Stele of Narâm-Sin, king of Agade, representing the king and his allies in triumph over their enemies.—Photo, Mansell & Co.
The excavations carried out in Babylonia and Assyria during the last few years have added immensely to our knowledge of the early history of those countries, and have revolutionized many of the ideas current with regard to the age and character of Babylonian civilization. In the present volume, which deals with the history of Sumer and Akkad, an attempt is made to present this new material in a connected form, and to furnish the reader with the results obtained by recent discovery and research, so far as they affect the earliest historical periods. An account is here given of the dawn of civilization in Mesopotamia, and of the early city-states which were formed from time to time in the lands of Sumer and Akkad, the two great divisions into which Babylonia was at that period divided. The primitive sculpture and other archaeological remains, discovered upon early Babylonian sites, enable us to form a fairly complete picture of the races which in those remote ages inhabited the country. By their help it is possible to realize how the primitive conditions of life were gradually modified, and how from rude beginnings there was developed the comparatively advanced civilization, which was inherited by the later Babylonians and Assyrians and exerted a remarkable influence upon other races of the ancient world.
In the course of this history points are noted at which early contact with other lands took place, and it[Pg vi] has been found possible in the historic period to trace the paths by which Sumerian culture was carried beyond the limits of Babylonia. Even in prehistoric times it is probable that the great trade routes of the later epoch were already open to traffic, and cultural connections may well have taken place at a time when political contact cannot be historically proved. This fact must be borne in mind in any treatment of the early relations of Babylonia with Egypt. As a result of recent excavation and research it has been found necessary to modify the view that Egyptian culture in its earlier stages was strongly influenced by that of Babylonia. But certain parallels are too striking to be the result of coincidence, and, although the southern Sumerian sites have yielded traces of no prehistoric culture as early as that of the Neolithic and predynastic Egyptians, yet the Egyptian evidence suggests that some contact may have taken place between the prehistoric peoples of North Africa and Western Asia.
Far closer were the ties which connected Sumer with Elam, the great centre of civilization which lay upon her eastern border, and recent excavations in Persia have disclosed the extent to which each civilization was of independent development. It was only after the Semitic conquest that Sumerian culture had a marked effect on that of Elam, and Semitic influence persisted in the country even under Sumerian domination. It was also through the Semitic inhabitants of northern Babylonia that cultural elements from both Sumer and Elam passed beyond the Taurus, and, after being assimilated by the Hittites, reached the western and south-western coasts of Asia Minor. An attempt has therefore been made to estimate, in the light of recent discoveries, the manner in which Babylonian culture affected the early civilizations of Egypt, Asia, and the West. Whether through direct or indirect[Pg vii] channels, the cultural influence of Sumer and Akkad was felt in varying degrees throughout an area extending from Elam to the Aegean.
In view of the after effects of this early civilization, it is of importance to determine the region of the world from which the Sumerian race reached the Euphrates. Until recently it was only possible to form a theory on the subject from evidence furnished by the Sumerians themselves. But explorations in Turkestan, the results of which have now been fully published, enable us to conclude with some confidence that the original home of the Sumerian race is to be sought beyond the mountains to the east of the Babylonian plain. The excavations conducted at Anau near Askhabad by the second Pumpelly Expedition have revealed traces of prehistoric cultures in that region, which present some striking parallels to other early cultures west of the Iranian plateau. Moreover, the physiographical evidence collected by the first Pumpelly Expedition affords an adequate explanation of the racial unrest in Central Asia, which probably gave rise to the Sumerian immigration and to other subsequent migrations from the East.
It has long been suspected that a marked change in natural conditions must have taken place during historic times throughout considerable areas in Central Asia. The present comparatively arid condition of Mongolia, for example, is in striking contrast to what it must have been in the era preceding the Mongolian invasion of Western Asia in the thirteenth century, and travellers who have followed the route of Alexander's army, on its return from India through Afghanistan and Persia, have noted the difference in the character of the country at the present day. Evidence of a similar change in natural conditions has now been collected in Russian Turkestan, and the process is[Pg viii] also illustrated as a result of the explorations conducted by Dr. Stein, on behalf of the Indian Government, on the borders of the Taklamakan Desert and in the oases of Khotan. It is clear that all these districts, at different periods, were far better watered and more densely populated than they are to-day, and that changes in climatic conditions have reacted on the character of the country in such a way as to cause racial migrations. Moreover, there are indications that the general trend to aridity has not been uniform, and that cycles of greater aridity have been followed by periods when the country was capable of supporting a considerable population. These recent observations have an important bearing on the Sumerian problem, and they have therefore been treated in some detail in Appendix I.
The physical effects of such climatic changes would naturally be more marked in mid-continental regions than in districts nearer the coast, and the immigration of Semitic nomads into Syria and Northern Babylonia may possibly have been caused by similar periods of aridity in Central Arabia. However this may be, it is certain that the early Semites reached the Euphrates by way of the Syrian coast, and founded their first Babylonian settlements in Akkad. It is still undecided whether they or the Sumerians were in earliest occupation of Babylonia. The racial character of the Sumerian gods can best be explained on the supposition that the earliest cult-centres in the country were Semitic; but the absence of Semitic idiom from the earliest Sumerian inscriptions is equally valid evidence against the theory. The point will probably not be settled until excavations have been undertaken at such North Babylonian sites as El-Ohêmir and Tell Ibrâhîm.
That the Sumerians played the more important[Pg ix] part in originating and moulding Babylonian culture is certain. In government, law, literature and art the Semites merely borrowed from their Sumerian teachers, and, although in some respects they improved upon their models, in each case the original impulse came from the Sumerian race. Hammurabi's Code of Laws, for example, which had so marked an influence on the Mosaic legislation, is now proved to have been of Sumerian origin; and recent research has shown that the later religious and mythological literature of Babylonia and Assyria, by which that of the Hebrews was also so strongly affected, was largely derived from Sumerian sources.
The early history of Sumer and Akkad is dominated by the racial conflict between Semites and Sumerians, in the course of which the latter were gradually worsted. The foundation of the Babylonian monarchy marks the close of the political career of the Sumerians as a race, although, as we have seen, their cultural achievements long survived them in the later civilizations of Western Asia. The designs upon the cover of this volume may be taken as symbolizing the dual character of the early population of the country. The panel on the face of the cover represents two Semitic heroes, or mythological beings, watering the humped oxen or buffaloes of the Babylonian plain, and is taken from the seal of Ibni-Sharru, a scribe in the service of the early Akkadian king Shar-Gani-sharri. The panel on the back of the binding is from the Stele of the Vultures and portrays the army of Eannatum trampling on the dead bodies of its foes. The shaven faces of the Sumerian warriors are in striking contrast to the heavily bearded Semitic type upon the seal.
A word should, perhaps, be said on two further subjects—the early chronology and the rendering of Sumerian proper names. The general effect of recent[Pg x] research has been to reduce the very early dates, which were formerly in vogue. But there is a distinct danger of the reaction going too far, and it is necessary to mark clearly the points at which evidence gives place to conjecture. It must be admitted that all dates anterior to the foundation of the Babylonian monarchy are necessarily approximate, and while we are without definite points of contact between the earlier and later chronology of Babylonia, it is advisable, as far as possible, to think in periods. In the Chronological Table of early kings and rulers, which is printed as Appendix II., a scheme of chronology has been attempted; and the grounds upon which it is based are summarized in the third chapter, in which the age of the Sumerian civilization is discussed.
The transliteration of many of the Sumerian proper names is also provisional. This is largely due to the polyphonous character of the Sumerian signs; but there is also no doubt that the Sumerians themselves frequently employed an ideographic system of expression. The ancient name of the city, the site of which is marked by the mounds of Tello, is an instance in point. The name is written in Sumerian as Shirpurla, with the addition of the determinative for place, and it was formerly assumed that the name was pronounced as Shirpurla by the Sumerians. But there is little doubt that, though written in that way, it was actually pronounced as Lagash, even in the Sumerian period. Similarly the name of its near neighbour and ancient rival, now marked by the mounds of Jôkha, was until recently rendered as it is written, Gishkhu or Gishukh; but we now know from a bilingual list that the name was actually pronounced as Umma. The reader will readily understand that in the case of less famous cities, whose names have not yet been found in the later syllabaries and bilingual texts, the[Pg xi] phonetic readings may eventually have to be discarded. When the renderings adopted are definitely provisional, a note has been added to that effect.
I take this opportunity of thanking Dr. E. A. Wallis Budge for permission to publish photographs of objects illustrating the early history of Sumer and Akkad, which are preserved in the British Museum. My thanks are also due to Monsieur Ernest Leroux, of Paris, for kindly allowing me to make use of illustrations from works published by him, which have a bearing on the excavations at Tello and the development of Sumerian art; to Mr. Raphael Pumpelly and the Carnegie Institution of Washington, for permission to reproduce illustrations from the official records of the second Pumpelly Expedition; and to the editor of Nature for kindly allowing me to have clichés made from blocks originally prepared for an article on "Transcaspian Archaeology," which I contributed to that journal. With my colleague, Mr. H. R. Hall, I have discussed more than one of the problems connected with the early relations of Egypt and Babylonia; and Monsieur F. Thureau-Dangin, Conservateur-adjoint of the Museums of the Louvre, has readily furnished me with information concerning doubtful readings upon historical monuments, both in the Louvre itself, and in the Imperial Ottoman Museum during his recent visit to Constantinople. I should add that the plans and drawings in the volume are the work of Mr. P. C. Carr, who has spared no pains in his attempt to reproduce with accuracy the character of the originals.
L. W. KING.
INTRODUCTORY: THE LANDS OF SUMER AND AKKAD
Trend of recent archaeological research—The study of origins—The Neolithic period in the Aegean area, in the region of the Mediterranean, and in the Nile Valley—Scarcity of Neolithic remains in Babylonia due largely to character of the country—Problems raised by excavations in Persia and Russian Turkestan—Comparison of the earliest cultural remains in Egypt and Babylonia—The earliest known inhabitants of South Babylonian sites—The "Sumerian Controversy" and a shifting of the problem at issue—Early relations of Sumerians and Semites—The lands of Sumer and Akkad—Natural boundaries—Influence of geological structure—Effect of river deposits—Euphrates and the Persian Gulf—Comparison of Tigris and Euphrates—The Shatt en-Nîl and the Shatt el-Kâr—The early course of Euphrates and a tendency of the river to break away westward—Changes in the swamps—Distribution of population and the position of early cities—Rise and fall of the rivers and the regulation of the water—Boundary between Sumer and Akkad—Early names for Babylonia—"The Land" and its significance—Terminology—1
THE SITES OF EARLY CITIES AND THE RACIAL CHARACTER OF THEIR INHABITANTS
Characteristics of early Babylonian sites—The French excavations at Tello—The names Shirpurla and Lagash—Results of De Sarzec's work—German excavations at Surghul and El-Hibba—The so-called "fire-necropoles"—Jôkha and its ancient name—Other mounds in the region of the Shatt el-Kâr—Hammâm—Tell 'Îd—Systematic excavations at Fâra (Shuruppak)—Sumerian dwelling-houses and circular buildings of unknown use—Sarcophagus-graves and mat-burials—Differences in burial customs—Diggings at Abû Hatab (Kisurra)—Pot-burials—Partial examination of Bismâya (Adab)—Hêtime—Jidr—The fate of cities which escaped the Western Semites—American excavations at Nippur—British work at Warka (Erech), Senkera (Larsa), Tell Sifr, Tell Medîna, Mukayyar (Ur), Abû Shahrain (Eridu), and Tell Lahm—Our knowledge of North Babylonian sites—Excavations at Abû Habba (Sippar), and recent work at Babylon and Borsippa—The sites of Agade, Cutha, Kish and Opis—The French excavations at Susa—Sources of our information on the racial problem—Sumerian and Semitic types—Contrasts[Pg xiv] in treatment of the hair, physical features, and dress—Apparent inconsistencies—Evidence of the later and the earlier monuments—Evidence from the racial character of Sumerian gods—Professor Meyer's theory and the linguistic evidence—Present condition of the problem—The original home and racial affinity of the Sumerians—Path of the Semitic conquest—Origin of the Western Semites—The eastern limits of Semitic influence—16
THE AGE AND PRINCIPAL ACHIEVEMENTS OF SUMERIAN CIVILIZATION
Effect of recent research on older systems of chronology—Reduction of very early dates and articulation of historical periods—Danger of the reaction going too far and the necessity for noting where evidence gives place to conjecture—Chronology of the remoter ages and our sources of information—Classification of material—Bases of the later native lists and the chronological system of Berossus—Palaeography and systematic excavation—Relation of the early chronology to that of the later periods—Effect of recent archaeological and epigraphic evidence—The process of reckoning from below and the foundations on which we may build—Points upon which there is still a difference of opinion—Date for the foundation of the Babylonian Monarchy—Approximate character of all earlier dates and the need to think in periods—Probable dates for the Dynasties of Ur and Isin—Dates for the earlier epochs and for the first traces of Sumerian civilization—Pre-Babylonian invention of cuneiform writing—The origins of Sumerian culture to be traced to an age when it was not Sumerian—Relative interest attaching to many Sumerian achievements—Noteworthy character of the Sumerian arts of sculpture and engraving—The respective contributions of Sumerian and Semite—Methods of composition in Sumerian sculpture and attempts at an unconventional treatment—Perfection of detail in the best Sumerian work—Casting in metal and the question of copper or bronze—Solid and hollow castings and copper plating—Terra-cotta figurines—The arts of inlaying and engraving—The more fantastic side of Sumerian art—Growth of a naturalistic treatment in Sumerian design—Period of decadence—56
THE EARLIEST SETTLEMENTS IN SUMER; THE DAWN OF HISTORY AND THE RISE OF LAGASH
Origin of the great cities—Local cult-centres in the prehistoric period—The earliest Sumerian settlements—Development of the city-god and evolution of a pantheon—Lunar and solar cults—Gradual growth of a city illustrated by the early history of Nippur and its shrine—Buildings of the earliest Sumerian period at Tello—Store-houses and washing-places of a primitive agricultural community—The inhabitants of the country as portrayed in archaic sculpture—Earliest written records and the prehistoric system of land tenure—The first rulers of Shuruppak and their office—Kings and patesis of early city-states—The dawn of history in Lagash and the[Pg xv] suzerainty of Kish—Rivalry of Lagash and Umma and the Treaty of Mesilim—The rôle of the city-god and the theocratic feeling of the time—Early struggles of Kish for supremacy—Connotation of royal titles in the early Sumerian period—Ur-Ninâ the founder of a dynasty in Lagash—His reign and policy—His sons and household—The position of Sumerian women in social and official life—The status of Lagash under Akurgal—84
WARS OF THE CITY-STATES; EANNATUM AND THE STELE OF THE VULTURES
Condition of Sumer on the accession of Eannatum—Outbreak of war between Umma and Lagash—Raid of Ningirsu's territory and Eannatum's vision—The defeat of Ush, patesi of Umma, and the terms of peace imposed on his successor—The frontier-ditch and the stelæ of delimitation—Ratification of the treaty at the frontier-shrines—Oath-formulæ upon the Stele of the Vultures—Original form of the Stele and the fragments that have been recovered—Reconstitution of the scenes upon it—Ningirsu and his net—Eannatum in battle and on the march—Weapons of the Sumerians and their method of fighting in close phalanx—Shield-bearers and lance-bearers—Subsidiary use of the battle-axe—The royal arms and body-guard—The burial of the dead after battle—Order of Eannatum's conquests—Relations of Kish and Umma—The defeat of Kish, Opis and Mari, and Eannatum's suzerainty in the north—Date of his southern conquests and evidence of his authority in Sumer—His relations with Elam, and the other groups of his campaigns—Position of Lagash under Eannatum—His system of irrigation—Estimate of his reign—120
THE CLOSE OF UR-NINÂ'S DYNASTY, THE REFORMS OF URUKAGINA, AND THE FALL OF LAGASH
Cause of break in the direct succession at Lagash—Umma and Lagash in the reign of Enannatum I.—Urlumma's successful raid—His defeat by Entemena and the annexation of his city—Entemena's cone and its summary of historical events—Extent of Entemena's dominion—Sources for history of the period between Enannatum II. and Urukagina—The relative order of Enetarzi, Enlitarzi and Lugal-anda—Period of unrest in Lagash—Secular authority of the chief priests and weakening of the patesiate—Struggles for the succession—The sealings of Lugal-anda and his wife—Break in traditions inaugurated by Urukagina—Causes of an increase in officialdom and oppression—The privileges of the city-god usurped by the patesi and his palace—Tax-gatherers and inspectors "down to the sea"—Misappropriation of sacred lands and temple-property, and corruption of the priesthood—The reforms of Urukagina—Abolition of unnecessary posts and stamping out of abuses—Revision of burial fees—Penalties for theft and protection for the poorer classes—Abolition of diviner's fees and regulation of divorce—The laws of Urukagina and the Sumerian origin of Hammurabi's Code—Urukagina's relations to other cities—Effect of his reforms on the stability of the state—The fall of Lagash—157
EARLY RULERS OF SUMER AND KINGS OF KISH
Close of an epoch in Sumerian history—Increase in the power of Umma and transference of the capital to Erech—Extent of Lugal-zaggisi's empire, and his expedition to the Mediterranean coast—Period of Lugal-kigub-nidudu and Lugal-kisalsi—The dual kingdom of Erech and Ur—Eushagkushanna of Sumer and his struggle with Kish—Confederation of Kish and Opis—Enbi-Ishtar of Kish and a temporary check to Semitic expansion southwards—The later kingdom of Kish—Date of Urumush and extent of his empire—Economic conditions in Akkad as revealed by the Obelisk of Manishtusu—Period of Manishtusu's reign and his military expeditions—His statues from Susa—Elam and the earlier Semites—A period of transition—New light on the foundations of the Akkadian Empire—192
THE EMPIRE OF AKKAD AND ITS RELATION TO KISH
Sargon of Agade and his significance—Early recognition of his place in history—The later traditions of Sargon and the contemporary records of Shar-Gani-sharri's reign—Discovery at Susa of a monument of "Sharru-Gi, the King"—Probability that he was Manishtusu's father and the founder of the kingdom of Kish—Who, then, was Sargon?—Indications that only names and not facts have been confused in the tradition—The debt of Akkad to Kish in art and politics—Expansion of Semitic authority westward under Shar-Gani-sharri—The alleged conquest of Cyprus—Commercial intercourse at the period and the disappearance of the city-state—Evidence of a policy of deportation—The conquest of Narâm-Sin and the "Kingdom of the Four Quarters"—His Stele of Victory and his relations with Elam—Narâm-Sin at the upper reaches of the Tigris, and the history of the Pir Hussein Stele—Narâm-Sin's successors—Representations of Semitic battle-scenes—The Lagash Stele of Victory, probably commemorating the original conquest of Kish by Akkad—Independent Semitic principalities beyond the limits of Sumer and Akkad—The reason of Akkadian pre-eminence and the deification of Semitic kings—216
THE LATER RULERS OF LAGASH
Sumerian reaction tempered by Semitic influence—Length of the intervening period between the Sargonic era and that of Ur—Evidence from Lagash of a sequence of rulers in that city who bridge the gap—Archaeological and epigraphic data—Political condition of Sumer and the semi-independent position enjoyed by Lagash—Ur-Bau representative of the earlier patesis of this epoch—Increase in the authority of Lagash under Gudea—His conquest of Anshan—His relations with Syria, Arabia, and the Persian Gulf—His influence of a commercial rather than of a political character—Development in the art of building which marked the later Sumerian[Pg xvii] period—Evolution of the Babylonian brick and evidence of new architectural ideas—The rebuilding of E-ninnû and the elaborate character of Sumerian ritual—The art of Gudea's period—His reign the golden age of Lagash—Gudea's posthumous deification and his cult—The relations of his son, Ur-Ningirsu, to the Dynasty of Ur—252
THE DYNASTY OF UR AND THE KINGDOM OF SUMER AND AKKAD
The part taken by Ur against Semitic domination in an earlier age, and her subsequent history—Organization of her resources under Ur-Engur—His claim to have founded the kingdom of Sumer and Akkad—The subjugation of Akkad by Dungi and the Sumerian national revival—Contrast in Dungi's treatment of Babylon and Eridu—Further evidence of Sumerian reaction—The conquests of Dungi's earlier years and his acquisition of regions formerly held by Akkad—His adoption of the bow as a national weapon—His Elamite campaigns and the difficulty in retaining control of conquered provinces—His change of title and assumption of divine rank—Survival of Semitic influence in Elam under Sumerian domination—Character of Dungi's Elamite administration—His reforms in the official weight-standards and the system of time-reckoning—Continuation of Dungi's policy by his successors—The cult of the reigning monarch carried to extravagant lengths—Results of administrative centralization when accompanied by a complete delegation of authority by the king—Plurality of offices and provincial misgovernment the principal causes of a decline in the power of Ur—278
THE EARLIER RULERS OF ELAM, THE DYNASTY OF ISIN, AND THE RISE OF BABYLON
Continuity of the kingdom of Sumer and Akkad and the racial character of the kings of Isin—The Elamite invasion which put an end to the Dynasty of Ur—Native rulers of Elam represented by the dynasties of Khutran-tepti and Ebarti—Evidence that a change in titles did not reflect a revolution in the political condition of Elam—No period of Elamite control in Babylonia followed the fall of Ur—Sources for the history of the Dynasty of Isin—The family of Ishbi-Ura and the cause of a break in the succession—Rise of an independent kingdom in Larsa and Ur, and the possibility of a second Elamite invasion—The family of Ur-Ninib followed by a period of unrest in Isin—Relation of the Dynasty of Isin to that of Babylon—The suggested Amorite invasion in the time of Libit-Ishtar disproved—The capture of Isin in Sin-muballit's reign an episode in the war of Babylon with Larsa—The last kings of Isin and the foundation of the Babylonian Monarchy—Position of Babylon in the later historical periods, and the close of the independent political career of the Sumerians as a race—The survival of their cultural influence—303
THE CULTURAL INFLUENCE OF SUMER IN EGYPT, ASIA AND THE WEST
Relations of Sumer and Akkad with other lands—Cultural influences, carried by the great trade-routes, often independent of political contact—The prehistoric relationship of Sumerian culture to that of Egypt—Alleged traces of strong cultural influence—The hypothesis of a Semitic invasion of Upper Egypt in the light of more recent excavations—Character of the Neolithic and early dynastic cultures of Egypt, as deduced from a study of the early graves and their contents—Changes which may be traced to improvements in technical skill—Confirmation from a study of the skulls—Native origin of the Egyptian system of writing and absence of Babylonian influence—Misleading character of other cultural comparisons—Problem of the bulbous mace-head and the stone cylindrical seal—Prehistoric migrations of the cylinder—Semitic elements in Egyptian civilization—Syria a link in the historic period between the Euphrates and the Nile—Relations of Elam and Sumer—Evidence of early Semitic influence in Elamite culture and proof of its persistence—Elam prior to the Semitic conquest—The Proto-Elamite script of independent development—Its disappearance paralleled by that of the Hittite hieroglyphs—Character of the earlier strata of the mounds at Susa and presence of Neolithic remains—The prehistoric pottery of Susa and Mussian—Improbability of suggested connections between the cultures of Elam and of predynastic Egypt—More convincing parallels in Asia Minor and Russian Turkestan—Relation of the prehistoric peoples of Elam to the Elamites of history—The Neolithic settlement at Nineveh and the prehistoric cultures of Western Asia—Importance of Syria in the spread of Babylonian culture westward—The extent of early Babylonian influence in Cyprus, Crete, and the area of Aegean civilization—321
I. Recent Explorations in Turkestan in their Relation to the Sumerian Problem—351
II. A Chronological List of the Kings and Rulers of Sumer and Akkad—359
INDEX—363
LIST OF PLATES
I. Stele of Narâm-Sin, representing the king and his allies in triumph over their enemie — Frontispiece
II. Doorway of a building at Tello erected by Gudea; on the left is a later building of the Seleucid Era 20
III. Outer face of a foundation-wall at Tello, built by Ur-Bau 26
IV. Limestone figure of an early Sumerian patesi, or high official 40
V. Fragment of Sumerian sculpture representing scenes of worship 52
VI. The Blau monuments 62
VII. Diorite statue of Gudea, represented as the architect of the temple of Gatumdug 66
VIII. Clay relief stamped with the figure of a Babylonian hero, and fragment of limestone sculptured in relief; both objects illustrate the symbol of the spouting vase 72
IX. Impressions of early cylinder-seals, engraved with scenes representing heroes and mythological beings in conflict with lions and bulls 76
X. South-eastern facade of a building at Tello, erected by Ur-Ninâ 90
XI. Limestone figures of early Sumerian rulers 102
XII. Plaques of Ur-Ninâ and of Dudu 111
XIII. Portion of these "Stele of the Vultures" sculptured with scenes representing Eannatum leading his troops in battle and on the march 124
XIV. The burial of the dead after battle 138
XV. Portion of a black basalt mortar bearing an inscription of Eannatum 146
XVI. Brick of Eannatum, recording his genealogy and conquests and commemorating the sinking of a well in the temple of Ningirsu 154
XVII. Marble gate-socket, bearing an inscription of Entemena 162
XVIII. Silver vase dedicated to the god Ningirsu by Entemena 168
XIX. Mace-heads and part of a diorite statuette dedicated to various deities 206
XX. Mace-head dedicated to the Sun-god by Shar-Gani-sharri, and other votive objects 218
XXI. Cruciform stone object inscribed with a votive text of an early Semitic king of Kish 224
XXII. Impressions of the cylinder-seals of Ubil-Ishtar, Khashkhamer, and Kilulla 247
XXIII. Clay cones of Galu-Babbar and other rulers 259
XXIV. Brick pillar at Tello, of the time of Gudea 263
XXV. Seated figure of Gudea 268
XXVI. Votive cones and figures 273
XXVII. Gate-socket of Gudea, recording the restoration of the temple of the goddess Ninâ 274
XXVIII. Brick of Ur-Engur, King of Ur, recording the rebuilding of the temple of Ninni in Erech 280
XXIX. Votive tablets of Dungi, King of Ur, and other rulers 288
XXX. Clay tablets of temple-accounts, drawn up in Dungi's reign 292
XXXI. Circular tablets of the reign of Bûr-Sin, King of Ur 298
XXXII. Bricks of Bûr-Sin, King of Ur, and Ishme-Dagan, King of Isin 310
XXXIII. Specimens of clay cones bearing votive inscriptions 314
XXXIV. (i and ii) The North and South Kurgans at Anau in Russian Turkestan. (iii) Terra-cotta figurines of the copper age culture from the South Kurgan at Anau 352
ILLUSTRATIONS IN THE TEXT
1-2. Figures of early Sumerians engraved upon fragments of shell. Earliest period: from Tello 41
3-5. Later types of Sumerians, as exhibited by heads of male statuettes from Tello 42
6-8. Examples of sculpture of the later period, representing different racial types 44
9-11. Fragments of a circular bas-relief of the earliest period, commemorating the meeting of two chieftains and their followers 45
12. Limestone panel representing Gudea being led by Ningishzida and another deity into the presence of a seated god 47
13. Figure of the seated god on the cylinder-seal of Gudea 48
14-15. Examples of early Sumerian deities on votive tablets from Nippur 49
16. Fragment of an archaic relief from Tello, representing a god smiting a bound captive with a heavy club or mace 50
17-19. Earlier and later forms of divine headdresses 51
20. Perforated plaque engraved with a scene representing the pouring out of a libation before a goddess 68
21. Fragments of sculpture belonging to the best period of Sumerian art 69
22. Limestone head of a lion from the corner of a basin in Ningirsu's temple 70
23. Upper part of a female statuette of diorite, of the period of Gudea or a little later 71
24. Limestone head of a female statuette belonging to the best period of Sumerian art 72
25. One of a series of copper female foundation-figures with supporting rings 74
26-27. Heads of a bull and goat, cast in copper and inlaid with mother-of-pearl, lapis-lazuli, etc. 75
28. Stamped terra-cotta figure of a bearded god, wearing a horned headdress 75
29. Scheme of decoration from a libation-vase of Gudea, made of dark green steatite and originally inlaid with shell 76
30. Convex panel of shell from the side of a cup, engraved with a scene representing a lion attacking a bull 79
31-33. Fragments of shell engraved with animal forms, which illustrate the growth of a naturalistic treatment in Sumerian design 80
34-37. Panels of mother-of-pearl engraved with Sumerian designs, which were employed for inlaying the handles of daggers 82
38. Archaic plaque from Tello, engraved in low relief with a scene of adoration 94
39. Figure of Lupad, a high official of the city of Umma 96
40. Statue of Esar, King of Adah 97
41. Emblems of Lagash and of the god Ningirsu 98
42. Mace-head dedicated to Ningirsu by Mesilim, King of Kish 99
43. Early Sumerian figure of a woman, showing the Sumerian dress and the method of doing the hair 112
44. Plaque of Ur-Ninâ, King of Lagash 113
45. Portion of a plaque of Ur-Ninâ, sculptured with representations of his sons and the high officials of his court 114
46. Part of the Stele of the Vultures representing Ningirsu clubbing the enemies of Lagash in his net 131
47. Part of the Stele of the Vultures sculptured with a sacrificial scene which took place at the burial of the dead after battle 140
48. Part of the Stele of the Vultures representing Eannatum deciding the fate of prisoners taken in battle 141
49-51. Details from the engravings upon Entemena's silver vase 167
52-53. Seal-impression of Lugal-anda, patesi of Lagash, with reconstruction of the cylinder-seal 173
54-55. A second seal-impression of Lugal-anda, with reconstruction of the cylinder 175
56. White marble vase engraved with the name and title of Urumush, King of Kish 204
57. Alabaster statue of Manishtusu, King of Kish 214
58. Copper head of a colossal votive lance engraved with the name and title of an early king of Kish 229
59. Stele of Narâm-Sin, King of Akkad, from Pir Hussein 244
60. Portion of a Stele of Victory of a king of Akkad, sculptured in relief with battle-scenes; from Tello 248
61. Other face of Fig. 60 249
62-63. Copper figures of bulls surmounting cones, which were employed as votive offerings in the reigns of Gudea and Dungi 256
64-65. Tablets with architect's rule and stilus from the statues B and F of Gudea 265
66. Figure of a god seated upon a throne, who may probably be identified with Ningirsu 268
67. Mace-head of breccia from a mountain near the "Upper Sea" or Mediterranean, dedicated to Ningirsu by Gudea 271
68. Designs on painted potsherds of the Neolithic period (Culture I.) from the North Kurgan at Anau 355
69. Designs on painted potsherds of the Aeneolithic period (Culture II.) from the North Kurgan at Anau 356
MAPS AND PLANS
I. Plan of Tello, after De Sarzec 19
II. Plan of Jôkha, after Andrae 22
III. Plan of Fâra, after Andrae and Noeldeke 25
IV. Plan of Abû Hatab, after Andrae and Noeldeke 29
V. Plan of Warka, after Loftus 33
VI. Plan of Muḳayyar, after Taylor 34
VII. Plan of Abû Shahrain, after Taylor 36
VIII. Early Babylonian plan of the temple of Enlil at Nippur and its enclosure; cf. Fisher, "Excavations at Nippur" I., pl. 1 87
IX. Plan of the Inner City at Nippur, after Fisher, "Excavations at Nippur," I., p. 10 88
X. Plan of the store-house of Ur-Ninâ, at Tello, after De Sarzec 92
XI. Plan of early building at Tello, after De Sarzec 93
XII. Map of Babylonia, showing the sites of early cities. Inset: Map of Sumer and Akkad in the earliest historical period 380
The study of origins may undoubtedly be regarded as the most striking characteristic of recent archaeological research. There is a peculiar fascination in tracking any highly developed civilization to its source, and in watching its growth from the rude and tentative efforts of a primitive people to the more elaborate achievements of a later day. And it is owing to recent excavation that we are now in a position to elucidate the early history of the three principal civilizations of the ancient world. The origins of Greek civilization may now be traced beyond the Mycenean epoch, through the different stages of Aegean culture back into the Neolithic age. In Egypt, excavations have not only yielded remains of the early dynastic kings who lived before the pyramid-builders, but they have revealed the existence of Neolithic Egyptians dating from a period long anterior to the earliest written records that have been recovered. Finally, excavations in Babylonia have enabled us to trace the civilization of Assyria and Babylon back to an earlier and more primitive race, which in the remote past occupied the lower plains of the Tigris and Euphrates; while the more recent digging in Persia and Turkestan has thrown light upon other primitive inhabitants of Western Asia, and has raised problems with regard to their cultural connections with the West which were undreamed of a few years ago.
It will thus be noted that recent excavation and[Pg 2] research have furnished the archaeologist with material by means of which he may trace back the history of culture to the Neolithic period, both in the region of the Mediterranean and along the valley of the Nile. That the same achievement cannot be placed to the credit of the excavator of Babylonian sites is not entirely due to defects in the scope or method of his work, but may largely be traced to the character of the country in which the excavations have been carried out. Babylonia is an alluvial country, subject to constant inundation, and the remains and settlements of the Neolithic period were doubtless in many places swept away, and all trace of them destroyed by natural causes. With the advent of the Sumerians began the practice of building cities upon artificial mounds, which preserved the structure of the buildings against flood, and rendered them easier of defence against a foe. It is through excavation in these mounds that the earliest remains of the Sumerians have been recovered; but the still earlier traces of Neolithic times, which at some period may have existed on those very sites, must often have been removed by flood before the mounds were built. The Neolithic and pre-historic remains discovered during the French excavations in the graves of Mussian and at Susa, and by the Pumpelly expedition in the two Kurgans near Anau, do not find their equivalents in the mounds of Babylonia so far as these have yet been examined.
In this respect the climate and soil of Babylonia present a striking contrast to those of ancient Egypt. In the latter country the shallow graves of Neolithic man, covered by but a few inches of soil, have remained intact and undisturbed at the foot of the desert hills; while in the upper plateaus along the Nile valley the flints of Palaeolithic man have lain upon the surface of the sand from Palaeolithic times until the present day. But what has happened in so rainless a country as Egypt could never have taken place in Mesopotamia. It is true that a few palaeoliths have been found on the surface of the Syrian desert, but in the alluvial plains of Southern Chaldaea, as in the Egyptian Delta itself, few certain traces of prehistoric man have[Pg 3] been forthcoming. Even in the early mat-burials and sarcophagi at Fâra numerous copper objects[1] and some cylinder-seals have been found, while other cylinders, sealings, and even inscribed tablets, discovered in the same and neighbouring strata, prove that their owners were of the same race as the Sumerians of history, though probably of a rather earlier date.
Although the earliest Sumerian settlements in Southern Babylonia are to be set back in a comparatively remote period, the race by which they were founded appears at that time to have already attained to a high level of culture. We find them building houses for themselves and temples for their gods of burnt and unburnt brick. They are rich in sheep and cattle, and they have increased the natural fertility of their country by means of a regular system of canals and irrigation-channels. It is true that at this time their sculpture shared the rude character of their pottery, but their main achievement, the invention of a system of writing by means of lines and wedges, is in itself sufficient indication of their comparatively advanced state of civilization. Derived originally from picture-characters, the signs themselves, even in the earliest and most primitive inscriptions as yet recovered, have already lost to a great extent their pictorial character, while we find them employed not only as ideograms to express ideas, but also phonetically for syllables. The use of this complicated system of writing by the early Sumerians presupposes an extremely long period of previous development. This may well have taken place in their original home, before they entered the Babylonian plain. In any case, we must set back in the remote past the beginnings of this ancient people, and we may probably picture their first settlement in the neighbourhood of the Persian Gulf some centuries before the period to which we may assign the earliest of their remains that have actually come down to us.
In view of the important rôle played by this early race in the history and development of civilization in Western Asia, it is of interest to recall the fact that not[Pg 4] many years ago the very existence of the Sumerians was disputed by a large body of those who occupied themselves with the study of the history and languages of Babylonia. What was known as "the Sumerian controversy" engaged the attention of writers on these subjects, and divided them into two opposing schools. At that time not many actual remains of the Sumerians themselves had been recovered, and the arguments in favour of the existence of an early non-Semitic race in Babylonia were in the main drawn from a number of Sumerian texts and compositions which had been found in the palace of the Assyrian king, Ashur-banipal, at Nineveh. A considerable number of the tablets recovered from the royal library were inscribed with a series of compositions, written, it is true, in the cuneiform script, but not in the Semitic language of the Assyrians and Babylonians. To many of these compositions Assyrian translations had been added by the scribes who drew them up, and upon other tablets were found lists of the words employed in the compositions, together with their Assyrian equivalents. The late Sir Henry Rawlinson rightly concluded that these strange texts were written in the language of some race who had inhabited Babylonia before the Semites, while he explained the lists of words as early dictionaries compiled by the Assyrian scribes to help them in their studies of this ancient tongue. The early race he christened "the Akkadians," and although we now know that this name would more correctly describe the early Semitic immigrants who occupied Northern Babylonia, in all other respects his inference was justified. He correctly assigned the non-Semitic compositions that had been recovered to the early non-Semitic population of Babylonia, who are now known by the name of the Sumerians.
Sir Henry Rawlinson's view was shared by M. Oppert, Professor Schrader, Professor Sayce, and many others, and, in fact, it held the field until a theory was propounded by M. Halévy to the effect that Sumerian was not a language in the legitimate sense of the term. The contention of M. Halévy was that the Sumerian compositions were not written in the[Pg 5] language of an earlier race, but represented a cabalistic method of writing, invented and employed by the Babylonian priesthood. In his opinion the texts were Semitic compositions, though written according to a secret system or code, and they could only have been read by a priest who had the key and had studied the jealously guarded formulæ. On this hypothesis it followed that the Babylonians and Assyrians were never preceded by a non-Semitic race in Babylonia, and all Babylonian civilization was consequently to be traced to a Semitic origin. The attractions which such a view would have for those interested in ascribing so great an achievement to a Semitic source are obvious, and, in spite of its general improbability, M. Halévy won over many converts to his theory, among others Professor Delitzsch and a considerable number of the younger school of German critics.
It may be noted that the principal support for the theory was derived from an examination of the phonetic values of the Sumerian signs. Many of these, it was correctly pointed out, were obviously derived from Semitic equivalents, and M. Halévy and his followers forthwith inferred that the whole language was an artificial invention of the Babylonian priests. Why the priests should have taken the trouble to invent so complicated a method of writing was not clear, and no adequate reason could be assigned for such a course. On the contrary, it was shown that the subject-matter of the Sumerian compositions was not of a nature to justify or suggest the necessity of recording them by means of a secret method of writing. A study of the Sumerian texts with the help of the Assyrian translations made it obvious that they merely consisted of incantations, hymns, and prayers, precisely similar to other compositions written in the common tongue of the Babylonians and Assyrians, and thus capable of being read and understood by any scribe acquainted with the ordinary Assyrian or Babylonian character.
M. Halévy's theory appeared still less probable when applied to such of the early Sumerian texts as had been recovered at that time by Loftus and Taylor in Southern Babylonia. For these were shown to be[Pg 6] short building-inscriptions, votive texts, and foundation-records, and, as they were obviously intended to record and commemorate for future ages the events to which they referred, it was unlikely that they should have been drawn up in a cryptographic style of writing which would have been undecipherable without a key. Yet the fact that very few Sumerian documents of the early period had been found, while the great majority of the texts recovered were known only from tablets of the seventh century B.C., rendered it possible for the upholders of the pan-Semitic theory to make out a case. In fact, it was not until the renewal of excavations in Babylonia that fresh evidence was obtained which put an end to the Sumerian controversy, and settled the problem once for all in accordance with the view of Sir Henry Rawlinson and of the more conservative writers.[2]
That Babylonian civilization and culture originated with the Sumerians is no longer in dispute; the point upon which difference of opinion now centres concerns the period at which Sumerians and Semites first came into contact. But before we embark on the discussion of this problem, it will be well to give some account of the physical conditions of the lands which invited the immigration of these early races and formed the theatre of their subsequent history. The lands of Sumer and Akkad were situated in the lower valley of the Euphrates and the Tigris, and corresponded approximately to the country known by classical writers as Babylonia. On the west and south their boundaries are definitely marked by the Arabian desert and the Persian Gulf which, in the earliest period of Sumerian history, extended as far northward as the neighbourhood of the city of Eridu. On the east it is probable that the Tigris originally formed their natural boundary, but this was a direction in which expansion was possible, and their early conflicts with Elam were doubtless provoked by attempts to gain possession of the districts[Pg 7] to the east of the river. The frontier in this direction undoubtedly underwent many fluctuations under the rule of the early city-states, but in the later periods, apart from the conquest of Elam, the true area of Sumerian and Semitic authority may be regarded as extending to the lower slopes of the Elamite hills. In the north a political division appears to have corresponded then, as in later times, to the difference in geological structure. A line drawn from a point a little below Samarra on the Tigris before its junction with the Adhem to Hît on the Euphrates marks the division between the slightly elevated and undulating plain and the dead level of the alluvium, and this may be regarded as representing the true boundary of Akkad on the north. The area thus occupied by the two countries was of no very great extent, and it was even less than would appear from a modern map of the Tigris and Euphrates valley. For not only was the head of the Persian Gulf some hundred and twenty, or hundred and thirty, miles distant from the present coast-line, but the ancient course of the Euphrates below Babylon lay considerably to the east of its modern bed.
