside as a boundary stone. Your conclusion is clear but see the comments I have provided to that section. You lack a title and subtitles in your paper (your paper is accepted, but this would not be accepted for the forthcoming papers you hand in) Language: Your written English is acceptable, however look at the words/sentences marked with yellow, this is not correct academic English. Reference: You provided references, but note that some publications have several authors and you should refer to the author of the article in the book and not the author of the book. Some mistakes in the bibliography list (take a look at the guidelines which Salwa provided you with, it is uploaded in Abasalon) Do not be too reliant on website pages when you want to provide general facts, e.g. different sites where kudurrus were found. Other: You refer to specific objects/kudurrus, and it is recommended that you provide an appendix with the objects referred to in the paper. Your paper is accepted ;-)
Formatted: Font: Bold Formatted: Font: Not Bold Formatted: Font: Not Bold