ARAM 26:1&2 (2014), 357-373 ENTANGLEMENT, THE AMORITE KOINÉ, AND AMORITE CULTURES IN THE LEVANT 1 AARON A. BURKE (University of California, Los Angeles) Abstract After more than a century of scholarship on Amorites no real consensus has emerged on their origins, identity, and cultural legacy. It remains the case that little dialogue occurs across geocultural zones or between scholars working on different historical periods. Furthermore, few efforts have been made to incorporate anthropological approaches, despite the fact that more than thirty years ago Kamp and Yoffee (1980) noted its conspicuous absence among prior methods. The only consensus that exists, therefore, is that there is no consensus, and many have resolved that the issue is intractable or represents a red herring as far as ethnic identifications are concerned. Recent scholarship in anthropology addressing the archaeology of colonialism combined with other anthropological approaches, however, offer new opportunities for rethinking a social history of the Amorites and the development of Amorite societies from the late third millennium through the first half of the second millennium BC. This paper, which stems from in-progress research for a monograph on the Amorites, explores the socioeconomic contexts that shaped both the ethnogenesis and development of Amorite societies from the mid-third through mid- second millennia B.C. Emphasis is placed on events, socioeconomic processes, and institutions that played a pivotal role in the evolving nature of Amorite identity during this period. INTRODUCTION This essay is the result of initial efforts to reassess the Amorites within the broader socioeconomic context of the late third and early second millennia B.C. by addressing the contexts of and processes inherent in identity construction and maintenance during this period. It is born of an interest in the question, which was aroused by my earlier study of Middle Bronze Age fortifications during which I suggested that these defensive efforts were part of a constellation of material culture in the Levant, the Delta, and northern Mesopotamia that formed a cultural koiné that developed from the late third millennium B.C. through the first half of the second. While intensive scholarship persists on the question of the Amorites, in many respects the perspectives are more diverse than at any point in the study of the subject and for this reason consensus is difficult to identify. Furthermore, research of Amorites in the third millennium B.C. (Early Bronze Age) seems increasingly unrelated to the discussions of Amorites during the first half of the second millennium B.C. (Middle Bronze Age), and yet questions persist concerning the relationship between phenomena traditionally identified with Amorites during these two periods. Most research on the Amorites continues to adhere to trajectories defined for Amorite studies during the 1960s, the most notable of which is the overriding identification of Amorites as pastoral nomads and the prevalence of textually-defined but mostly insufficiently nuanced explanations of phenomena perceived to relate to the Amorites. Many old notions continue to entertained that now simply seek to incorporate prevailing anthropological jargon, 2 but still fail to address the diversity of the contexts in which Amorites are attested or to explain the relationship of these contexts to each 1 I would like to thank participants of the 2013 ARAM conference on ‘The Amorites and Hurrians,’ particularly Daniel Bodi and Minna Lönnqvist for their insights. Additionally, I am grateful to members of the Mesopotamia Seminar at Johns Hopkins University including Glenn Schwartz, Michael Harrower, Jacob Lauinger, and Paul Delnero whose observations and critiques have encouraged an improved articulation of the argument presented here. I am likewise grateful for remarks on drafts of this paper as well as additional bibliography provided by Adam Miglio. 2 The heavy emphasis placed on pastoral nomadism in more recent discussions persists in the works of M. Lönnqvist (e.g., 2000, 2006, 2008; 2011) and A. Porter (2002b, 2002a, 2004, 2007, 2009; esp. 2011), but also continued work of G. Buccellati (e.g., 2010). The nearly exclusively textual focus continues to overshadow Mari-related research.