In general character the lands of Sumer and Akkad consist of a flat alluvial plain, and form a contrast to the northern half of the Tigris and Euphrates valley, known to the Greeks as Mesopotamia and Assyria. These latter regions, both in elevation and geological structure, resemble the Syro-Arabian desert, and it is only in the neighbourhood of the two great streams and their tributaries that cultivation can be carried out on any extensive scale. Here the country at a little distance from the rivers becomes a stony plain, serving only as pasture-land when covered with vegetation after the rains of winter and the early spring. In Sumer and Akkad, on the other hand, the rivers play a far more important part. The larger portion of the country itself is directly due to their action, having been formed by the deposit which they have carried down into the waters of the Gulf. Through this alluvial plain of their own formation the rivers take a winding course, constantly changing their direction[Pg 8] in consequence of the silting up of their beds and the falling in of the banks during the annual floods.
Of the two rivers the Tigris, owing to its higher and stronger banks, has undergone less change than the Euphrates. It is true that during the Middle Ages its present channel below Kût el-'Amâra was entirely disused, its waters flowing by the Shatt el-Hai into the Great Swamp which extended from Kûfa on the Euphrates to the neighbourhood of Kurna, covering an area fifty miles across and nearly two hundred miles in length.[3] But in the Sassanian period the Great Swamp, the formation of which was due to neglect of the system of irrigation under the early caliphs, did not exist, and the river followed its present channel.[4] It is thus probable that during the earlier periods of Babylonian history the main body of water passed this way into the Gulf, but the Shatt el-Hai may have represented a second and less important branch of the stream.[5]
The change in the course of the Euphrates has been far more marked, the position of its original bed being indicated by the mounds covering the sites of early cities, which extend through the country along the practically dry beds of the Shatt en-Nîl and the Shatt el-Kâr, considerably to the east of its present channel. The mounds of Abû Habba, Tell Ibrâhîm, El-Ohêmir and Niffer, marking the sites of the important cities[Pg 9] of Sippar, Cutha, Kish[6] and Nippur, all lie to the east of the river, the last two on the ancient bed of the Shatt en-Nîl. Similarly, the course of the Shatt el-Kâr, which formed an extension of the Shatt en-Nîl below Sûk el-'Afej passes the mounds of Abû Hatab (Kisurra), Fâra (Shuruppak) and Hammâm. Warka (Erech) stands on a further continuation of the Shatt en-Nîl,[7] while still more to the eastward are the mounds of Bismâya and Jôkha, representing the cities of Adab and Umma.[8] Senkera, the site of Larsa, also lies considerably to the east of the present stream, and the only city besides Babylon which now stands comparatively near the present bed of the Euphrates is Ur. The positions of the ancient cities would alone be sufficient proof that, since the early periods of Babylonian history, the Euphrates has considerably changed its course.
Abundant evidence that this was the case is furnished by the contemporary inscriptions that have been recovered. The very name of the Euphrates was expressed by an ideogram signifying "the River of Sippar," from which we may infer that Sippar originally stood upon its banks. A Babylonian contract of the period of the First Dynasty is dated in the year in which Samsu-iluna constructed the wall of Kish "on the bank of the Euphrates,"[9] proving that either the main stream from Sippar, or a branch from Babylon, flowed by El-Ohêmir. Still further south the river at Nippur, marked as at El-Ohêmir by the dry bed of the Shatt en-Nîl, is termed "the Euphrates of Nippur," or simply "the Euphrates" on contract-tablets found upon the site.[10] Moreover, the city of Shurippak or Shuruppak, the native town of Ut-napishtim, is described by him in the Gilgamesh epic as lying "on the bank of the Euphrates"; and Hammurabi, in one of his letters to Sin-idinnam, bids[Pg 10] him clear out the stream of the Euphrates "from Larsa as far as Ur."[11] These references in the early texts cover practically the whole course of the ancient bed of the Euphrates, and leave but a few points open to conjecture.
In the north it is clear that at an early period a second branch broke away from the Euphrates at a point about half-way between Sippar and the modern town of Falûja, and, after flowing along the present bed of the river as far as Babylon, rejoined the main stream of the Euphrates either at, or more probably below, the city of Kish. It was the extension of these western channels which afterwards drained the earlier bed, and we may conjecture that its waters were diverted back to the Euphrates at this early period by artificial means.[12] The tendency of the river was always to break away westward, and the latest branch of the stream, still further to the west, left the river above Babylon at Musayyib. The fact that Birs, the site of Borsippa, stands upon its upper course, suggests an early date for its origin, but it is quite possible that the first city on this site, in view of its proximity to Babylon, obtained its water-supply by means of a system of canals. However this may be, the present course of this most western branch is marked by the Nahr Hindîya, the Bahr Nejef, and the Shatt 'Ateshân, which rejoins the Euphrates after passing Samâwa. In the Middle Ages the Great Swamps started at Kûfa, and it is possible that even in earlier times, during periods of inundation, some of the surplus water from the river may have emptied itself into swamps or marshy land below Borsippa.
The exact course of the Euphrates south of Nippur during the earliest periods is still a matter for conjecture, and it is quite possible that its waters reached the Persian Gulf through two, if not three, mouths. It is certain that the main stream passed the cities of Kisurra, Shuruppak, and Erech, and eventually reached[Pg 11] the Gulf below Ur. Whether after leaving Erech it turned eastward to Larsa, and so southward to Ur, or whether it flowed from Erech direct to Ur, and Larsa lay upon another branch, is not yet settled, though the reference in Hammurabi's letter may be cited in favour of the former view. Another point of uncertainty concerns the relation of Adab and Umma to the stream. The mounds of Bismâya and Jôkha, which mark their sites, lie to the east, off the line of the Shatt el-Kâr, and it is quite possible that they were built upon an eastern branch of the river which may have joined the Shatt el-Hai above Lagash, and so have mingled with the waters of the Tigris before reaching the Gulf.[13]
In spite of these points of uncertainty, it will be noted that every city of Sumer and Akkad, the site of which has been referred to, was situated on the Euphrates or one of its branches, not upon the Tigris, and the only exception to this rule appears to have been Opis, the most northern city of Akkad. The preference for the Euphrates may be explained by the fact that the Tigris is swift and its banks are high, and it thus offers far less facilities for irrigation. The Euphrates with its lower banks tends during the time of high water to spread itself over the surrounding country, which doubtless suggested to the earliest inhabitants the project of regulating and utilizing the supply of water by means of reservoirs and canals. Another reason for the preference may be traced to the slower fall of the water in the Euphrates during the summer months. With the melting of the snow in the mountain ranges of the Taurus and Niphates during the early spring, the first flood-water is carried down by the swift stream of the Tigris, which generally begins to rise in March, and, after reaching its highest level in the early part of May, falls swiftly and returns to its summer level by the middle of June. The Euphrates, on the other hand, rises about a fortnight later, and continues at a high level for a much longer period.[Pg 12] Even in the middle of July there is a considerable body of water in the river, and it is not until September that its lowest level is reached. On both streams irrigation-machines were doubtless employed, as they are at the present day,[14] but in the Euphrates they were only necessary when the water in the river had fallen below the level of the canals.
Between the lands of Sumer and Akkad there was no natural division such as marks them off from the regions of Assyria and Mesopotamia in the north. While the north-eastern half of the country bore the name of Akkad, and the south-eastern portion at the head of the Persian Gulf was known as Sumer, the same alluvial plain stretches southward from one to the other without any change in its general character. Thus some difference of opinion has previously existed, as to the precise boundary which separated the two lands, and additional confusion has been introduced by the rather vague use of the name Akkad during the later Assyrian and Neo-Babylonian periods. Thus Ashur-bani-pal, when referring to the capture of Nanâ's statue by the Elamites, puts E-anna, the temple of Nanâ in Erech, among the temples of the land of Akkad, a statement which has led to the view that Akkad extended as far south as Erech.[15] But it has been pointed out that on similar evidence furnished by an Assyrian letter, it would be possible to regard Eridu, the most southern Sumerian city as in Akkad, not in Sumer.[16] The explanation is to be found in the fact that by the Assyrians, whose southern border marched with Akkad, the latter name was often used loosely for the whole of Babylonia. Such references should not therefore be employed for determining the original limits of the two countries, and it is necessary to rely only upon information supplied by texts of a period earlier than that in which the original distinction between the two names had become blurred.
From references to different cities in the early texts, it is possible to form from their context, a very fair idea of what the Sumerians themselves regarded as the limits[Pg 13] of their own land. For instance, from the Tello inscriptions there is no doubt that Lagash was in Sumer. Thus the god Ningirsu, when informing Gudea, patesi of Lagash, that prosperity shall follow the building of E-ninnû, promises that oil and wool shall be abundant in Sumer;[17] the temple itself, which was in Lagash, is recorded to have been built of bricks of Sumer;[18] and, after the building of the temple was finished, Gudea prays that the land may rest in security, and that Sumer may be at the head of the countries.[19] Again, Lugal-zaggisi, who styles himself King of the Land, i.e. the land of Sumer,[20] mentions among cities subject to him, Erech, Ur, Larsa, and Umma,[21] proving that they were regarded as Sumerian towns. The city of Kesh, whose goddess Ninkharsag is mentioned on the Stele of the Vultures, with the gods of Sumerian towns as guaranteeing a treaty between Lagash and Umma,[22] was probably in Sumer, and so, too, must have been Isin, which gave a line of rulers to Sumer and Akkad in succession to Ur; about Eridu in the extreme south there could be no two opinions. On the other hand, in addition to the city of Agade or Akkad, Sippar, Kish, Opis, Cutha, Babylon and Borsippa are certainly situated beyond the limits of Sumer and belong to the land of Akkad in the north. Between the two groups lay Nippur, rather nearer to the southern than to the northern cities, and occupying the unique position of a central shrine. There is little doubt that the town was originally regarded as within the limits of Sumer, but from its close association with any claimant to the hegemony, whether in Sumer or in Akkad, it acquired in course of time a certain intermediate position, on the boundary line, as it were, between the two countries.
Of the names Sumer and Akkad, it would seem that neither was in use in the earliest historical periods,[Pg 14] though the former was probably the older of the two. At a comparatively early date the southern district as a whole was referred to simply as "the Land,"[23] par excellence, and it is probable that the ideogram by which the name of Sumer was expressed, was originally used with a similar meaning.[24] The twin title, Sumer and Akkad, was first regularly employed as a designation for the whole country by the kings of Ur, who united the two halves of the land into a single empire, and called themselves kings of Sumer and Akkad. The earlier Semitic kings of Agade or Akkad[25] expressed the extent of their empire by claiming to rule "the four quarters (of the world)," while the still earlier king Lugal-zaggisi, in virtue of his authority in Sumer,[Pg 15] adopted the title "King of the Land." In the time of the early city-states, before the period of Eannatum, no general title for the whole of Sumer or of Akkad is met with in the inscriptions that have been recovered. Each city with its surrounding territory formed a compact state in itself, and fought with its neighbours for local power and precedence. At this time the names of the cities occur by themselves in the titles of their rulers, and it was only after several of them had been welded into a single state that the need was felt for a more general name or designation. Thus, to speak of Akkad, and even perhaps of Sumer, in the earliest period, is to be guilty of an anachronism, but it is a pardonable one. The names may be employed as convenient geographical terms, as, for instance, when referring to the country as a whole, we speak of Babylonia during all periods of its history.
[1] For a discussion of the conflicting evidence with regard to the occurrence of bronze at this period, see below, pp. 72 ff.
[2] The controversy has now an historical rather than a practical importance. Its earlier history is admirably summarized by Weissbach in "Die sumerische Frage," Leipzig, 1898; cf. also Fossey, "Manuel d'Assyriologie," tome I, (1904), pp. 269 ff. M. Halévy himself continues courageously to defend his position in the pages of the "Revue Sémitique," but his followers have deserted him.
[3] The origin of the Great Swamp, or Swamps, called by Arab geographers al-Baṭiḥa, or in the plural al-Baṭâyiḥ, is traced by Bilâdhuri to the reign of the Persian king Kubâdh I., towards the end of the fifth century B.C. Ibn Serapion applies the name in the singular to four great stretches of water (Hawrs), connected by channels through the reeds, which began at El-Kaṭr, near the junction of the Shatt el-Hai with the present bed of the Euphrates. But from this point as far northwards as Niffer and Kûfa the waters of the Euphrates lost themselves in reed-beds and marshes; cf. G. le Strange, "Journ. Roy. Asiat. Soc.," 1905, p. 297 f., and "Lands of the Eastern Caliphate," p. 26 f.
[4] According to Ibn Rusta (quoted by Le Strange, "Journ. Roy. Asiat. Soc.," 1905, p. 301), in Sassanian times, and before the bursting of the dykes which led to the formation of the swamps, the Tigris followed the same eastern channel in which it flows at the present time; this account is confirmed by Yâkût.
[5] See the map at the end of the volume. The original courses of the rivers in the small inset map of Babylonia during the earliest historical periods agree in the main with Fisher's reconstruction published in "Excavations at Nippur," Pt. I., p. 3, Fig. 2. For points on which uncertainty still exists, see below, p. 10 f.
[7] See the plan of Warka by Loftus, reproduced on p. 33. It will be noted that he marks the ancient bed of the Shatt en-Nîl as skirting the city on the east.
[9] Cf. Thureau-Dangin, "Orient. Lit.-Zeit.," 1909, col. 205 f.
[10] See Clay and Hilprecht, "Murashû Sons" (Artaxerxes I.), p. 76, and Clay, "Murashû Sons" (Darius II.), p. 70; cf. also Hommel, "Grundriss der Geographie und Geschichte des alten Orients," p. 264.
[11] Cf. King, "Letters of Hammurabi," III., p. 18 f.
[12] The Yusufiya Canal, running from Dîwânîya to the Shatt el-Kâr, was probably the result of a later effort to divert some of the water back to the old bed.
[13] Andrae visited and surveyed the districts around Fâra and Abû Hatab in December, 1902. In his map he marks traces of a channel, the Shatt el-Farakhna, which, leaving the main channel at Shêkh Bedr, heads in the direction of Bismâya (see "Mitteilungen der Deutschen Orient-Gesellschaft," No. 16, pp. 16 ff.).
[14] Cf. King and Hall, "Egypt and Western Asia," pp. 292 ff.
[15] Cf. Delitzsch, "Wo lag das Paradies?" p. 200.
[16] Cf. Thureau-Dangin, "Journal asiatique," 1908, p. 131, n. 2.
[18] Ibid., Col. XXI., l. 25.
[19] Cyl. B, Col. XXII., l. 19 f.
[21] For this reading of the name of the city usually transcribed as Gishkhu or Gishukh, see below, p. 21, n. 3.
[23] The word kalam, "the Land," is first found in a royal title upon fragments of early vases from Nippur which a certain "king of the land" dedicated to Enlil in gratitude for his victories over Kish (see below, Chap. VII.). The word kur-kur, "countries" in such a phrase as lugal kur-kur-ge, "king of the countries," when applied to the god Enlil, designated the whole of the habitable world; in a more restricted sense it was used for foreign countries, especially in the inscriptions of Gudea, in contradistinction to the Land of Sumer (cf. Thureau-Dangin, "Zeits. für Assyr.," XVI., p. 354, n. 3).
[24] The ideogram Ki-en-gi, by which the name of Sumer, or more correctly Shumer, was expressed, already occurs in the texts of Eannatum, Lugal-zaggisi and Enshagkushanna (see Chaps. V. and VII.). It has generally been treated as an earlier proper name for the country, and read as Kengi or Kingi. But the occurrence of the word ki-en-gi-ra in a Sumerian hymn, where it is rendered in Semitic by mâtu, "land" (see Reisner, "Sum.-Bab. Hymnen," pl. 130 ff.), would seem to show that, like kalam, it was employed as a general designation for "the Land" (cf. Thureau-Dangin, "Die sumerischen und akkadischen Königsinschriften," p. 152, n.f.). The form ki-en-gi-ra is also met with in the inscriptions of Gudea (see Hommel, "Grundriss," p. 242, n. 4, and Thureau-Dangin, op. cit., pp. 100, 112, 140), and it has been suggested that the final syllable should be treated as a phonetic complement and the word rendered as shumer-ra (cf. Hrozný, "Ninib und Sumer," in the "Rev. Sémit.," July, 1908, Extrait, p. 15). According to this view the word shumer, with the original meaning of "land," was afterwards employed as a proper name for the country. The earliest occurrence of Shumerû, the Semitic form of the name, is in an early Semitic legend in the British Museum, which refers to "the spoil of the Sumerians" (see King, "Cun. Texts," Pt. V., pl. 1 f., and cf. Winckler, "Orient. Lit.-Zeit.," 1907, col. 346, Ungnad, op. cit., 1908, col. 67, and Hrozný, "Rev. Sémit.," 1908, p. 350).
[25] Akkad, or Akkadû, was the Semitic pronunciation of Agade, the older name of the town; a similar sharpening of sound occurs in Makkan, the Semitic pronunciation of Magan (cf. Ungnad, "Orient. Lit.-Zeit.," 1908, col. 62, n. 4). The employment of the name of Akkad for the whole of the northern half of the country probably dates from a period subsequent to the increase of the city's power under Shar-Gani-sharri and Narâm-Sin (see Chap. VIII.); on the employment of the name for the Semitic speech of the north, see below, p. 52. The origin of the name Ki-uri, or Ki-urra, employed in Sumerian as the equivalent of the name of Akkad, is obscure.
The excavations which have been conducted on the sites of early Babylonian cities since the middle of last century have furnished material for the reconstruction of their history, but during different periods and for different districts it varies considerably in value and amount. While little is known of the earlier settlements in Akkad, and the very sites of two of its most famous cities have not yet been identified, our knowledge of Sumerian history and topography is relatively more complete. Here the cities, as represented by the mounds of earth and débris which now cover them, fall naturally into two groups. The one consists of those cities which continued in existence during the later periods of Babylonian history. In their case the earliest Sumerian remains have been considerably disturbed by later builders, and are now buried deep beneath the accumulations of successive ages. Their excavation is consequently a task of considerable difficulty, and, even when the lowest strata are reached, the interpretation of the evidence is often doubtful. The other group comprises towns which were occupied mainly by the Sumerians, and, after being destroyed at an early date, were rarely, or never, reoccupied by the later inhabitants of the country. The mounds of this description, so far as they have been examined, have naturally yielded fuller information, and they may therefore be taken first in the following description of the early sites.
The greater part of our knowledge of early Sumerian history has been derived from the wonderfully successful[Pg 17] series of excavations carried out by the late M. de Sarzec at Tello,[1] between 1877 and 1900, and continued for some months in 1903 by Captain (now Commandant) Gaston Cros. These mounds mark the site of the city of Shirpurla or Lagash, and lie a few miles to the north-east of the modern village of Shatra, to the east of the Shatt el-Hai, and about an hour's ride from the present course of the stream. It is evident, however, that the city was built upon the stream, which at this point may originally have formed a branch of the Euphrates,[2] for there are traces of a dry channel upon its western side.
The name of the city is expressed by the signs shir-pur-la (-ki), which are rendered in a bilingual incantation-text as Lagash.[3] Hitherto it has been generally held that Shirpurla represented the Sumerian name of the city, which was known to the later Semitic inhabitants as Lagash, in much the same way as Akkad was the Semitic name for Agade, though in the latter case the original name was taken over. But the prolonged excavations carried out in the mounds of Tello have failed to bring to light any Babylonian remains later than the period of the kings of Larsa who were contemporaneous with the First Dynasty of Babylon. At that time the city appears to have been destroyed, and to have lain deserted and forgotten until it was once more inhabited in the second century B.C. Thus it is difficult to find a reason for a second name. We may therefore[Pg 18] assume that the place was called Lagash by the Sumerians, and that the signs which can be read as Shirpurla represent a traditional ideographic way of writing the name among the Sumerians themselves. There is no difficulty in supposing that the city's name and the way of writing it were preserved in Babylonian literature, although its site had been forgotten.
The group of mounds and hillocks which mark the site of the ancient city and its suburbs form a rough oval, running north and south, and measuring about two and a half miles long and one and a quarter broad. During the early spring the limits of the city are clearly visible, for its ruins stand out as a yellow spot in the midst of the light green vegetation which covers the surrounding plain. The grouping of the principal mounds may be seen in the accompanying plan, in which each contour-line represents an increase of one metre in height above the desert level. The three principal mounds in the centre of the oval, marked on the plan by the letters A, K, and V,[4] are those in which the most important discoveries have been made. The mound A, which rises steeply towards the north-west end of the oval, is known as the Palace Tell, since here was uncovered a great Parthian palace, erected immediately over a building of Gudea, whose bricks were partly reused and partly imitated. In consequence of this it was at first believed to be a palace of Gudea himself, an error that was corrected on the discovery that some of the later bricks bore the name of Hadadnadinakhe in Aramean and Greek characters, proving that the building belonged to the Seleucid era, and was probably not earlier than about 130 B.C. Coins were also found in the palace with Greek inscriptions of kings of the little independent province or kingdom of Kharakene, which was founded about 160 B.C. at the mouth of the Shatt el-'Arab. But worked into the[Pg 19] structure of this late palace were the remains of Gudea's building, which formed part of E-ninnû, the temple of the city-god of Lagash. Of Gudea's structure a gateway and part of a tower are the portions that are best preserved,[5] while under the south-east corner of the palace was a wall of the rather earlier ruler Ur-Bau.[6]
In the lower strata no other earlier remains were brought to light, and it is possible that the site of the temple was changed or enlarged at this period, and that in earlier times it stood nearer the mound K, where the oldest buildings in Tello have been found. Here was a storehouse of Ur-Ninâ,[7] a very early patesi of the city and the founder of its most powerful dynasty, and in its immediate neighbourhood were recovered the most important monuments and inscriptions of the earlier period. Beneath Ur-Ninâ's storehouse was a still earlier building,[8] and at the same deep level above the virgin soil were found some of the earliest examples of Sumerian sculpture that have yet been recovered. In the mound V, christened the "Tell of the Tablets," were large collections of temple-documents and tablets of accounts, the majority of them dating from the period of the Dynasty of Ur.
The monuments and inscriptions from Tello have furnished us with material for reconstructing the history of the city with but few gaps from the earliest age until the time when the Dynasty of Isin succeeded that of Ur in the rule of Sumer and Akkad. To the destruction of the city during the period of the First Dynasty of Babylon and its subsequent isolation we owe the wealth of early records and archaeological remains which have come down to us, for its soil has escaped disturbance at the hands of later builders except for a short interval in Hellenistic times. The fact that other cities in the neighbourhood, which shared a similar fate, have not yielded such striking results to the excavator, in itself bears testimony to the important position occupied by Lagash, not only as the seat of a long line of successful rulers, but as the most important centre of Sumerian culture and art.
DOORWAY OF A BUILDING AT TELLO ERECTED BY GUDEA, PATESI OF SHIRPURLA; ON THE LEFT IS PART OF A LATER BUILDING OF THE SELEUCID ERA. Déc. en Chald., pl. 53 (bis).
The mounds of Surghul and El-Hibba, lying to the north-east of Tello and about six miles from each other, which were excavated by Dr. Koldewey in 1887, are instances in point. Both mounds, and particularly the former, contain numerous early graves beneath houses [Pg 21]of unburnt brick, such as have subsequently been found at Fâra, and both cities were destroyed by fire probably at the time when Lagash was wiped out. From the quantities of ashes, and from the fact that some of the bodies appeared to have been partially burnt, Dr. Koldewey erroneously concluded that the mounds marked the sites of "fire-necropoles," where he imagined the early Babylonians burnt their dead, and the houses he regarded as tombs.[9] But in no period of Sumerian or Babylonian history was this practice in vogue. The dead were always buried, and any appearance of burning must have been produced during the destruction of the cities by fire. At El-Hibba remains were also visible of buildings constructed wholly or in part of kiln-baked bricks, which, coupled with the greater extent of its mounds, suggests that it was a more important Sumerian city than Surghul. This has been confirmed by the greater number of inscriptions which were found upon its site and have recently been published.[10] They include texts of the early patesis of Lagash, Eannatum and Enannatum I, and of the later patesi Gudea. A text of Gudea was also found at Surghul proving that both places were subject to Lagash, in whose territory they were probably always included during the periods of that city's power. That, apart from the graves, few objects of archaeological or artistic interest were recovered, may in part be traced to their proximity to Lagash, which as the seat of government naturally enjoyed an advantage in this respect over neighbouring towns.
During the course of her early history the most persistent rival of Lagash was the neighbouring city of Umma,[11] now identified with the mound of Jôkha, lying some distance to the north-west in the region between the Shatt el-Hai and the Shatt el-Kâr. Its[Pg 22] neighbourhood and part of the mound itself are covered with sand-dunes, which give the spot a very desolate appearance, but they are of recent formation, since between them can still be seen traces of former cultivation. The principal mound is in the form of a ridge over half a mile long, running W.S.W. to E.N.E. and rising at its highest point about fifteen metres above the plain. Two lower extensions of the principal mound stretch out to the east and south-east.
No excavations have yet been conducted on this site, but it was visited by Dr. Andrae in the winter of 1902-3. He noted traces of a large building on a platform to the north of the principal ridge, marked A on the plan. It appears to have formed a square, its sides measuring seventy metres in length, and a small mound rises in the centre of it. Quantities of square, kiln-burnt bricks are scattered on the mound which covers it, and on the south side traces of a[Pg 23] rectangular chamber are visible.[12] Numerous fragments of diorite also suggest the presence of sculptures, and at the south corner of the building, at the spot marked with a cross on the plan, the Germans found a fragment of diorite with part of a carefully chiselled inscription in archaic characters. The occurrence of unglazed potsherds, flint implements, and plano-convex bricks on other parts of the mound are an indication that, like Fâra, the site contains relics of still earlier habitation. Moreover, it is said that for years past Arab diggings have been carried out there, and early tablets and three cones of the patesi Galu-Babbar have reached Europe from this site. In view of the promising traces he noted and of the important part which the city played in early Sumerian history, it is almost to be regretted that Dr. Andrae did not substitute Jôkha for Abû Hatab as a site for his subsequent excavation.
Other mounds in the same neighbourhood also suggest prospects of success for the future excavator. One of these is Hammâm, which lies about seven and a half miles W.S.W. of Jôkha and close to the bed of the Shatt el-Kâr. It consists of a group of separate mounds, on one of which are the remains of a rectangular building resembling a ziggurat or temple-tower. Its side measures thirty metres, and it rises to a height of twelve metres above the surface of the mound, which in turn is three metres above the plain. Clay, in which layers of reeds are embedded, has been spread between the bricks as at Warka. More to the north of it in the same mound are traces of another building, possibly the temple of which it formed a part. To the south of Hammâm, and a little over three miles to the west of the Shatt el-Kâr is Tell 'Îd, another site which might repay excavation. It consists of a well-defined mound, about thirty metres high at the summit, and is visible from a considerable distance. Unlike Hammâm and Jôkha, however, it shows no trace upon its surface of any building, and there are no potsherds, bricks, or other objects scattered on the mound to[Pg 24] afford an indication of its date. Both Tell 'Îd and Hammâm stand on a slightly elevated tract of desert soil, some ten miles broad, which raises them above the marshes caused by the inundations of the Euphrates. On the same tract farther to the south are Senkera and Warka, which were examined by Loftus in the early fifties.[13]
Of the early sites in the region of the Shatt el-Kâr the mounds at Fâra have been the most productive of remains dating from the prehistoric period of Sumerian culture. Systematic excavations were begun here by Dr. Koldewey in 1902,[14] and were continued in the following year by Drs. Andrae and Noeldeke.[15] The accompanying plan will give some idea of the extensive area occupied by the mounds, and of the method adopted for ascertaining their contents without too great an expenditure of time. The Arabic numerals against the contour lines indicate their height in metres above the level of the plain. Roman figures are set at each end of the trenches in the order in which they were cut. Thus the first two trenches (I. and II.), running from north to south and from east to west respectively, were cut across the mounds by Dr. Koldewey to gain some idea of their general character. The subsequent trenches were all cut parallel to the second through the higher portions of the site, a few of them being extended so as to cover the lower detached mounds to the east. In the plan the trenches are marked as continuous, but actually each consists of a series of short sections, divided by bands of soil left uncut. These hold up the sides of the trench and leave passages for crossing from one side to the other.[16] Whenever a trench discloses the remains of a building it can be completely uncovered and the trench afterwards continued until another building is disclosed. In the plan the principal cleared areas are outlined,[Pg 25] and the position of walls which were uncovered within them is indicated by fine lines.
In the course of the systematic excavation of the site, it was clearly established that all the mounds at Fâra belong to a very early period. In many places the trenches cut through thick strata of ashes and charred remains, and it was seen that the whole settlement had been destroyed by fire, and that the greater part of it had never been reoccupied. All trace of buildings practically ceased at a depth of more than two metres beneath the present surface, and those that were excavated appear to belong to a single epoch. Their early period is attested by the fact that they are all[Pg 26] built of plano-convex bricks,[17] both baked and unbaked, with thumb-marks or lines impressed by the finger on their upper surface. Many of them were clearly dwelling-houses, consisting of chambers grouped around a rectangular court; others are of circular form, measuring from two to five metres across, and their use has not been determined.[18] It has been suggested that the latter may have served as wells, and it is true that they generally descend to a depth of about four metres below the level of the plain. But they are scattered so thickly in the mound that this explanation of their use is scarcely adequate; moreover each was roofed in with an arch of overlapping bricks laid horizontally. They may have been cisterns, or designed for receiving refuse-water from the houses, but against this view is to be set the fact that they are not connected in any way with the numerous brick channels and clay drains that were discovered. Similar constructions were found at Surghul, and nothing in the débris which filled them, either there or at Fâra, has thrown light upon the purpose which they served.
The most interesting discoveries at Fâra were the graves. These consist of two classes, sarcophagus-graves and mat-burials. The sarcophagi are of unglazed clay, oval in form, with flat bottoms and upright sides, and each is closed with a terra-cotta lid. In the mat-burials the corpse with its offerings was wrapped in reed-matting and placed in a grave dug in the soil. The bodies were never buried at length, for in both classes of graves the skeletons are found lying on their sides with their legs and arms bent. The right hand usually holds a drinking-cup, of clay, stone, copper or shell, which it appears to be raising to the mouth; and near the skull are often other vessels and great water-pots of clay. In the graves the weapons of the dead man were placed, and the tools and ornaments he had used during life. Copper spear-heads and axes were often found, and the blades of daggers with rivets for a wooden handle, and copper fish-hooks and net-weights.
OUTER FACE OF A FOUNDATION-WALL AT TELLO, BUILT BY UR-BAU, PATESI OF SHIRPURLA.—Déc. en Chald., pl. 51.
The ornaments were very numerous, the wealthy wearing bead-necklaces of agate and lapis-lazuli, the poorer contenting themselves with paste or shell, while silver finger-rings and copper arm-rings were not uncommon. A very typical class of grave-furniture consisted of palettes or colour-dishes, made of alabaster, often of graceful shape, and sometimes standing on four feet. There is no doubt as to their use, for colour still remains in many of them, generally black and yellow, but sometimes a light rose and a light green. Since all other objects in the graves were placed there for the personal use of the dead man, we may infer that colour was employed at that period for painting the body.
No difference in age appears to have separated the two classes of burial, for the offerings are alike in each, and the arrangement of the bodies is the same. Why there should have been a difference in custom it is difficult to say. It might be inferred that the sarcophagus was a mark of wealth, were it not that the offerings they contain are generally more scanty than in the mat-burials. Whatever may be the explanation there is little doubt that they belong to the same race and period. Moreover, we may definitely connect the graves with the buildings under which they are found, for in some of them were seal-cylinders precisely similar to others found in the débris covering the houses, and the designs upon them resemble those on sealings from the strata of ashes in the upper surface of the mounds. The seals are generally of shell or limestone, rarely of harder stone, and the designs represent heroes and mythological beings in conflict with animals. The presence of the sealings and seal-cylinders, resembling in form and design those of the early period at Tello, in itself suggests that Fâra marks the site of an early Sumerian town. This was put beyond a doubt by the discovery of clay tablets in six of the houses,[19] where they lay on the clay floor beneath masses of charred débris which had fallen from the roof; beside them were objects of household use, and in one room the remains of[Pg 28] a charred reed-mat were under them. The tablets were of unbaked clay, similar in shape to early contracts from Tello, and the texts upon them, written in extremely archaic characters, referred to deeds of sale.
There is thus no doubt as to the racial character of the inhabitants of this early settlement. The discovery of a brick inscribed with the name of Khaladda, patesi of Shuruppak, proved that Fâra was the site of the ancient city which later tradition regarded as the scene of the Deluge. Khaladda's inscription is not written in very archaic characters, and he probably lived in the time of the kings of Sumer and Akkad. We may thus infer that Shuruppak continued to exist as a city at that period, but the greater part of the site was never again inhabited after the destruction of the early town by fire. We have described its remains in some detail as they are our most valuable source of information concerning the earliest Sumerians in Babylonia. Until the objects that were found have been published it is difficult to determine accurately its relation in date to the earlier remains at Tello. A few fragments of sculpture in relief were discovered in the course of the excavations, and these, taken in conjunction with the cylinder-seals, the inscribed tablets, and the pottery, suggest that no long interval separated its period from that of the earliest Sumerians of history.
A less exhaustive examination of the neighbouring mounds of Abû Hatab was also undertaken by Drs. Andrae and Noeldeke. This site lies to the north of Fâra, and, like it, is close to the Shatt el-Kâr.[20] The southern part of the tell could not be examined because of the modern Arab graves which here lie thick around the tomb of the Imâm Sa'îd Muhammad. But the trenches cut in the higher parts of the mound, to the north and along its eastern edge, sufficed to[Pg 29] indicate its general character.[21] Earlier remains, such as were found at Fâra, are here completely wanting, and it would appear to be not earlier than the period of the kings of Sumer and Akkad. This is indicated[Pg 30] by bricks of Bûr-Sin I., King of Ur, which were discovered scattered in débris in the north-west part of the mound, and by the finding of case-tablets in the houses belonging to the period of the dynasties of Ur and Isin.[22] The graves also differed from those at Fâra, generally consisting of pot-burials. Here, in place of a shallow trough with a lid, the sarcophagus was formed of two great pots, deeply ribbed on the outside; these were set, one over the other, with their edges meeting, and after burial they were fixed together by means of pitch or bitumen. The skeleton is usually found within lying on its back or side in a crouching position with bent legs. The general arrangement of drinking-cups, offerings, and ornaments resembles that in the Fâra burials, so that the difference in the form of the sarcophagus is merely due to a later custom and not to any racial change. Very similar burials were found by Taylor at Mukayyar, and others have also been unearthed in the earlier strata of the mounds at Babylon.
The majority of the houses at Abû Hatab appear to have been destroyed by fire, and, in view of the complete absence of later remains, the tablets scattered on their floors indicate the period of its latest settlement. It thus represents a well-defined epoch, later than that of the mounds at Fâra, and most valuable for comparison with them. At neither Fâra nor Abû Hatab were the remains of any important building or temple disclosed, but the graves and houses of the common people have furnished information of even greater value for the archaeologist and historian. Another mound which should provide further material for the study of this earliest period is Bismâya, the site of the city at Adab, at which excavations were begun on December 25, 1903 by the University of Chicago and continued during the following year.[23] The mound of Hêtime to the west of Fâra, may, to[Pg 31] judge from the square bricks and fragments of pot-burials that are found there, date from about the same period as Abû Hatab. But it is of small extent and height, the greater part being merely six or seven feet above the plain, while its two central mounds rise to a height of less than fourteen feet.
Such are the principal early Sumerian mounds in the region of the Shatt el-Kâr and the Shatt el-Hai. Other mounds in the same neighbourhood may well prove to be of equally early dates; but it should be noted that some of these do not cover Sumerian cities, but represent far later periods of occupation. The character of the extensive mound of Jidr to the east of Fâra and Abû Hatab is doubtful; but the use of lime-mortar in such remains as are visible upon the surface indicates a late epoch. A number of smaller tells may be definitely regarded as representing a settlement in this district during Sassanian times. Such are Dubâ'i, which, with two others, lies to the south of Fâra, and Bint el-Mderre to the east; to the same period may be assigned Menêdir, which lies to the north-east, beyond Deke, the nearest village to Fâra. This last mound, little more than a hundred yards long, covers the site of a burial-place; it has been completely burrowed through by the Arabs in their search for antiquities, and is now covered with fragments of sarcophagi. The mounds of Mjelli and Abû Khuwâsîj to the west of Fâra are probably still later, and belong to the Arab period.
It will have been noted that all the Sumerian mounds described or referred to in the preceding paragraphs cover cities which, after being burned down and destroyed in a comparatively early period, were never reoccupied, but were left deserted. Lagash, Umma, Shuruppak, Kisurra, and Adab play no part in the subsequent history of Babylonia. We may infer that they perished during the fierce struggle which took place between the Babylonian kings of the First Dynasty and the Elamite kings of Larsa. At this time city after city in Sumer was captured and retaken many times, and on Samsu-iluna's final victory over Rîm-Sin, it is probable that he decided to destroy many of the cities and make the region a desert, so as to put[Pg 32] an end to trouble for the future. As a matter of fact, he only succeeded in shifting the area of disturbance southwards, for the Sumerian inhabitants fled to the Sea-country on the shores of the Persian Gulf; and to their influence, and to the reinforcements they brought with them, may be traced the troubles of Samsu-iluna and his son at the hands of Iluma-ilu, who had already established his independence in this region. Thus Samsu-iluna's policy of repression was scarcely a success; but the archaeologist has reason to be grateful to it. The undisturbed condition of these early cities renders their excavation a comparatively simple matter, and lends a certainty to conclusions drawn from a study of their remains, which is necessarily lacking in the case of more complicated sites.
Another class of Sumerian cities consists of those which were not finally destroyed by the Western Semites, but continued to be important centres of political and social life during the later periods of Babylonian history. Niffer, Warka, Senkera, Mukayyar, and Abû Shahrain all doubtless contain in their lower strata remains of the early Sumerian cities which stood upon their sites; but the greater part of the mounds are made up of ruins dating from a period not earlier than that of the great builders of the Dynasty of Ur. In Nippur, during the American excavations on this site, the history of Ekur, the temple of the god Enlil, was traced back to the period of Shar-Gani-Sharri and Narâm-Sin;[24] and fragments of early vases found scattered in the débris beneath the chambers on the south-east side of the Ziggurat, have thrown valuable light upon an early period of Sumerian history. But the excavation of the pre-Sargonic strata, so far as it has yet been carried, has given negative rather than positive results. The excavations carried out on the other sites referred to were of a purely tentative character, and, although they were made in the early fifties of last century, they still remain the principal source of our knowledge concerning them.
Some idea of the extent of the mounds of Warka may be gathered from Loftus's plan. The irregular[Pg 33] circle of the mounds, marking the later walls of the city, covers an area nearly six miles in circumference, and in view of this fact and of the short time and limited means at his disposal, it is surprising that he should have achieved such good results. His work at Buwârîya, the principal mound of the group (marked A on the plan), resulted in its identification with E-anna, the great temple of the goddess Ninni, or Ishtar, which was enormously added to in the reign of Ur-Engur. Loftus's careful notes and drawings of the facade of another important building, covered by the mound known as Wuswas (B), have been of great value from the architectural point of view, while no less interesting is[Pg 34] his description of the "Cone Wall" (at E on the plan), consisting in great part of terra-cotta cones, dipped in red or black colour, and arranged to form various patterns on the surface of a wall composed of mud and chopped straw.[25] But the date of both these constructions is uncertain. The sarcophagus-graves and pot-burials which he came across when cutting his tunnels and trenches are clearly contemporaneous with those at Abû Hatab, and the mound may well contain still earlier remains. The finds made in the neighbouring mounds of Senkera (Larsa), and Tell Sifr, were also promising,[26] and, in spite of his want of success at Tell Medîna, it is possible that a longer examination would have yielded better results.
The mounds of Mukayyar, which mark the site of Ur, [Pg 35]the centre of the Moon-god's cult in Sumer, were partly excavated by Taylor in 1854 and 1855.[27] In the northern portion of the group he examined the great temple of the Moon-god (marked A on the plan), the earliest portions of its structure which he came across dating from the reigns of Dungi and Ur-Engur. Beneath a building in the neighbourhood of the temple (at B on the plan) he found a pavement consisting of plano-convex bricks, a sure indication that at this point, at least, were buildings of the earliest Sumerian period, while the sarcophagus-burials in other parts of the mound were of the early type. Taylor came across similar evidence of early building at Abû Shahrain,[28] the comparatively small mound which marks the site of the sacred city of Eridu, for at a point in the south-east side of the group he uncovered a building constructed of bricks of the same early character.
At Abû Shahrain indeed we should expect to find traces of one of the earliest and most sacred shrines of the Sumerians, for here dwelt Enki, the mysterious god of the deep. The remains of his later temple now dominates the group, the great temple-tower still rising in two stages (A and B) at the northern end of the mound. Unlike the other cities of Sumer, Eridu was not built on the alluvium. Its situation is in a valley on the edge of the Arabian desert, cut off from Ur and the Euphrates by a low pebbly and sandstone ridge. In fact, its ruins appear to rise abruptly from the bed of an inland sea, which no doubt at one time was connected directly with the Persian Gulf; hence the description of Eridu in cuneiform literature as standing "on the shore of the sea." Another characteristic which distinguishes Eridu from other cities in Babylonia is the extensive use of stone as a building material. The raised platform, on which the city and its temple stood, was faced with a massive retaining wall of sandstone,[Pg 36] no doubt obtained from quarries in the neighbourhood, while the stairway (marked D on the plan) leading to the first stage of the temple-tower had been formed of polished marble slabs which were now scattered on the surface of the mound. The marble stairs and the numerous fragments of gold-leaf and gold-headed and copper nails, which Taylor found at the base of the second stage of the temple-tower, attest its magnificence during the latest stage of its history. The name and period of the city now covered by the neighbouring mound of Tell Lahm, which was also examined by Taylor, have not yet been ascertained.
