The Shimashkians who do not consecrate nugigand lukurpriestesses in the place
of the gods. Whose population is as numerous as grass, whose seed is widespread,
who live in a tent, and knows not the place of gods, who mates just like an animal,
and knows not how to make offerings of flour, [Even] the evil namtardemon and
the dangerous asag demon do not [dare to] approach him, One who, profaning the
name of god, violates taboos.Certainly, this description casts doubt on Potts’ identification of Shimashki with the
Oxus Civilization. Settlements of the Oxus cannot be characterized as tent-dwellers
while seals, architectural attributes, and rich burials attest to the presence of divinities
and offerings. The final verdict on the geographical locale for both Marhasi and
Shimashki remains contested.
The recent and extensive archaeological excavations on numerous sites in Iran and
Central Asia have led to specific identifications of geographical regions with named
political identities. Whether Central Asia is to be identified as Shimashki as D. Potts
would have us believe, or Marhasi as Francfort and Tremblay prefer, or Tukrish as
Steinkeller indicates, suggest that either archaeology and texts offer contradictory
testimony or the evidence from both is insufficient for precise identification.
Political entities need not be coincident with cultural identity. Steinkeller’s attempt
to identify Marhasi as inclusive of such sites as Tepe Yahya, Shahr-i Sokhta, Hissar,
Bampur, and even extending to the Oxus Civilization, is simply not supported by the
archaeological evidence for cultural diversity. This vast region is represented by a
plethora of distinctivearchaeological cultures. Playing the “name game,” as seen from
the distorted political perspective of Mesopotamian texts, simplifies the complexity of
the third millennium cultural mosaic that typifies the Iranian Plateau. On analogy, the
European Union (as with Elam) is an ambiguously centralized political entity con-
sisting of numerous distinctive cultures, languages, and religions. So it was on the
Iranian Plateau. To identify political entities within specific geographical locales casts
a political centrality over a far more complex and autonomous cultural complexity.
Additionally, identifying the name of any of the above places has, to date, offered
virtually no understanding of the indigenous social, religious, economic, and political
structure(s) of the named region. Wherever Shimashki is located we know that its king,
Kindattu, conquered Ur and after a twenty-year occupation was expelled from
Babylonia.
The interaction that characterized each region was, no doubt, different with respect
to its nature, structure and specific date. Nevertheless, each region was in contact with
others between 2400 and 1800 BC. This period represented an unparalleled degree of
cultural exchange and contact. Figure 29. 1 does not include Mesopotamia’s interaction
with the Eastern Mediterranean, the Levant and Egypt. The figure does, however
suggest a series of asymmetric relations. Thus, the Indus Civilization, and the con-
temporary communities of the Iranian Plateau, are in contact with allof the other
regions. Mesopotamian materials are all but absent in the Indus while present in all
other regions. The Oxus maintains contact with regions save for Mesopotamia.
Figure 29.1 summarizes the extensive interaction that characterized the late third
millennium. Never before, and not again until the rise of the major empires (the
Egyptian, Hittite, and Assyrian of the mid-second millennium) was the greater Near
East to experience such extensive cultural interaction. The specific “causes” that
–– Iran and its neighbors ––