It will thus be seen that excavations conducted on the sites of the more famous cities of Sumer have not,[Pg 37] with the single exception of Nippur, yielded much information concerning the earlier periods of history, while the position of one of them, the city of Isin, is still unknown. Our knowledge of similar sites in Akkad is still more scanty. Up to the present time systematic excavations have been carried out at only two sites in the north, Babylon and Sippar, and these have thrown little light upon the more remote periods of their occupation. The existing ruins of Babylon date from the period of Nebuchadnezzar II., and so thorough was Sennacherib's destruction of the city in 689 B.C., that, after several years of work, Dr. Koldewey concluded that all traces of earlier buildings had been destroyed on that occasion. More recently some remains of earlier strata have been recognized, and contract-tablets have been found which date from the period of the First Dynasty. Moreover, a number of earlier pot-burials have been unearthed, but a careful examination of the greater part of the ruins has added little to our knowledge of this most famous city before the Neo-Babylonian era. The same negative results were obtained, so far as early remains are concerned, from the less exhaustive work on the site of Borsippa. Abû Habba is a far more promising site, and has been the scene of excavations begun by Mr. Rassam in 1881 and 1882, and renewed by Père Scheil for some months in 1894, while excavations were undertaken in the neighbouring mounds of Deir by Dr. Wallis Budge in 1891. These two sites have yielded thousands of tablets of the period of the earliest kings of Babylon, and the site of the famous temple of the Sun-god at Sippar, which Narâm-Sin rebuilt, has been identified, but little is yet accurately known concerning the early city and its suburbs. The great extent of the mounds, and the fact that for nearly thirty years they have been the happy hunting-ground of Arab diggers, would add to the difficulty of any final and exhaustive examination. It is probably in the neighbourhood of Sippar that the site of the city of Agade, or Akkad, will eventually be identified.
Concerning the sites of other cities in Northern Babylonia, considerable uncertainty still exists. The extensive mounds of Tell Ibrâhîm, situated about four[Pg 38] hours to the north-east of Hilla, are probably to be identified with Cutha, the centre of the cult of Nergal, but the mound of 'Akarkûf, which may be seen from so great a distance on the road between Baghdad and Falûja, probably covers a temple and city of the Kassite period. Both the cities of Kish and Opis, which figure so prominently in the early history of the relations between Sumer and Akkad, were, until quite recently, thought to be situated close to one another on the Tigris. That Opis lay on that river and not on the Euphrates is clear from the account which Nebuchadnezzar II. has left us of his famous fortifications of Babylon,[29] which are referred to by Greek writers as "the Median Wall" and "the Fortification of Semiramis."
The outermost ring of Nebuchadnezzar's triple line of defence consisted of an earthen rampart and a ditch, which he tells us extended from the bank of the Tigris above Opis to a point on the Euphrates within the city of Sippar, proving that Opis is to be sought upon the former river. His second line of defence was a similar ditch and rampart which stretched from the causeway on the bank of the Euphrates up to the city of Kish. It was assumed that this rampart also extended to the Tigris, although this is not stated in the text, and, since the ideogram for Opis is once rendered as Kesh in a bilingual incantation,[30] it seemed probable that Kish and Opis were twin cities, both situated on the Tigris at no great distance from each other. This view appeared to find corroboration in the close association of the two places during the wars of Eannatum, and in the fact that at the time of Enbi-Ishtar they seem to have formed a single state. But it has recently been shown that Kish lay upon the Euphrates,[31] and we may thus[Pg 39] accept its former identification with the mound of El-Ohêmir where bricks were found by Ker Porter recording the building of E-meteursagga, the temple of Zamama, the patron deity of Kish.[32] Whether Opis is to be identified with the extensive mounds of Tell Manjûr, situated on the right bank of the Tigris in the great bend made by the river between Samarra and Baghdad, or whether, as appears more probable, it is to be sought further down stream in the neighbourhood of Seleucia, are questions which future excavation may decide.[33]
The brief outline that has been given of our knowledge concerning the early cities of Sumer and Akkad, and of the results obtained by the partial excavation of their sites, will have served to show how much still remains to be done in this field of archaeological research. Not only do the majority of the sites still await systematic excavation, but a large part of the material already obtained has not yet been published. Up to the present time, for instance, only the briefest notes have been given of the important finds at Fâra and Abû Hatab. In contrast to this rather leisurely method of publication, the plan followed by M. de Morgan in making available without delay the results of his work in Persia is strongly to be commended. In this connection mention should in any case be made of the excavations at Susa, since they have brought to light some of the most remarkable monuments of the early Semitic kings of Akkad. It is true the majority of these had been carried as spoil from Babylonia to Elam, but they are none the less precious as examples of early Semitic art. Such monuments as the recently discovered stele of Sharru-Gi, the statues of Manishtusu, and Narâm-Sin's stele of victory afford valuable evidence concerning the racial characteristics of the early[Pg 40] inhabitants of Northern Babylonia, and enable us to trace some of the stages in their artistic development. But in Akkad itself the excavations have not thrown much light upon these subjects, nor have they contributed to the solution of the problems as to the period at which Sumerians and Semites first came in contact, or which race was first in possession of the land. For the study of these questions our material is mainly furnished from the Sumerian side, more particularly by the sculptures and inscriptions discovered during the French excavations at Tello.
It is now generally recognized that the two races which inhabited Sumer and Akkad during the early historical periods were sharply divided from one another not only by their speech but also in their physical characteristics.[34] One of the principal traits by which they may be distinguished consists in the treatment of the hair. While the Sumerians invariably shaved the head and face, the Semites retained the hair of the head and wore long beards. A slight modification in the dressing of the hair was introduced by the Western Semites of the First Babylonian Dynasty, who brought with them from Syria the Canaanite Bedouin custom of shaving the lips and allowing the beard to fall only from the chin; while they also appear to have cut the hair short in the manner of the Arabs or Nabateans of the Sinai peninsula.[35] The Semites who were settled in Babylonia during the earlier period, retained the moustache as well as the beard, and wore their hair long. While recognizing the slight change of custom, introduced for a time during the West Semitic domination, the practice of wearing hair and beard was a Semitic characteristic during all periods of history. The phrase "the black-headed ones," which is of frequent occurrence in the later texts, clearly originated as a description of the Semites, in contradistinction to the Sumerians with their shaven heads.
LIMESTONE FIGURE OF AN EARLY SUMERIAN PATESI, OR HIGH OFFICIAL.—Brit. Mus., No. 90929; photo. by Messrs. Mansell & Co.
Another distinctive characteristic, almost equally[Pg 41] striking, may be seen in the features of the face as represented in the outline engraving and in the sculpture of the earlier periods. It is true that the Sumerian had a prominent nose, which forms, indeed, his most striking feature, but both nose and lips are never full and fleshy as with the Semites. It is sometimes claimed that such primitive representations as occur upon Ur-Ninâ's bas-reliefs, or in Fig. 1 in the accompanying block, are too rude to be regarded as representing accurately an ethnological type. But it will be noted that the same general characteristics are also found in the later and more finished sculptures of Gudea's period. This fact is illustrated by the two black diorite heads of statuettes figured on the following page. In both examples certain archaic conventions are retained, such as the exaggerated line of the eyebrows, and the unfinished ear; but nose and lips are obviously not Semitic, and they accurately reproduce the same racial type which is found upon the earlier reliefs.
Fig. 1.—Fig. 2. Figures of early Sumerians, engraved upon fragments of shell, which were probably employed for inlaying boxes, or for ornamenting furniture. Earliest period: from Tello.—Déc., pl. 46, Nos. 2 and 1.
A third characteristic consists of the different forms of dress worn by Sumerians and Semites, as represented on the monuments. The earliest Sumerians wore only a thick woollen garment, in the form of a petticoat, fastened round the waist by a band or girdle. The garment is sometimes represented as quite plain, in other cases it has a scolloped fringe or border, while in its most elaborate form it consists of three, four, or five horizontal flounces, each lined vertically and scolloped[Pg 42] at the edge to represent thick locks of wool.[36] With the later Sumerian patesis this rough garment has been given up in favour of a great shawl or mantle, decorated with a border, which was worn over the left shoulder, and, falling in straight folds, draped the body with its opening in front.[37] Both these Sumerian forms of garment are of quite different types from the Semitic loin-cloth worn by Narâm-Sin on his stele of victory, and the Semitic plaid in which he is represented on his stele from Pir Hussein.[38] The latter garment is a long, narrow plaid which is wrapped round the body in parallel bands, with the end thrown over the left shoulder. It has no slit, or opening, in front like the later Sumerian mantle, and, on the other hand, was not a shaped garment like the earlier Sumerian flounced[Pg 43] petticoat, though both were doubtless made of wool and were probably dyed in bright colours.
Fig. 3—Fig. 4—Fig. 5—Later types of Sumerians, as exhibited by heads of male statuettes from Tello. Figs. 4 and 5 are different views of the same head, which probably dates from the age of Gudea; Fig. 3 may possibly be assigned to a rather later period.—In the Louvre; Cat. Nos. 95 and 93.
Two distinct racial types are thus represented on the monuments, differentiated not only by physical features but also by the method of treating the hair and by dress. Moreover, the one type is characteristic of those rulers whose language was Sumerian, the other represents those whose inscriptions are in the Semitic tongue. Two apparent inconsistencies should here be noted. On the Stele of the Vultures, Eannatum and his soldiers are sculptured with thick hair flowing from beneath their helmets and falling on their shoulders. But they have shaven faces, and, in view of the fact that on the same monument all the dead upon the field of battle and in the burial mounds have shaven heads, like those of the Sumerians assisting at the burial and the sacrificial rites, we may regard the hair of Eannatum and his warriors as wigs, worn like the wigs of the Egyptians, on special occasions and particularly in battle. The other inconsistency arises from the dress worn by Hammurabi on his monuments. This is not the Semitic plaid, but the Sumerian fringed mantle, and we may conjecture that, as he wrote his votive inscriptions in the Sumerian as well as in the Semitic language, so, too, he may have symbolized his rule in Sumer by the adoption of the Sumerian form of dress.
It is natural that upon monuments of the later period from Tello both racial types should be represented. The fragments of sculpture illustrated in Figs. 6 and 7 may possibly belong to the same monument, and, if so, we must assign it to a Semitic king.[39] That on the left represents a file of nude captives with shaven heads and faces, bound neck to neck with the same cord, and their arms tied behind them. On the other fragment both captive and conqueror are bearded. The latter's nose is anything but Semitic, though in figures of such small proportions carved in relief it would perhaps be rash to regard its shape as significant. The treatment of the hair, however, in itself constitutes[Pg 44] a sufficiently marked difference in racial custom. Fig. 8 represents a circular support of steatite, around which are seated seven little figures holding tablets on their knees; it is here reproduced on a far smaller scale than the other fragments. The little figure that is best preserved is of unmistakably Semitic type, and wears a curled beard trimmed to a point, and hair that falls on the shoulders in two great twisted tresses; the face of the figure on his left is broken, but the head is clearly shaved. A similar mixture of types upon a single monument occurs on a large fragment of sculpture representing scenes of worship,[40] and also on Sharru-Gi's monument which has been found at Susa.[41]
Fig. 6.—Fig. 7.—Fig. 8.—Examples of sculpture of the later period, from Tello, representing different racial types—Déc., pl. 26, Figs. 10b and 10a; pl. 21, Fig. 5.
At the period from which these sculptures date it is not questioned that the Semites were in occupation of Akkad, and that during certain periods they had already extended their authority over Sumer. It is not surprising, therefore, that at this time both Sumerians and[Pg 45] Semites should be represented side by side upon the monuments. When, however, we examine what is undoubtedly one of the earliest sculptured reliefs from Tello the same mixture of racial types is met with.
Fig. 9—Fig. 10—Fig 11—Fragments of a circular bas-relief of the earliest period, from Tello, sculptured with a scene representing the meeting of two chieftains and their followers. The different methods of treating the hair are noteworthy.—In the Louvre; Cat. No. 5.
The object is unfortunately broken into fragments, but enough of them have been recovered to indicate its character. Originally, it consisted of two circular blocks, placed one upon the other and sculptured on their outer edge with reliefs. They were perforated vertically with[Pg 46] two holes which were intended to support maces, or other votive objects, in an upright position. The figures in the relief form two separate rows which advance towards one another, and at their head are two chiefs, who are represented meeting face to face (Fig. 9). It will be noticed that the chief on the left, who carries a bent club, has long hair falling on the shoulders and is bearded. Four of his followers on another fragment (Fig. 10) also have long hair and beards. The other chief, on the contrary, wears no hair on his face, only on his head, and, since his followers have shaven heads and faces,[42] we may conjecture that, like Eannatum on the Stele of the Vultures, he wears a wig. All the figures are nude to the waist, and the followers clasp their hands in token of subordination to their chiefs.
The extremely rude character of the sculpture is a sufficient indication of its early date, apart from the fact that the fragments were found scattered in the lowest strata at Tello. The fashion of indicating the hair is very archaic, and is also met with in a class of copper foundation-figures of extremely early date.[43] The monument belongs to a period when writing was already employed, for there are slight traces of an inscription on its upper surface, which probably recorded the occasion of the meeting of the chiefs. Moreover, from a fifth fragment that has been discovered it is seen that the names and titles of the various personages were engraved upon their garments. The monument thus belongs to the earliest Sumerian period, and, if we may apply the rule as to the treatment of the hair which we have seen holds good for the later periods, it would follow that at this time the Semite was already in the land. The scene, in fact, would represent the meeting of two early chieftains of the Sumerians and Semites, sculptured to commemorate an agreement or treaty which they had drawn up.
Fig. 12.—Limestone panel sculptured in relief, with a scene representing Gudea being led by Ningishzida and another god into the presence of a deity who is seated on a throne.—In the Berlin Museum; cf. Sum. und Sem., Taf. VII.
By a similar examination of the gods of the Sumerians, as they are represented on the monuments, Professor Meyer has sought to show that the Semites were not only in Babylonia at the date of the earliest Sumerian sculptures that have been recovered, but also that they were in occupation of the country before the Sumerians. The type of the Sumerian gods at the later period is well illustrated by a limestone panel of Gudea, which is preserved in the Berlin Museum. The sculptured scene is one that is often met with on cylinder-seals of the period, representing a suppliant being led by lesser deities into the presence of a greater god. In this instance Gudea is being led by his patron deity Ningishzida and another god into the presence of a deity who was seated on a throne and held a vase from which two streams of water flow. The right half of the panel is broken, but the figure of the seated god[Pg 48] may be in part restored from the similar scene upon Gudea's cylinder-seal. There, however, the symbol of the spouting vase is multiplied, for not only does the god hold one in each hand, but three others are below his feet, and into them the water falls and spouts again. Professor Meyer would identify the god of the waters with Anu, though there is more to be said for M. Heuzey's view that he is Enki, the god of the deep. We are not here concerned, however, with the identity of the deities, but with the racial type they represent. It will be seen that they all have hair and beards and wear the Semitic plaid, and form a striking contrast to Gudea with his shaven head and face, and his fringed Sumerian mantle.[44]
A very similar contrast is represented by the Sumerian and his gods in the earlier historical periods. Upon the Stele of the Vultures, for instance, the god Ningirsu is represented with abundant hair, and although his lips and cheeks are shaved a long beard falls from below his chin.[45] He is girt around the waist with a plain garment, which is not of the later Semitic type, but the treatment of the hair and beard is obviously not Sumerian. The same bearded type of god is found upon early votive tablets from Nippur,[46] and also on a fragment of an archaic Sumerian relief from Tello, which, from the rudimentary character of the work and the style of the composition, has been regarded as the most ancient example of Sumerian sculpture known. The contours of the figures are vaguely indicated in low[Pg 49] relief upon a flat plaque, and the interior details are indicated only by the point. The scene is evidently of a mythological character, for the seated figure may be recognized as a goddess by the horned crown she wears. Beside her stands a god who turns to smite a bound captive with a heavy club or mace. While the captive has the shaven head and face of a Sumerian, the god has abundant hair and a long beard.[47]
Fig. 14.—Fig. 15. Votive tablets from Nippur, engraved with scenes of worship.—Cf. Hilprecht, Explorations, p. 475, and Old Bab. Inscr., II., pl. xvi.
Man forms his god in his own image, and it is surprising that the gods of the Sumerians should not be of the Sumerian type. If the Sumerian shaved his own head and face, why should he have figured his gods with long beards and abundant hair and have clothed them with the garments of another race? Professor Meyer's answer to the question is that the Semites and their gods were already in occupation of Sumer and Akkad before the Sumerians came upon the scene. He would regard the Semites at this early[Pg 50] period as settled throughout the whole country, a primitive and uncultured people with only sufficient knowledge of art to embody the figures of their gods in rude images of stone or clay. There is no doubt that the Sumerians were a warrior folk, and he would picture them as invading the country at a later date, and overwhelming Semitic opposition by their superior weapons and method of attack. The Sumerian method of fighting he would compare to that of the Dorians with their closed phalanx of lance-bearing warriors, though the comparison is not quite complete, since no knowledge of iron is postulated on the part of the Sumerians. He would regard the invaders as settling mainly in the south, driving many of the Semites northward, and taking over from them the ancient centres of Semitic cult. They would naturally have brought their own gods with them, and these they would identify with the deities they found in possession of the shrines, combining their attributes, but retaining the cult-images, whose sacred character would ensure the permanent retention of their outward form. The Sumerians in turn would have influenced their Semitic subjects and neighbours, who would gradually have acquired from them their higher culture, including a knowledge of writing and the arts.
Fig. 16—Sumerian deities on an archaic relief from Tello.—Déc., pl. 1, Fig. 1.
It may be admitted that the theory is attractive, and it certainly furnishes an explanation of the apparently foreign character of the Sumerian gods. But even from the archaeological side it is not so complete nor so convincing as at first sight it would appear. Since the later Sumerian gods were represented with full moustache and beard, like the earliest figures of Semitic kings which we possess, it would naturally be supposed that they would have this form in the still earlier periods of Sumerian history. But, as we have seen, their lips and cheeks are shaved. Are we then to postulate a still earlier Semitic settlement, of a rather different racial type to that which founded the kingdom of Kish and the empire of Akkad? Again, the garments of the gods in the earliest period have little in common with the Semitic plaid, and are nearer akin to the plainer form of garment worn by contemporary Sumerians. The divine headdress, too, is different to the later form, the single horns which encircle what may be a symbol of the date-palm,[48] giving place to a plain conical headdress decorated with several pairs of horns.
Fig. 17—Fig. 18—Fig. 19—Earlier and later forms of divine headdresses. Figs. 17 and 18 are from the obverse of the Stele of the Vultures, fragments C and B; Fig. 19, the later form of horned headdress, is from a sculpture of Gudea.—Déc., pl. 4, and pl. 26, No. 9.
Thus, important differences are observable in the form of the earlier Sumerian gods and their dress and insignia, which it is difficult to reconcile with Professor Meyer's theory of their origin. Moreover, the principal[Pg 52] example which he selected to illustrate his thesis, the god of the central shrine of Nippur, has since been proved never to have borne the Semitic name of Bêl, but to have been known under his Sumerian title of Enlil from the beginning.[49] It is true that Professor Meyer claims that this point does not affect his main argument;[50] but at least it proves that Nippur was always a Sumerian religious centre, and its recognition as the central and most important shrine in the country by Semites and Sumerians alike, tells against any theory requiring a comparatively late date for its foundation.
Such evidence as we possess from the linguistic side is also not in favour of the view which would regard the Semites as in occupation of the whole of Babylonia before the Sumerian immigration. If that had been the case we should naturally expect to find abundant traces of Semitic influence in the earliest Sumerian texts that have been recovered. But, as a matter of fact, no Semitism occurs in any text from Ur-Ninâ's period to that of Lugal-zaggisi with the single exception of a Semitic loan-word on the Cone of Entemena.[51] In spite of the scanty nature of our material, this fact distinctly militates against the assumption that Semites and Sumerians were living side by side in Sumer at the time.[52] But the occurrence of the Semitic word in Entemena's inscription proves that external contact with some Semitic people had already taken place. Moreover, it is possible to press the argument from the purely linguistic side too far. A date-formula of Samsu-iluna's reign has proved that the Semitic speech of Babylonia was known as "Akkadian,"[53] and it has [Pg 53]therefore been argued that the first appearance of Semitic speech in the country must date from the establishment of Shar-Gani-sharri's empire with its capital at Akkad.[54] But there is little doubt that the Semitic kingdom of Kish, represented by the reigns of Sharru-Gi, Manishtusu and Urumush, was anterior to Sargon's empire,[55] and, long before the rise of Kish, the town of Akkad may well have been the first important centre of Semitic settlement in the north.
FRAGMENT OF SUMERIAN SCULPTURE REPRESENTING SCENES OF WORSHIP BEFORE THE GODS.—In the Louvre; Déc. en Chald., pl. 23.
It would thus appear that at the earliest period of which remains or records have been recovered, Semites and Sumerians were both settled in Babylonia, the one race in the north, the other southwards nearer the Persian Gulf. Living at first in comparative isolation, trade and war would gradually bring them into closer contact. Whether we may regard the earliest rulers of Kish as Semites like their later successors, is still in doubt. The character of Enbi-Ishtar's name points to his being a Semite; but the still earlier king of Kish, who is referred to on the Stele of the Vultures, is represented on that monument as a Sumerian with shaven head and face.[56] But this may have been due to a convention in the sculpture of the time, and it is quite possible that Mesilim and his successors were Semites, and that their relations with the contemporary rulers of Lagash represent the earlier stages in a racial conflict which dominates the history of the later periods.
Of the original home of the Sumerians, from which they came to the fertile plains of Southern Babylonia, it is impossible to speak with confidence. The fact that they settled at the mouths of the great rivers has led to the suggestion that they arrived by sea, and this has been connected with the story in Berossus of Oannes and the other fish-men, who came up from the Erythraean Sea and brought religion and culture with them. But the legend need not bear this interpretation; it merely points to the Sea-country on the shores of the Gulf as the earliest centre of Sumerian culture in the land. Others have argued that they came from a mountain-home, and have cited in support of their view[Pg 54] the institution of the ziggurat or temple-tower, built "like a mountain," and the employment of the same ideogram for "mountain" and for "land." But the massive temple-tower appears to date from the period of Gudea and the earlier kings of Ur, and, with the single exception of Nippur, was probably not a characteristic feature of the earlier temples; and it is now known that the ideogram for "land" and "mountain" was employed in the earlier periods for foreign lands, in contradistinction to that of the Sumerians themselves.[57] But, in spite of the unsoundness of these arguments, it is most probable that the Sumerians did descend on Babylonia from the mountains on the east. Their entrance into the country would thus have been the first of several immigrations from that quarter, due to climatic and physical changes in Central Asia.[58]
Still more obscure is the problem of their racial affinity. The obliquely set eyes of the figures in the earlier reliefs, due mainly to an ignorance of perspective characteristic of all primitive art, first suggested the theory that the Sumerians were of Mongol type; and the further developments of this view, according to which a Chinese origin is to be sought both for Sumerian roots and for the cuneiform character, are too improbable to need detailed refutation. A more recent suggestion, that their language is of Indo-European origin and structure,[59] is scarcely less improbable, while resemblances which have been pointed out between isolated words in Sumerian and in Armenian, Turkish, and other languages of Western Asia, may well be fortuitous. With the Elamites upon their eastern border the Sumerians had close relations from the first, but the two races do not appear to be related either in language or by physical characteristics. The scientific study of the Sumerian tongue,[Pg 55] inaugurated by Professors Zimmern and Jensen, and more especially by the work of M. Thureau-Dangin on the early texts, will doubtless lead in time to more accurate knowledge on this subject; but, until the phonetic elements of the language are firmly established, all theories based upon linguistic comparisons are necessarily insecure.
In view of the absence of Semitic influence in Sumer during the earlier periods, it may be conjectured that the Semitic immigrants did not reach Babylonia from the south, but from the north-west, after traversing the Syrian coast-lands. This first great influx of Semitic nomad tribes left colonists behind them in that region, who afterwards as the Amurru, or Western Semites, pressed on in their turn into Babylonia and established the earliest independent dynasty in Babylon. The original movement continued into Northern Babylonia, and its representatives in history were the early Semitic kings of Kish and Akkad. But the movement did not stop there; it passed on to the foot of the Zagros hills, and left its traces in the independent principalities of Lulubu and Gutiu. Such in outline appears to have been the course of this early migratory movement, which, after colonizing the areas through which it passed, eventually expended itself in the western mountains of Persia. It was mainly through contact with the higher culture of the Sumerians that the tribes which settled in Akkad were enabled later on to play so important a part in the history of Western Asia.
[1] In point of time, the work of Loftus and Taylor (see below, pp. 32 ff.) preceded that of De Sarzec, but the results obtained were necessarily less complete. It would be out of place in the present volume to give any account of excavations in Assyria, as they have only an indirect bearing on the period here treated. For a chronological sketch of the early travellers and excavators, see Rogers, "History of Babylonia and Assyria," vol. i. pp. 100 ff., who also gives a detailed account of the decipherment of the cuneiform inscriptions; cf. also Fossey, "Manuel," I., pp. 6 ff. For a similar chronological treatment, but from the archaeological side, see the sections with which Hilprecht prefaces his account of the Nippur excavations in "Explorations in Bible Lands," pp. 7 ff.
[3] Cf. "Cun. Texts in the Brit. Mus.," Pt. XVI., pl. 36, l. 4 f.; as written here the name might also be read Lagarum or Lagadil. That Lagash is the correct reading is proved by the fragment of a duplicate text published in Reisner, "Sum.-Bab. Hymnen," pl. 126, No. 81, where the final character of the name is unmistakably written as ash; cf. Meissner, "Orient. Lit.-Zeit.," 1907, col. 385.
[4] Separate mounds in the group were referred to by De Sarzec under the letters A-P, P', and V. For the account of the diggings and their results, see E. de Sarzec and Léon Heuzey, "Découvertes en Chaldée" ("Description des fouilles" by De Sarzec; "Description des monuments" by Heuzey; "Partie épigraphique" by Amiaud and Thureau-Dangin), Paris, 1884-1906; see also Heuzey, "Une Villa royale chaldéenne," and "Revue d'Assyriologie," passim.
[5] The plate opposite p. 20 illustrates the way in which Gudea's gateway has been worked into the structure of the Parthian Palace. The slight difference in the ground-level of the two buildings is also clearly shown.
[7] From the nature of this building Amiaud christened the mound the "Tell de la Maison des Fruits."
[9] Cf. "Zeits. für Assyr." II., pp. 406 ff.
[10] Cf. Messerschmidt, "Vorderasiatische Schriftdenkmäler," p. v. f., pl. 1 ff.
[11] The name is still often transcribed as Gishkhu or Gishukh; for the reading Umma, supplied by a Neo-Babylonian vocabulary, see "Cun. Texts," XII., pl. 28, Obv., l. 7, and cf. Hrozný, "Zeits. für Assyr." XX. (1907), pp. 421 ff. For its identification with Jôkha, see Scheil, "Rec. de trav.," XIX., p. 63; cf. also XXI., p. 125.
[12] Cf. "Mitteil. der Deutsch. Orient-Gesellschaft," No. 16, p. 20 f. Dr. Andrae adds valuable notes on other mounds he visited during this journey.
[14] See "Mitteil. der Deutsch. Orient-Gesellschaft," No. 15, p. 9 ff.
[15] Op. cit., No. 17, p. 4 ff.
[16] Each section of a trench is also given a letter, so that such a symbol as IV. b or XII. x indicates within very precise limits the provenance of any object discovered. The letter A on the plan marks the site of the house built by the expedition.
[17] This form of brick is characteristic of the Pre-Sargonic period; cf. p. 91.
[18] The positions of some of the larger ones, which were excavated in the northern part of the mounds, are indicated by black dots in the plan.
[19] The houses with the clay tablets were found in trenches VII., IX., XIII., and XV.
[20] In the folding map Fâra has been set on the right bank of the Shatt el-Kâr, in accordance with Loftus's map published in "Travels and Researches in Chaldaea and Susiana." From Andrae's notes it would seem that Abû Hatab, and probably Fâra also, lie on the east or left bank. But the ancient bed of the stream has disappeared in many places, and is difficult to follow, and elsewhere there are traces of two or three parallel channels at considerable distances apart, so that the exact position of the original bed of the Euphrates is not certain at this point.
[21] In the plan the trenches and excavated sites are lettered from A to K. The figures, preceded by a cross, give in metres and centimetres the height of the mound at that point above the level of the plain.
[22] Itûr-Shamash, whose brick-inscription furnished the information that Abû Hatab is the site of the city Kisurra, is to be set towards the end of this period; see below, Chap. XI., and cf. p. 283 f., n. 1.
[23] See the extracts from the "Reports of the Expedition of the Oriental Exploration Fund (Babylonian Section) of the University of Chicago," which were issued to the subscribers.
[25] See "Chaldaea and Susiana," pp. 174 ff. and 188 f.
[26] Op. cit., pp. 244 ff., 266 ff.
[27] See his "Notes on the ruins of Mugeyer" in the Journal of the Royal Asiatic Society, 1855, pp. 260 ff., 414 f.
[28] See his "Notes on Abû Shahrein and Tel el-Lahm," op. cit., p. 409. The trench which disclosed this structure, built of uninscribed plano-convex bricks laid in bitumen, was cut near the south-eastern side of the ruins, between the mounds F and G (see plan), and to the north-east of the gulley.
[29] See Weissbach, "Wâdī Brîssā," Col. VI., ll. 46 ff., and cf. pp. 39 ff.
[30] The incantation is the one which has furnished us with authority for reading the name of Shirpurla as Lagash (see above, p. 17, n. 3). It is directed against the machinations of evil demons, and in one passage the powers for good inherent in the ancient cities of Babylonia are invoked on behalf of the possessed man. Here, along with the names of Eridu, Lagash, and Shuruppak, occurs the ideogram for Opis, which is rendered in the Assyrian translation as Ki-e-shi, i.e. Kesh, or Kish (cf. Thompson, "Devils and Evil Spirits," vol. i., p. 162 f.)
[32] See George Smith, "Trans. Soc. Bibl. Arch.," III., p. 364, and cf. Thureau-Dangin, "Orient. Lit.-Zeit.," 1909, col. 205 f.
[33] The fact that in an early Babylonian geographical list ("Cun. Inscr. West. Asia," Vol. IV., pl. 36, No. 1) the name of Opis is mentioned after a number of Sumerian cities, is no indication that the city itself, or another city of the same name, was regarded as situated in Sumer, as suggested by Jensen (cf. "Zeits. für Assyr.," XV., pp. 210 ff.); the next two names in the list are those of Magan and Melukhkha.
[34] For the fullest treatment of this subject, see Meyer, "Sumerier und Semiten in Babylonien" (Abh. der Königl. Preuss. Akad. der Wissenschaft., 1906).
[35] Cf. Herodotus, III., 8.
[36] The women of the earlier period appear to have worn a modified form of this garment, made of the same rough wool, but worn over the left shoulder (see below, p. 112, Fig. 43). On the Stele of the Vultures, Eannatum, like his soldiers, wears the petticoat, but this is supplemented by what is obviously a separate garment of different texture thrown over the left shoulder so as to leave the right arm free; this may have been the skin of an animal worn with the natural hair outside (see the plate opposite p. 124).
[37] A very similar fringed mantle was usually worn by the Sumerian women of the later period, but it was draped differently upon the body. Pressed at first over the breasts and under each arm, it is crossed at the back and its ends, thrown over the shoulders, fall in front in two symmetrical points; for a good example of the garment as seen from the front, see below, p. 71.
[39] Remains of an inscription upon Fig. 6 treat of the dedication of a temple to the god Ningirsu, and to judge from the characters it probably does not date from a period earlier than that of Gudea.
[41] See below, Chap. VIII., pp. 220 ff.
[42] According to the traces on the stone the figure immediately behind the beardless chief has a shaven head and face, like his other two followers in Fig. 3. The figure on the right of this fragment wears hair and beard, and probably represents a member of the opposite party conducting them into the presence of his master.
[43] See "Déc. en Chaldée," pl. 1 bis, Figs. 3-7.
[44] The fact that on seals of this later period the Moon-god is represented in the Sumerian mantle and headdress may well have been a result of the Sumerian reaction, which took place under the kings of Ur (see below, p. 283 f.).
[46] See p. 49. In Fig. 14 the hair and beard of the god who leads the worshipper into the presence of the goddess is clearer on the original stone. In Fig. 15 the locks of hair and long beards of the seated gods are more sharply outlined; they form a striking contrast to the figures of Sumerians, who are represented as pouring out libations and bringing offerings to the shrine.
[48] Cf. Langdon, "Babyloniaca," II., p. 142; this explanation is preferable to treating the crowns as a feathered form of headdress. The changes in the dress of the Sumerian gods, and in the treatment of their beards, appear to have taken place in the age of the later Semitic kings of Kish and the kings of Akkad, and may well have been due to their influence. The use of sandals was certainly introduced by the Semites of this period.
[49] See Clay, "The Amer. Journ. of Semit. Lang, and Lit.," XXIII., pp. 269 ff. In later periods the name was pronounced as Ellil.
[50] Cf. "Nachträge zur aegyptischen Chronologie," p. 44 f., and "Geschichte des Altertums," Bd. I., Hft. II., p. 407.
[51] See Thureau-Dangin, "Sum. und Akkad. Königsinschriften," p. 38, Col. I., l. 26; the word is dam-kha-ra, which he rightly takes as the equivalent of the Semitic tamkhara, "battle" (cf. also Ungnad, "Orient. Lit.-Zeit.," 1908, col. 63 f.).
[52] In this respect the early Sumerian texts are in striking contrast to those of the later periods; the evidence of strong Semitic influence in the latter formed the main argument on which M. Halévy and his followers relied to disprove the existence of the Sumerians.
[53] See Messerschmidt, "Orient. Lit.-Zeit.," 1905, col. 268 ff.; and cf. King, "Chronicles," I., p. 180, n. 3.
[54] See Ungnad, op. cit., 1908, col. 62 ff.
[55] See below, Chap. VII. f.
[57] See above, p. 14, n. 1.¨¨
[58] See further, Appendix I.
[59] Cf. Langdon, "Babyloniaca," I., pp. 225 f., 230, 284 ff., II., p. 99 f. The grounds, upon which the suggestion has been put forward, consist of a comparison between the verb "to go" in Sumerian, Greek, and Latin, an apparent resemblance in a few other roots, the existence of compound verbs in Sumerian, and the like; but quite apart from questions of general probability, the "parallelisms" noted are scarcely numerous enough, or sufficiently close, to justify the inference drawn from them.
Considerable changes have recently taken place in our estimate of the age of Sumerian civilization, and the length of time which elapsed between the earliest remains that have been recovered and the foundation of the Babylonian monarchy. It was formerly the custom to assign very remote dates to the earlier rulers of Sumer and Akkad, and although the chronological systems in vogue necessitated enormous gaps in our knowledge of history, it was confidently assumed that these would be filled as a result of future excavation. Blank periods of a thousand years or more were treated as of little account by many writers. The hoary antiquity ascribed to the earliest rulers had in itself an attraction which outweighed the inconvenience of spreading the historical material to cover so immense a space in time. But excavation, so far from filling the gaps, has tended distinctly to reduce them, and the chronological systems of the later Assyrian and Babylonian scribes, which were formerly regarded as of primary importance, have been brought into discredit by the scribes themselves. From their own discrepancies it has been shown that the native chronologists could make mistakes in their reckoning, and a possible source of error has been disclosed in the fact that some of the early dynasties, which were formerly regarded as consecutive, were, actually, contemporaneous. Recent research on this subject has thus resulted in a considerable reduction of the early dates, and the different epochs in the history of Sumer and Akkad, which were at one time treated as isolated phenomena, have been articulated to form a consistent[Pg 57] whole. But the tendency now is to carry the reaction rather too far, and to compress certain periods beyond the limits of the evidence. It will be well to summarize the problems at issue, and to indicate the point at which evidence gives place to conjecture.
In attempting to set limits to the earlier periods of Sumerian history, it is still impossible to do more than form a rough and approximate estimate of their duration. For in dealing with the chronology of the remoter ages, we are, to a great extent, groping in the dark. The material that has been employed for settling the order of the early kings, and for determining their periods, falls naturally into three main classes. The most important of our sources of information consists of the contemporary inscriptions of the early kings themselves, which have been recovered upon the sites of the ancient cities in Babylonia.[1] The inscriptions frequently give genealogies of the rulers whose achievements they record, and they thus enable us to ascertain the sequence of the kings and the relative dates at which they reigned. This class of evidence also makes it possible to fix certain points of contact between the separate lines of rulers who maintained an independent authority within the borders of their city-states.
A second class of material, which is of even greater importance for settling the chronology of the later Sumerian epoch, comprises the chronological documents drawn up by early scribes, who incorporated in the form of lists and tables the history of their own time and that of their predecessors. The system of dating documents which was in vogue was not a very convenient one from the point of view of those who used it, but it has furnished us with an invaluable summary of the principal events which took place for long periods at a time. The early dwellers in Babylonia did not reckon dates by the years of the reigning king, as did the later Babylonians, but they cited each year[Pg 58] by the event of greatest importance which took place in it. Such events consisted in the main of the building of temples, the performance of religious ceremonies, and the conquest of neighbouring cities and states. Thus the dates upon private and official documents often furnish us with historical information of considerable importance.
But the disadvantages of the system are obvious, for an event might appear of great importance in one city and might be of no interest to another situated at some distance from it. Thus it happened that the same event was not employed throughout the whole country for designating a particular year, and we have evidence that different systems of dating were employed in different cities. Moreover, it would have required an unusually good memory to fix the exact period of a document by a single reference to an event which took place in the year when it was drawn up, more especially after the system had been in use for a considerable time. Thus, in order to fix the relative dates of documents without delay, the scribes compiled lists of the titles of the years, arranged in order under the reigns of the successive kings, and these were doubtless stored in some archive-chamber, where they were easily accessible in the case of any dispute arising with regard to the date of a particular year. It is fortunate that some of these early Sumerian date-lists have been recovered, and we are furnished by them with an outline of Sumerian history, which has the value of a contemporary record.[2] They have thrown light upon a period of which at one time we knew little, and they have served to remove more than one erroneous supposition. Thus the so-called Second Dynasty of Ur was proved by them to have been non-existent, and the consequent reduplication of kings bearing the names of Ur-Engur and Dungi was shown to have had no foundation in fact.
From the compilation of lists of the separate years it was but a step to the classification of the reigns of the kings themselves and their arrangement in the form[Pg 59] of dynasties. Among the mass of tablets recovered from Niffer has been found a fragment of one of these early dynastic tablets,[3] which supplements the date-lists and is of the greatest value for settling the chronology of the later period. The reverse of the tablet gives complete lists of the names of the kings who formed the Dynasties of Ur and Isin, together with notes as to the length of their respective reigns, and it further states that the Dynasty of Isin directly succeeded that of Ur. This document fixes once for all the length of the period to which it refers, and it is much to be regretted that so little of the text has been recovered. Our information is at present confined to what is legible on part of one column of the tablet. But the text in its complete form must have contained no less than six columns of writing, and it probably gave a list of various dynasties which ruled in Babylonia from the very earliest times down to the date of its compilation, though many of the dynasties enumerated were doubtless contemporaneous. It was on the base of such documents as this dynastic list that the famous dynastic tablet was compiled for the library of Ashurbani-pal at Nineveh, and the existence of such lengthy dynastic records must have contributed to the exaggerated estimate for the beginnings of Babylonian history which have come down to us from the work of Berossus.
A third class of material for settling the chronology has been found in the external evidence afforded by the early historical and votive inscriptions to which reference has already been made, and by tablets of accounts, deeds of sale, and numerous documents of a commercial and agricultural character. From a study of their form and material, the general style of the writing, and the nature of the characters employed, a rough estimate may sometimes be made as to the time at which a particular record was inscribed, or the length of a period covered by documents of different reigns. Further, in the course of the excavations undertaken at any site, careful note may be made of the relative depths of the strata in which inscriptions have been found. Thus, if[Pg 60] texts of certain kings occur in a mound at a greater depth than those of other rulers, and it appears from an examination of the earth that the mound has not been disturbed by subsequent building operations or by natural causes, it may be inferred that the deeper the stratum in which a text is found the earlier must be the date to be assigned to it. But this class of evidence, whether obtained from palaeographical study or from systematic excavation, is sometimes uncertain and liable to more than one interpretation. In such cases it may only be safely employed when it agrees with other and independent considerations, and where additional support is not forthcoming, it is wiser to regard conclusions based upon it as provisional.
The three classes of evidence that have been referred to in the preceding paragraphs enable us to settle the relative order of many of the early rulers of Babylonia, but they do not supply us with any definite date by means of which the chronology of these earlier ages may be brought into relation with that of the later periods of Babylonian history. In order to secure such a point of connection, reliance has in the past been placed upon a notice of one of the early rulers of Babylonia, which occurs in an inscription of the last king of the Neo-Babylonian empire. On a clay cylinder of Nabonidus, which is preserved in the British Museum, it is stated that 3200 years elapsed between the burial of Narâm-Sin's foundation-memorial in the temple of the Sun-god at Sippar, and the finding of the memorial by Nabonidus himself when digging in the temple's foundations.[4] Now Narâm-Sin was an early king of Akkad, and, according to later tradition, was the son of the still more famous Sargon I. On the strength of the figure given by Nabonidus, the approximate date of 3750 B.C. has been assigned to Narâm-Sin, and that of 3800 B.C. to his father Sargon; and mainly on the basis of these early dates the beginning of Sumerian history has been set back as far as 5000 and even 6000 B.C.[5]
The improbably high estimate of Nabonidus for the date of Narâm-Sin has long been the subject of criticism.[6] It is an entirely isolated statement, unsupported by any other reference in early or late texts; and the scribes who were responsible for it were clearly not anxious to diminish the antiquity of the foundation-record, which had been found at such a depth below the later temple's foundations, and after so prolonged a search. To accept it as accurate entailed the leaving of enormous gaps in the chronological schemes, even when postulating the highest possible dates for the dynasties of Ur and Babylon. An alternative device of partially filling the gaps by the invention of kings and even dynasties[7] was not a success, as their existence has since been definitely disproved. Moreover, the recent reduction in the date of the First Dynasty of Babylon, necessitated by the proof that the first three dynasties of the Kings' List were partly contemporaneous, made its discrepancy with Nabonidus's figures still more glaring, while at the same time it furnished a possible explanation of so high a figure resulting from his calculations. For his scribes in all good faith may have reckoned as consecutive a number of early dynasties which had been contemporaneous.[8] The final disproof of the figure is furnished by evidence of an archaeological and epigraphic character. No such long interval as twelve or thirteen hundred years can have separated the art of Gudea's period from that of Narâm-Sin; and the clay tablets of the two epochs differ so little in shape, and in the forms of the characters with which they are inscribed, that we must regard the[Pg 62] two ages as immediately following one another without any considerable break.
By rejecting the figures of Nabonidus we cut away our only external connection with the chronology of the later periods, and, in order to evolve a scheme for earlier times we have to fall back on a process of reckoning from below. Without discussing in detail the later chronology, it will be well to indicate briefly the foundations on which we can begin to build. By the aid of the Ptolemaic Canon, whose accuracy is confirmed by the larger List of Kings and the principal Babylonian Chronicle, the later chronology of Babylon is definitely fixed back to the year 747 B.C.; by means of the eponym lists that for Assyria is fixed back to the year 911 B.C. Each scheme controls and confirms the other, and the solar eclipse of June 15th, 763 B.C., which is recorded in the eponymy of Pûr-Sagale, places the dead reckoning for these later periods upon an absolutely certain basis. For the earlier periods of Babylonian history, as far back as the foundation of the Babylonian monarchy, a chronological framework has been supplied by the principal List of Kings.[9] In spite of gaps in the text which render the lengths of Dynasties IV. and VIII. uncertain, it is possible, mainly by the help of synchronisms between Assyrian and Babylonian kings, to fix approximately the date of Dynasty III. Some difference of opinion exists with regard to this date, but the beginning of the dynasty may be placed at about the middle of the eighteenth century B.C.
With regard to Dynasty II. of the King's List it is now known that it ruled in the Sea-country in the region of the Persian Gulf, its earlier kings being contemporary with the close of Dynasty I. and its later ones with the early part of Dynasty III.[10] Here we come to the first of two points on which there is a considerable difference of opinion. The available evidence suggests that the kings of the Sea-country never ruled in Babylon, and that the Third, or Kassite, Dynasty followed the First Dynasty of Babylon without any considerable break.[11] But the date 2232 B.C., [Pg 63]which probably represents the beginning of the non-mythical dynasties of Berossus,[12] has hitherto played a considerable part in modern schemes of chronology, and, in spite of the fact that no amount of ingenuity can reconcile his dynasties with those of history, there is still a strong temptation to retain the date for the beginning of Dynasty I. of the Kings' List as affording a fixed and certain point from which to start calculations. But this can only be done by assuming that some of the kings of the Sea-country ruled over the whole of Babylonia, an assumption that is negatived by such historical and archaeological evidence as we possess.[13] It is safer to treat the date 2232 B.C. as without significance, and to follow the evidence in confining the kings of the Sea-country to their own land. If we do this we obtain a date for the foundation of the Babylonian monarchy about the middle of the twenty-first century B.C.
The second important point on which opinion is not agreed, concerns the relation of the First Dynasty of Babylon to that of Isin. From the Nippur dynastic list we know the duration of the dynasties of Ur and Isin, and if we could connect the latter with the First Dynasty of Babylon, we should be able to carry a fixed chronology at least as far back as the age of Gudea. Such a point of connection has been suggested in the date-formula for the seventeenth year of Sin-muballit's reign, which records a capture of Isin; and by identifying this event with the fall of the dynasty, it is assumed[Pg 64] that the kings of Isin and of Babylon overlapped for a period of about ninety-nine years. In a later chapter the evidence is discussed on which this theory rests, and it is shown that the capture of Isin in Sin-muballit's seventeenth year had nothing to do with the dynasty of that name, but was an episode in the later struggle between Babylon and Larsa.[14] We thus have no means of deciding what interval, if any, separated the two dynasties from one another, and consequently all the earlier dates remain only approximate.
The contract-tablets dating from the period of the Dynasty of Isin, which have been found at Nippur, are said to resemble closely those of the First Babylonian Dynasty in form, material, writing, and terminology.[15] It would thus appear that no long interval separated the two dynasties from one another. We have seen that the foundation of the Babylonian monarchy may be set in about the middle of the twenty-first century B.C., and by placing the end of the Dynasty of Isin within the first half of that same century we obtain the approximate dates of 2300 B.C. for the Dynasty of Isin, and 2400 B.C. for the Dynasty of Ur. It is true that we know that the Dynasty of Ur lasted for exactly one hundred and seventeen years, and that of Isin for two hundred and twenty-five years and a half, but until we can definitely connect the Dynasty of Isin with that of Babylon, any attempt to work out the dates in detail would be misleading. We must be content to await the recovery of new material, and meanwhile to think in periods.
There is evidence that Ur-Engur established his rule in Ur, and founded his dynasty in the time of Ur-Ningirsu, the son of Gudea of Lagash. We may therefore place Gudea's accession at about 2450 B.C. This date is some thirteen hundred years later than that assigned to Narâm-Sin by Nabonidus. But the latter, we have already seen, must be reduced, in accordance with evidence furnished by Tello tablets, which are dated in the reigns of the intermediate patesis of Lagash. If we set this interval at one hundred and[Pg 65] fifty years,[16] we obtain for Narâm-Sin a date of 2600 B.C., and for Shar-Gani-Sharri one of 2650 B.C. For the later Semitic kings of Kish, headed by Sharru-Gi, one hundred years is not too much to allow;[17] we thus obtain for Sharru-Gi the approximate date of 2750 B.C. It is possible that Manishtusu, King of Kish, was the contemporary of Urukagina of Lagash, but the evidence in favour of the synchronism is not sufficiently strong to justify its acceptance.[18] By placing Urukagina at 2800 B.C., we obtain for Ur-Ninâ an approximate date of 3000 B.C., and for still earlier rulers such as Mesilim, a date rather earlier than this.[19] It is difficult to estimate the age of the early graves, cylinder-seals and tablets found at Fâra, but they cannot be placed at a much later period than 3400 B.C. Thus the age of Sumerian civilization can be traced in Babylonia back to about the middle of the fourth millennium B.C., but not beyond.
It must be confessed that this is a reduction in the date usually assigned to the earliest relics that have been recovered of the Sumerian civilization, but its achievements are by no means belittled by the compression of its period of development. It is not suggested that this date marks the beginning of Sumerian culture, for, as we have noted, it is probable that the race was already possessed of a high standard of civilization on their arrival in Babylonia. The invention of cuneiform writing, which was one of their most noteworthy achievements, had already taken place, for the characters in the earliest inscriptions recovered have lost their pictorial form. Assuming the genuineness of the "Blau Monuments," it must be admitted that even on them the characters are in a comparatively advanced stage of development.[20] We may thus put back into a[Pg 66] more remote age the origin and early growth of Sumerian culture, which took place at a time when it was not Sumerian.
In the concluding chapter of this volume an estimate is given to the extent to which Sumerian culture influenced, either directly or indirectly, other races in Asia, Egypt, and the West. In such matters the interest attaching to the Sumerian original is largely derived from its effects, and its study may be undertaken mainly with the view of elucidating a later development. But one department of Sumerian activity forms a striking exception to this rule. The arts of sculpture and engraving, as practised by the Sumerians, are well worthy of study on their own account, for while their work in all periods is marked by spirit and originality, that of the later time reaches a remarkable standard of excellence. The improvement in technique observable in the later period may largely be due to the influence of Semitic work, which was derived from Sumer and reacted in its turn on the parent stem. But the original impulse to artistic production was of purely Sumerian origin, and it is possible to trace the gradual development of its products from the rudest reliefs of the archaic period to the finished sculpture of Gudea's reign.[21] The character of the Semitic art of Akkad was secondary and derivative, though the Semites certainly improved on what they borrowed; in that of the Sumerians the seeds of its later excellence may be detected from the beginning. The most ancient of the sculptured reliefs of the Sumerians are very rudely cut, and their age is attested not only by their primitive character, but also by the linear form of the writing which is found upon [Pg 67]them. These, owing to their smaller size, are the best preserved, for the later reliefs, which belong to the period when Sumerian art reached its fullest development, are unfortunately represented only by fragments. But they suffice to show the spirit which animated these ancient craftsmen, and enabled them successfully to overcome difficulties of technique which were carefully avoided by the later sculptors of Assyria. To take a single instance, we may note the manner in which they represented the heads of the principal figures of a composition in full-face, and did not seek to avoid the difficulty of foreshortening the features by a monotonous arrangement in profile. A good example of their bolder method of composition is afforded by the relief of a god, generally identified with Ningirsu, which dates from the epoch of Gudea; he is seated upon a throne, and while the torso and bearded head are sculptured full-face, the legs are in profile.[22] On another fragment of a relief of the same period, beautifully cut in alabaster but much damaged by fire, a goddess is represented seated on the knees of a god. The rendering of the group is very spirited, for while the god gazes in profile at his wife, she looks out from the sculpture curving her body from the hips.[23]
DIORITE STATUE OF GUDEA, PATESI OF SHIRPURLA, REPRESENTED AS THE ARCHITECT OF THE TEMPLE OF GATUMDUG.—In the Louvre; Déc. en Chald., pl. 14.
In neither instance can it be said that the sculptor has completely succeeded in portraying a natural attitude, for the head in each case should be only in three-quarter profile, but such attempts at an unconventional treatment afford striking evidence of the originality which characterized the work of the Sumerians. Both the sculptures referred to date from the later Sumerian period, and, if they were the only instances recovered, it might be urged that the innovation should be traced to the influence of North Babylonian art under the patronage of the kings of Akkad. Fortunately, however, we possess an interesting example of the same class of treatment, which undoubtedly dates from a period anterior to the[Pg 68] Semitic domination. This is afforded by a perforated plaque, somewhat similar to the more primitive ones of Ur-Ninâ,[24] engraved in shallow relief with a libation-scene. The figure of a man, completely nude and with shaven head and face, raises a libation-vase with a long spout, from which he is about to pour water into a vase holding two palm leaves and a flowering branch.[25] The goddess in whose honour the rite is being performed is seated in the mountains, represented as in later times by a number of small lozenges or half circles. While her feet and knees are in profile, the head is represented full-face, and the sculptor's want of skill in this novel treatment has led him to assign the head a size out of all proportion to the rest of the body. The effect is almost grotesque, but the work is of considerable interest as one of the earliest attempts on the part of the Sumerian sculptors to break away from the stiff and formal traditions of the archaic period. From the general style of the work the relief may probably be dated about the period of Eannatum's reign.
Fig. 20. Perforated plaque engraved with a scene representing the pouring out of a libation before a goddess.—In the Louvre; Cat. No. 11.
The Sumerians did not attain the decorative effect of the Assyrian bas-reliefs with which the later kings lined the walls of their palaces. In fact, the small size of the figures rendered them suitable for the enrichment of stelæ, plaques, basins and stone vases, rather than for elaborate wall sculptures, for which in any case they had not the material. The largest fragment of an early bas-relief that has been recovered appears to have[Pg 69] formed the angle of a stone pedestal, and is decorated with figures in several registers representing ceremonies of Sumerian worship.[26] In the upper register on the side that is best preserved is a priest leading worshippers into the presence of a god, while below is a crouching figure, probably that of a woman who plays on a great lyre or harp of eleven cords, furnished with two uprights and decorated with a horned head and the figure of a bull. On the side in the upper row is a heavily bearded figure on a larger scale than the rest, and the mixture of Sumerian and Semitic types in the figures preceding him suggests that the monument is to be assigned to the period of Semitic domination, under the rule of the kings of Kish or Akkad. But it is obviously Sumerian in character, resembling the work of Gudea's period rather than that of Narâm-Sin.
Fig. 21.—Fragments of sculpture belonging to the best period of Sumerian art.—Déc., pl. 25, Figs. 4 and 6.
The perfection of detail which characterized the best work of the Sumerian sculptors is well illustrated by two fragments of reliefs, parts of which are drawn in outline in the accompanying blocks. The one on the left is from a bas-relief representing a line of humped cattle and horned sheep defiling past the spectator. It is badly broken, but enough is preserved to show the surprising fidelity with which the sculptor has reproduced the animal's form and attitude. Though the subject recalls the lines of domestic animals upon the[Pg 70] Assyrian bas-reliefs, the Sumerian treatment is infinitely superior. The same high qualities of design and workmanship are visible in the little fragment on the right. Of the main sculpture only a human foot remains; but it is beautifully modelled. The decorative border below the foot represents the spouting vase with its two streams of water and two fish swimming against the stream. A plant rises from the vase between the streams, the symbol of vegetation nourished by the waters.[27] The extreme delicacy of the original shows to what degree of perfection Sumerian work attained during the best period.
Fig. 22. — Limestone head of a lion which decorated the corner of a basin set up by Gudea in Ningirsu's temple at Lagash (Shirpurla). — Déc., pl. 24, Fig. 3.
The use of sculpture in relief was also most happily employed for the decoration of basins or fountains. The most elaborate of those recovered, unhappily represented by mutilated fragments only, was decorated on the outside with a chain of female figures passing from hand to hand vases of spouting water.[28] Better preserved are the remains of another basin, which was set up by Gudea in Ningirsu's temple at Lagash. Rectangular in shape, each corner was decorated with a lion. The head, drawn in the accompanying block, is a fine piece of sculpture, and almost stands out from the corner, while the body, carved in profile on the side of the basin, is in low relief. In this portrayal of a lion turning its head, the designer has formed a bold but decorative combination of relief with sculpture in the round.
The most famous examples of Sumerian sculpture are the statues of Gudea, and the rather earlier one of Ur-Bau, which, however, lose much of their character by the absence of their heads. It is true that a head[Pg 71] has been fitted to a smaller and more recently found figure of Gudea;[29] but this proves to be out of all proportion to the body—a defect that was probably absent from the larger statues. The traditional attitude of devotion, symbolized by the clasping of the hands over the breast, gives them a certain monotony; but their modelling is superior to anything achieved by the Babylonians and Assyrians of a later time.[30] Thus there is a complete absence of exaggeration in the rendering of the muscles; the sculptor has not attempted by such crude and conventional methods to ascribe to his model a supernatural strength and vigour, but has worked direct from nature. They are carved in diorite, varying in colour from dark green to black, and that so hard a material should have been worked in the large masses required, is in itself an achievement of no small importance, and argues great technical skill on the part of the sculptors of the later period.
Fig. 23.—Upper part of a female statuette of diorite, of the period of Gudea or a little later.—Déc., pl. 24 bis, Fig. 2.
For smaller figures and statuettes a softer stone, such as white limestone, alabaster, or onyx, was usually employed, but a few in the harder stone have been recovered. The most remarkable of these is a diorite statuette of a woman, the upper part of which has been preserved. The head and the torso were found separately, but thanks to their hard material they join without leaving a trace of any break. Here, as usual, the hands are crossed upon the breast, and the folds of the garment [Pg 72]are only indicated under the arms by a few plain grooves as in the statues of Gudea. But the woman's form is visible beneath the stuff of her garment, and the curves of the back are wonderfully true. Her hair, undulating on the temples, is bound in a head-cloth and falls in the form of a chignon on the neck, the whole being secured by a stiff band, or fillet, around which the cloth is folded with its fringe tucked in.
The drawing in Fig. 23 scarcely does justice to the beauty of the face, since it exaggerates the conventional representation of the eyebrows, and reproduces the texture of the stone at the expense of the outline. Moreover, the face is almost more striking in profile.[31] The nose, though perfectly straight, is rather large, but this is clearly a racial characteristic. Even so, the type of female beauty portrayed is singularly striking, and the manner in which the Sumerian sculptor has succeeded in reproducing it was not approached in the work of any later period. Another head from a female statuette, with the hair dressed in a similar fashion, is equally beautiful. The absence of part of the nose tends to give it a rather less marked ethnographic character, and probably increases the resemblance which has been claimed for it to types of classical antiquity.[32]
Fig. 24.—Limestone head of a female statuette belonging to the best period of Sumerian art.—Déc., pl. 25, Fig. 2.
The art of casting in metal was also practised by the Sumerians, and even in the earliest period, anterior to the reign of Ur-Ninâ, small foundation-figures have been discovered, which were cast solid in copper. In fact, copper was the metal most commonly employed by the Sumerians, and their stage of culture throughout the long period of their history may be described as a copper age, rather than an age of bronze. It is true that the claim is sometimes put forward, based on [Pg 73]very unsatisfactory evidence, that the Sumerian metal-founders used not only tin but also antimony in order to harden copper, and at the same time render it more fusible;[33] and it is difficult to explain the employment of two ideograms for the metal, even in the earlier periods, unless one signified bronze and the other copper.[34] But a careful analysis by M. Berthelot of the numerous metal objects found at Tello, the dates of which can be definitely ascertained, has shown that, even under the later rulers of Lagash and the kings of Ur, not only votive figures, but also tools and weapons of copper, contain no trace of tin employed as an alloy.[35] As at Tello, so at Tell Sifr, the vessels and weapons found by Loftus are of copper, not bronze.[36] The[Pg 74] presence of an exceedingly small proportion of elements other than copper in the objects submitted to analysis was probably not intentional, but was due to the necessarily imperfect method of smelting that was employed.
CLAY RELIEF STAMPED WITH THE FIGURE OF THE BABYLONIAN HERO GILGAMESH, HOLDING A VASE FROM WHICH TWO STREAMS OF WATER FLOW. Brit. Mus., No. 21204.
FRAGMENT OF LIMESTONE SCULPTURED IN RELIEF WITH VASES FROM WHICH STREAMS OF WATER FLOW. Brit. Mus., No. 95477
Fig. 25—One of a series of copper female foundation-figures with supporting rings, buried in a structure of unburnt brick beneath stone foundation-records. From Tello; period of Ur-Ninâ. Déc., pl. 2 ter, Fig. 3.
No trace has yet been found of any mould used by the Sumerians in the process of casting metal, but we may assume that clay was employed both for solid and hollow castings. While many figures of the same form have been found, no two are exactly alike nor of quite the same proportions, so that it may be inferred that a mould was never used a second time, but that each was broken in order to remove the casting. The copper foundation-figures usually take the form of nails, terminating with the bust of a female figure, and they were set in a socket beneath stone foundation-inscriptions which they support. Later, votive objects, cast in copper, represent male figures, bearing on their heads the builder's basket, in which is clay for the sacred bricks of the temple's foundation; or they consist of great cones or nails supporting a recumbent bull,[37] or clasped by the kneeling figure of a god.[38] Large figures of wood were sometimes covered with thin plates of copper joined by a series of small nails or rivets, as is proved by the horn of a bull of natural size, which has been discovered at Tello.[39] But hollow castings in copper of a considerable size have also been found. A good example is the bull's head, figured in the accompanying block, which probably dates from a period not later than the close of Ur-Ninâ's dynasty. Its eyes are inlaid with mother-of-pearl and lapis-lazuli, and a very similar method of inlaying is met with in the copper head of a goat which was found at Fâra.[40]
Fig. 26-27.—Heads of a bull and a goat cast in copper and inlaid with mother-of-pearl, lapis-lazuli, etc. The bull's head was found at Tello, and that of the goat at Fâra.—Déc., pl. 5 ter, Fig. 2; Zeits. für Ethnol., 1901, p. 163.
A far simpler process of manufacture was employed for the making of votive figures of terra-cotta, which, in order of development, preceded the use of metal for this purpose, though they continued to be manufactured in considerable quantities during the later periods. Here the mould, in a single piece, was cut in stone or some other hard material,[41] and the clay, after being impressed into it, was smoothed down on the back by hand. The flat border of clay left by the upper surface of the mould, was frequently not removed, so that the figures are sometimes found standing out from a flat background in the manner of a sculptured plaque, or bas-relief.
Fig. 28. Stamped terra-cotta figure of a bearded god, wearing the horned headdress, to which are attached the ears of a bull. Period of Gudea.—Déc., pl. 39, Fig. 3.
In the period of Gudea, the mould was definitely used as a stamp, thus returning to the original use from which its later employment was developed. Interesting examples of such later stamped figures include representations of a god wearing a horned headdress, to which are added the ears of a bull, and of a hero, often identified with Gilgamesh, who holds a vase from which two streams [Pg 76]of water flow.[42] The clay employed for the votive figures is extremely fine in quality, and most of them are baked to a degree of hardness resembling stone or metal.
Fig. 29. Scheme of decoration from a libation-vase of Gudea, made of dark green steatite and originally inlaid with shell. Déc., pl. 44, Fig. 2; cf. Cat., p. 281.
The art of inlaying was widely practised by the Sumerians, who not only treated metal in this way, but frequently attempted to give more expression or life to stone statues by inlaying the white of the eye with mother-of-pearl or shell, and representing the pupil and iris by lapis-lazuli or bitumen. A similar method was employed to enrich votive stone figures of animals, and to give a varied and polychrome effect to vases carved in stone. The finest example of this class of work is a libation-vase of Gudea made of dark green steatite, which was dedicated by him to his patron deity Ningishzida. The vase has a short projecting spout running up from the base and grooved, so as to allow only a small stream of liquid to escape during the pouring of a libation. Its scheme of decoration is interesting as it affords an excellent example of the more fantastic side of Sumerian art, inspired by a large and important section of the religious belief. The two intertwined serpents, whose tongues touch the point where the liquid would leave the vase, are modelled from nature, but the winged monsters on each side well illustrate the Sumerian origin of later Babylonian demonology.
It is probable that such composite monsters, with the bodies and heads of serpents and the wings and talons of birds, were originally malevolent in character, but here, [Pg 77]like the serpents, they are clearly represented as tamed, and in the service of the god to whom the vase was dedicated. This is sufficiently proved by the ringed staffs they carry,[43] their modified horned headdresses, and their carefully twisted locks of hair. They were peculiarly sacred to Ningishzida and in Fig. 12 they may be seen rising as emblems from his shoulders. The rich effect of the dark green steatite was originally enhanced by inlaying, for the bodies of the dragons are now pitted with deep holes. These were no doubt originally inlaid with some other material, probably shell, which has been found employed for this purpose in a fragment of a vase of a very similar character.
IMPRESSION OF A CYLINDER-SEAL ENGRAVED WITH SCENES REPRESENTING AN EARLY BABYLONIAN HERO, PROBABLY GILGAMESH, IN CONFLICT WITH A LION.—Brit. Mus., No. 89147.
IMPRESSION OF A CYLINDER-SEAL ENGRAVED WITH A SCENE REPRESENTING GILGAMESH AND EA-BANI IN CONFLICT WITH BULLS IN A WOODED AND MOUNTAINOUS COUNTRY.—Brit. Mus., No. 89308.
IMPRESSION OF A CYLINDER-SEAL ENGRAVED WITH A SCENE REPRESENTING MYTHOLOGICAL BEINGS, BULLS, AND LIONS IN CONFLICT.—Brit. Mus., No. 89538.
In the same category with the monsters on the vase we may class the human-headed bulls, of which small sculptured figures, in a recumbent attitude, have been found at Tello; these were afterwards adopted by the Assyrian kings, and employed as the colossal guardians of their palace door-ways. The extent to which this particular form of composite monster was employed for religious and decorative purposes may be seen on the cylinder-seals, upon which in the earlier period it represents the favourite device. Examples are frequently found in decorative combinations, together with figures of early bearded heroes, possibly to be identified with Gilgamesh, and with a strange creature, half-man and half-bull, resembling the later descriptions of Ea-bani, who strive with lions and other animals.[44] Gudea's catalogue of the temple furniture and votive objects, with which he enriched E-ninnû, throws light upon the manner in which Sumerian art reflected this aspect of the Sumerian religion. Some of the legends and beliefs may well have been derived from Semitic sources, but the imagery, which exerted so strong an influence upon the development of their art, may probably be traced to the Sumerians themselves.
The engraving upon cylinder-seals during the Sumerian period appears to have been done generally by hand, without the help of a drill or a revolving tool.[45] Outline engraving with the point was also practised, that on stone having probably preceded the use of the bas-relief,[46] but it continued to be employed in the later periods for the decoration of metal and shell. The finest example of metal engraving is the silver vase of Entemena, around which is incised in outline a decorative band, consisting of variations of the emblem of Lagash, arranged beneath a row of seven calves. But the largest number of designs engraved in outline have been found, not upon stone or metal, but upon shell. It is an interesting fact that among the smaller objects found by M. de Sarzec at Tello, there is not a single fragment of ivory, and it would seem that this material was not known to the earliest inhabitants of Babylonia, a fact which has some bearing on the disputed question of their relations to Egypt, and to the earlier stages of Egyptian culture.[47]
From the earliest period at Lagash fragments of shell were employed in place of ivory, and the effect produced by it is nearly the same. Certain species of great univalves or conch-shells, which are found in the Indian Ocean, have a thick core or centre, and these furnished the material for a large number of the earliest cylinder-seals. Small plaques or lozenges could also be obtained from the core by sectional cutting, while the curved part of the shell was sometimes employed for objects to which its convex form could be adapted. The numerous flat lozenges that have been found are shaped for inlaying furniture, caskets, and the like, and curved pieces were probably fitted to others of a like shape in order to form small cups and vases. Each piece is decorated with fine engraving, and in nearly every instance the outline is accentuated[Pg 79] by the employment of a very slight relief. The designs are often spirited, and they prove that even in the earliest periods the Sumerian draughtsman had attained to a high standard of proficiency.
One of the most interesting engraved fragments that have been recovered consists of a slightly curved piece of shell, which probably formed part of a small bowl or cup. The rest of the side seems to have been built up of pieces of similar shape, held together by bitumen, or, more probably, fitted to a metal lining by rivets through holes in the shell. The scene engraved upon the fragment represents a lion seizing a bull in a thicket of shrubs or high flowering plants. Though the group upon the fragment is complete in itself, there are indications that it formed only part of a more elaborate composition.
Fig. 30—Convex panel of shell from the side of a cup, engraved with a scene representing a lion attacking a bull; early Sumerian period. Déc., pl. 46, No. 3; cf. Cat. p. 189
For in the space on the right of the fragment behind the lion's mane are engraved two weapons. The upper one is a hilted dagger with its point towards the lion; this may be compared with the short daggers held by the mythological beings resembling Ea-bani upon one of Lugal-anda's seals, with which they are represented as stabbing lions in the neck.[48] Below is a hand holding a curved mace or throwing stick, formed of three strands bound with leather thongs or bands of metal, like that held by Eannatum upon the Stele of the Vultures.[49] It is, therefore, clear that on the panel to the right of the lion and bull a king, or patesi, was represented in the act of attacking the lion, and we may infer that the whole of the cup was decorated with a continuous band of engraving, though some of the groups in the design[Pg 80] may have been arranged symmetrically, with repetitions such as are found upon the earlier cylinder-seals.
The position of the lion upon the fragment, represented with luxuriant mane and with head facing the spectator, and the vigour of the design as a whole combined with certain inequalities of treatment, have suggested a comparison with the lions upon the sculptured mace-head of Mesilim. The piece has, therefore, been assigned to the epoch of the earlier kings of Kish, anterior to the period of Ur-Ninâ.[50] It may perhaps belong to the rather later period of Ur-Ninâ's dynasty, but, even so, it suffices to indicate the excellence in design and draughtsmanship attained by the earlier Sumerians. In vigour and originality their representations of animals were unequalled by those of the later inhabitants of Babylonia and Assyria, until shortly before the close of the Assyrian empire. But the Sumerian artists only gradually acquired their skill, and on some of the engraved fragments recovered it is possible to trace an advance on earlier work. The designs in the accompanying blocks have been selected as illustrating, to some extent, the change which gradually took place in the treatment of animal forms by the Sumerians.
Fig. 31.—Fig. 32.—Fig. 33. Three fragments of shell engraved with animal forms, which illustrate the growth of a naturalistic treatment in Sumerian design.—Déc., pl. 46, Nos. 4, 5, and 8.
Of the three designs, that on the left is engraved upon a convex piece of shell, thin as the shell of an[Pg 81] egg; it represents a lion-headed eagle which has swooped down upon the back of a human-headed bull and is attacking him with mouth and claws. The subject resembles that found upon the most primitive Sumerian cylinder-seals, and its rough and angular treatment is sufficient indication of the very archaic character of the work. The central panel resembles in shape that of the lion and the bull.[51] The design represents a leaping ibex with flowering plants in the background, and the drawing is freer and less stiff than that of the animals on the silver vase of Entemena.[52] Some archaic characteristics may still be noted, such as the springing tufts of hair at the joints of the hind legs; but the general treatment of the subject marks a distinct advance upon the archaic conventions of the earlier fragment. The third design is that of a leaping kid, engraved upon a flat piece of shell and cut out for inlaying. Here the drawing is absolutely true to nature, and the artist has even noted the slight swelling of the head caused by the growing horns.
The Sumerians do not appear to have used complete shells for engraving, like those found on Assyrian and Aegean sites. A complete shell has indeed been recovered, but it is in an unworked state and bears a dedicatory formula of Ur-Ningirsu, the son and successor of Gudea. Since it is not a fine specimen of its class, we may suppose that it was selected for dedication merely as representing the finer shells employed by the workmen in the decoration of the temple-furniture. The Sumerians at a later period engraved designs upon mother-of-pearl. When used in plain pieces for inlaying it certainly gave a more brilliant effect than shell, but to the engraver it offered greater difficulties in consequence of its brittle and scaly surface. Pieces have been found, however, on which designs have been cut, and these were most frequently employed for enriching the handles of knives and daggers. The panels in the accompanying blocks will serve to show that the same traditional motives are reproduced which meet us in the earlier[Pg 82] designs upon fragments of shell and cylinder-seals. They include a bearded hero, the eagle attacking the bull, a hero in conflict with a lion, the lion-headed eagle of Lagash, a winged lion, a lion attacking an ibex, and a stag. Even when allowance is made for the difficulties presented by the material, it will be seen that the designs themselves rank far below those found upon shell. The employment of mother-of-pearl for engraving may thus be assigned to a period of decadence in Sumerian art when it had lost much of its earlier freshness and vigour.
Fig. 34.—Fig. 35.—Fig. 36.—Fig. 37. Four panels of mother-of pearl, engraved with Sumerian designs, which were employed for inlaying the handles of daggers. They belong to a period of decadence in Sumerian art.—In the Louvre; Cat. Nos. 232 ff.
The above brief sketch of the principal forms and productions of Sumerian art may serve to vindicate the claim of the Sumerians to a place among the more artistic races of antiquity. Much oriental art is merely quaint, or interesting from its history and peculiarities, but that of the Sumerians is considerably more than this. Its sculpture never acquired the dull monotony of the Assyrian bas-reliefs with their over-elaboration of detail, intended doubtless to cloak the poverty of the design. Certain conventions persisted through all periods, but the Sumerian sculptor was never a slave to them. He relied largely on his own taste and intelligence, and even the earliest work is bold and spirited. After centuries of independent development fresh vigour was introduced by the nomad Semitic races who settled[Pg 83] in the north, but in the hands of the later Semites the Sumerian ideals were not maintained. For the finest period of Babylonian art we must go back to a time some centuries before the founding of the Babylonian monarchy.
[1] These have been collected and translated by Thureau-Dangin in "Les Inscriptions de Sumer et d'Akkad," the German edition of which, published under the title "Die sumerischen und akkadischen Königsinschriften" in the Vorderasiatische Bibliothek, includes the author's corrections and an introduction; a glossary to subjects of a religious character, compiled by Langdon, is added to the German edition of the work.
[2] Cf. Thureau-Dangin, "Königsinschriften," pp. 228 ff., where the lists are restored from dates on early tablets; for the earlier date-formulæ from tablets, see pp. 224 ff.
[3] See Hilprecht, "Mathematical, Metrological, and Chronological Tablets," p. 46 f., pl. 30, No. 47.
[4] Cf. "Cun. Inscr. West. Asia," V., pl. 64, Col. II., ll. 54-65.
[5] Hilprecht formerly placed the founding of Enlil's temple and the first settlement at Nippur "somewhere between 6000 and 7000 B.C., possibly even earlier" (cf. "Old Babylonian Inscriptions chiefly from Nippur," Pt. II., p. 24.)
[6] See Lehmann-Haupt, "Zwei Hauptprobleme," pp. 172 ff., and Winckler, "Forschungen," I., p. 549; "Die Keilinschriften und das Alte Testament" (3rd ed.), I., p. 17 f., and "Mitteil. der Vorderas. Gesellschaft," 1906, I., p. 12, n. 1; cf. also Thureau-Dangin, "Rev. d'Assyr.," IV., p. 72, and "Rec. de tabl.," p. ix.
[7] Cf. Radau, "Early Babylonian History," pp. 30 ff., 215 ff.
[8] Cf. King, "Chronicles," I., p. 16. This explanation is preferable to Lehmann-Haupfs emendation of the figures, by which he suggests that a thousand years were added to it by a scribal error. The principle of emending the figures in these later chronological references is totally unscientific. For the emenders, while postulating mechanical errors in the writing of the figures, still regard the calculations of the native scribes as above reproach; whereas many of their figures, which are incapable of emendation, are inconsistent with each other.
[9] For references, see King, "Chronicles," I., p. 77. n. 1.
[10] Op. cit., pp. 93 ff.
[11] Op. cit., Chap. IV. f. Meyer also adopts this view ("Geschichte des Altertums," Bd. I., Hft. II., p. 340 f.).
[12] Cf. "Chronicles," I., pp. 90 ff.
[13] The purely arbitrary character of the assumption is well illustrated by the different results obtained by those who make it. By clinging to Berossus's date of 2232 B.C., Thureau-Dangin assigns to the second dynasty of the Kings' List a period of 168 years of independent rule in Babylon (cf. "Zeits. für Assyr.," XXI., pp. 176 ff., and "Journal des savants," 1908, pp. 190 ff.), and Ungnad 177 years ("Orient. Lit.-Zeit.," 1907, col. 638, 1908, col. 63 ff.). Lehmann-Haupt, in his suggested reconciliation of the new data with his former emendation of the Bavian date, makes the period 80 years ("Klio," 1908, pp. 227 E). Poebel, ignoring Berossus and attempting to reconcile the native chronological notices to early kings, makes it 160 years (cf. "Zeits. für Assyr.," XXI., pp. 162 ff.). The latest combination is that proposed by Schnabel, who accepts the date of 2232 B.C. for both the system of Berossus and that represented by the Kings' List, but places the historical beginning of the First Dynasty in 2172 B.C.; this necessitates a gap of 120 years between Dynasties I. and III. ("Mitteil. der Vorderas. Gesellschaft," 1908, pp. 241 ff.). But all these systems are mainly based on a manipulation of the figures, and completely ignore the archaeological evidence.
[14] See below, Chap. XI., pp. 313 ff.
[15] Cf. Hilprecht, "Math., Met., and Chron. Tabl.," p. 55, n. 1.
[16] Thureau-Dangin would assign only one hundred years to this period (cf. "Journal des savants," 1908, p. 201).
[17] The period may well have been longer, especially if Manishtusu should prove to have been the contemporary of Urukagina.
[19] For a list of the kings and rulers of Sumer and Akkad with their approximate dates, see the List of Rulers at the end of the volume.
[20] See the plate opposite p. 62. The objects have been previously published by Hayes Ward in "Proc. Amer. Orient. Soc.," Oct., 1885, and "Amer. Journ. Arch.," vol. iv. (1888), pp. 39 ff. They subsequently found their way into a London sale-room, where they were bought as forgeries and presented as such to the British Museum.
[21] Our knowledge of Sumerian art is mainly derived from the finds at Tello, since the objects from other early sites are not yet published. For its best and fullest discussion, see Heuzey's descriptions in "Découvertes en Chaldée," his "Catalogue des antiquités chaldéennes," "Une Villa royale chaldéenne," and the "Revue d'Assyriologie"; cf. also Perrot and Chipiez, "Histoire de l'art," vol. ii. The finest examples of Semitic art have been found at Susa (see De Morgan, "Mémoires de la Délégation en Perse," passim). A scientific treatment of the subject is adopted by Meyer in "Sumerier und Semiten," but he is inclined to assign too much credit to the Semite, and to overestimate his share in the artistic development of the two races.
[23] See the photographic reproduction in "Déc. en Chaldée," pl. 22, Fig. 5.
[25] The rite is represented upon other Sumerian monuments such as the Stele of the Vultures (see below, p. 140). Heuzey suggests that the liturgy may have forbidden the loss of the libation-water, the rite symbolizing its use for the profit of vegetation; cf. "Catalogue des antiquités chaldéennes," p. 118.
[27] Cf. Heuzey, "Déc. en Chaldée," p. 218; "Catalogue," p. 149.
[28] See "Déc. en Chaldée," pl. 24, Fig. 4, pp. 216 ff.
[30] For the seated statue of Gudea as the architect of Gatumdug's temple, see the plate opposite p. 66; and for descriptions of the statues, see Chap. IX., p. 269 f.
[31] See the very beautiful drawing in outline which Heuzey prints on the title-page of his Catalogue.
[32] Cf. Heuzey, "Déc. en Chaldée," p. 158.
[33] It should be noted that of the seven objects from Nippur and other south-Babylonian sites which were submitted to analysis by Herr Otto Helm in Danzig, only two contained a percentage of tin (cf. "Zeitschrift für Ethnologie," 1901, pp. 157 ff.). Of these a nail (op. cit., p. 161) is from a stratum in Nippur, dated by Prof. Hilprecht himself after 300 A.D. The "stilusartige Instrument," which, like the nail, contained over five per cent, of tin, was not found at Nippur, but is said to have come from a mound about thirty miles to the south of it. Nothing is therefore known with accuracy as to its date. The percentage of antimony in the other objects is comparatively small, and the dates assigned to them are not clearly substantiated. These facts do not justify Hilprecht's confident statement in "Explorations," p. 252. Meyer also credits the earliest Sumerians with using bronze beside copper, and he describes the axe-heads and arm-rings found in the early graves as of bronze (cf. "Geschichte des Altertums," Bd. I., Hft. II., p. 416 f.); but he also describes the little foundation-figures from the oldest stratum at Tello as of bronze, whereas analysis has proved them to be copper.
[34] This point is made by Sayce (cf. "The Archaeology of the Cuneiform Inscriptions," p. 59 f.), who, however, holds the definite opinion that nothing of bronze has been discovered on the earlier sites (op. cit., p. 55 f.).
[35] Cf. Berthelot, "La chimie au moyen âge," tome I., Appendix IX., p. 391 f.; "Introduction à l'étude de la chimie," p. 227 f., and Heuzey in "Déc. en Chaldée," p. 238; antimony is said to have been known and used by itself, though not as an alloy (Berthelot, "Introd.," p. 223), but there is no proof of the date of the fragment from Tello, which was analysed. It may be added that the votive figures of Gudea's reign, which are preserved in the British Museum and are usually regarded as of bronze (cf. the plate opposite p. 272), should, since they came from Tello, be more accurately described as of copper.
[36] See Loftus, "Chaldaea and Susiana," p. 268 f., who describes all the objects as of copper. One of the knives excavated by Loftus was subsequently analysed and found to be copper (see "Report of the British Assoc.," Nottingham, 1893, p. 715); this analysis was confirmed by that of Dr. J. H. Gladstone (published in the "Proc. Soc. Bibl. Arch.," vol. xvi., p. 98 f.). A careful analysis of the metal objects found by members of the Deutsche Orient-Gesellschaft at Fâra in 1902 and 1903, and styled by them as bronze (see "Mitteilungen," No. 17, p. 6), would probably result in proving the absence of any alloy.
[39] See "Déc. en Chaldée," pl. 45, Fig. 1.
[40] See Fig. 27, and cf. Hilprecht, "Explorations," p. 539 f.
[41] Like the brick-stamps, they may sometimes have been made of clay burnt to an extreme hardness.
[42] See the stamped figure published on the plate opposite p. 72 from a terra-cotta in the British Museum.
[43] The ringed staff occurs as a sacred emblem upon cylinder-seals, and is sometimes carried by heroes (cf. p. 82, Fig. 34). A colossal example of one, made of wood and sheathed in copper, was found at Tello by De Sarzec (see Heuzey, "Rev. d'Assyr.," IV., p. 112, and "Déc. en Chaldée," pl. 57, Fig. 1), but the precise use and significance of the object has not been determined.
[45] It should be noted that a few of the early cylinder-seals found at Fâra Andrae considers to have been engraved with the help of the wheel (see "Mitteil. der Deutsch. Orient-Gesellschaft," No. 17, p. 5). The suggestion has also been made that, on the introduction of harder stones, the cutting tool may have been tipped with a flake of corundum; cf. Hayes Ward, "Cylinders and other Oriental Seals," p. 13.
[47] See further, Chap. XII.
[50] See Heuzey, "Catalogue," p. 387.
In their origin the great cities of Babylonia were little more than collections of rude huts constructed at first of reeds cut in the marshes, and gradually giving place to rather more substantial buildings of clay and sun-dried brick. From the very beginning it would appear that the shrine of the local god played an important part in the foundation and subsequent development of each centre of population. Of the prehistoric period in Babylonia we know little, but it may be assumed that, already at the time of the Sumerian immigration, rude settlements had been formed around the cult-centres of local gods. This, at any rate, was the character of each town or city of the Sumerians themselves during the earliest periods to which we can trace back their history. At Fâra, the most primitive Sumerian site that has yet been examined, we find the god Shuruppak giving his own name to the city around his shrine, and Ningirsu of Lagash dominates and directs his people from the first. Other city-gods, who afterwards became powerful deities in the Babylonian pantheon, are already in existence, and have acquired in varying degrees their later characters. Enki of Eridu is already the god of the deep, the shrine of Enzu or Nannar in the city of Ur is a centre of the moon-cult, Babbar of Larsa appears already as a sun-god and the dispenser of law and justice, while the most powerful Sumerian goddess, Ninni or Nanâ of Erech, already has her shrine and worshippers in the city of her choice.
By what steps the city-gods acquired their later[Pg 85] characters it is impossible now to say, but we may assume that the process was a gradual one. In the earlier stages of its history the character of the local god, like that of his city, must have been far more simple and primitive than it appears to us as seen in the light of its later development. The authority of each god did not extend beyond the limits of his own people's territory. Each city was content to do battle on his behalf, and the defeat of one was synonymous with the downfall of the other. With the gradual amalgamation of the cities into larger states, the god of the predominant city would naturally take precedence over those of the conquered or dependent towns, and to the subsequent process of adjustment we may probably trace the relationships between the different deities and the growth of a pantheon. That Enki should have been the god of the deep from the beginning is natural enough in view of Eridu's position on an expanse of water connected with the Persian Gulf. But how it came about that Ur was the centre of a moon-cult, or that Sippar in the north and Larsa in the south were peculiarly associated with the worship of the sun, are questions which cannot as yet be answered, though it is probable that future excavations on their sites may throw some light upon the subject.
In the case of one city excavation has already enabled us to trace the gradual growth of its temple and the surrounding habitations during a considerable portion of their history. The city of Nippur stands in a peculiar relation to others in Sumer and Akkad, as being the central shrine in the two countries and the seat of Enlil, the chief of the gods. Niffer, or Nuffar, is the name by which the mounds marking its site are still known. They have been long deserted, and, like the sites of many other ancient cities in Babylonia and Assyria, no modern town or village is built upon them or in their immediate neighbourhood. The nearest small town is Sûk el-'Afej, about four miles to the south, lying on the eastern edge of the Afej marshes, which begin to the south of Niffer and stretch away to the west. The nearest large town is Dîwânîya, on the left bank of the Euphrates twenty miles to the south-west.[Pg 86] In the summer the marshes in the neighbourhood of the mounds consist of pools of water connected by channels through the reed-beds, but in the spring, when the snows have melted in the Taurus and the mountains of Kurdistan, the flood-water converts the marshes into a vast lagoon, and all that meets the eye are isolated date-palms and a few small hamlets built on rising knolls above the water-level.
Although, during the floods, Niffer is at times nearly isolated, the water never approaches within a considerable distance of the actual mounds. This is not due to any natural configuration of the soil, but to the fact that around the inner city, the site of which is marked by the mounds, there was built an outer ring of habitations at a time when the enclosed town of the earlier periods became too small to contain the growing population. The American excavations, which have been conducted on the site between the years 1889 and 1900, have shown that the earliest area of habitation was far more restricted than the mounds which cover the inner city.[1] In the plan on p. 88 it will be seen that this portion of the site is divided into two parts by the ancient bed of the Shatt en-Nîl. The contours of the mounds are indicated by dotted lines, and each of them bears a number in Roman figures. Mound III. is that which covered E-kur, the temple of Enlil, and it was around the shrine, in the shaded area upon the plan, that the original village or settlement was probably built. Here in the lowest stratum of the mound were found large beds of wood-ashes and animal bones, the remains of the earliest period of occupation.
Early Babylonian plan of the temple of Enlil at Nippur and its enclosure, drawn upon a clay tablet dating from the first half of the second millennium B.C. The labels on the plan are translated from notes on the original.—Cf. Fisher, "Excavations at Nippur," I., pl. 1.
It is difficult to trace through all its stages the early growth of the city, but it would seem that the shrine in the centre of the town was soon raised upon an artificial mound to protect it during periods of inundation. Moreover, as at Fâra, the original settlement must have expanded quickly, for even below the mounds to the south-west of the Shatt en-Nîl, strata have been found similar in character to those under[Pg 87] the temple-mound, as well as bricks and wells of the pre-Sargonic period. In reconstructing the plan of the later areas occupied by the temple and its enclosure, considerable assistance has been obtained from an ancient plan of the temple, drawn upon a clay tablet that was found at Nippur. From the form of the[Pg 88] characters inscribed upon it, it does not appear to date from an earlier period than the first half of the second millennium B.C., but it may well be a copy of an older original since the form of its temple-enclose appears to agree with that in the time of Narâm-Sin as revealed by the excavations. In it the position of E-kur is marked at one end of a great enclosure surrounded by an irregular wall. The enclosure is cut by a canal or sluice, on the other side of which stood temple-storehouses.
The position of gates in the wall are marked, and it will be noted that a large stream, labelled the Euphrates, washes its upper side, while on its other sides are terraces and moats. These details are incorporated in the accompanying plan, but their suggested relation to the remains uncovered in the course of the excavations is largely conjectural. Moreover the period in the temple's history represented by the tablet is not certainly established, and some of the details such as[Pg 89] the ground-plan of the temple itself may reproduce its later form.
The most striking feature in the temple-area, which was uncovered in the course of the excavations, is the great temple-tower, or ziggurat, erected by Ur-Engur, and faced by him with kiln-baked bricks bearing his name and inscription.[2] The ziggurat in its later and imposing form was built by him, though within its structure were found the cores of earlier and smaller towers, erected by Narâm-Sin and during the pre-Sargonic period. In fact, Ur-Engur considerably altered the appearance of the temple. In addition to building the ziggurat, he raised the level of the inner court above Narâm-Sin's pavement, and he straightened the course of the outer wall, using that of Narâm-Sin as a foundation where it crossed his line. His wall also included mounds XII. and V., in the latter of which many of the temple-archives have been found. During the Kassite period these were stored in buildings in mound X., across the Shatt en-Nîl in the area included within the inner city during the later periods. An alteration in the course of the river from the north-east to the south-west side of the temple area probably dates from the period of Samsu-iluna, who upon a cone found in débris in the temple-court records that he erected a dam and dug out a new channel for the Euphrates. His object in doing so was probably to bring a supply of water within reach of the later extension of the city on the south-west side.
The excavations on the site of Nippur and its temple have illustrated the gradual increase in the size of a Sumerian city, and the manner in which the temple of the city-god retained its position as the central and most important building. The diggings, however, have thrown little light upon the form the temple assumed during periods anterior to the Dynasty of Ur. In fact, we do not yet know the form or arrangement of an early Sumerian temple; for on early sites such as Fâra, Surghul, and Bismâya, the remains of no important building were uncovered, while the scanty remains of Ningirsu's temple at Tello date from[Pg 90] the comparatively late period of Ur-Bau and Gudea. On the latter site, however, a number of earlier constructions have been discovered, and, although they are not of a purely religious character, they may well have been employed in connection with the temple service. Apart from private dwellings, they are the only buildings of the early Sumerians that have as yet been recovered, and they forcibly illustrate the primitive character of the cities of this time.
The group of oldest constructions at Tello was discovered in the mound known as K, which rises to a height of seventeen metres above the plain. It is the largest and highest after the Palace Tell, to the south-east of which it lies at a distance of about two hundred metres.[3] Here, during his later excavations on the site, M. de Sarzec came upon the remains of a regular agricultural establishment, which throw an interesting light upon certain passages in the early foundation-inscriptions referring to constructions of a practical rather than of a purely religious character. It is true the titles of these buildings are often difficult to explain, but the mention of different classes of plantations in connection with them proves that they were mainly intended for agricultural purposes. Their titles are most frequently met with in Entemena's records, but Ur-Ninâ refers by name to the principal storehouse, and the excavations have shown that before his time this portion of the city had already acquired its later character. Here was situated the administrative centre of the sacred properties attached to the temples, and possibly also those of the patesi himself. It is true that the name of Ningirsu's great storehouse does not occur upon bricks or records found in the ancient structures upon Tell K, but it is quite possible that this was not a name for a single edifice, but was a general title for the whole complex of buildings, courts and outhouses employed in connection with the preparation and storage of produce from the city's lands and plantations.
SOUTH-EASTERN FACADE OF A BUILDING AT TELLO, ERECTED BY UR-NINA, KING OF SHIRPURLA.—Déc. en Chald., pl. 54.
At a depth of only two and a half metres from the surface of the tell M. de Sarzec came upon a [Pg 91]building of the period of Gudea, of which only the angle of a wall remained. But, unlike the great Palace Tell, where the lowest diggings revealed nothing earlier than the reign of Ur-Bau, a deepening of his trenches here resulted in the recovery of buildings dating from the earliest periods in the history of the city. In accordance with the practice of the country, as each new building had been erected on the site, the foundations of the one it had displaced were left intact and carefully preserved within the new platform, in order to raise the building still higher above the plain and form a solid substructure for its support. To this practice we owe the preservation, in a comparatively complete form, of the foundations of earlier structures in the mound. At no great depth beneath Gudea's building were unearthed the remains of Ur-Ninâ's storehouse. Comparatively small in size, it is oriented by its angles, the two shorter sides facing north-west and south-east, and the two longer ones south-west and north-east, in accordance with the normal Sumerian system.[4] It was built of kiln-baked bricks, not square and flat like those of Gudea or of Sargon and Narâm-Sin, but oblong and plano-convex, and each bore the mark of a right thumb imprinted in the middle of its convex side. A few of the bricks that were found bear Ur-Ninâ's name in linear characters, and record his construction of the "House of Girsu," while one of them refers to the temple of Ningirsu. These may not have been in their original positions, but there is little doubt that the storehouse dates from Ur-Ninâ's reign, and it may well have been employed in connection with the temple of the city-god.
Built upon a platform composed of three layers of bricks set in bitumen, the walls of the building were still preserved to the height of a few feet. It is to be noted that on none of the sides is there a trace of any doorway or entrance, and it is probable that access was obtained from the outside by ladders of wood, or stairways of unburnt brick, reaching to the upper story. At D and E on the plan are traces of what may have been either steps or buttresses, but[Pg 92] these do not belong to the original building and were added at a later time. The absence of any entrance certainly proves that the building was employed as a storehouse.[5] Within the building are two chambers, the one square (A), the other of a more oblong shape (B). They were separated by a transverse passage or corridor (C), which also ran round inside the outer walls, thus giving the interior chamber additional security. The double walls were well calculated to protect the interior from damp or heat, and would render it more difficult for pillagers to effect an entrance. Both in the chambers and the passages a coating of bitumen was spread upon the floor and walls. Here grain, oil, and fermented drink could have been stored in quantity, and the building may also have served as a magazine for arms and tools, and for the more precious kinds of building material.
Around the outside of the building, at a distance[Pg 93] of about four metres from it, are a series of eight brick bases, two on each side, in a direct line with the walls.[6] On these stood pillars of cedar-wood, of which the charred remains were still visible. They probably supported a great wooden portico or gallery, which ran round the walls of the building and was doubtless used for the temporary storage of goods and agricultural implements. On the north-east side of the building a brick pavement (F) extended for some distance beyond the gallery, and at the southern angle, within the row of pillars and beneath the roof of the portico, was a small double basin (G) carefully lined with bitumen. At a greater distance from the house were two larger basins or tanks (I and K), with platforms built beside them of brick and bitumen (J and L); with one of them was connected a channel or water-course (M). At a later time Eannatum sunk a well not far to the west of Ur-Ninâ's storehouse, and from it a similar water-course ran to a circular basin; a large oval basin and others of rectangular shape were found rather more to the north. These, like Ur-Ninâ's tanks, were probably employed for the washing of vessels and for the cleansing processes which accompanied the preparation and storage of date-wine, the pressing of oil, and the numerous other occupations of a large agricultural community.
A still earlier building was discovered at a depth of five metres below that of Ur-Ninâ, but it is more difficult to determine the purpose to which it was put. It was built upon a solid platform (C), which has the same orientation as Ur-Ninâ's storehouse and rises above the ground[Pg 94] level marked by the remains of a brick pavement (D). It is strange that the building itself is not in the centre of the platform and for some unknown reason was set at a slight angle to it. It consists of two chambers, each with a doorway, the smaller chamber (A) on a level with the platform, the larger one (B) considerably below it, from which it must have been reached by a ladder. At intervals along the surface of the walls were cavities lined with bitumen, which may have supported the wooden columns of a superstructure, or possibly the supports of an arched roof of reeds. It is possible that we here have a form of religious edifice, but the depth of the larger chamber suggests that, like Ur-Ninâ's building, it was employed as a sort of store-house or treasure-chamber.
The bricks of the building were small and plano-convex, with thumb-impressions and without inscriptions, so that it is impossible to recover the name of its builder. But the objects found at the same deep level indicate a high antiquity, and present us with a picture of some of the inhabitants of the country at a time when this building, which was one of the oldest constructions at Lagash, stood upon the surface of the mound. The circular relief, sculptured with the meeting of the chieftains,[7] was found in fragments near the building. Another archaic piece of sculpture of the same remote period, which was also found in the neighbourhood, represents a figure, crowned with palm-branches; one hand is raised in an attitude of speech or adoration, and on the right are two standards supporting what appear to be colossal mace-heads. The sex of the figure is uncertain, but it may well be that of a woman; the lines below the chin which come [Pg 95]from behind the ear, are not necessarily a beard, but may be intended for a thick lock of hair falling over the right shoulder. The scene probably represents an act of worship, and an archaic inscription on the field of the plaque appears to record a list of offerings, probably in honour of Ningirsu, whose name is mentioned together with that of his temple E-ninnû. It is interesting to note that in this very early age the temple of the city-god of Lagash already bore its later name.
Fig. 38.—Archaic plaque from Tello, engraved in low relief with a scene of adoration. In an inscription on the stone, which appears to enumerate a list of offerings, reference is made to Ningirsu and his temple E-ninnû.—Déc., pl. 1 bis, Fig. 1.
The earliest written records of the Sumerians which we possess, apart from those engraved upon stone and of a purely votive character, concern the sale and donation of land, and they prove that certain customs were already in vogue with regard to the transfer of property, which we meet with again in later historical periods. A few such tablets of rounded form and fashioned of unburnt clay were found at Lagash on Tell K, and slightly below the level of Ur-Ninâ's building;[8] they may thus be assigned to a period anterior to his reign. Others of the same rounded form, but of baked clay, have been found at Shuruppak. It is a significant fact that several of these documents, after describing the amount of land sold and recording the principal price that was paid for it, enumerate a number of supplementary presents made by the buyer to the seller and his associates.[9] The presents consist of oxen, oil, wool and cloth, and precisely similar gifts are recorded on the Obelisk of Manishtusu.[10] It would thus appear that even in this early period the system of land tenure was already firmly established, which prevailed in both Sumer and Akkad under the earlier historical rulers.
From the Shuruppak tablets we also learn the names of a number of early rulers or officials of that city, in whose reigns or periods of office the documents were drawn up. Among the names recovered are those of Ur-Ninpa, Kanizi and Mash-Shuruppak, but they are given no titles on the tablets, and it is[Pg 96] impossible to say whether their office preceded that of the patesi, or whether they were magistrates of the city who were subordinate to a ruler of higher rank. Another of these early deeds of sale is inscribed, not upon a tablet, but on the body of a black stone statuette that has been found at Tello.[11] From the text we learn that the buyer of the property was a certain Lupad, and the figure is evidently intended to represent him. Although it was found on the site of Lagash, and the text records a purchase of land in that city, it is remarkable that Lupad is described as a high official of the neighbouring city of Umma, which was the principal rival of Lagash during the greater part of its history. The archaic character of[Pg 97] the sculpture, and the early form of writing upon it, suggest a date not much later than that of Ur-Ninâ, so that we must suppose the transaction took place at a period when one of the two rival cities acknowledged the suzerainty of the other. Unlike other Sumerian figures that have been recovered, Lupad's head has a slight ridge over the brow and below the cheek-bones. This has been explained by Heuzey as representing short hair and beard, but it more probably indicates the limits of those portions of the head and face that were shaved.[12] Thus Lupad presents no exception to the general Sumerian method of treating the hair.
Fig. 39.—Figure of Lupad, a high official of the city of Umma, inscribed with a text recording a purchase of land in Lagash (Shirpurla); from Tello.—In the Louvre; cf. Comptes rendus, 1907, p. 518.
Fig 40.—Statue of Essar, King of Adab, preserved in the Imperial Ottoman Museum at Constantinople; from Bismâya.
In order to assign a date to such figures as that of Lupad, it is necessary, in the absence of other evidence, to be guided entirely by the style of the sculpture and the character of the writing. Several such figures of archaic Sumerian type have been recovered, and three of them represent kings who ruled in different cities at this early period. The finest of these is a standing figure of Esar, King of Adab, which was found in the course of the American excavations at Bismâya, and is now preserved in the Imperial Ottoman Museum at Constantinople. Its discoverers claimed that it was the earliest example of Sumerian sculpture known,[13] but it may be roughly placed at about the time of Ur-Ninâ's dynasty. A second king is represented by two fragments of a statuette from Tello, inscribed in archaic characters with a dedicatory text of E-abzu, King of Umma,[14] while the third is a seated figure of a king of the northern city or district of Ma'er, or Mari, and is[Pg 98] preserved in the British Museum.[15] The same uncertainty applies to the date of Ur-Enlil, a patesi of Nippur, whose name is mentioned on one of the fragments of votive vases from that city which were found together on the south-east side of the temple-tower.[16] As in the case of Esar, King of Adab, we can only assign these rulers approximately to the period of the earlier rulers of Lagash.
It is in the city of Lagash that our knowledge of Sumerian history may be said to begin. The excavation of the site has yielded an abundance of material from which it is possible to arrange her rulers for long periods in chronological order, and to reconstruct the part they played in conflicts between the early city-states. It is true that some of her earlier kings and patesis remain little more than names to us, but with the accession of Ur-Ninâ we enter a period in which our knowledge of events is continuous, so far at least as the fortunes of the city were concerned. With the growth of her power it is also possible to trace in some detail the relations she maintained with other great cities in the land.
Emblems of the city of Lagash (Shirpurla) and of the god Ningirsu. The upper drawing represents a perforated plaque dedicated to Ningirsu by Ur-Ninâ. Below is a brick stamped with the figure of Imgig, the lion-headed eagle of Ningirsu.—In the Louvre; Cat. No. 7 and Déc., pl. 31 bis, No. 1.
At the earliest period of which we have any historical records it would appear that the city of Kish exercised a suzerainty over Sumer. Here there ruled at this time a king named Mesilim, to whom Lagash, and probably other great cities in the south, owed allegiance. During his reign a certain Lugal-shag-engur was patesi of Lagash, and we have definite record that he acknowledged Mesilim's supremacy. For a votive mace-head of colossal size has been found at Tello, which bears an inscription stating that it was dedicated to Ningirsu by Mesilim, who had restored his great temple at Lagash during the time that Lugal-shag-engur was patesi of that city.[17] The text, the brevity of which is characteristic of these early votive inscriptions, consists of but a few words, and reads: "Mesilim, King of Kish, the builder of the temple of Ningirsu, deposited this mace-head (for) Ningirsu (at the time when) Lugal-shag-engur (was) patesi of Lagash." In spite of its brevity the importance of the inscription is considerable, since it furnishes a synchronism between two early rulers of Sumer and the North.
Fig. 42.—Mace-head, dedicated to Ningirsu, the god of Lagash (Shirpula), by Mesilim, King of Kish, at the time of Lugal-shag-engur, patesi of Lagash.—Déc., pl 1 ter, No. 2; Cat. No 4.
The weapon itself, upon which it is engraved, IS also noteworthy. As may be inferred from its colossal size the mace was never intended for actual use in battle, but was sculptured by Mesilim's orders with the special object of being dedicated in the temple of the god. It is decorated with rudely-carved figures of lions, which run around it and form a single composition in relief. The lions are six in number, and are represented as pursuing and attacking[Pg 100] one another. Each has seized the hind-leg and the back of the one which precedes it; they thus form an endless chain around the object, and are a most effective form of decoration. Unlike the majority of mace-heads, that of Mesilim is not perforated from top to bottom. The hole for receiving the handle of the weapon, though deep, is not continued to the top of the stone, which is carved in low relief with a representation of a lion-headed eagle with wings outspread and claws extended. Looked at from above, this fantastic animal appears as an isolated figure, but it is not to be separated from the lions running round the side of the mace-head. In fact, we may see in the whole composition a development of the symbol which formed the arms of the city of Lagash, and was the peculiar emblem of the city-god Ningirsu.[18] In the latter, the lion-headed eagle grasps two lions by the back, and in Mesilim's sacred mace we have the same motive of a lion-headed eagle above lions. It was, indeed, a peculiarly appropriate votive offering for an overlord of Lagash to make. As suzerain of Lagash, Mesilim had repaired the temple of Ningirsu, the city-god; the colossal mace-head, wrought with a design taken from the emblem of the city and its god, was thus a fitting object for his inscription. By depositing it in Ningirsu's temple, he not only sought to secure the favour of the local god by his piety, but he left in his city a permanent record of his own dominion.
Of Lugal-shag-engur we know as yet nothing beyond his name, and the fact that he was patesi of Lagash at the time of Mesilim, but the latter ruler has left a more enduring mark upon history. For a later patesi of Lagash, Entemena, when giving a historical summary of the relations which existed between his own city and the neighbouring city of Umma, begins his account with the period of Mesilim, and furnishes additional testimony to the part which this early king of Kish played in the local affairs of southern[Pg 101] Babylonia.[19] From Mesilim's own inscription on the mace-head, we have already seen that he interested himself in the repair of temples and in fostering the local cults of cities in the south; from Entemena's record we learn that his activities also extended to adjusting the political relations between the separate states. The proximity of Umma to Lagash brought the two cities into constant rivalry, and, although they were separated by the Shatt el-Hai,[20] their respective territories were not always confined to their own sides of the stream. During the reign of Mesilim the antagonism between the cities came to a head, and, in order to prevent the outbreak of hostilities, Mesilim stepped in as arbitrator, possibly at the invitation of the two disputants. The point at issue concerned the boundary-line between the territories of Lagash and Umma, and Mesilim, as arbitrator, drew up a treaty of delimitation.
The form in which the record of the treaty is cast is of peculiar interest, for it forcibly illustrates the theocratic feeling of these early peoples. It is in accordance with their point of view that the actual patesis of Lagash and Umma are not named, and the dispute is regarded as having been adjusted by the gods. The deity who presided over the conference, and at whose invitation the treaty is stated to have been made, was Enlil, "the king of the lands." Owing to his unique position among the local gods of Babylonia, his divine authority was recognized by the lesser city-gods. Thus it was at his command that Ningirsu, the god of Lagash, and the city-god of Umma fixed the boundary. It is true that Mesilim, the King of Kish, is referred to by name, but he only acted at the word of his own goddess Kadi, and his duties were confined to making a record of the treaty which the gods themselves had drawn up. We could not have a more striking instance of the manner in which the early inhabitants of Babylonia regarded the city-gods as the actual kings and rulers of their cities. The human kings and patesis were nothing[Pg 102] more than ministers, or agents, appointed to carry out their will. Thus, when one city made war upon another, it was because their gods were at feud; the territory of the city was the property of the city-god, and, when a treaty of delimitation was proposed, it was naturally the gods themselves who arranged it and drew up its provisions.
We are enabled to fix approximately the period of Mesilim by this reference to him upon the cone of Entemena, but we have no such means of determining the date of another early ruler of the city of Kish, whose name has been recovered during the American excavations on the site of Nippur. Three fragments of a vase of dark brown sandstone have been found there, engraved with an inscription of Utug, an early patesi of Kish. They are said to have been found in the strata beneath the chambers of the great temple of Enlil on the south-east side of the ziggurat, or temple-tower.[21] It would be rash to form any theory as to the date of the vase solely from the position in which the fragments are said to have been discovered, but the extremely archaic forms of the characters of the inscription suggest that it dates from the earliest period of Babylonian history. Moreover, Utug is termed upon it patesi, not king, of Kish, suggesting that he ruled at a time when Kish had not the power and influence it enjoyed under Mesilim. The hegemony in Sumer and Akkad constantly passed from one city to another, so that it is possible that Utug should be set after Mesilim, when the power of Kish had temporarily declined. But as the characters of Utug's inscription are far more archaic than those of Mesilim, we may provisionally set him in the period before Kish attained the rank of a kingdom in place of its patesiate. But how long an interval separated Utug from Mesilim there is no means of telling.
On the assumption that Utug ruled in this early period, we may see in the fragments of his vase from Nippur, evidence of the struggles by which the city of Kish attained the position of supremacy it enjoyed [Pg 103]under Mesilim. For Utug's vase was not carried to Nippur as spoil from Kish, but was deposited by Utug himself in the temple of Enlil, in commemoration of a victory he had achieved over the land of Khamazi. We here learn the name of one of the enemies with whom Kish had to fight in the early stages of its existence as an independent city-state, and we may conjecture that many more such battles had to be fought and won before its influence was felt beyond the boundaries of Akkad by the Sumerian cities in the south. The fact that after his victory Utug deposited the vase at Nippur as a thank-offering proves that in his time the shrine of Enlil was already regarded as the central sanctuary of Babylonia. Zamama, the god of Kish, had achieved the victory over Khamazi, but Enlil, as the supreme lord of the world, was entitled to some recognition and gratitude, and also probably to a share of the spoil. From one line of the inscription upon Utug's vase we may perhaps infer that his father's name was Bazuzu, but, as no title follows the name, he is not to be reckoned as a patesi of Kish. We may thus conclude that Utug did not succeed his father upon the throne. Whether he was a usurper or succeeded some other relative, and whether he followed up his military successes by founding at Kish a powerful dynasty to which Mesilim may have belonged, are among the questions which may perhaps be answered as the result of future excavation in Northern Babylonia.
It is probable that the early supremacy which Kish enjoyed during the reign of Mesilim continued for some time after his death. At any rate, the names of two other early rulers of that city are known, and, as they both bear the title of king, and not patesi, we may conclude that they lived during a period of the city's prosperity or expansion. The name of one of these kings, Urzage, occurs upon a broken vase of white calcite stalagmite, which was found at Nippur, approximately in the same place as the vase of the patesi Utug.[22] The inscription upon the vase records the fact that it[Pg 104] was dedicated by Urzage to Enlil, "king of the lands." and his consort Ninlil, "the lady of heaven and earth." The end of the text is wanting, but we may conjecture that, like his earlier predecessor Utug, the king dedicated the vase in the temple of Enlil, at Nippur, in gratitude for some victory over his enemies. We may thus see in the dedication of the vase further evidence of the continued prosperity of Kish, though it is clear that it only maintained its position among the other great cities of the land by force of arms. The name of the other early king of Kish, Lugal-tarsi, is known to us from a short inscription upon a small tablet of lapis-lazuli preserved in the British Museum.[23] The text records the building of the wall of the enclosure, or outer court, of a temple dedicated to Anu and the goddess Ninni, but, as its provenance is unknown, it is impossible to base any argument upon it with reference to the extent of the influence exerted by Kish during the reign of Lugal-tarsi.[24] Such are the few facts which have come down to us with regard to the earliest period of the supremacy of Kish. But the fortunes of the city were destined to undergo a complete change, in consequence of the increase in the power of Lagash which took place during the reign of Eannatum. Before we describe the transfer of power from the north to Sumer, it will be necessary to retrace our steps to the point where we left the history of that city, during the time that Mesilim was ruling in the north.
The names of the successors of Lugal-shag-engur, Mesilim's contemporary, upon the throne of Lagash have not yet been recovered, and we do not know how long an interval separated his reign from that of Ur-Ninâ, the early king of Lagash, from whose time so many inscriptions and archaeological remains have been recovered at Tello.[25] It is possible that within this[Pg 105] period we should set another ruler of Lagash, named Badu, to whom reference appears to be made by Eannatum upon the famous Stele of the Vultures. The passage occurs in the small fragment that has been preserved of the first column of the text engraved upon the stele,[26] the following line containing the title "King of Lagash." The context of the passage is not preserved, but it is possible that the signs which precede the title are to be taken as a proper name, and in that case they would give the name of an early ruler of the city. In favour of this view we may note that in the text upon an archaic clay tablet found below the level of Ur-Ninâ s building at Tello[27] the name Badu occurs, and, although it is not there employed as that of a king or patesi, the passage may be taken as evidence of the use of Badu as a proper name in this early age.
Assuming that Badu represents a royal name, it may be inferred from internal evidence furnished by Eannatum's inscription that he lived and reigned at some period before Ur-Ninâ. The introductory columns of Eannatum's text appear to give a brief historical summary concerning the relations which were maintained between Lagash and the neighbouring city of Umma in the period anterior to Eannatum's own reign. Now the second column of the text describes the attitude of Umma to Lagash in the reign of Akurgal, Ur-Ninâ's son and successor; it is thus a natural inference that Badu was a still earlier ruler who reigned at any rate before Ur-Ninâ. Whether he reigned before Lugal-shag-engur also, there are no data for deciding. It will be noted that Eannatum calls him "king" of Lagash, not "patesi," but the use of these titles by Eannatum, as applied to his predecessors, is not consistent, and, that he should describe Badu as "king," is no proof that Badu himself claimed that title. But he may have done so, and we may provisionally place him in the interval between the patesi Lugal-shag-engur and Ur-Ninâ, who in his numerous texts that have been[Pg 106] recovered always claims the title of "king" in place of "patesi," a fact that suggests an increase in the power and importance of Lagash.[28] To the same period we may probably assign Enkhegal, another early king of Lagash, whose name has been recovered on an archaic tablet of limestone.[29]
It is possible that Ur-Ninâ himself, though not a great soldier, did something to secure, or at least to maintain, the independence of his city. In any case, we know that he was the founder of his dynasty, for to neither his father Gunidu, nor to his grandfather Gursar, does he ascribe any titular rank. We may assume that he belonged to a powerful Sumerian family in Lagash, but, whether he obtained the throne by inheritance from some collateral branch, or secured it as the result of a revolt within the city, is not recorded. It is strange that in none of his numerous inscriptions does he lay claim to any conquest or achievement in the field. Most of his texts, it is true, are of a dedicatory character, but, to judge from those of other Sumerian rulers, this fact should not have prevented him from referring to them, had he any such successes to chronicle. The nearest approach to a record of a military nature is that he rebuilt the wall of Lagash. It is therefore clear that, though he may not have embarked on an aggressive policy, he did not neglect the defence of his own city. But that appears to have been the extent of his ambition: so long as the fortifications of the city were intact, and the armed men at her disposal sufficient for the defence of Lagash herself and her outlying territory, he did not seek to add to his own renown or to the city's wealth by foreign conquest. The silence of Entemena[Pg 107] with regard to the relations of Lagash to Umma at this period is not conclusive evidence that Mesilim's treaty was still in force, or that the peace he inaugurated had remained unbroken. But Entemena's silence fully accords with that of Ur-Ninâ himself, and we may infer that, in spite of his claims to the royal title, he succeeded in avoiding any quarrel with his city's hereditary foe. Ur-Ninâ's attitude towards the city-state upon his own immediate borders may be regarded as typical of his policy as a whole. The onyx bowl which he dedicated to the goddess Bau may possibly have been part of certain booty won in battle,[30] but his aim appears to have been to devote his energies to the improvement of his land and the adornment of his city. It is therefore natural that his inscriptions[31] should consist of mere catalogues of the names of temples and other buildings erected during his reign, together with lists of the statues he dedicated to his gods, and of the canals he cut in order to increase the material wealth of his people.
But, while Ur-Ninâ's policy appears to have been mainly of a domestic character, he did not fail to maintain relations with other cities in the sphere of religious observance. That he should have continued in active communication with Nippur, as the religious centre of the whole of Babylonia, is what we might infer from the practice of the period, and we may probably trace to this fact his dedication to Enlil of one of the canals which was cut during his reign. A more striking instance of the deference paid by Ur-Ninâ to the god of another city may be seen in his relations to Enki, the Sumerian prototype of the god Ea. When Ur-Ninâ planned the rebuilding of the temple E-ninnû, he appears to have taken precautions to ensure the success of his scheme by making a direct appeal to Enki, the city-god of Eridu. On a diorite plaque that has been found at Tello[32] he records the delivery of his prayer to Enki, that in his character of Chief Diviner he should[Pg 108] use his pure reed, the wand of his divination, to render the work good and should pronounce a favourable oracle. The temple of Enki in the city of Eridu, near the shore of the Persian Gulf, was one of the earliest and most sacred of Sumerian shrines, and we may perhaps picture Ur-Ninâ as journeying thither from Lagash, in order to carry his petition in person into the presence of its mysterious god.
Of the deities of Lagash to whose service Ur-Ninâ appears especially to have devoted himself, the goddess Ninâ, whose name he bore within his own, was one of the most favoured. For one of the chief claims to distinction that he puts forward is that he built her temple at Lagash; and although, unlike the later great builder Gudea, he gives in his inscriptions few details of his work, we may conclude that he lavished his resources upon it. He also boasts that he made a statue of Ninâ, which he no doubt set up within her temple, and one of his canals he dedicated to her. Her daughter Ninmar was not neglected, for he records that he built her temple also, and he erected a temple for Gatumdug, Ninâ's intercessor, and fashioned a statue of her. Another group of Ur-Ninâ's buildings was connected with the worship of Ningirsu, the city-god of Lagash, whose claims a ruler, so devoted to the interests of his own city as Ur-Ninâ, would naturally not have ignored.
A glance at his texts will show that Ur-Ninâ more than once describes himself as the builder of "the House of Girsu," a title by which he refers to E-ninnû, the great temple dedicated to Ningirsu, since it stood in that quarter of the city which was named Girsu and was by far its most important building.[33] He also built E-pa, a sanctuary closely connected with E-ninnû and the worship of Ningirsu. This temple was added to at a later date by Gudea, who installed therein his patron god, Ningishzida, and set the nuptial gifts of Bau, Ningirsu's consort, within its shrine; it is possible that Ur-Ninâ's onyx bowl, which was dedicated to Bau, and the fragments of other bowls found[Pg 109] with it,[34] were deposited by Ur-Ninâ in the same temple. Of other deities in Ningirsu's entourage, whom Ur-Ninâ singled out for special veneration, may be mentioned Dunshagga, Ningirsu's son, and Uri-zi, the god whose duty it was to look after Ningirsu's harîm. Among lesser temples, or portions of temples, which were built or restored by him was the Tirash, where on the day of the New Moon's appearance it was the custom to hold a festival in honour of Ningirsu; while another act of piety which Ur-Ninâ records was the making of a statue of Lugal-uru, the god from whose festival one of the Sumerian months took its name. In this connection, mention may also be made of the god Dun-...,[35] whom Ur-Ninâ describes as the "God-king," since he stood in a peculiar relation to Ur-Ninâ and his family. He became the patron deity of the dynasty which Ur-Ninâ founded, and, down to the reign of Enannatum II., was the personal protector of the reigning king or patesi of Lagash.[36]
For the construction of his temples Ur-Ninâ states that he fetched wood from the mountains, but unlike Gudea in a later age, he is not recorded to have brought in his craftsmen from abroad. In addition to the building of temples, Ur-Ninâ's other main activity appears to have centred in the cutting of canals; among these was the canal named Asukhur, on the banks of which his grandson Eannatum won a battle. That the changes he introduced into the canalization of the country were entirely successful may be inferred from the numerous storehouses and magazines, which he records he built in connection with the various temples,[37] and by his statement that when he added to the temple of Ningirsu he stored up large quantities of grain within the temple-granaries.[Pg 110] In fact, from the inscriptions he has left us, Ur-Ninâ appears as a pacific monarch devoted to the worship of his city-gods and to the welfare of his own people. His ambitions lay within his own borders, and, when he had secured his frontier, he was content to practise the arts of peace. It was doubtless due to this wise and far-seeing policy that the resources of the city were husbanded, so that under his more famous grandson she was enabled to repel the attack of enemies and embark upon a career of foreign conquest. Ur-Ninâ's posthumous fame is evidence that his reign was a period of peace and prosperity for Lagash. His great-grandson Entemena boasts of being his descendant, and ascribes to him the title of King of Lagash which he did not claim either for himself or for his father Enannatum I., while even in the reign of Lugal-anda offerings continued to be made in connection with his statue in Lagash.[38]
We are not dependent solely on what we can gather from the inscriptions themselves for a knowledge of Ur-Ninâ. For he has left us sculptured representations, not only of himself, but also of his sons and principal officers, from which we may form a very clear picture of the primitive conditions of life obtaining in Sumer at the time of this early ruler. The sculptures take the form of limestone plaques, roughly carved in low relief with figures of Ur-Ninâ surrounded by his family and his court.[39] The plaques are oblong in shape, with the corners slightly rounded, and in the centre of each is bored a circular hole. Though they are obviously of a votive character, the exact object for which they are intended is not clear at first sight. It has been, and indeed is still, conjectured that the plaques were fixed vertically to the walls of shrines,[40] but this explanation has been discredited by the discovery of the plaque, or rather block, of Dudu, the priest of Ningirsu during the reign of Entemena. From the shape of the latter, the reverse of which is not flat but pyramidal, and also from the inscription upon it, we gather that [Pg 111]the object of these perforated bas-reliefs was to form horizontal supports for ceremonial mace-heads or sacred emblems, which were dedicated as votive offerings in the temples of the gods.[41] The great value of those of Ur-Ninâ consists in the vivid pictures they give us of royal personages and high officials at this early period.
PLAQUE OF UR-NINA, KING OF SHIRPURLA, ENGRAVED WITH REPRESENTATIONS OF THE KING AND HIS FAMILY—In the Louvre; Déc. en Chald., pl. 2 (bis).
PLAQUE OF DUDU, PRIEST OF NINGIRSU DURING THE REIGN OF ENTEMENA, PATESI OF SHIRPURLA.—In the Louvre; Déc. en Chald., pl. 5 (bis).
The largest of the plaques[42] is sculptured with two separate scenes, in each of which Ur-Ninâ is represented in a different attitude and with a different occupation, while around him stand his sons and ministers. In the upper scene the king is standing; he is nude down to the waist and his feet are bare, while around his loins he wears the rough woollen garment of the period,[43] and upon his shaven head he supports a basket which he steadies with his right hand. The text engraved beside the king, in addition to giving his name and genealogy, records that he has built the temple of Ningirsu, the abzu-banda which was probably a great laver or basin intended for the temple-service, and the temple of Ninâ; and it has been suggested that the king is here portrayed bearing a basket of offerings to lay before his god or goddess. But the basket he carries is exactly similar to those borne by labourers for heaping earth upon the dead as represented upon the Stele of the Vultures,[44] and baskets have always been used in the east by labourers and builders for carrying earth and other building-materials. It is therefore more probable that the king is here revealed in the character of a labourer bearing materials for the construction of the temples referred to in the text. The same explanation applies to the copper votive figures of a later period which are represented bearing baskets on their heads. In a similar spirit Gudea has left us statues of himself as an architect, holding tablet and rule; Ur-Ninâ represents himself in the still more humble rôle of a labourer engaged in the actual work of building the temple for his god.
Fig 43.—Early Sumerian figure of a women, showing the Sumerian dress and the method of doing the hair.—Déc., pl 1 ter, No 3.
Behind the king is a little figure intended for the royal cup-bearer, Anita, and facing him are five of his children. It is usually held that the first of these figures, who bears the name of Lidda and is clothed in a more elaborate dress than the other four, is intended for the king's eldest son.[45] But in addition to the distinctive dress, this figure is further differentiated from the others by wearing long hair in place of having the head shaved. In this respect it bears some resemblance to an archaic statuette, which appears to be that of a woman;[46] and the sign attached to Lidda's name, engraved upon the stone, is possibly that for "daughter," not "son." It is thus not unlikely that we should identify the figure with a daughter of Ur-Ninâ. The other figures in the row are four of the king's sons, named Akurgal, Lugal-ezen, Anikurra and Muninnikurta. A curious point that may be noted is that the height of these figures increases as they recede from the king. Thus the first of the small figures, that of Akurgal, who succeeded Ur-Ninâ upon the throne, is represented as smaller than his brothers, and it has been suggested in consequence that he was not the king's eldest son,[47] a point to which we will return later. In the scene sculptured upon the lower half of the plaque the king is represented as seated upon a throne and raising in his right hand a cup from which he appears to be pouring a libation. We may probably see in this group a picture of the king dedicating the temple after the task of building was finished. The inscription records the fact that he had brought wood from the mountains, doubtless employed in the construction of the temples,[Pg 113] a detail which emphasises the difficulties he had overcome. The cup-bearer who stands behind the throne is in this scene, not Anita, but Sagantug, while the figure facing the king is a high official named Dudu, and to the left of Dudu are three more of the king's sons named Anunpad, Menudgid, and Addatur.
A smaller plaque, rather more oval in shape than the large one figured on the plate facing p. 110, but like it in a perfect state of preservation, gives a similar scene, though with less elaboration of detail. According to its inscription this tablet also commemorates the building of Ningirsu's temple.
Plaque of Ur-Ninâ, King of Lagash (Shirpurla), sculptured with representations of himself, his cup-bearer, Anita, and four of his sons.—Déc., pl. 2 bis, No. 2; Cat. No. 9.
Here the king carries no basket, but is represented as standing with hands clasped upon the breast, an attitude of humility and submission in the presence of his god. In other respects both the king and the smaller figures of his sons and ministers are conceived as on the larger plaque. A small figure immediately behind the king is Anita, the cup-bearer, and to the left of Anita are the king's son Akurgal and a personage bearing the name Barsagannudu. In the upper row are two other small figures named Lugal-ezen and Gula. Now from the largest plaque we know that Lugal-ezen was a[Pg 114] son of Ur-Ninâ; thus the absence of such a description from Gula and Barsagannudu is not significant, and it is a fair assumption that both these, like Lugal-ezen, were sons of the king. But it is noteworthy that of the four figures the only one that is specifically described as a "son" of Ur-Ninâ is Akurgal.
Fig 45.--Portion of a plaque of Ur-Ninâ, King of Lagash (Shirpurla), sculptured with representations of his sons and the high officials of his court.--Déc., pl. 2 ter, No. 1; in the Imperial Ottoman Museum.
Another of Ur-Ninâ's plaques is not completely preserved, for the right half is wanting upon which was the figure, or possibly two figures, of the king. On the portion that has been recovered are sculptured two rows of figures, both facing the right. The first in the lower row is Anita, the cup-bearer; then comes a high official named Banar; then Akurgal,[Pg 115] distinguished by the title of "son," and on the extreme left Namazua, the scribe. Of the four figures preserved in the upper row, the two central ones are Lugal-ezen and Muninnikurta, both of whom bear the title of "son," as on the largest of the three plaques. The reading of the names upon the figures on the right and left is uncertain, but they are probably intended for officials of the court. The one on the left of the line is of some interest, for he carries a staff upon his left shoulder from which hangs a bag. We may perhaps regard him as the royal chamberlain, who controlled the supplies of the palace; or his duty may have been to look after the provisions and accommodation for the court, should the king ever undertake a journey from one city to another.[48]
While Ur-Ninâ's sons upon the smaller plaques are all roughly of the same size, we have noted that the similar figures upon the largest plaque vary slightly in height. It has been suggested that the intention of the sculptor was to indicate the difference in age between the brothers, and in consequence it has been argued that Akurgal, who succeeded Ur-Ninâ upon the throne of Lagash, was his fifth, and not his eldest, son. This inference has further been employed to suggest that after Ur-Ninâ's death there may have followed a period of weakness within the state of Lagash, due to disunion among his sons; and during the supposed struggle for the succession it is conjectured that the city may have been distracted by internal conflicts, and, in consequence, was unable to maintain her independence as a city-state, which she only succeeded in recovering in the reign of Eannatum, the son and successor of Akurgal.[49] But a brief examination of the theory will show that there is little to be said for it, and it is probable that the slight difference in the height of the figures is fortuitous and unconnected with their respective ages. It may be admitted that a good deal depends upon the sex of Lidda, who, on the largest plaque, faces the standing figure of Ur-Ninâ. If this is intended for a son of the king, his richer clothing marks him out as the[Pg 116] crown-prince; but, even so, we may suppose that Akurgal was Ur-Ninâ's second son, and that he succeeded to the throne in consequence of Lidda having predeceased his father. But reasons have already been adduced for believing that Lidda was a daughter, not a son, of Ur-Ninâ. In that case Akurgal occupies the place of honour among his brothers in standing nearest the king. He is further differentiated from them by the cup which he carries; in fact, he here appears as cup-bearer to Lidda, the office performed by Anita and Saguntug for the king.
That the crown-prince should be here represented as attending his sister may appear strange, but, in view of our imperfect knowledge of this early period, the suggestion should not be dismissed solely on that account. Indeed, the class of temple votaries, who enjoyed a high social position under the Semitic kings of the First Dynasty of Babylon, probably had its counterpart at the centres of Sumerian worship in still earlier times; and there is evidence that at the time of the First Dynasty, the order included members of the royal house. Moreover, tablets dating from the close of Ur-Ninâ's dynasty show the important part which women played in the social and official life of the early Sumerians.[50] Thus it is possible that Ur-Ninâ's daughter held high rank or office in the temple hierarchy, and her presence on the plaque may have reference to some special ceremony, or act of dedication, in which it was her privilege to take the leading part after the king, or to be his chief assistant. In such circumstances it would not be unnatural for her eldest brother to attend her. In both the other compositions Lidda is absent, and Akurgal occupies the place of honour. In the one he stands on a line with the king immediately behind the royal cup-bearer, and he is the only royal son who is specifically labelled as such; in the other he is again on a line with the king, separated from Anita, the cup-bearer, by a high officer of state, and followed by the royal scribe. In these scenes he is clearly set in the most favoured position, and, if Lidda was not his sister but the crown-prince, it would be hard to explain the[Pg 117] latter's absence, except on the supposition that his death had occurred before the smaller plaques were made. But the texts upon all three plaques record the building of Ningirsu's temple, and they thus appear to have been prepared for the same occasion, which gives additional weight to the suggestion that Lidda was a daughter of Ur-Ninâ, and that Akurgal was his eldest son.
But, whether Akurgal was Ur-Ninâ's eldest son or not, the evidence of at least the smaller of the two complete plaques would seem to show that he was recognized as crown-prince during the lifetime of his father, and we may infer that he was Ur-Ninâ's immediate successor. For an estimate of his reign we must depend on references made to him by his two sons. It has already been mentioned that the early part of the text engraved upon the Stele of the Vultures appears to have given an account of the relations between Lagash and Umma during the reigns preceding that of Eannatum,[51] and in a badly preserved passage in the second column we find a reference to Akurgal, the son of Ur-Ninâ. The context is broken, but "the men of Umma" and "the city of Lagash" are mentioned almost immediately before the name of Akurgal,[52] and it would appear that Eannatum here refers to a conflict which took place between the two cities during the former's reign. It should be noted that upon his Cone[53] Entemena makes no mention of any war at this period, and, as in the case of Ur-Ninâ's reign, his silence might be interpreted as an indication of unbroken peace. But the narratives may be reconciled on the supposition either that the conflict in the reign of Akurgal was of no great importance, or that it did not concern the fertile plain of Gu-edin. It must be remembered that the text upon the Cone of Entemena was composed after the stirring times of Eannatum, Entemena's uncle, and the successes won by that monarch against Umma were naturally of far greater importance in his eyes than the lesser conflicts of his predecessors. It is true that he describes the still earlier intervention of Mesilim in the[Pg 118] affairs of Lagash and Umma, but this is because the actual stele or boundary-stone set up by Mesilim was removed by the men of Umma in Eannatum's reign, an act which provoked the war. The story of Mesilim's intervention, which resulted in the setting up of the boundary-stone, thus forms a natural introduction to the record of Eannatum's campaign; and the fact that these two events closely follow one another in Entemena's text is not inconsistent with a less important conflict being recorded by the Stele of the Vultures as having taken place in the reign of Akurgal.
The only other evidence with regard to the achievements of Akurgal is furnished by the titles ascribed to him by his two sons. Upon the Stele of the Vultures,[54] Eannatum describes him as "king" of Lagash, and from this passage alone it might be inferred that he was as successful as his father Ur-Ninâ in maintaining the independence of his city. But in other texts upon foundation-stones, bricks, and a small column, Eannatum describes him only as "patesi," as also does his other son Enannatum I. It should be noted that in the majority of his inscriptions Eannatum claims for himself the title of patesi, and at the end of one of them, in which he has enumerated a long list of his own conquests, he exclaims, "He (i.e. Eannatum) is the son of Akurgal, the patesi of Lagash, and his grandfather is Ur-Ninâ, the patesi of Lagash."[55] That he should term Ur-Ninâ "patesi" does not accord with that ruler's own texts, but, if Eannatum himself had been merely a patesi at the beginning of his reign, and his father had also been one before him, he may well have overlooked the more ambitious title to which his grandfather had laid claim, especially as this omission would enhance the splendour of his own achievements. It is also possible that at this time the distinction between the two titles was not so strictly drawn as in the later periods, and that an alteration in them did not always mark a corresponding political change.[56] However this may be, the subsequent conflicts of Eannatum suggest that Lagash had failed[Pg 119] to maintain her freedom. We may assume that the North had once more interfered in the affairs of Sumer, and that Kish had put an end to the comparative independence which the city had enjoyed during Ur-Ninâ's reign.
[1] For an account of the excavations at Nippur and their results, see Hilprecht, "Explorations in Bible Lands," pp. 289 ff., and Fisher, "Excavations at Nippur," Pt. I. (1905), Pt. II. (1900).
[2] At a later period this was converted into a Parthian fortress.
[4] For example, compare the orientation of Enlil's temple on p. 88.
[5] It has been compared to the granaries of Egypt as depicted in wall-paintings or represented by models placed in the tombs; cf. Heuzey, "Une Villa royale chaldéenne,"—p. 9 f.
[6] See H, H on plan.
[8] Cf. Heuzey, "Une Villa royale," p. 24.
[9] Cf. Thureau-Dangin, "Recueil de tablettes chaldéennes," p. i. f., Nos. 1 ff., 9 ff., and "Rev. d'Assyr.," VI., pp. 11 ff.
[11] Cf. Heuzey and Thureau-Dangin, "Comptes rendus de l'Acad. des Inscriptions," 1907, pp. 516 ff. The head of the figure had been found many years before by M. de Sarzec, and was published in "Déc. en Chald.," p. 6 ter, Figs. 1 a and b.
[12] Cf. Meyer, "Sum. und Sem.," p. 81, n. 2.
[13] Cf. Banks, "Scientific American," Aug. 19, 1905, p. 137, and "Amer. Journ. Semit. Lang.," XXI., p. 59.
[14] "Déc. en Chald.," pl. 5, No. 3.
[16] Cf. Hilprecht, "Old Bab. Inscr.," II., pl. 44, No. 96, and Thureau-Dangin, "Königsinschriften," p. 158 f.
[17] See Heuzey, "Revue d'Assyr.," IV., p. 109; cf. "Königsinschriften," p>. 160 f.
[18] See the blocks on p. 98. A variant form of the emblem occurs on the perforated block of Dudu (see the plate facing p. 110). There the lions turn to bite the spread wings of the eagle, indicating that the emblem is symbolical of strife ending in the victory of Lagash (cf. Heuzey, "Cat.," p. 121).
[19] See the Cone of Entemena, "Déc. en Chald.," p. xlvii.; and cf. Thureau-Dangin, "Rev. d'Assyr.," IV., pp. 37 ff., and "Königsinschriften," pp. 36 ff. Entemena's sketch of the early relations of Lagash and Umma precedes his account of his own conquest of the latter city; see below, p. 164 f.
[21] See Hilprecht, "Old Babylonian Inscriptions," Pt. II., p. 62, pl. 46, No. 108 f., and Pt. I., p. 47.
[22] See Hilprecht, op. cit., Pt. II., p. 51, pl. 43, No. 93; cf. Winckler, "Altorientalische Forschungen," I., p. 372 f., and Thureau-Dangin, "Königsinschriften," p. 160 f.
[23] See "Cuneiform Texts in the British Museum," Pt. III., pl. 1, and cf. Thureau-Dangin, "Rev. d'Assyr.," IV., p. 74, and "Königsinschriften," p. 160 f. For a photographic reproduction of the tablet, see the plate facing p. 218.
[24] Since the central cult of Ninni and of Anu was at Erech, it is possible that Lugal-tarsi's dedication implies the subjection of Erech to Kish at this period.
[26] "Déc. en Chaldée," p. xl.; cf. Thureau-Dangin, "Königsinschriften," p. 10 f.
[27] See Thureau-Dangin, "Recueil de tablettes chaldéennes," p. 1, pl. 1, No. 1.
[28] It has been suggested that the title lugal, "king," did not acquire its later significance until the age of Sargon (Shar-Gani-sharri), but that it was used by earlier rulers as the equivalent of the Semitic belu, "lord" (cf. Ungnad, "Orient. Lit.-Zeit.," 1908, col. 64, n. 5). But, in view of the fact that Mesilim bore the title, it would seem that in his time it already conveyed a claim to greater authority than that inherent in the word patesi. The latter title was of a purely religious origin; when borne by a ruler it designated him as the representative of his city-god, but the title "king" was of a more secular character, and connoted a wider dominion. But it must be admitted that some inconsistencies in the use of the titles by members of Ur-Ninâ's dynasty seem to suggest that the distinction between them was not quite so marked as in the later periods.
[29] See Hilprecht, "Zeits. für Assyr.," XI., p. 330 f.; and Thureau-Dangin, op. cit., XV., p. 403.
[30] See Heuzey, "Rev. d'Assyr.," IV., p. 106. A fragment of a similar bowl, probably of the same early period, is definitely stated in the inscription upon it to have been set aside for Bau as a part of certain spoil.
[31] They are collected and translated by Thureau-Dangin, "Königsinschriften," pp. 2 ff.
[32] "Découvertes en Chaldée," p. xxxvii., No. 10.
[35] The reading of the second half of the name is uncertain. The two signs which form the name were provisionally read by Amiaud as Dun-sir ("Records of the Past," N.S., I., p. 59), and by Jensen as Shul-gur (cf. Schrader's "Keilinschriftliche Bibliothek," Bd. III., Hft. 1, p. 18 f.); see also Thureau-Dangin, "Rev. d'Assyr." III., p. 119, n. 5, and Radau, "Early Bab. Hist.," p. 92, n. 18.
[37] For a description of his principal storehouse or magazine, the remains of which have been found at Tello, see above, pp. 91 ff.
[40] Cf. Meyer, "Sumerier und Semiten," p. 77.
[41] Dudu's block was probably let into solid masonry or brickwork, while the plaques of Ur-Ninâ would have rested on the surface of altars built of brick; cf. Heuzey, "Découvertes en Chaldée," p. 204.
[45] So, for instance, Radau, "Early Bab. History," p. 70.
[46] The figure, which is in the Louvre, was not found at Tello, but was purchased at Shatra, so that its provenance is not certain.
[47] See Radau, op. cit., p. 70, and cp. Genouillac, "Tablettes sumériennes archaïques," p. xi.
[49] Cf. Radau, "Early Bab. History," p. 71.
[50] Cf. Genouillac, "Tablettes sumériennes archaïques," pp. xxii. ff.
[52] "Déc. en Chaldée," p. xl., Col. II.
[53] Op. cit., p. xlvii.
[54] Col. II., l. 9.
[55] "Déc. en Chaldée," p. xliii., Col. VIII.
When the patesiate of Lagash passed from Akurgal to his son Eannatum we may picture the city-state as owing a general allegiance to Akkad in the north. Nearer home, the relations of Lagash to Umma appear to have been of an amicable character. Whatever minor conflicts may have taken place between the two cities in the interval, the treaty of Mesilim was still regarded as binding, and its terms were treated with respect by both parties. The question whether Eannatum, like Akurgal, had had some minor cause of disagreement with the men of Umma at the beginning of his reign depends upon our interpretation of some broken passages in the early part of the text engraved upon the Stele of the Vultures.[1] The second column deals with the relations of Umma and Lagash during the reign of Akurgal, and the fourth column concerns the reign of Eannatum. The name of neither of these rulers is mentioned in the intermediate portion of the text, which, however, refers to Umma and Lagash in connection with a shrine or chapel dedicated to the god Ningirsu. It is possible that we have here a continuation of the narrative of the preceding column, and in that case we should assign this portion of the text to the reign of Akurgal, rather than to the early part of the reign of his successor. But it may equally well refer to Eannatum's own reign, and may either record a minor cause of dispute between the cities which was settled before the outbreak of the great war, or may perhaps be taken in connection with the following columns of the text.
These two columns definitely refer to Eannatum's reign and describe certain acts of piety which he performed in the service of his gods. They record work carried out in E-ninnû, by which the heart of Ningirsu was rejoiced; the naming and dedication of some portion of E-anna, the temple of the goddess Ninni; and certain additions made to the sacred flocks of the goddess Ninkharsag. The repetition of the phrase referring to Ninni's temple[2] suggests a disconnected list of Eannatum's achievements in the service of his gods, rather than a connected narrative. The text in the fifth column continues the record of the benefits bestowed by him upon Ningirsu, and here we may perhaps trace a possible cause of the renewal of the war with Umma. For the text states that Eannatum bestowed certain territory upon Ningirsu and rejoiced his heart; and, unless this refers to land occupied after the defeat of Umma, its acquisition may have been resented by the neighbouring city. Such an incident would have formed ample excuse for the invasion of the territory of Lagash by the injured party, though, according to the records of Eannatum himself and of Entemena, it would appear that the raid of the men of Umma was unprovoked. But, whatever may have been the immediate cause of the outbreak of hostilities, we shall see reason for believing that the war was ultimately due to the influence of Kish.
The outbreak of the war between Umma and Lagash is recorded concisely in the sixth column of the inscription upon the Stele of the Vultures, which states that the patesi of Umma, by the command of his god, plundered[3] Gu-edin, the territory beloved of Ningirsu. In this record, brief as it is, it is interesting to note that the patesi of Umma is regarded as no more than the instrument of his city-god, or the minister who carries out his commands. As the gods in a former generation had drawn up the treaty between Lagash and Umma, which Mesilim, their suzerain, had at the command of his own goddess engraved upon the stele of delimitation, so now it was the god, and not the patesi, of Umma,[Pg 122] who repudiated the terms of that treaty by sending his army across the border. Gu-edin, too, is described, not in its relation to the patesi of Lagash, but as the special property of Ningirsu, the opposing city-god. We shall see presently that Eannatum's first act, on hearing news of the invasion, was quite in harmony with the theocratic feeling of the time.
The patesi who led the forces of Umma is not named by Eannatum upon the Stele of the Vultures, but from the Cone of Entemena[4] we learn that his name was Ush. In the summary of events which is given upon that document it is stated that Ush, patesi of Umma, acted with ambitious designs, and that, having removed the stele of delimitation which had been set up in an earlier age by Mesilim between the territories of the respective states, he invaded the plain of Lagash. The pitched battle between the forces of Umma and Lagash, which followed the raid into the latter's territory, is recorded by Entemena in equally brief terms. The battle is said to have taken place at the word of Ningirsu, the warrior of Enlil, and the destruction of the men of Umma is ascribed not only to the command, but also to the actual agency, of Enlil himself. Here, again, we find Enlil, the god of the central cult of Nippur, recognized as the supreme arbiter of human and divine affairs. The various city-gods might make war on one another, but it was Enlil who decreed to which side victory should incline.
In the record of the war which Eannatum himself has left us, we are furnished with details of a more striking character than those given in Entemena's brief summary. In the latter it is recorded that the battle was waged at the word of Ningirsu, and the Stele of the Vultures amplifies this bald statement by describing the circumstances which attended the notification of the divine will. On learning of the violation of his border by the men of Umma and the plundering of his territory which had ensued, Eannatum did not at once summon his troops and lead them in pursuit of the enemy. There was indeed little danger in delay, and no advantage to be gained by immediate[Pg 123] action. For Umma, from its proximity to Lagash, afforded a haven for the plunderers which they could reach in safety before the forces of Lagash could be called to arms. Thus Eannatum had no object in hurrying out his army, when there was little chance of overtaking the enemy weighed down with spoil. Moreover, all the damage that could be done to Gu-edin had no doubt been done thoroughly by the men of Umma. In addition to carrying off Mesilim's stele, they had probably denuded the pastures of all flocks and cattle, had trampled the crops, and had sacked and burnt the villages and hamlets through which they had passed. When once they and their plunder were safe within their own border, they were not likely to repeat the raid at once. They might be expected to take action to protect their own territory, but the next move obviously lay with Lagash. In these circumstances Eannatum had no object in attacking before his army was ready for the field, and his preparations for war had been completed; and while the streets of Lagash were doubtless re-echoing with the blows of the armourers and the tramp of armed men, the city-gates must have been thronged with eager groups of citizens, awaiting impatiently the return of scouts sent out after the retreating foe. Meanwhile, we may picture Eannatum repairing to the temple of Ningirsu, where, having laid his complaint before him, he awaited the god's decision as to the course his patesi and his people should follow under the provocation to which they had been subjected.
It is not directly stated in the text as preserved upon the stele that it was within E-ninnû Eannatum sought Ningirsu's counsel and instructions; but we may assume that such was the case, since the god dwelt within his temple, and it was there the patesi would naturally seek him out. The answer of the god to Eannatum's prayer was conveyed to him in a vision; Ningirsu himself appeared to the patesi, as he appeared in a later age to Gudea, when he gave the latter ruler detailed instructions for the rebuilding of E-ninnû, and granted him a sign by which he should know that he was chosen for the work. Like[Pg 124] Gudea, Eannatum made his supplication lying flat upon his face; and, while he was stretched out upon the ground, he had a dream. In his dream he beheld the god Ningirsu, who appeared to him in visible form and came near him and stood by his head. And the god encouraged his patesi and promised him victory over his enemies. He was to go forth to battle and Babbar, the Sun-god who makes the city bright, would advance at his right hand to assist him. Thus encouraged by Ningirsu, and with the knowledge that he was carrying out the orders of his city-god, Eannatum marshalled his army and set out from Lagash to attack the men of Umma within their own territory.
PORTION OF THE "STELE OF VULTURES," SCULPTURED WITH SCENES REPRESENTING EANNATUM, PATESI OF SHIRPURLA, LEADING HIS TROOPS IN BATTLE AND ON THE MARCH.—In the Louvre; Déc. en Chald., pl. 3 (bis).
The account of the battle is very broken upon the Stele of the Vultures,[5] but sufficient details are preserved to enable us to gather that it was a fierce one, and that victory was wholly upon the side of Lagash. We may conjecture that the men of Umma did not await Eannatum's attack behind their city-walls, but went out to meet him with the object of preventing their own fields and pastures from being laid waste. Every man capable of bearing arms, who was not required for the defence of two cities, was probably engaged in the battle, and the two opposing armies were doubtless led in person by Eannatum himself and by Ush, the patesi of Umma, who had provoked the war. The army of Lagash totally defeated the men of Umma and pursued them with great slaughter. Eannatum puts the number of the slain at three thousand six hundred men, or, according to a possible reading, thirty-six thousand men. Even the smaller of these figures is probably exaggerated, but there is no doubt that Umma suffered heavily. According to his own account, Eannatum took an active part in the fight, and he states that he raged in the battle. After defeating the army in the open plain, the troops of Lagash pressed on to Umma itself. The fortifications had probably been denuded of their full garrisons, and were doubtless held by a mere handful of defenders. Flushed with victory the men of Lagash swept on to the attack, and, carrying the walls by assault, had the city [Pg 125]itself at their mercy. Here another slaughter took place, and Eannatum states that within the city he swept all before him "like an evil storm."
The record of his victory which Eannatum has left us is couched in metaphor, and is doubtless coloured by Oriental exaggeration; and the scribes who drew it up would naturally be inclined to represent the defeat of Umma as even more crushing than it was. Thus the number of burial-mounds suggests that the forces of Lagash suffered heavily themselves, and it is quite possible the remnant of Umma's army rallied and made a good fight within the city. But we have the independent testimony of Entemena's record, written not many years after the fight, to show that there is considerable truth under Eannatum's phrases; and a clear proof that Umma was rendered incapable of further resistance for the time may be seen in the terms of peace which Lagash imposed. Eannatum's first act, after he had received the submission of the city, was to collect for burial the bodies of his own dead which strewed the field of battle. Those of the enemy he would probably leave where they fell, except such as blocked the streets of Umma, and these he would remove and cast out in the plain beyond the city-walls. For we may conclude that, like Entemena, Eannatum left the bones of his foes to be picked clean by the birds and beasts of prey. The monument on which we have his record of the fight is known as the Stele of the Vultures from the vultures sculptured upon the upper portion of it. These birds of prey are represented as swooping off with the heads and limbs of the slain, which they hold firmly in their beaks and talons. That the sculptor should have included this striking incident in his portrayal of the battle is further testimony to the magnitude of the slaughter which had taken place. That Eannatum duly buried his own dead is certain, for both he and Entemena state that the burial-mounds which he heaped up were twenty in number; and two other sculptured portions of the Stele of the Vultures, to which we shall presently refer, give vivid representations of the piling of the mounds above the dead.
The fate of Ush, the patesi of Umma, who had brought such misfortune on his own city by the rash challenge he had given Lagash, is not recorded; but it is clear he did not remain the ruler of Umma. He may have been slain in the battle, but, even if he survived, he was certainly deprived of his throne, possibly at the instance of Eannatum. For Entemena records the fact that it was not with Ush, but with a certain Enakalli, patesi of Umma, that Eannatum concluded a treaty of peace.[6] The latter ruler may have been appointed patesi by Eannatum himself, as, at a later day, Ili owed his nomination to Entemena on the defeat of the patesi Urlumma. But, whether this was so or not, Enakalli was certainly prepared to make great concessions, and was ready to accept whatever terms Eannatum demanded, in order to secure the removal of the troops of Lagash from his city, which they doubtless continued to invest during the negotiations. As might be expected, the various terms of the treaty are chiefly concerned with the fertile plain of Gu-edin, which had been the original cause of the war. This was unreservedly restored to Lagash, or, in the words of the treaty, to Ningirsu, whose "beloved territory" it is stated to have been. In order that there should be no cause for future dispute with regard to the boundary-line separating the territory of Lagash and Umma, a deep ditch was dug as a permanent line of demarcation. The ditch is described as extending "from the great stream" up to Gu-edin, and with the great stream we may probably identify an eastern branch of the Euphrates, through which at this period it emptied a portion of its waters into the Persian Gulf. The ditch, or canal, received its water from the river, and, by surrounding the unprotected sides of Gu-edin, it formed not only a line of demarcation but to some extent a barrier to any hostile advance on the part of Umma.
On the bank of the frontier-ditch the stele of Mesilim, which had been taken away, was erected once more, and another stele was prepared by the orders of Eannatum, and was set up beside it. The[Pg 127] second monument was inscribed with the text of the treaty drawn up between Eannatum and Enakalli, and its text was probably identical with the greater part of that found upon the fragments of the Stele of the Vultures, which have been recovered; for the contents of that text mark it out as admirably suited to serve as a permanent memorial of the boundary. After the historical narrative describing the events which led up to the new treaty, the text of the Stele of the Vultures enumerates in detail the divisions of the territory of which Gu-edin was composed. Thus the stele which was set up on the frontier formed in itself an additional security against the violation of the territory of Lagash. The course of a boundary-ditch might possibly be altered, but while the stele remained in place, it would serve as a final authority to which appeal could be made in the case of any dispute arising. It is probably in this way that we may explain the separate fields which are enumerated by name upon the fragment of the Stele of the Vultures which is preserved in the British Museum,[7] and upon a small foundation-stone which also refers to the treaty.[8] The fields there enumerated either made up the territory known by the general name of Gu-edin, or perhaps formed an addition to that territory, the cession of which Eannatum may have exacted from Umma as part of the terms of peace. While consenting to the restoration of the disputed territory, and the rectification of the frontier, Umma was also obliged to pay as tribute to Lagash a considerable quantity of grain, and this Eannatum brought back with him to his own city.
In connection with the formal ratification of the treaty it would appear that certain shrines or chapels were erected in honour of Enlil, Ninkharsag, Ningirsu and Babbar. We may conjecture that this was done in order that the help of these deities might be secured for the preservation of the treaty. According to Entemena's narrative,[9] chapels or shrines were erected to these four deities only, but the Stele of the Vultures[Pg 128] contains a series of invocations addressed not only to Enlil, Ninkharsag, and Babbar, but also to Enki, Enzu, and Ninki,[10] and it is probable that shrines were also erected in their honour. These were built upon the frontier beside the two stelæ of delimitation, and it was doubtless at the altar of each one of them in turn that Eannatum and Enakalli took a solemn oath to abide by the terms of the treaty and to respect the frontier. The oaths by which the treaty was thus ratified are referred to upon the Stele of the Vultures[11] by Eannatum, who invokes each of the deities by whom he and Enakalli swore, and in a series of striking formulæ calls down destruction upon the men of Umma should they violate the terms of the compact. "On the men of Umma," he exclaims, "have I, Eannatum, cast the great net of Enlil! I have sworn the oath, and the men of Umma have sworn the oath to Eannatum. In the name of Enlil, the king of heaven and earth, in the field of Ningirsu there has been..., and a ditch has been dug down to the water level.... Who from among the men of Umma by his word or by his ... will go back upon the word (that has been given), and will dispute it in days to come? If at some future time they shall alter this word, may the great net of Enlil, by whom they have sworn the oath, strike Umma down!"
Eannatum then turns to Ninkharsag, the goddess of the Sumerian city of Kesh, and in similar phrases invokes her wrath upon the men of Umma should they violate their oath. He states that in his wisdom he has presented two doves as offerings before Ninkharsag, and has performed other rites in her honour at Kesh, and turning again to the goddess, he exclaims, "As concerns my mother, Ninkharsag, who from among the men of Umma by his word or by his ... will go back upon the word (that has been given), and will dispute it in days to come? If at some future time they shall alter this word, may the great net of Ninkharsag, by whom they have sworn the oath, strike Umma down!" Enki, the god of the abyss of waters beneath the earth, is the next deity to be invoked, and before him Eannatum[Pg 129] records that he presented certain fish as offerings; his net Eannatum has cast over the men of Umma, and should they cross the ditch, he prays that destruction may come upon Umma by its means. Enzu, the Moon-god of Ur, whom Eannatum describes as "the strong bull-calf of Enlil," is then addressed; four doves were set as offerings before him, and he is invoked to destroy Umma with his net, should the men of that city ever cross Ningirsu's boundary, or alter the course of the ditch, or carry away the stele of delimitation. Before Babbar, the Sun-god, in his city of Larsa, Eannatum states that he has offered bulls as offerings, and his great net, which he has cast over the men of Umma, is invoked in similar terms. Finally, Eannatum prays to Ninki, by whom the oath has also been taken, to punish any violation of the treaty by wiping the might of Umma from off the face of the earth.
The great stele of Eannatum, from the text upon which we have taken much of the description of his war with Umma, is the most striking example of early Sumerian art that has come down to us, and the sculptures upon it throw considerable light upon the customs and beliefs of this primitive race. The metaphor of the net, for example, which is employed by Eannatum throughout the curses he calls down upon Umma, in the event of any violation of the treaty, is strikingly illustrated by a scene sculptured upon two of the fragments of the stele which have been recovered. When complete, the stele consisted of a large slab of stone, curved at the top, and it was sculptured and inscribed upon both sides and also upon its edges. Up to the present time seven fragments of it have been recovered during the course of the excavations at Tello, of which six are in the Louvre and one is in the British Museum; these are usually distinguished by the symbols A to G.[12] Although the fragments thus recovered[Pg 130] represent but a small proportion of the original monument, it is possible from a careful study of them to form a fairly complete idea of the scenes that were sculptured upon it. As we have already noted, the monument was a stele of victory set up by Eannatum, and the two faces of the slab are sculptured in low relief with scenes illustrating the victory, but differing considerably in character. On the face the representations are mythological and religious, while on the back they are historical. It might very naturally be supposed that the face of the stele would have been occupied by representations of Eannatum himself triumphing over his enemies, and, until the text upon the stele was thoroughly deciphered and explained, this was indeed the accepted opinion. But it is now clear that Eannatum devoted the front of the stele to representations of his gods, while the reverse of the monument was considered the appropriate place for the scenes depicting the patesi and his army carrying out the divine will. The arrangement of the reliefs upon the stone thus forcibly illustrates the belief of this early period that the god of the city was its real ruler, whose minister and servant the patesi was, not merely in metaphor, but in actual fact.
Upon the largest portion of the stele that has been recovered, formed of two fragments joined together,[13] we have the scene which illustrates Eannatum's metaphor of the net. Almost the whole of this portion of the monument is occupied with the figure of a god, which appears of colossal size if it is compared with those of the patesi and his soldiers upon the reverse of the stele. The god has flowing hair, bound with a double fillet, and, while cheeks and lips are shaved, a long beard falls in five undulating curls from the chin upon the breast. He is nude to the waist, around which he wears a close-fitting garment with two folds in front indicated by double lines. It was at first suggested that we[Pg 131] should see in this figure a representation of some early hero, such as Gilgamesh, but there is no doubt that we should identify him with Ningirsu, the city-god of Lagash. For in his right hand the god holds the emblem of Lagash, the eagle with outspread wings, clawing the heads of two lions; and the stele itself, while indirectly perpetuating Eannatum's fame, was essentially intended to commemorate victories achieved by Ningirsu over his city's enemies. This fact will also explain the rest of the scene sculptured upon the lower fragment.
Fig. 46.—Part of the Stele of the Vultures, sculptured with a scene representing Ningirsu clubbing the enemies of Lagash (Shirpurla), whom he has caught in his net.—Fragments D and E, Obverse; Déc., pl. 4 bis.
For the god grasps in his right hand a heavy mace, which he lets fall upon a net in front of him containing captive foes, whose bodies may be seen between its broad meshes struggling and writhing within it. On the relief the cords of the net are symmetrically arranged, and it apparently rises as a solid structure to the level of the god's waist. It thus has the appearance of a cage with cross-bars and supports of wood or metal. But the rounded corners at the top indicate that we[Pg 132] may regard it as a net formed of ropes and cordage. That it should rise stiffly before the god may be partly due to the imperfect knowledge of perspective characteristic of all early art, partly perhaps to the desire of the sculptor to allow the emblem of Lagash, grasped in the god's left hand, to rest upon it; unless indeed the emblem itself is a part of the net, by means of which the god is holding it up. In any case the proximity of the emblem to the net is not fortuitous. Within the net are the foes of Lagash, and with the mace in his right hand Ningirsu is represented as clubbing the head of one of them which projects from between the meshes.
The metaphor of the net, both of the fisherman and the fowler, is familiar in the poetical literature of the Hebrews, and it is interesting to note this very early example of its occurrence among the primitive Sumerian inhabitants of Babylonia.[14] In the text engraved upon the Stele of the Vultures Eannatum, as we have already seen, seeks to guard the terms of his treaty by placing it under the protection of the nets of Enlil and of other deities. He states that he has cast upon the men of Umma the nets of the deities by whom he and they have sworn, and, in the event of any violation of their oath, he prays that the nets may destroy them and their city.[15] Thus the meshes of each net may in a sense be regarded as the words of the oath, by the utterance of which they have placed themselves within the power of the god whose name they have invoked. But the scene on the front of the stele is not to be regarded as directly referring to this portion of the text, nor is the colossal figure that of Enlil, the chief god of Babylonia. For his destruction of the men of Umma is merely invoked as a possible occurrence in the future, while the god on the stele is already engaged in clubbing captives he has caught; and, whether the net of Ningirsu was referred to in a missing portion of the text or not, the fact that the figure on the stele grasps the emblem of Lagash is[Pg 133] sufficient indication that Ningirsu and not Enlil, nor any other deity, is intended. Thus the face of the stele illustrates the text of Eannatum as a whole, not merely the imprecatory formulæ attached to the treaty with Umma. It refers to the past victories of Ningirsu in his character as the city-god of Lagash.
The representation of Ningirsu clubbing his enemies forms only a portion of a larger scheme which occupied the whole of the upper part of the Stele of the Vultures. Though his is the principal figure of the composition, it is not set in the centre of the field but on the extreme right, the right-hand edge of the fragments illustrated on p. 131 representing the actual edge of the stele. On the left behind the god and standing in attendance upon him was a goddess, parts of whose head and headdress have been recovered upon a fragment from the left edge of the stele.[16] She wears a horned crown, and behind her is a standard surmounted by an emblem in the form of an eagle with outspread wings. She is sculptured on a smaller scale than the figure of Ningirsu, and thus serves to indicate his colossal proportions; and she stood on a fillet or lintel, which cuts off the upper register from a second scene which was sculptured below it. The fragment of the stele in the British Museum[17] preserves one of Ningirsu's feet and a corner of the net with the prisoners in it, and both are represented as resting on the same fillet or lintel. This fragment is a piece of some importance, for, by joining two other pieces of the stele in the Louvre,[18] it enables us to form some idea of the scene in the lower register. Here, too, we have representations of deities, but they are arranged on a slightly different plan. We find upon the fragment from the right of the stele (C) part of the head and headdress of a goddess very like that in the register above. Here she faces to the left, and on another fragment (F), which joins the British Museum fragment upon the left, is a portion of a very complicated piece of sculpture. This has given rise to[Pg 134] many conjectures, but there appears to be little doubt that it represents the forepart of a chariot. We have the same curved front which is seen in the chariot of Eannatum upon the reverse of the stele, and the same arrangement of the reins which pass through a double ring fixed in the front of the chariot and are hitched over a high support. Here the support and the front of the chariot are decorated with a form of the emblem of Lagash, the spread eagle and the lions, and we may therefore conclude that the chariot is that of Ningirsu; indeed, on the left of the fragment a part of the god's plain garment may be detected, similar to that which he wears in the upper register. He is evidently standing in the chariot, and we may picture him riding in triumph after the destruction of his foes.
A close analogy may thus be traced between the two scenes upon the front of the stele and the two upper registers upon the back. In the latter we have representations of Eannatum on foot leading his warriors to battle, and also riding victoriously in a chariot at their head. On the front of the stele are scenes of a similar character in the religious sphere, representing Ningirsu slaying the enemies of Lagash, and afterwards riding in his chariot in triumph. It may also be noted that the composition of the scenes in the two registers upon the face of the stone is admirably planned. In the upper register the colossal figure of Ningirsu with his net, upon the right, is balanced below on the left by his figure in the chariot; and, similarly, the smaller figure or figures above were balanced by the ass that drew Ningirsu's chariot, and the small figure of a goddess who faces him.
There are few indications to enable us to identify the goddesses who accompany Ningirsu. If the figures in both registers represent the same divine personage the names of several goddesses suggest themselves. We might, perhaps, see in her Ningirsu's wife Bau, the daughter of Anu, or his sister Ninâ, the goddess of the oracle, to whose service Eannatum was specially devoted, or Gatumdug, the mother of Lagash. But the military standard which accompanies the goddess in the upper scene, and the ends of two darts or javelins[Pg 135] which appear in the same fragment to rise from, or be bound upon, her shoulders, seem to show that the upper goddess, at any rate, is of a warlike character. Moreover, in another inscription, Eannatum ascribes a success he has achieved in war to the direct intervention of the goddess Ninni,[19] proving that she, like the later Babylonian and Assyrian goddess Ishtar, was essentially the goddess of battle. It is permissible, therefore, to see in the upper goddess, sculptured upon the face of the Stele of the Vultures, a representation of Ninni, the goddess of battle, who attends the city-god Ningirsu while he is engaged in the slaughter of his foes. In the lower register it is possible we have a second representation of Ninni, where she appears to welcome Ningirsu after the slaughter is at an end. But though the headdresses of the two goddesses are identical, the accompanying emblems appear to differ, and we are thus justified in suggesting for the lower figure some goddess other than Ninni, whose work was finished when Ningirsu had secured the victory. The deity most fitted to gladden Ningirsu's sight on his return would have been his faithful wife Bau, who was wont to recline beside her lord upon his couch within the temple E-ninnû. We may thus provisionally identify the goddess of the lower register with Bau, who is there portrayed going out to meet the chariot of her lord and master upon his return from battle.
Perhaps the scenes which are sculptured upon the back of the Stele of the Vultures are of even greater interest than those upon its face, since they afford us a picture of these early Sumerian peoples as they appeared when engaged in the continual wars which were waged between the various city-states. Like the scenes upon the face of the stele, those upon the back are arranged in separate registers, divided one from the other by raised bands, or fillets, stretching across the face of the monument and representing the soil on which the scenes portrayed above them took place. The registers upon the back are smaller than those on the face, being at least four in number, in place of the two scenes which are devoted to Ningirsu and his attendant[Pg 136] deities. As might be expected, the scenes upon the back of the stele are on a smaller scale than those upon the face, and the number and variety of the figures composing them are far greater. Little space has been left on the reverse of the stone for the inscription, the greater part of which is engraved on the front of the monument, in the broad spaces of the field between the divine figures. Of the highest of the four registers upon the reverse four fragments have been recovered,[20] one of which (A) proves that the curved head of the stele on this side was filled with the representations of vultures, to which reference has already been made.[21] The intention of the sculptor was clearly to represent them as flying thick in the air overhead, bearing off from the field of battle the severed heads and limbs of the slain. The birds thus formed a very decorative and striking feature of the monument, and the popular name of the stele, which is derived from them, is fully justified. In the same register on the left is a scene representing Eannatum leading his troops in battle.[22] and we there see them advancing over the bodies of the slain; while from the extreme right of the same register we have a fragment representing men engaged in collecting the dead and piling them in heaps for burial.[23] We may conjecture that the central portion of the register, which is missing, portrayed the enemies of Eannatum falling before his lance. In the register immediately below we find another representation of Eannatum at the head of his troops. Here, however, they are not in battle array but on the march, and Eannatum, instead of advancing on foot, is riding before them in his chariot.[24]
The sculptured representations of Eannatum and his soldiers, which are preserved upon these fragments, are of the greatest importance, for they give a vivid picture of the Sumerian method of fighting, and supply detailed information with regard to the arms and armour in use at this early period. We note that the[Pg 137] Sumerians advanced to the attack in a solid phalanx, the leading rank being protected by huge shields or bucklers that covered the whole body from the neck to the feet, and were so broad that, when lined up in battle array, only enough space was left for a lance to be levelled between each; the lance-bearers carried as an additional weapon an axe, resembling an adze with a flat head. From the second register, in which we see the army on the march, it is clear that no shield was carried by the rank and file for individual protection; the huge bucklers were only borne by men in the front rank, and they thus served to protect the whole front of an attacking force as it advanced in solid formation. In the scene in the upper register two soldiers are sculptured behind each shield, and in each gap between the shields six lances are levelled which are grasped firmly in both hands by the soldiers wielding them. The massing of the lances in this fashion is obviously a device of the sculptor to suggest six rows of soldiers advancing one behind the other to the attack. But the fact that each lance is represented as grasped in both hands by its owner proves that the shields were not carried by the lance-bearers themselves, but by soldiers stationed in the front, armed only with an axe. The sole duty of a shield-bearer during an attack in phalanx was clearly to keep his shield in position, which was broad enough to protect his own body and that of the lance-bearer on his right. Thus the representation of two soldiers behind each buckler on the Stele of the Vultures is a perfectly accurate detail. As soon as an attack had been successfully delivered, and the enemy was in flight, the shield-bearers could discard the heavy shields they carried and join in the pursuit. The light axe with which they were armed was admirably suited for hand-to-hand conflicts, and it is probable that the lance-bearers themselves abandoned their heavy weapons and had recourse to the axe when they broke their close formation.
Both Eannatum and his soldiers wear a conical helmet, covering the brow and carried down low at the back so as to protect the neck, the royal helmet being distinguished by the addition at the sides of moulded pieces to protect the ears. Both the shields and the[Pg 138] helmets were probably of leather, though the nine circular bosses on the face of each of the former may possibly have been of metal. Their use was clearly to strengthen the shields, and they were probably attached to a wooden framework on the other side. They would also tend to protect the surface of the shields by deflecting blows aimed at them. The royal weapons consisted of a long lance or spear, wielded in the left hand, and a curved mace or throwing-stick, formed of three strands bound together at intervals with thongs of leather or bands of metal. When in his chariot on the march, the king was furnished with additional weapons, consisting of a flat-headed axe like those of his soldiers, and a number of light darts, some fitted with double points. These last he carried in a huge quiver attached to the fore part of his chariot, and with them we may note a double-thonged whip, doubtless intended for driving the ass or asses that drew the vehicle. It is probable that the soldiers following Eannatum in both scenes were picked men, who formed the royal body-guard, for those in the battle-scene are distinguished by the long hair or, rather, wig, that falls upon their shoulders from beneath their helmets,[25] and those on the march are seen to be clothed from the waist downwards in the rough woollen garment similar to that worn by the king. They may well have been recruited among the members of the royal house and the chief families of Lagash. The king's apparel is distinguished from theirs by the addition of a cloak, possibly of skin,[26] worn over the left shoulder in such a way that it leaves the right arm and shoulder entirely free.
PORTION OF THE "STELE OF VULTURES," SCULPTURED WITH A SCENE REPRESENTING THE BURIAL OF THE DEAD AFTER A BATTLE.—In the Louvre; photo, by Messrs. Mansell & Co.
Considerable light is thrown upon the burial customs of the Sumerians by the scene sculptured in the third register, or section, on the reverse of the stele of Eannatum. Portions of the scene are preserved upon the fragments C and F, which we have already noted may be connected with each other by means of the fragment G, preserved in the British Museum. In this register we have a representation of the scenes following the victory of Eannatum, when the king and his army had time to collect their dead and bury them[Pg 139] with solemn rites and sacrifices beneath huge tells or burial-mounds. It will be remembered that a fragment of the top register portrays the collection of the dead upon the battlefield; here, on the left, we see the mounds in course of construction, under which the dead were buried.[27] The dead are quite nude, and are seen to be piled up in rows, head to head and feet to feet alternately. The two corpses at the base are sculptured lying flat upon the ground, and, as the tell rises, they appear to be arranged like the sticks of a fan. This arrangement was doubtless due to the sculptor's necessity of filling the semi-circular head of the tell, and does not represent the manner in which the corpses were actually arranged for burial. We may conclude that they were set out symmetrically in double rows, and that the position of every one was horizontal, additional rows being added until sufficient height had been attained.
Two living figures are sculptured on the fragment, engaged in the work of completing the burial. They are represented as climbing the pile of corpses, and they seem to be helping themselves up by means of a rope which they grasp in their right hands. On their heads they carry baskets piled up with earth, which they are about to throw upon the top of the mound. In the relief they appear to be climbing upon the limbs of the dead, but it is probable that they began piling earth from below and climbed the sides of the mound as it was raised. The sculptor has not seen how to represent the sides of the tell without hiding his corpses, so he has omitted the piled earth altogether, unless, indeed, what appears to be a rope which the carriers hold is really intended for the side of the mound in section. It has been suggested that the carriers are bearing offerings for the dead, but the baskets appear to be heaped with earth, not offerings, and the record in the text upon the stele, that Eannatum piled up twenty burial-mounds after his battle with the men of Umma, is sufficient justification for the view that the scene represents one of these mounds in course of construction.
Part of the Stele of the Vultures, sculptured with a sacrificial scene which took place at the burial of the dead after battle. The fragments represents the head of a bull, which is staked to the ground and prepared for sacrifice. The foot and robe probably belonged to a figure of Eannatum, who presided at the funeral rites.—Fragment F, Reverse; Déc., pl. 4 ter.
The continuation of the scene upon the other two fragments,[28] proves that the burial of the dead was attended with elaborate funeral rites, and the offering of sacrifices. To the right of the workers engaged in piling up the burial-mound may be seen a bull lying on his back upon the ground, and bound securely with ropes to two stout stakes driven into the soil close to its head and tail. He is evidently the victim, duly prepared for sacrifice, that will be offered when the burial-mound has been completed. In the field above the bull are sculptured other victims and offerings, which were set out beside the bull. We see a row of six lambs or kids, decapitated, and arranged symmetrically, neck to tail, and tail to neck. Two large water-pots, with wide mouths, and tapering towards the base, stand on the right of the bull; palm-branches, placed in them, droop down over their rims, and a youth, completely nude, is pouring water into one of them from a smaller vessel. He is evidently pouring out a libation, as we may infer from a similar scene on another early Sumerian relief that has been recovered.[29] Beyond[Pg 141] the large vessels there appear to be bundles of faggots, and in the field above them are sculptured a row of growing plants. These probably do not rise from the large vessels, as they appear to do in the sculpture, but form a separate row beyond the faggots and the vessels. At the head of the bull may be seen the foot and part of the robe of a man who directs the sacrifice. As in all the other registers upon the reverse of the stele Eannatum occupies a prominent position, we may conclude that this is part of the figure of Eannatum himself. He occupies the centre of the field in this register, and presides at the funeral rites of the warriors who have fallen in his service.
Fig. 48.—Part of the Stele of the Vultures, which was sculptured with a scene representing Eannatum deciding the fate of prisoners taken in battle. The point of the spear, which he grasped in his left hand, touches the head of the captive king of Kish.—Fragments C and F, Reverse; Déc., pl. 3 and 4 ter.
Of the last scene that is preserved upon the Stele of the Vultures very little remains upon the fragments recovered, but this is sufficient to indicate its character. Eannatum was here portrayed deciding the fate of prisoners taken in battle. Of his figure only the left hand is preserved; it is grasping a heavy spear or lance by the end of the shaft as in the second register. The spear passes over the shaven heads of a row of captives, and at the end of the row its point touches the head of a prisoner of more exalted rank, who faces the king and raises one hand in token of submission. A fragment of inscription behind the head of this captive gives the name "Al-[...], King of Kish," and it may be concluded with considerable probability that these words form a label attached to the figure of the chief prisoner, like the labels engraved near the head of Eannatum in the two upper registers, which describe him as "Eannatum, champion of the god Ningirsu." There is much more to be said for this[Pg 142] explanation than for the possibility that the words formed part of an account of a war waged by Eannatum against Kish, which has been added to the record of his war with Umma. According to such a view the stele must have been larger than we have supposed, since it would have included additional registers at the base of the reverse for recording the subsequent campaigns and their illustration by means of reliefs. The monument would thus have been erected to commemorate all the wars of Eannatum. But that against Umma would be the most important, and its record, copied directly from the text of the treaty, would still occupy three quarters of the stone. Moreover, we should have to suppose that the scribe slavishly copied the text of the stele of delimitation even down to its title, and made no attempt to assimilate with it the later records, which we must assume he added in the form of additional paragraphs. Such a supposition is extremely unlikely, and it is preferable to regard the words behind the prisoner's head as a label, and to conclude that the connected text of the stele ended, as it appears to do, with the name and description of the stone, which is engraved as a sort of colophon upon the upper part of the field in the fourth register.
According to this alternative we need assume the existence of no registers other than those of which we already possess fragments, and the conception and arrangement of the reliefs gains immensely in unity and coherence. On the obverse we have only two registers, the upper one rather larger than the one below, and both devoted, as we have seen, to representations of Ningirsu and his attendant goddesses. The reverse of the stone, divided into four registers, is assigned entirely to Eannatum, who is seen leading his troops to the attack, returning in his chariot from the field of battle, performing funeral rites for his dead soldiers, and deciding the fate of captives he has taken. Thus the reliefs admirably illustrate the description of the war with Umma, and we may conclude that the Stele of the Vultures was either the actual stele of delimitation set up by Eannatum upon the frontier,[Pg 143] or, as is more probable, an exact copy of its text, embellished with sculptures, upon a stone which Eannatum caused to be carved and set up within his own city as a memorial of his conquest. Indeed, we may perhaps make the further assumption that the stele was erected within the temple of Ningirsu, since it commemorates the recovery of Gu-edin, the territory that was peculiarly his own. The Stele of the Vultures, with its elaborate and delicate relief, would have been out of place upon the frontier of Gu-edin, where, we may conjecture, the memorial stone would have been made as strong and plain as possible, so as to offer little scope for mutilation. But, if destined to be set up within the shelter of Ningirsu's temple in Lagash, the sculptor would have had no restriction placed upon his efforts; and the prominent place assigned to Ningirsu in the reliefs, upon the face of the memorial, is fully in keeping with the suggestion that the Stele of the Vultures at one time stood within his shrine.
In favour of the view that the monument was not the actual stele of delimitation we may note that towards the close of its text some four columns were taken up with lists of other conquests achieved by Eannatum. But in all "kudurru-inscriptions," or boundary-stones, which were intended to safeguard the property or claims of private individuals, the texts close with a series of imprecations calling down the anger of the gods upon any one infringing the owner's rights in any way. Now in general character the text upon the Stele of the Vultures closely resembles the "kudurru-inscriptions," only differing from them in that it sets out to delimit, not the fields and estates of individuals, but the respective territories of two city-states. We should therefore expect that, like them, it would close with invocations to the gods. Moreover, the Cone of Entemena, the text of which was undoubtedly copied from a similar stele of delimitation, ends with curses, and not with a list of Entemena's own achievements. But if the short list of Eannatum's titles and conquests be omitted, the text upon the Stele of the Vultures would end with the series of invocations to Enlil and other deities, to which reference has already been made.[Pg 144] We may therefore conclude that the original text, as engraved upon the stele of delimitation, did end at this point, and that the list of other conquests was only added upon the memorial erected in Ningirsu's temple.
Apart from the interest attaching to the memorial itself, this point has a bearing upon the date of the conquest of Umma in relation to the other successful wars conducted by Eannatum in the course of his reign. It might reasonably be urged that the subjugation of the neighbouring city of Umma would have preceded the conquest of more distant lands and cities, over which Eannatum succeeded in imposing his sway. In that case we must assume that the list of conquests upon the Stele of the Vultures was added at a later date. On the other hand, it is equally possible that the war with Umma took place well on in Eannatum's reign, and that, while the patesi and his army were away on distant expeditions, their ancient rival Umma refrained from taking advantage of their absence to gain control of the coveted territory of Gu-edin. Both cities may for years have respected the terms of Mesilim's treaty, and Lagash, while finding scope elsewhere for her ambition, may have been content to acquiesce in the claims of independence put forward by her nearest neighbour. Thus the list of Eannatum's conquests may well have been engraved upon the Stele of the Vultures at the time the treaty with Umma was drawn up. In accordance with this view we shall see there are reasons for believing that several of Eannatum's conquests did take place before his war with Umma, and it is quite possible to assign to this earlier period the others that are mentioned in the list.
The conquest of Kish stands in close relation to that of Umma, for, apart from the portrayal of the king of Kish as a captive upon the Stele of the Vultures, there is a passage in the main body of the inscription which would seem to connect the outbreak of war between Umma and Lagash with the influence of that city. In the broken passage recording the encouragement given to Eannatum by Ningirsu after the raid of Gu-edin, the names of Umma and Kish occur together,[Pg 145] and the context of the passage suggests that Ningirsu here promises his patesi victory over both these cities.[30] We may, therefore, conjecture that the ambitious designs described by Entemena as actuating Ush, the patesi of Umma, in raiding the territory of Lagash, were fostered by the city of Kish. It is probable that Eannatum had already given proof of his qualities as a military leader, and had caused the king of Kish to see in Lagash a possible rival for the hegemony which the North had long enjoyed. To sow dissension between her and her neighbour Umma, would have appeared a most effective method of crippling her growing power, and it is possible that the king of Kish not only promised his support, but furnished a contingent of his own soldiers to assist in the attack. The representation of the captive king of Kish upon the Stele of the Vultures may possibly be interpreted as proving that he led his troops in person, and was captured during the battle. But the relief is, perhaps, not to be taken too literally, and may merely symbolize the defeat of his forces along with those of Umma, and his failure to render them any effective aid. On the other hand, in a text engraved upon one of his foundation-stones,[31] Eannatum boasts that he added the kingdom of Kish to his dominions: "Eannatum, patesi of Lagash, by the goddess Ninni who loves him, along with the patesiate of Lagash was presented with the kingdom of Kish." It would seem that in this passage Eannatum lays claim, not only to have defeated Kish, but also to exercising suzeranity over the northern kingdom.
With Eannatum's victory over Kish we must probably connect the success which he achieved over another northern city, Opis. For towards the end of the text upon the foundation-stone referred to above, these achievements appear to be described as a single event, or, at least, as two events of which the second closely follows and supplements the first. In the course of the formulæ celebrating the principal conquests of his reign, Eannatum exclaims: "By Eannatum was Elam broken in the head, Elam was driven back to[Pg 146] his own land; Kish was broken in the head, and the king of Opis was driven back to his own land."[32] When referring to the victory over Opis in an earlier passage of the same inscription, Eannatum names the king who attacked him, and, although he does not give many details of the war, it may be inferred that Opis was defeated only after a severe struggle. "When the king of Opis rose up," the text runs, "Eannatum, whose name was spoken by Ningirsu, pursued Zuzu, king of Opis, from the Antasurra of Ningirsu up to the city of Opis, and there he smote him and destroyed him."[33] We have already seen reasons for believing that the king of Kish took an active part in Umma's war with Lagash, and shared her defeat; and we may conjecture that it was to help and avenge his ally that Zuzu, king of Opis, marched south and attacked Eannatum. That he met with some success at first is perhaps indicated by the point from which Eannatum records that he drove him back to his own land. For the Antasurra was a shrine or temple dedicated to Ningirsu, and stood within the territory of Lagash, though possibly upon or near the frontier. Here Eannatum met the invaders in force, and not only dislodged them, but followed up his victory by pursuing them back to their own city, where he claims that he administered a still more crushing defeat. It is possible that the conquest of Ma'er, or Mari, took place at this time, and in connection with the war with Opis and Kish, for in one passage Eannatum refers to the defeat of these three states at the Antasurra of Ningirsu. Ma'er may well have been allied with Kish and Opis, and may have contributed a contingent to the army led by Zuzu in his attack on Lagash.
PORTION OF A BLACK BASALT MORTAR BEARING AN INSCRIPTION OF EANNATUM, PATESI OF SHIRPURLA.—Brit. Mus., No. 90832; photo, by Messrs. Mansell & Co.
It is interesting to note that Kish and the king of Kish represented the most dreaded enemies of Lagash, at least during a portion of the reign of Eannatum. For on a mortar of black basalt which is preserved in the British Museum,[34] Eannatum, after recording that he has dedicated it to Ninâ, "the Lady of the Holy [Pg 147]Mountain," prays that no man may damage it or carry it away; and he then adds the petition, "May the King of Kish not seize it!" This ejaculation is eloquent of the dread which the northern kingdom inspired in the cities of the south, and we may see in it evidence of many a raid during which the temples of Lagash had been despoiled of their treasures. We may well ascribe the dedication of the altar and the cutting of the inscription to the early part of Eannatum's reign; at any rate, to a period before the power of Kish was broken in the south; and, if we are right in this supposition, the mortar may perhaps serve to date another group of Eannatum's campaigns. For in a passage on the second side of this monument it appears to be recorded that he had conquered the cities of Erech and Ur. The passage follows the invocations set forth by Eannatum upon the other side, in the course of which he prays that no one shall remove the mortar, or cast it into the fire, or damage it in any way; and it might be argued that the lines were an addition made to the original text of dedication at a considerably later period. In that case the passage would afford no proof that the conquest of Ur and Erech preceded that of Kish. But both sides of the monument have the appearance of having been engraved by the same hand, and we are probably justified in assuming that the whole of the inscription was placed upon the vessel at the time it was made. We may thus provisionally place the conquest of Ur and Erech before that of Kish. Further, in his foundation-inscriptions, Eannatum groups his conquest of Ur and Erech with that of Ki-babbar, "the place of the Sun-god," a term which may with considerable probability be identified with Larsa, the centre of the cult of the Sun-god in Southern Babylonia. It would thus appear that Eannatum conquered these cities, all situated in the extreme south of Babylonia at about the same period, and probably in the early part of his reign.
An indication that we are right in placing the southern conquests of Eannatum before the war with Umma may, perhaps, be seen in the invocations to[Pg 148] deities engraved upon the Stele of the Vultures with which Eannatum sought to protect his treaty. In the course of the invocations Eannatum states that he has made offerings to the goddess Ninkharsag in the city of Kesh, to Enzu, the Moon-god, in Ur, and to Babbar, the Sun-god, in Larsa. These passages we may assume refer to offerings made by Eannatum in his character of suzerain, and, if this view is correct, we must conclude that the conquest of these cities had already taken place. The invocation to Enki perhaps presupposes that Eridu also was in the hands of Eannatum at this time, a corollary that would almost necessarily follow, if the three neighbouring cities of Ur, Erech, and Larsa had fallen before his arms. Accordingly, the list of gods by whom Eannatum and the men of Umma swore to preserve the treaty becomes peculiarly significant. They were selected on political as much as on purely religious grounds, and in their combined jurisdiction represented the extent of Eannatum's dominion in Sumer at the time. That a ruler should be in a position to exact an oath by such powerful city-gods was obviously calculated to inspire respect for his own authority, while the names of the gods themselves formed a sufficient guarantee that divine punishment would surely follow any violation of the treaty. The early successes gained by Eannatum, by which he was enabled to exercise suzerainty over the principal cities of Southern Babylonia, may well have been the cause of his arousing the active hostility of Kish and Opis. When he had emerged victorious from his subsequent struggle with the northern cities, we may assume that he claimed the title of king, which he employs in place of his more usual title of patesi in certain passages in the text of his treaty with Umma.
The other conquests recorded in the inscriptions of Eannatum fall into two groups. In all the lists of his victories that have come down to us—on the Stele of the Vultures, the foundation-stones, and the brick-inscriptions—the defeat of Elam is given the first place. This is probably not to be taken as implying that it was the first in order of time. It is true that the order in which the conquered districts and cities[Pg 149] are arranged is generally the same in the different lists, but this is not invariably the case. Apart from differences caused by the omission or insertion of names, the order is sometimes altered; thus the conquest of Arua is recorded before that of Ur on the Stele of the Vultures, whereas on the foundation-stones this arrangement is reversed. It would, therefore, be rash to assume that they were enumerated in the order of their occurrence; it is more probable that the conquered states and districts are grouped on a rough geographical basis, and that these groups are arranged according to the importance attaching to them. That Elam should always be mentioned first in the lists is probably due to the fact that she was the hereditary enemy of the cities of Sumer and Akkad, whose rulers could never be sure of immunity from her attacks. The agricultural wealth of Babylonia offered a tempting prey to the hardy tribes who dwelt among the hills upon the western border of Elam, and the dread of the raider and mountaineer, experienced by the dweller in the plain, is expressed by Eannatum in his description of Elam as "the mountain that strikes terror."[35]
That in their conflict with Eannatum the Elamites were, as usual, the aggressors, is clear from the words of the record upon his longer foundation-inscription—"by Eannatum was Elam broken in the head, Elam was driven back to his own land."[36] In other passages referring to the discomfiture of the Elamites, Eannatum adds the formula that "he heaped up burial-mounds," a phrase which would seem to imply that the enemy were only defeated with considerable loss.[37] It is not unlikely that we may fix the field of battle, upon which the forces of Elam were defeated, on the banks of the Asukhur Canal, which had been cut two[Pg 150] generations before by Ur-Ninâ, Eannatum's grandfather; at least, the canal gives its name to a battlefield which is mentioned immediately before the name of Elam in one of the lists of conquests. It would thus seem that the Elamites were engaged in raiding the territory of Lagash when Eannatum fell upon them with his army and drove them northwards and across the Tigris.
Closely associated with Eannatum's success against the Elamites were his conquest of Shakh, of a city the reading of the name for which is unknown, and probably also of a land or district which bore the name of Sunanam. The conquest of this last place is only mentioned in a broken passage upon the Stele of the Vultures,[38] between the names of Elam and Shakh, and that of the unknown city, so that little can be inferred with regard to it. Shakh, on the other hand, whenever it is referred to in the inscriptions of Eannatum, follows immediately after the name of Elam, and it was not improbably a district on the Elamite frontier which Eannatum ravaged during his pursuit of the invaders. The city with the unknown name[39] was evidently a place of some importance, for not only was it governed by a patesi, but when its conquest is mentioned in the lists details are usually given. The interpretation of a phrase recording its patesi's action with regard to the emblem of the city is not quite certain, but it would appear that on the approach of Eannatum he planted it before the city-gate. The context would seem to imply that this was intended as an act of defiance, not of submission, for Eannatum states that he conquered the city and heaped up burial-mounds. The site of the city, like its name, is unknown, but since the records referring to it always follow those concerning Elam, we may provisionally regard it as having lain in the direction of the Elamite frontier.
The remaining group of Eannatum's conquests comprise the victories he achieved over Az, Mishime, and Arua. The first of these places was a city ruled by[Pg 151] a patesi, whom Eannatum slew when he captured and destroyed it. It was formerly regarded as situated in the neighbourhood of the Persian Gulf, but the grounds on which this view was held have proved inadequate.[40] Moreover, Eannatum's references to Mishime and Arua do not assist us much in determining their positions, for he merely states that he destroyed and annihilated them. In a passage upon the Stele of the Vultures, however, a reference to the land of Sumer follows closely upon a record of the conquest of Arua,[41] which perhaps is an indication that all three places should be sought in Southern Babylonia. We are thus without data for settling definitely the region in which this group of cities lay, and we are equally without information as to the period of his reign in which Eannatum captured or destroyed them. The fact that they are mentioned last in the lists is no proof that they were among his most recent conquests; it may merely be due to their relatively small importance. In support of this suggestion we may note that in the longest of his foundation-inscriptions Eannatum refers to them once only, while his successes against Elam and the northern cities are celebrated in two or three separate passages.
From the preceding discussion of the campaigns of Eannatum it will have been seen that during his reign a considerable expansion took place in the power and influence of Lagash. From being a city-state with her influence restricted to her own territory, she became head of a confederation of the great Sumerian cities, she successfully disputed with the northern cities the hegemony in Babylonia, and she put a check upon the encroachments of Elam, the hereditary foe of Sumer and Akkad alike. According to the view of Eannatum's conquests which has been put forward, the first expansion of the city's influence took place southwards.[Pg 152] The cities of Ur, Erech, Larsa, Kesh, and probably Eridu, had already become her vassal states, before Kish and Opis attempted to curtail her growing power; and in the war which followed it is probable that we may see a struggle between the combined forces of Sumer on the one hand, and those of Akkad on the other. One of the most important episodes in this conflict was the war with Umma, since the raid by the men of that city into the territory of Lagash furnished the occasion for the outbreak of hostilities. The issue of the conflict placed Lagash in the position of the leading city in Babylonia. The fact that from this time forward Eannatum did not permanently adopt the title of "king" in his inscriptions, may perhaps be traced to his preference for the religious title of "patesi," which emphasized his dependence upon his own city-god Ningirsu.
The military character of Eannatum is reflected in his inscriptions, which in this respect form a striking contrast to those of his grandfather, Ur-Ninâ. While the earlier king's records are confined entirely to lists of temples and other buildings, which he erected or restored in Lagash and its neighbourhood, the texts of Eannatum are devoted almost exclusively to his wars. From a few scattered passages, however, we gather that he did not entirely neglect the task of adding to and beautifying the temples in his capital. Thus he built a temple for the goddess Gatumdug, and added to other buildings which were already standing in Ur-Ninâ's time. But his energies in this direction were mainly devoted to repairing the fortifications of Lagash, and to putting the city in a complete state of defence. Thus he boasts that he built the wall of Lagash and made it strong. Since Ur-Ninâ's time, when the city-wall had been thoroughly repaired, it is probable that the defences of the city had been weakened, for Eannatum also records that he restored Girsu, one of the quarters of the city, which we may suppose had suffered on the same occasion, and had been allowed to remain since then in a partly ruined condition. In honour of the goddess Ninâ he also records that he rebuilt, or perhaps largely increased, the[Pg 153] quarter of the city which was named after her, and he constructed a wall for the special protection of Uru-azagga, another quarter of Lagash. In fact, the political expansion, which took place at this period in the power of Lagash, was accompanied by an equally striking increase in the size and defences of the city itself.
During the reign of Eannatum it is clear that the people of Lagash enjoyed a considerable measure of prosperity, for, although they were obliged to furnish men for their patesi's army, the state acquired considerable wealth from the sack of conquered cities, and from the tribute of grain and other supplies which was levied upon them as a mark of their permanent subjection. Moreover, the campaigns could not have been of very long duration, and, after the return of the army on the completion of a war, it is probable that the greater part of it would be disbanded, and the men would go back to their ordinary occupations. Thus the successful prosecution of his foreign policy by Eannatum did not result in any impoverishment of the material resources of his people, and the fertile plains around the city were not left untilled for lack of labour. Indeed, it would appear that in the latter part of his reign he largely increased the area of land under cultivation. For in his longer foundation-inscriptions, after recording his principal conquests, he states: "In that day Eannatum did (as follows). Eannatum, ... when his might had borne fruit, dug a new canal for Ningirsu, and he named it Lummadimdug." By the expression "when his might had borne fruit," it is clear that Eannatum refers to the latter part of his reign, when he was no longer obliged to place his army incessantly in the field, and he and his people were enabled to devote themselves to the peaceful task of developing the material resources of their own district in Sumer.
Another canal, which we know was cut by Eannatum, was that separating the plain of Gu-edin from the territory of Umma, but this was undertaken, not for purposes of irrigation, but rather as a frontier-ditch to mark the limits of the territory of Lagash in[Pg 154] that direction. There is little doubt, however, that at least a part of its stream was used for supplying water to those portions of Gu-edin which lay along its banks. Like the canal Lummadimdug, this frontier-ditch was also dedicated to Ningirsu, and in the inscription upon a small column which records this fact, the name of the canal is given as Lummagirnuntashagazaggipadda. But this exceedingly long title was only employed upon state occasions, such as the ceremony of dedication; in common parlance the name was abbreviated to Lummagirnunta, as we learn from the reference to it upon Entemena's Cone. It is of interest to note that in the title of the stone of delimitation, which occurs upon the Stele of the Vultures, reference is made to a canal named Ug-edin, the title of the stone being given as "O Ningirsu, lord of the crown ..., give life unto the canal Ug-edin!" In the following lines the monument itself is described as "the Stele of Gu-edin, the territory beloved of Ningirsu, which I, Eannatum, have restored to Ningirsu"; so that it is clear that the canal, whose name is incorporated in that of the stele, must have had some connection with the frontier-ditch. Perhaps the canal Ug-edin is to be identified with Lummagirnunta, unless one of the two was a subsidiary canal.
BRICK OF EANNATUM, PATESI OF SHIRPURLA, RECORDING HIS GENEALOGY AND CONQUESTS, AND COMMEMORATING THE SINKING OF WELLS IN SHIRPURLA.—Brit. Mus., No. 85977; photo, by Messrs. Mansell & Co.
For the supply of his principal irrigation-canal with water after the period of the spring-floods, Eannatum did not depend solely upon such water as might find its way in from the river, before the surface of the latter sank below the level of the canal-bed; nor did he confine himself to the laborious method of raising it from the river to his canal by means of irrigation-machines. Both these methods of obtaining water he doubtless employed, but he supplemented them by the construction of a reservoir, which should retain at least a portion of the surplus water during the early spring, and store it up for gradual use in the fields after the water-level in the river and canals had fallen. In the passage in his foundation-inscription, which records this fact, he says: "For Ningirsu he founded the canal Lummadimdug and dedicated it to him; Eannatum, endowed with strength by Ningirsu, constructed the [Pg 155]reservoir of Lummadimdug, with a capacity of three thousand six hundred gur of water."[42] It is true that his reservoir was not of very imposing dimensions, but its construction proves that Eannatum or his engineers had studied the problem of irrigation in a scientific spirit, and had already evolved the method of obtaining a constant water-supply which is still regarded as giving the best results.
Smaller canals were possibly dug during Eannatum's reign for supplying water to those quarters of Lagash which he improved or added to; and we also know that, where canalization was impracticable, he obtained water by sinking wells. Within the enclosure of Ningirsu's temple, for instance, he constructed a well for supplying the temple with water, and some of the bricks have been recovered which lined the well on the inside.[43] On these he inscribed his name beside those of the gods by whom he had been favoured; and, after giving a list of his more important conquests, he recorded that he had built the well in the spacious forecourt of the temple, and had named it Sigbirra, and had dedicated it to Ningirsu. From the reference to his conquests in the inscription upon the bricks, it is clear that the sinking of the well, like the cutting of the irrigation-canal Lummadimdug, took place in the later years of Eannatum's reign.
The phrase with which the well-inscription of Eannatum ends may be taken as indicating the measure of prosperity to which the state of Lagash attained under his rule. "In those days," it says, "did Ningirsu love Eannatum." But Eannatum's claim to remembrance rests, as we have seen, in a greater degree upon his military successes, by means of which he was enabled to extend the authority of Lagash over the whole of Sumer and a great part of Akkad. He proved himself strong enough at the same time to defend his empire from the attack of external foes, and it is probable that, after his signal defeat of the Elamites, he was not troubled by further raids from that quarter. Three[Pg 156] times in the course of his inscriptions he states that "by Eannatum, whose name was uttered by Ningirsu, were the countries broken in the head," and it would appear that his boast was justified. The metaphor he here employs is taken from the heavy battle-mace, which formed an effective weapon in the warfare of the period. It may be seen in use in the scene sculptured upon the principal monument of Eannatum's reign, where Ningirsu himself is portrayed as breaking the heads of his foes. This representation of the city-god of Lagash, one of the finest examples of early Sumerian sculpture, in itself admirably symbolizes the ambition and achievements of the ruler in whose reign and by whose order it was made.
[1] "Déc. en Chaldée," p. xl.; cf. Thureau-Dangin, "Königsinschriften," pp. 10 ff.
[2] With the lower part of Col. IV. (pl. xl.), ll. 5-8, cf. Col. V., ll. 23-29.
[3] Literally, "devoured.".
[4] Col. I., ll. 10 ff. ("Déc. en Chaldée," p. xlvii.).
[5] Obv., Col. VII. (lower part) and Col. VIII. ff.
[6] Cone-Inscription, Col. I., ll. 32 ff.
[7] "Cuneiform Texts in the British Museum," Pt. VII., pl. 1 f., No. 23580.
[8] "Déc. en Chaldée," p. xliv., Galet E.
[9] Cone-Inscription, Col. II., ll. 11-18.
[10] Cf. Obv., Col. XIX.-XXII., and Rev., Col. III.-V.
[11] Obv., Col. XVI.—Rev., Col. V.
[12] The fragments A-F have been published in "Déc. en Chaldée" on the following plates: Plate 4, A, B, and C, Obverse (it should be noted that on the plate the letters B and C should be interchanged); Plate 3, A, B, and C, Reverse (the letters B and C are here placed correctly); Plate 4 (bis), D and E, Obverse; Plate 3 (bis), D and E, Reverse; Plate 4 (ter), F, Obverse and Reverse. The fragment G, which connects C with F, is published in "Cun. Texts in the Brit. Mus.," Pt. VII., pl. 1.
[13] These are known by the symbols D and E; see p. 131, Fig. 46. In the course of its transport from Tello to Constantinople the upper part of fragment D was unfortunately damaged, so that the god's brow, and his eye, and the greater part of his nose are now wanting (see "Déc. en Chaldée," pl. 4 bis). In the block the missing portions have been restored from a squeeze of the fragment taken at Tello by M. de Sarzec (cf. "Déc.," p. 194 f.).
[14] Cf. Heuzey, "Rev. d'Assyr.," III., p. 10. Its first adoption by the Semites is seen on the recently discovered monument of Sharru-Gi, an early king of Kish; see below, Chap. VIII., p. 220 f.
[16] The fragment is known as B; "Déc. en Chaldée," pl. 4 (see above, p. 129, n. 1). For her headdress, see above, p. 51, Fig. 18.
[19] "Déc. en Chaldée," p. xliii., Galet A, Col. V. f.
[28] The remains of this scene upon fragment F are figured in the text; for the fragment G, see "Cun. Texts in the Brit. Mus.," Pt. VII., pl. 1.
[30] See Obv., Col. VI., ll. 25 ff., Col. VII., ll. 1 ff.
[31] Foundation-stone A, Col. V., l. 23—Col. VI., l. 5; "Déc.," p. xliii.
[32] See Col, VI., ll. 6 ff.
[33] See Col. IV., ll. 25 ff.
[34] See the opposite plate.
[35] Foundation-stone A, Col. III., l. 13.
[36] Col. VI., ll. 6 ff.
[37] The phrase is not to be taken to mean that Eannatum buried the bodies of the slain Elamites, though it may be a conventional formula employed to describe any important battle. It may be noted that Entemena definitely states that he left the bones of his enemies to bleach in the open plain, and this was probably the practice of the period. Each side would bury its own dead to ensure their entrance into the Underworld.
[38] Rev., Col. VI., l. 10—Col. VII., l. 3.
[39] The name is expressed by the conflate sign, formed of the signs URU and A, the phonetic reading of which is unknown.
[40] The name of the place was formerly read in a short inscription engraved upon a mace-head of Gudea, and it was supposed to be described in that passage as lying near the Persian Gulf; cf. Heuzey, "Rev. Arch.," vol. xvii. (1891), p. 153; Radau, "Early Bab. Hist.," pp. 81, 191. But the syllable as occurs in that text without the determinative for "place," and it is rather to be interpreted as part of the name of the mountain from which Gudea obtained the breccia for his mace-head; and the mountain itself is described as situated on "the Upper Sea," i.e. the Mediterranean, see below, p. 270 f.
[41] See "Rev.," Col. VIII.
[42] Foundation-stone A, Col. VII., ll. 3 ff.
Eannatum was the most famous and powerful member of Ur-Ninâ's dynasty, and it is probable that his reign marks the zenith of the power of Lagash as a city-state. We do not know the cause which led to his being succeeded upon the throne by his brother Enannatum I., instead of by a son of his own. That the break in the succession was due to no palace-revolution is certain from a reference Enannatum makes to his brother in an inscription found by Koldewey at El-Hibba,[1] where, after naming Akurgal as his father, he describes himself as "the beloved brother of Eannatum, patesi of Lagash." It is possible that Eannatum had no male issue, or, since his reign appears to have been long, he may have survived his sons. We may indeed conjecture that his victories were not won without considerable loss among his younger warriors, and many cadets of the royal house, including the king's own sons, may have given their lives in the service of their city and its god. Such may well have been the cause of the succession passing from the direct line of descent to a younger branch of the family. That Enannatum followed, and did not precede his brother upon the throne is proved by the reference to him in the El-Hibba text already referred to; moreover, he himself was succeeded by his own immediate descendants, and a reference to his reign upon the Cone of Entemena follows in order of time the same ruler's record concerning Eannatum. The few inscriptions[Pg 158] of his reign, that have been recovered at Tello and El-Hibba, are of a votive rather than of an historical character, and, were it not for the historical summaries upon Entemena's Cone and an inscribed plaque of Urukagina, we should be without data for tracing the history of Sumer at this period. As it is, our information is in the main confined to the continued rivalry between Lagash and her near neighbour Umma, which now led to a renewal of active hostilities.
We have already seen that, in spite of the increase in the power of Lagash during the reign of Eannatum, the city of Umma had not been incorporated in its dominion, but had succeeded in maintaining an attitude of semi-independence. This is apparent from the terms of the treaty, by which the men of Umma undertook not to invade the territory of Lagash; and, although they paid a heavy tribute in corn to Eannatum, we may assume that they were ready to seize any opportunity that might present itself of repudiating the suzerainty of Lagash. Such an opportunity they may have seen in the death of their conqueror Eannatum, for after the accession of his brother we find them repeating the same tactics they had employed during the preceding reign under the leadership of their patesi, Ush. Enakalli, with whom Eannatum had drawn up his treaty, had been succeeded on the throne by Urlumma. In his cone-inscription Entemena gives no indication as to whether there was any interval between the reign of Enakalli and that of Urlumma. But from a small tablet of lapis-lazuli in the "Collection de Clercq," we gather that the latter was Enakalli's son, and, therefore, probably his direct successor upon the throne.[2] The little tablet was employed as a foundation-memorial, and a short inscription upon it records the building of a temple to the god Enkigal by Urlumma, who describes himself as the son of Enakalli. Each ruler bears the title of "king" in the inscription, and, although the reading of the sign following the title is uncertain, there is little doubt that we should identify[Pg 159] the Urlumma and Enakalli of the tablet with the two patesis of Umma who are known to have borne these names.
Urlumma did not maintain his father's policy, but, following Ush's example, marshalled his army and made a sudden descent upon the territory of Lagash. His raid appears to have been attended with even greater violence than that of his predecessor. Ush had contented himself with merely removing the stele of delimitation set up by Mesilim, but Urlumma broke that of Eannatum in pieces by casting it into the fire, and we may assume that he treated Mesilim's stele in the same way.[3] The shrines, or chapels, which Eannatum had built upon the frontier and had dedicated to the gods whom he had invoked to guard the treaty, were now levelled to the ground. By such acts Urlumma sought to blot out all trace of the humiliating conditions imposed in earlier years upon his city, and, crossing the frontier-ditch of Ningirsu, he raided and plundered the rich plains which it had always been the ambition of Umma to possess.
It is probable that Urlumma's object in breaking the treaty was not merely to collect spoil from the fields and villages he overran, but to gain complete possession of the coveted plain. At least, both Entemena and Urukagina record that the subsequent battle between the forces of Umma and Lagash took place within the latter's territory, which would seem to imply that Urlumma and his army did not retreat with their plunder to their own city, but attempted to retain possession of the land itself. Enannatum met the men of Umma in Ugigga, a district within the temple-lands of Ningirsu, where a battle was fought, which, in Urukagina's brief account, is recorded to have resulted in Umma's defeat. Entemena, on the other hand, does not say whether Lagash was victorious, and his silence is possibly significant, for, had his father achieved a decided victory, he would doubtless have[Pg 160] recorded it. Moreover, Urlumma continued to give trouble, and it was only in the reign of Entemena himself that he was finally defeated and slain. We may, therefore, conclude that Enannatum did no more than check Urlumma's encroachments, and it is not improbable that the latter retained for the time a considerable portion of the territory which Lagash had enjoyed for several generations.
Few other facts are known of the reign of Enannatum I. We gather that he sent men to the mountains, probably of Elam, and caused them to fell cedars there and bring the trunks to Lagash; and from the cedar-wood thus obtained he constructed the roof of a temple, which appears to have been dedicated to Ningirsu. The temple we may probably identify with Ningirsu's famous temple E-ninnû, whence we have recovered a mortar, which Enannatum prepared and presented that it might be used for pounding onions in connection with the temple-ritual. Another object dedicated to Ningirsu, which dates from this period, is preserved in the British Museum, and furnishes us with the name of a minister in the service of Enannatum. This is a limestone mace-head,[4] carved with the emblem of Lagash, and bearing an inscription from which we learn that it was deposited in the temple E-ninnû by Barkiba,[5] the minister, to ensure the preservation of the life of Enannatum, "his king." It would appear from this record that, although Enannatum himself adopted the title of "patesi," which he ascribes also to his father Akurgal, it was permissible for his subordinates to refer to him under the title of "king." That "patesi" was, however, his usual designation may be inferred not only from his own inscriptions, but from the occurrence of the title after his name upon a deed of sale drawn up on a tablet of black stone,[6] which probably dates from his reign. From this document, as well as from a text inscribed upon clay cones found by Koldewey at[Pg 161] El-Hibba,[7] we also learn that Enannatum had a son named Lummadur,[8] in addition to Entemena. It should be noted that neither on the clay cones nor on the tablet of black stone is the name of Enannatum's father recorded, so that the suggestion has been made that they should be referred to Enannatum II., rather than to Enannatum I. But the adornment of the temple E-anna, recorded on the cones, is referred to in the clay-inscription of Enannatum I., which, like the cones, was found at El-Hibba.[9] It is reasonable therefore to assign the cone-inscription also to Enannatum I., and to conclude that Lummadur was his son, rather than the son and possible successor of Enannatum II. The cone-inscription records the installation of Lummadur by his father as priest in E-anna, when that temple had been adorned and embellished in honour of the goddess Ninni. Since Enannatum was succeeded upon the throne of Lagash by Entemena, we may assume that Lummadur was the latter's younger brother.
One of the first duties Entemena was called upon to perform, after ascending the throne, was the defence of his territory against further encroachments by Urlumma. It is evident that this ruler closely watched the progress of events in Lagash, and such an occasion as the death of the reigning patesi in that city might well have appeared to him a suitable time for the renewal of hostilities. The death of the great conqueror Eannatum had already encouraged him to raid and occupy a portion of the territory held up to that time by Lagash, and, although Eannatum had succeeded in holding him to some extent in check, he only awaited a favourable opportunity to extend the area of territory under his control. Such an opportunity he would naturally see in the disappearance of his old rival, for there was always the chance that the new ruler would prove a still less successful leader than his father, or his accession might give rise to dissension among the members of the royal house, which would materially[Pg 162] weaken the city's power of resistance. His attack appears to have been carefully organized, for there is evidence that he strengthened his own resources by seeking assistance from at least one other neighbouring state. His anticipation of securing a decided victory by this means was, however, far from being realized. Entemena lost no time in summoning his forces, and, having led them out into the plain of Lagash, he met the army of Urlumma at the frontier-ditch of Lummagirnunta, which his uncle Eannatum had constructed for the defence and irrigation of Gu-edin, the fertile territory of Ningirsu. Here he inflicted a signal defeat upon the men of Umma, who, when routed and put to flight, left sixty of their fellows lying dead upon the banks of the canal.[10] Urlumma himself fled from the battle, and sought safety in his own city. But Entemena did not rest content with the defeat he had inflicted upon the enemy in the field. He pursued the men of Umma into their own territory, and succeeded in capturing the city itself before its demoralized inhabitants had had time to organize or strengthen its defence. Urlumma he captured and slew, and he thus put an end to an ambitious ruler, who for years had undoubtedly caused much trouble and annoyance to Lagash. Entemena's victory was complete, but it was not won without some loss among his own forces, for he heaped up burial-mounds in five separate places, which no doubt covered the bodies of his own slain. The bones of the enemy, he records, were left to bleach in the open plain.
MARBLE GATE-SOCKET BEARING AN INSCRIPTION OF ENTEMENA, PATESI OF SHIRPURLA.—Brit. Mus., No. 90932; photo, by Messrs. Mansell & Co.
Entemena now proceeded to annex Umma, and he incorporated it within the state of Lagash and reorganized its administration under officers appointed by himself. As the new patesi of Umma he did not appoint any native of that city, but transferred thither an official of his own, who held a post of considerable [Pg 163]importance in another town under the suzerainty of Lagash. The name of the official was Ili, and at the time of the annexation of Umma he was acting as sangu, or priest, of the town, the name of which has been provisionally read as Ninab or Ninni-esh. Though the reading of the name of the place is still uncertain, it would appear to have been situated in Southern Babylonia, and to have been a place of some importance. A small tablet in the Louvre mentions together certain men of Erech, of Adab and of Ninni-esh,[11] and, when Lugal-zaggisi enumerates the benefits he had conferred on the cities of Southern Babylonia over which he ruled, he mentions Umma and Ninni-esh together, after referring to Erech, Ur, and Larsa.[12] We may, therefore, conclude with some probability that the city in which Ili was at this time acting as priest was situated not far from Umma. It was under the control of Lagash, and doubtless formed part of the empire which Eannatum had bequeathed to his successors upon the throne. Ili is described as the priest, not the patesi, of the city, and it is possible that his office included the control of its secular administration. But in view of the importance of the place, it is unlikely that it was without a patesi.
The installation of Ili in the patesiate of Umma was accompanied by some degree of ceremonial. It would appear that his appointment did not take place immediately after the capture of the town, but that a short interval elapsed between the close of the war and the inauguration of the new government. Meanwhile, Entemena himself had returned to Lagash, and it was to that city that he summoned Ili into his presence. He then set out with Ili from Girsu, and, when Umma was reached, he formally installed him at the head of the government, and conferred on him the title of patesi. At the same time he dictated his own terms to the people of Umma, and commissioned Ili to see that they were duly carried out. In the[Pg 164] first place he restored to Lagash the territory to which she had always laid claim, and the ancient frontier-ditches, which had been filled up or had fallen in, he caused to be repaired. In addition to reasserting the traditional rights of Lagash, he annexed new land in the district of Karkar, since its inhabitants had taken part in the recent rebellion, and had probably furnished an important contingent for the army of Urlumma. He gave directions to Ili to extend the two principal frontier-ditches, dedicated to Ningirsu and Ninâ respectively, within the territory of Karkar; and, with the large supply of forced labour which he exacted from his newly annexed subjects, he strengthened the defences of his own territory, and restored and extended the system of canals between the Euphrates and the Tigris. But Entemena did not content himself with exacting land and labour only from the conquered city. He imposed a heavy tribute in corn, and it was probably one of Ili's most important duties as patesi to superintend its collection and ensure its punctual transfer into the granaries of Lagash.
In order to commemorate the conquest and annexation of Umma, Entemena caused a record of his victory to be drawn up, which he doubtless had engraved upon a stone stele similar to those prepared in earlier times by Mesilim and Eannatum. This stele, like the earlier ones, was probably set up upon the frontier to serve as a memorial of his achievements. Fortunately for us, he did not confine the records to his own victories, but prefaced them with an epitomized account of the relations which had existed between Lagash and Umma from the time of Mesilim until his own day. Other copies of the inscription were probably engraved upon stone and set up in the cities of Umma and Lagash, and, in order to increase still further the chances in favour of the preservation of his record, he had copies inscribed upon small cones of clay. These last were of the nature of foundation-memorials, and we may conclude that he had them buried beneath the buildings he erected or repaired upon the frontier-canals, and also perhaps in the foundations of temples within the city of Lagash itself. Entemena's foresight in multiplying[Pg 165] the number of his texts, and in burying them in the structure of his buildings, was in accordance with the practice of the period; and in his case the custom has been fully justified. So far as we know, his great stone stelæ have perished; but one of the small clay cones [13] has been recovered, and is among the most valuable of the records we possess of the early history of Sumer.
It is possible that the concluding paragraphs of the text were given in a fuller form upon the stone stelæ than we find them upon the cone; but, so far as the historical portion of the record is concerned, we have doubtless recovered the greater part, if not the whole, of Entemena's record. The stelæ may have been engraved with elaborate curses, intended to preserve the frontier-ditch from violation, and, though these have been omitted in the shorter version of the text, their place is taken by the brief invocation and prayer with which the record concludes. Entemena here prays that if ever in time to come the men of Umma should break across the boundary-ditch of Ningirsu or the boundary-ditch of Ninâ, in order to lay violent hands upon the territory of Lagash, whether they be men of the city of Umma itself or people from the lands round about, then may Enlil destroy them, and may Ningirsu cast over them his net, and set his hand and foot upon them. And, should the warriors of his own city be called upon to defend it, he prays that their hearts may be full of ardour and courage. It was not many years before Lagash was in sore need of the help which is here invoked for her by Entemena.
Apart from the cone recording the conquest of Umma, the inscriptions of Entemena do not throw much light upon the military achievements of his reign. Three fragments of a limestone vase have been found at Nippur in the strata beneath the temple of Enlil on the south-east side of the ziggurat, or temple-tower, bearing on their outer surface a votive inscription of Entemena.[14] From these we gather that the vase was dedicated to Enlil as a thank-offering after some[Pg 166] victory. The fragmentary character of the inscription prevents us from identifying the enemy who was subdued on this occasion; but we shall probably be right in taking the passage as referring, not to the conquest of Umma, but to the subjugation of some other district. In fact, we may regard the vase as evidence that Entemena attempted to retain his hold upon the empire which Eannatum had founded, and did not shrink from the necessity of undertaking military expeditions to attain this object. In further support of this view we may perhaps cite a reference to one of the cities conquered by Eannatum, which occurs upon a votive text drawn up in Entemena's reign, though not by the patesi himself. The text in question is stamped upon the perforated relief of Dudu, chief priest of Ningirsu,[15] which at one time formed the support of a colossal ceremonial mace-head dedicated in the temple of Ningirsu at Lagash.
The material of which the block is composed is dark in colour, comparatively light in weight, and liable to crack; it consists of a mixture of clay and bitumen, and may have been formed by nature or produced artificially.[16] While this substance was still in a pliant state the block was formed from it, and the designs with the inscription were impressed by means of a stamp. According to the inscription, this bituminous substance was brought by Dudu to Lagash from one of the cities which had been conquered by Eannatum and incorporated within his empire. The fact that Dudu should have caused the substance to be procured from the city in question suggests that friendly relations existed between it and Lagash at the time; it is quite possible that it had not, meanwhile, secured its independence, but still continued to acknowledge the suzerainty of the latter city. The only other references to a foreign city in the texts of Entemena occur upon his two principal building inscriptions,[17] which include among the list of his buildings[Pg 167] the erection of a great laver for the god Enki, described as "King of Eridu." We may perhaps see in this record a further indication that at least the southern portion of Eannatum's empire still remained in his nephew's possession.
Fig. 49.—Fig 50.—Fig 51.—Details from the engravings upon Entemena's silver vase. The upper group represents the emblem of Lagash; in the lower groups ibexes and stags are substituted for the lions.—Déc., pl 43 bis; Cat. No. 218.
The high-priest, Dudu, whose portrait is included in the designs upon the plaque already referred to, appears to have been an important personage during the reign of Entemena, and two inscriptions that have been recovered are dated by reference to his period of office. One of these occurs upon the famous silver vase of Entemena, the finest example of Sumerian metal work that has yet been recovered. The vase, engraved in outline with variant forms of the emblem of Lagash,[18] bears an inscription around the neck, stating that Entemena, patesi of Lagash, "the great patesi of[Pg 168] Ningirsu," had fashioned it of pure silver and had dedicated it to Ningirsu in E-ninnû to ensure the preservation of his life. It was deposited as a votive object in Ningirsu's temple, and a note is added to the dedication to the effect that "at this time Dudu was priest of Ningirsu." A similar reference to Dudu's priesthood occurs upon a foundation-inscription of Entemena recording the construction of a reservoir for the supply of the Lummadimdug Canal, its capacity being little more than half that of the earlier reservoir constructed by Eannatum. Since the canal was dedicated to Ningirsu, the reference to Dudu was also here appropriate. But such a method of indicating the date of any object or construction, even though closely connected with the worship or property of the city-god, was somewhat unusual, and its occurrence in these texts may perhaps be taken as an indication of the powerful position which Dudu enjoyed.[19] Indeed, Enlitarzi, another priest of Ningirsu during Entemena's reign, subsequently secured the throne of Lagash. Entemena's building-inscriptions afford further evidence of his devotion to Ningirsu, whose temple and storehouses he rebuilt and added to. Next in order of importance were his constructions in honour of the goddess Ninâ, while he also erected or repaired temples and other buildings dedicated to Lugal-uru, and the goddesses Ninkharsag, Gatumdug, and Ninmakh. Such records suggest that Entemena's reign, like that of Eannatum, was a period of some prosperity for Lagash, although it is probable that her influence was felt within a more restricted area.[20] By his conquest and annexation of Umma, he more than made up for any want of success on the part of his father, Enannatum I., and, through this victory alone, he may well have freed Lagash from her most persistent enemy throughout the reign of his immediate successors.
SILVER VASE DEDICATED TO THE GOD NINGIRSU BY ENTEMENA, PATESI OF SHIRPURLA.—In the Louvre; Déc. en Chald., pl. 43 (bis).
With Enannatum II., the son of Entemena, who succeeded his father upon the throne, the dynasty founded [Pg 169]by Ur-Ninâ, so far as we know, came to an end.[21] The reign of Entemena's son is attested by a single inscription engraved upon a door-socket from the great store-house of Ningirsu at Lagash, his restoration of which is recorded in the text. There then occurs a gap in our sequence of royal inscriptions found at Tello, the next ruler who has left us any records of his own, being Urukagina, the ill-fated reformer and king of Lagash, under whom the city was destined to suffer what was undoubtedly the greatest reverse she encountered in the long course of her history. Although we have no royal texts relating to the period between the reigns of Enannatum II. and Urukagina, we are fortunately not without means for estimating approximately its length and recovering the names of some, if not all, of the patesis who occupied the throne of Lagash in the interval. Our information is derived from a number of clay tablets, the majority of which were found in the course of native diggings at Tello after M. de Sarzec's death.[22] They formed part of the private archive of the patesis of Lagash at this time, and are concerned with the household expenses of the court and particularly of the harîm. Frequently these tablets of accounts make mention of the reigning patesi or his wife, and from them we have recovered the names of three patesis—Enetarzi, Enlitarzi, and Lugal-anda[23]—who are to be set in the interval between Enannatum II. and Urukagina. Moreover, it has been pointed out that the inscriptions upon most of the tablets end with a peculiar form of figure, consisting of one or more diagonal strokes cutting a single horizontal one; and a plausible explanation has been given of these figures, to the effect[Pg 170] that they were intended to indicate the date of the tablet, the number of diagonal strokes showing at a glance the year of the patesi's reign in which the text was written, and to which the accounts refer. A considerable number of such tablets have been examined, and by counting the strokes upon them it has been concluded that Enetarzi reigned for at least four years, Enlitarzi for at least five years, and Lugal-anda for at least seven years.[24]
The relative order of these three patesis may now be regarded as definitely fixed, and, though it is possible that the names of others are missing which should be set within the period, the tablets themselves furnish indications that in any case the interval between Enannatum II. and Urukagina was not a long one. It had for some time been suspected that Enlitarzi and Lugal-anda lived at about the same period, for a steward named Shakh was employed by the wife of Enlitarzi as well as by Barnamtarra, the wife of Lugal-anda.[25] This inference has now been confirmed by the discovery of a document proving that Lugal-anda was Enlitarzi's son; for a clay cone has been found, inscribed with a contract concerning the sale of a house, the contracting parties being the family of Lugal-anda, described as "the son of Enlitarzi, the priest," and the family of Barnamtarra, Lugal-anda's future wife.[26] Moreover, we have grounds for believing that Lugal-anda was not only the last of the three patesis whose names have been recovered, but was Urukagina's immediate predecessor. An indication that this was the case may be seen in the fact that the steward Eniggal, who is frequently mentioned in tablets of his reign, was also employed by Urukagina and his wife Shagshag. Confirmation of this view has been found in the text upon a tablet, dated in the first year of Urukagina's reign as king, in which mention is[Pg 171] made of Barnamtarra, Lugal-anda's wife.[27] This only leaves an interval before the reign of Enlitarzi, in which Enetarzi, the remaining patesi, is to be set.
That this was not a long period is clear from the fact that Enlitarzi himself occupied the throne soon after Enannatum II., an inference we may draw from a double date upon a sale-contract, dated in the patesiate of Entemena, patesi of Lagash, and in the priesthood of Enlitarzi, chief priest of Ningirsu.[28] There can be no doubt of the identity of Enlitarzi, the priest here referred to, with Enlitarzi, the patesi, for the wife of the priest, who is mentioned in the contract, bears the same name as the wife of the patesi.[29] Since, therefore, Enlitarzi already occupied the high position of chief priest of Ningirsu during the reign of Entemena, it is reasonable to conclude that his reign as patesi was not separated by any long interval from that of Entemena's son and successor. The internal evidence furnished by the texts thus supports the conclusion suggested by an examination of the tablets themselves, all of which are distinguished by a remarkable uniformity of type, consisting, as they do, of baked clay tablets of a rounded form and written in a style which closely resembles that of Urukagina's royal inscriptions. The interval between the death of Entemena and Urukagina's accession was thus a short one, and the fact that during it no less than four patesis followed one another in quick succession suggests that the period was one of unrest in Lagash.
Like Enlitarzi, Enetarzi also appears to have been chief priest of Ningirsu before he secured the throne;[Pg 172] at least we know that a priest of that name held office at about this period. The inscription from which this fact may be inferred is an extremely interesting one,[30] for it consists of the earliest example of a letter or despatch that has yet been found on any Babylonian site. It was discovered at Tello during the recent excavations of Commandant Cros, and, alike in the character of its writing and in its general appearance, it closely resembles the tablets of accounts from the patesis' private archive, to which reference has already been made. The despatch was written by a certain Lu-enna, chief priest of the goddess Ninmar, and is addressed to Enetarzi, chief priest of the god Ningirsu. At first sight its contents are scarcely those which we should expect to find in a letter addressed by one chief priest to another. For the writer informs his correspondent that a band of Elamites had pillaged the territory of Lagash, but that he had fought with the enemy, and had succeeded in putting them to flight. He then refers to five hundred and forty of them, whom he probably captured or slew. The reverse of the tablet enumerates various amounts of silver and wool, and certain royal garments, which may have formed part of the booty taken, or recaptured, from the Elamites; and the text ends with what appears to be a reference to the division of this spoil between the patesi of Lagash and another high official, and with directions that certain offerings should be deducted for presentation to the goddess Ninmar, in whose temple the writer was chief priest.
That a chief priest of Ninmar should lead an army against the enemies of Lagash and should send a report of his success to the chief priest of Ningirsu, in which he refers to the share of the spoil to be assigned to the patesi, may be regarded as an indication that the central government of Lagash was not so stable as it once had been under the more powerful members of Ur-Ninâ's dynasty. The reference to Enetarzi suggests that the incursion of the Elamites took place during the reign of Enannatum II. We may thus conclude that the last member of Ur-Ninâ's dynasty did not[Pg 173] possess his father's ability to direct the affairs of Lagash and allowed the priests of the great temples in the city to usurp many of the privileges which had hitherto been held by the patesi. It is probably to this fact that the close of Ur-Ninâ's dynasty may be traced. The subsequent struggle for the patesiate appears to have taken place among the more important members of the priesthood. Of those who secured the throne, Enlitarzi, at any rate, was succeeded by his son, by whom, however, he may have been deposed,[31] and no strong administration appears to have been established, until Urukagina, abandoning the traditions of both the priesthood and the patesiate, based his government on the support he secured from the people themselves. Such appears to have been the course of events at this time, although the paucity of our historical materials renders it impossible to do more than hazard a conjecture.
Fig. 52. Fig 53.—Impression of a seal of Lugal-anda, patesi of Lagash (Shirpurla), engraved with the emblem of Lagash, and with figures of animals, heroes, and mythological creatures. Below is a reconstruction of the cylinder-seal, indicating its size.—See Allotte de la Fuÿe, Rev. d'Assyr., Vol. VI., No. 4, pl. i.
In addition to the tablets of accounts concerning the household expenditure of the patesis, and the letter to Enetarzi from Lu-enna, the principal relics of this period that have come down to us are numbers of clay sealings, some of which bear impressions of the seals of the patesi Lugal-anda, his wife Barnamtarra, and his steward Eniggal. They afford us no new historical information, but are extremely valuable for the study of the artistic achievements and religious beliefs of the Sumerians.[32] From the traces upon their lower sides, it is clear that they were employed for sealing reed-baskets or bundles tied up in sacking formed of palm-leaves and secured with cords. In consequence of the rough character of the lumps of clay, no single one presents a perfect impression, but, as several examples of each have been found, it is possible in some cases to reconstruct the complete design and to estimate the size of the original seal. In the accompanying blocks reproductions are[Pg 174] given of the designs upon the cylinder-seals of Lugal-anda which can be most completely restored. The principal group of figures in the larger of the two consists of two rampant lions in conflict with a human-headed bull and a mythical and composite being, half-bull and half-man, whose form recalls the description of Ea-bani in the legend of Gilgamesh. To the left of the inscription is the emblem of Lagash, and below is a row of smaller figures consisting of two human-headed bulls, two heroes and a stag. The figures on[Pg 175] the smaller cylinder represent the same types, but here the emblem of Lagash is reduced to the eagle without the lions, which was peculiarly the emblem of Ningirsu. The mythological being who resembles Ea-bani is repeated heraldically on each side of the text in conflict with a lion.
The occurrence of this figure and those of the other heroes upon the seals is important, as it points to a knowledge on the part of the earlier Sumerians, of the principal legends that were incorporated in the great national epic of Babylon.[33] The sealings are no less important for the study of Sumerian art, and they prove that seal-cutting must have already been practised by the Sumerians for a considerable length of time.[Pg 176] While the designs are of a very decorative character, it is interesting to note how the artist has attempted to fill up every portion of his field, an archaic trait which is in striking contrast to the Semitic seals of the Sargonic period. Another peculiarity which may here be referred to is the employment, on the larger seal below the inscription, of a sort of arabesque pattern, an ingenious and symmetrical combination of straight lines and curves, the course of which may be followed without once passing along the same line a second time. It has been suggested that this pattern may have formed the engraver's monogram or signature,[34] but it is more likely to have been a religious symbol, or may perhaps be merely decorative, having been added to fill in a blank space remaining in the field of the seal. The discovery of these seal-impressions enables us to realize that, in spite of the period of political unrest through which Lagash was now passing, her art did not suffer, but continued to develop along its own lines. In fact, her sculptors and engravers were always ready to serve the reigning patesi, whoever he might be.
Although, as we have seen, the exact relation of the three patesis, Enetarzi, Enlitarzi, and Lugal-anda, to the dynasty of Ur-Ninâ is still a matter for conjecture, there is no doubt that with Urukagina, at any rate, a complete break took place, not only in the succession, but also in the traditions and principles which had guided for so long the ruling family at Lagash. That Urukagina did not obtain the throne by right of succession is clear from the total absence of any genealogies in his inscriptions. He does not even name his father,[35] so that we may trace his succession[Pg 177] to his own initiative. He himself ascribes to Ningirsu his elevation to the throne, and the phrase that follows suggests that this was not accomplished without a struggle. When describing in detail the drastic reforms which he had carried out in the internal administration of the state, he prefaces his account by stating that they took place when Ningirsu had given him the kingdom of Lagash and had established his might. In view of these very reforms, we may regard it as extremely probable that he headed a reaction against certain abuses which had characterized the recent government of the city, and that, in usurping the throne, he owed his success to a wide-spread feeling of discontent among the great body of the people.
Further evidence of a complete break in the succession may be seen in the change of the patron deity, whose protection the reigning house enjoyed. Urukagina no longer invoked the god on whom the dynasty of Ur-Ninâ had relied for intercession with Ningirsu,[36] and in his place addressed himself to Ninshakh. The very title which Urukagina himself adopted is probably significant of his antagonism to the family which for so long had directed the destinies of the state. While even the great conqueror Eannatum had proudly clung to the title of "patesi," and his successors on the throne had followed his example, in every one of his own inscriptions that have been recovered Urukagina rejects it in favour of that of "king."
It would appear that he did not inaugurate this change immediately upon his accession, and that for at least a year he continued to use the title employed by his predecessors. For some of the tablets of accounts from the private archive of the patesis, to which reference has already been made,[37] appear to be dated in the first year of Urukagina's patesiate; while the other documents of this class, which refer to him, are dated from the first to the sixth year of his reign as king. So that, if there is no gap in the sequence, we may conclude that he discarded the former title after having[Pg 178] occupied the throne for one year. His dropping of this time-honoured designation may well have accompanied the abolition of privileges and abuses with which it had become associated in the mind of the people. Indeed, the tone of his inscriptions reflects no feeling of veneration for the title of patesi, nor does he appear anxious to commemorate the names of those who had borne it. Thus in one of his texts, when he has occasion to give a brief historical summary of an earlier struggle between Lagash and Umma, he names the ruler of the latter city, but he ascribes the former's victory to Ningirsu, and does not seem to have referred to Enannatum I. and Entemena, in whose reigns the events took place.[38]
But it is in the reforms themselves, which Urukagina introduced, that we find the most striking evidence of the complete severance he made from the cherished traditions of his predecessors. In a series of very striking texts, of which we now possess three versions,[39] he has left us a record of the changes he introduced in the internal administration of the country. In the condition in which at least two of these versions have come down to us a literary artifice is employed, which enhances and emphasizes in a remarkable degree the drastic character of his reforms. Before enumerating these, the writer provides a striking contrast by describing the condition of the country which preceded their introduction by the king. We are thus confronted with two companion pictures, the main features of which correspond, while their underlying characters are completely changed. In the two sections of each text the general phraseology is much the same, the difference consisting in the fact that, while the first describes the oppression and injustice which had existed in the state of Lagash "since distant days, from the beginning," the second section enumerates the reforms by which Urukagina claimed that he had ameliorated the people's lot. Though some of the references they contain are still obscure, the texts afford us a welcome glimpse of the[Pg 179] economic conditions that prevailed in Sumer. In contrast to other royal inscriptions found at Tello, they give us information concerning the daily life and occupations of the people; and at the same time they reveal beneath the official decorum of a Sumerian court an amount of oppression and misery, the existence of which would not be suspected from the pious foundation-inscriptions and votive texts of the period.
The conquests achieved by Lagash during the epoch of the great patesis had undoubtedly added considerably to the wealth of the city, and had given her, at least for a time, the hegemony in Southern Babylonia. But with the growth of her power as a state, she lost many of the qualities by virtue of which her earlier successes were achieved. The simplicity, which characterized the patesi's household at a time when he was little more than a chief among his fellows, was gradually exchanged for the elaborate organization of a powerful court. When the army returned laden with booty from distant regions, and the tribute of conquered cities kept the granaries of Ningirsu filled, it was but natural that the rulers of Lagash should surround themselves with greater luxury, and should enrich their city by the erection of palaces for themselves and sumptuous temples for the gods. The long lists of temples and other buildings, which occupy the greater part of the inscriptions left us by Ur-Ninâ and his descendants, testify to their activity in this direction. It will be obvious that the beautification of the capital, begun in an era of conquest, could not be continued in less fortunate times without putting a considerable strain upon the resources of the state. In such circumstances the agricultural section of the population were forced to contribute the means for gratifying the ambition of their rulers. New taxes were levied, and, to ensure their collection, a host of inspectors and other officials were appointed whose numbers would constantly tend to increase. "Within the limits of the territory of Ningirsu," says Urukagina, "there were inspectors down to the sea."[40]
The palace of the patesi thus began to usurp the place in the national life which had formerly been held by the temple of the city-god, and, while the people found that the tithes due to the latter were not diminished, they were faced with additional taxation on all sides. Tax-gatherers and inspectors were appointed in every district and for every class of the population. The cultivators of the soil, the owners of flocks and herds, the fishermen, and the boatmen plying on the rivers and canals, were never free from the rapacity of these officials, who, in addition to levying their dues, appear to have billeted themselves on their unfortunate victims. That corruption should have existed in the ranks of his officials was but natural, when the patesi himself set them an example in the matter; for Urukagina records that his predecessors on the throne had appropriated the property of the temples for their own use. The oxen of the gods, he tells us, were employed for the irrigation of the lands given to the patesi; the good fields of the gods formed the patesi's holding and his place of joy.[41] The priests themselves grew rich at the expense of the temples, and plundered the people with impunity. The asses and fine oxen which were temple-property they carried off, they exacted additional tithes and offerings, and throughout the country they entered the gardens of the poor and cut down the trees or carried off the fruits. But while so doing they kept on good terms with the palace officials; for Urukagina records that the priests divided the temple-corn with the people of the patesi, and brought them tribute in garments, cloth, thread, vessels and objects of copper, birds, kids, and the like.
The misappropriation of temple-property, and particularly that of the city-god, afforded Urukagina the pretext for inaugurating his reforms. He stood forth as Ningirsu's champion, and by restoring the sacred lands which had been seized by the palace, he proved his own disinterestedness, and afforded his subjects an example which he could insist upon their following. He states that in the house of the patesi and in the[Pg 181] field of the patesi he installed Ningirsu, their master; that in the house of the harîm and in the field of the harîm he installed the goddess Bau, their mistress; and that in the house of the children and in the field of the children he installed Dunshagga, their master.[42] In these three phrases Urukagina not only records the restoration of all the property, which had formerly belonged to the temples dedicated to Ningirsu and his family, but also reaffirms the old relation of the patesi to the city-god. In the character of his representative the patesi only received his throne as a trust to be administered in the interest of the god; his fields, and goods, and all that he possessed were not his own property but Ningirsu's.[43]
After carrying out these reforms, Urukagina proceeded to attack the abuses which existed among the secular officials and the priests. He cut down the numbers of the former, and abolished the unnecessary posts and offices which pressed too hardly on the people. The granary-inspectors, the fishery-inspectors, the boat-inspectors, the inspectors of flocks and herds, and, in fact, the army of officials who farmed the revenue and made a good profit out of it themselves, were all deprived of office. Abuses which had sprung up and had obtained the recognition accorded to long-established custom, were put down with a strong hand. All those who had taken money in place of the appointed tribute were removed from their posts, as were those officials of the palace who had accepted bribes from the priests. The priests themselves were deprived of many of their privileges, and their scale of fees was revised. Burial fees in particular were singled out for revision, for they had become extortionate; they were now cut down by more than half. In the case of an ordinary burial, when a corpse was laid in the grave, it had been the custom for the presiding priest to demand as a fee for himself seven urns of wine or strong drink, four hundred and twenty loaves of bread, one hundred and twenty measures of corn, a garment, a kid, a bed, and a seat. This formidable list of perquisites was now reduced to three[Pg 182] urns of wine, eighty loaves of bread, a bed, and a kid, while the fee of his assistant was cut down from sixty to thirty measures of corn. Similar reductions were made in other fees demanded by the priesthood, and allowances of wine, loaves, and grain, which were paid to various privileged classes and officials in Lagash, were revised and regulated.
As was but natural, oppression and robbery had not been confined to the priestly and official classes, but were practised with impunity by the more powerful and lawless sections of the population, with the result that no man's property was safe. In the old days if a man purchased a sheep and it was a good one, he ran the risk of having it stolen or confiscated. If he built himself a fish-pond, his fish were taken and he had no redress. If he sunk a well in high ground beyond the area served by the irrigation-canals, he had no security that his labour would be for his own benefit. This state of things Urukagina changed, both by putting an end to the extortions of officials and by imposing drastic penalties for theft. At the same time, he sought to protect by law the humbler classes of his subjects from oppression by their wealthier and more powerful neighbours. Thus he enacted that if a good ass was foaled in the stable of any subject of the king, and his superior should wish to buy it, he should only do so by paying a fair price; and if the owner refused to part with it, his superior must not molest him. Similarly, if the house of a great man lay beside that of a humbler subject of the king and he wished to buy it, he must pay a fair price; and if the owner was unwilling to sell it, he should have perfect liberty to refuse without any risk to himself. The same desire to lessen the hardships of the poorer classes is apparent in other reforms of Urukagina, by which he modified the more barbarous customs of earlier days. One instance of such a reform appears to apply to the corvée, or some kindred institution; when engaged in a form of forced labour, it had not been the custom to supply the workers with water for drinking, nor even to allow them to fetch it for themselves—a practice to which Urukagina put a stop.
The extent to which the common people had been mulcted of their property by the officials of the palace is well illustrated by two of Urukagina's reforms, from which it would appear that the patesi himself and his chief minister, or grand vizir, had enriched themselves by enforcing heavy and unjust fees. One instance concerns the practice of divination by oil, which at this time seems to have been a not uncommon method of foretelling the future. If we may judge from inscriptions of a rather later period, the procedure consisted in pouring out oil upon the surface of water, the different forms taken by the oil on striking the water indicating the course which events would take.[44] To interpret correctly the message of the oil a professional diviner was required, and Urukagina relates that not only did the diviner demand a fee of one shekel for his services, but a similar fee had to be paid to the grand vizir, and no less than five shekels to the patesi himself. That these fees should have been keenly resented is in itself a proof of the extent to which this form of divination was practised. Urukagina tells us that after his accession the patesi, the vizir, and the diviner took money no more; and, since the latter's fee was also abolished, we may probably infer that diviners were a recognized class of the official priesthood, and were not allowed to accept payment except in the form of offerings for the temple to which they were attached.
The other matter in which it had been the custom of the patesi and his vizir to accept fees was one in which the evil effects of the practice are more obvious. Urukagina tells us that under the old regime, if a man put away his wife, the patesi took for himself five shekels of silver and the grand vizir one. It is possible that, upon their first introduction, these fees were defended as being a deterrent to divorce. But in practice they had the contrary effect. Divorce could be obtained on no grounds whatever by the payment of what was practically a bribe to the officials, with the result that the obligations of the marriage tie were not respected.[Pg 184] The wives of aforetime, according to Urukagina, were possessed by two men with impunity. While abolishing the official fees for divorce, it is probable that Urukagina drew up regulations to ensure that it was not abused, and that compensation, when merited, should be paid to the woman. On the other hand, we have evidence that he inflicted severe punishment for infidelity on the part of the wife, and we may assume that by this means he attempted to stamp out practices which were already beginning to be a danger to the existence of the community.
It is interesting to note that the laws referred to by Urukagina, in giving an account of the changes he introduced, are precisely similar in form to those we find upon the Code of Hammurabi.[45] This fact furnishes definite proof, not only that Hammurabi codified the legislation of earlier times, but also that this legislation itself was of Sumerian origin.[46] It is probable that Urukagina himself, in introducing his reforms, revived the laws of a still earlier age, which had been allowed to fall into disuse. As Hammurabi ascribed the origin of his laws to the Sun-god, whom he represents upon his stele as reciting them to him, so Urukagina regards his reforms as due to the direct intervention of Ningirsu, his king, whose word it was he caused to dwell in the land;[47] and it was not with his people but with Ningirsu that he drew up the agreement to observe them.[48] Like Hammurabi, too, Urukagina boasts that he is the champion of the weak against the strong; and he tells us that in place of the servitude, which had existed in his kingdom, he established liberty.[49] He spoke, and delivered the children of Lagash from want, from theft,[Pg 185] from murder and other ills. In his reign, he says, to the widow and the orphan the strong man did no harm.[50]
Urukagina's championship of Ningirsu's rights is reflected, not only in his reforms, but also in the buildings he erected during his reign. Thus we find it recorded that, in addition to his great temple E-ninnû, he built or restored two other temples in his honour, his palace of Tirash, and his great storehouse. Other temples were erected in honour of Bau, his wife, and of Dunshagga and Galalim, two of Ningirsu's sons, the latter of whom is first mentioned in Urukagina's texts. To Khegir, one of the seven virgin daughters of Ningirsu, he dedicated a shrine, and he built another in honour of three of her sisters, Zarzari, Impae, and Urnuntaea; a third was dedicated to Ninsar, Ningirsu's sword-bearer. It may thus be inferred that Urukagina's building operations were mainly devoted to temples and shrines of the city-god Ningirsu, and to those dedicated to members of his family and household. Like Eannatum and Entemena, he also improved the water-supply of the city, and cut a canal, or more probably improved an old one, for bringing water to the quarter of the city named Ninâ. In connection with it he constructed a reservoir, with a capacity of eighteen hundred and twenty gur, which he made, he tells us, "like the midst of the sea."[51] The small canal of Girsu he also repaired, and he revived its former name, "Ningirsu is prince in Nippur."[52] This furnishes another instance of his policy of restoring to Ningirsu honours and privileges of which he had been deprived. The reference to Nippur is of interest, for it suggests that Urukagina maintained active relations with the central cult of Sumer and the north, an inference confirmed by his rebuilding of Enlil's temple in Lagash, which had been previously built by Entemena.
Allusions to cities other than Lagash and its component parts in Urukagina's inscriptions are few, and[Pg 186] those that do occur fail to throw much light upon the relations he maintained with other city-states. A small object of clay in the form of an olive[53] has been found, which bears the votive inscription: "Ningirsu speaks good words with Bau concerning Urukagina in the temple of Erech,"—a phrase that seems to imply a claim on the part of Lagash to suzerainty over that city. Another votive object of the same class mentions the fortification of the wall of E-babbar,[54] but the reference here is probably not to the famous temple of the Sun-god at Larsa, but to his smaller temple of this name, which stood in Lagash and was afterwards desecrated by the men of Umma. The only other foreign city mentioned in Urukagina's inscriptions is Umma itself, whose relations to Lagash in the reigns of Enannatum I. and Entemena are briefly recorded.[55] The text of the passage is broken, but we may surmise that the short summary of events was intended to introduce an account of Urukagina's own relations with that city. We may note the fact, which this reference proves, that the subsequent descent of the men of Umma upon Lagash and their capture and sack of the city were the result of friction, and possibly of active hostility, during at least a portion of Urukagina's reign.
From Urukagina's own texts we thus do not gather much information with regard to the extent of the empire of Lagash under his rule. That he did not neglect the actual defences of his city may be inferred from his repair of the wall of Girsu; it is clear, however, that his interest was not in foreign conquest, nor even in maintaining the existing limits of his dominion, but in internal reform. He devoted all his energies to purifying the administration of his own land, and to stamping out the abuses under which for so long the people had suffered. That he benefited the land as a whole, and earned the gratitude of his poorer subjects, there can be no doubt; but it is to his reforms themselves that we may trace the immediate cause of the downfall of his kingdom. For his zeal had led him to[Pg 187] destroy the long-established methods of government, and, though he thereby put an end to corruption, he failed to provide an adequate substitute to take their place. The host of officials he abolished or dispossessed of office had belonged to a military administration, which had made the name of Lagash feared, and they had doubtless been organized with a view to ensuring the stability and protection of the state. Their disappearance mattered little in times of peace; though, even so, Urukagina must have had trouble with the various powerful sections of the population whom he had estranged. When war threatened he must have found himself without an army and without the means of raising one. To this cause we may probably trace the completeness of Umma's victory.
From what we know of the early history of Sumer, it would appear that most of its city-states were subject to alternate periods of expansion and decay; and we have already seen reason to believe that, before the reign of Urukagina, the reaction had already set in, which must inevitably have followed the conquests of the earlier patesis. The struggle for the throne, which appears to have preceded Urukagina's accession, must have weakened still further the military organization of the state; and when Urukagina himself, actuated by the best of motives, attempted to reform and remodel its entire constitution, he rendered it still more defenceless before the attack of any resolute foe. The city of Umma was not slow to take advantage of so favourable an opportunity for striking at her ancient rival. Hitherto in their wars with Lagash the men of Umma, so far as we know, had never ventured, or been allowed, to attack the city. In earlier days Umma had always been defeated, or at any rate her encroachments had been checked. It is true that in the records that have come down to us the men of Umma are represented as always taking the initiative, and provoking hostilities by crossing the frontier-ditch which marked the limit of their possessions. But they never aimed at more than the seizure of territory, and the patesi of Lagash was always strong enough to check their advance, and generally to expel them, before they[Pg 188] reached the city itself. Indeed, Entemena had done more than this, and, by his capture and annexation of Umma, had crippled for a time the resources of this ambitious little state. At what period exactly Umma repudiated the suzerainty he had imposed is not known; but in any case we may conclude that the effects of the chastisement she had received at his hands were sufficient to prevent for a time any active encroachments on her part.
The renewed activity of Umma during Urukagina's reign doubtless followed the lines of her earlier attempts, and took the form of a raid into the territory of Lagash. The comparative success, which we may conjecture she achieved on this occasion, doubtless encouraged her to further efforts, and emboldened her patesi to attack the city of Lagash itself. The ruler of Umma, under whose leadership this final attack was delivered, bore the name of Lugal-zaggisi. From an inscription of his own, to which further reference will be made in the following chapter, we learn that his father Ukush had been patesi of Umma before him. We may thus assume that the city had for some time enjoyed a position of independence, of which she had taken advantage to husband her resources and place her army on a satisfactory footing. In any case it was strong enough to overcome any opposition that Urukagina could offer, and the city of Lagash, which had been beautified and enriched by the care of a long line of successful rulers, was laid waste and spoiled.
The document from which we learn details of the sack of Lagash is a strange one.[56] It closely resembles in shape and writing the tablets of household accounts from the archive of the patesis, which date from the reigns of Urukagina and his immediate predecessors;[57] but the text inscribed upon it consists of an indictment of the men of Umma, drawn up in a series of short sentences, which recapitulate the deeds of sacrilege committed by them. It is not a royal nor an official inscription, and, so far as one can judge from its position[Pg 189] when discovered by Commandant Cros, it does not seem to have been stored in any regular archive or depository. For it was unearthed, at a depth of about two metres below the surface of the soil, to the north of the mound which covered the most ancient constructions at Tello,[58] and no other tablets were found near it. Both from its form and contents the document would appear to have been the work of some priest, or scribe, who had formerly been in Urukagina's service; and we may picture him, after the sack of the city, giving vent to his feelings by enumerating the sacred buildings which had been profaned by the men of Umma, and laying the weight of the great sin committed upon the head of the goddess whom they and their patesi served. That the composition was written shortly after the fall of Lagash may be held to explain the absence of any historical setting or introduction; the city's destruction and the profanation of her shrines have so recently taken place that the writer has no need to explain the circumstances. He plunges at once into his accusations against the men of Umma, and the very abruptness of his style and the absence of literary ornament render their delivery more striking. The repetition of phrases and the recurrent use of the same formulæ serve only to heighten the cumulative effect of the charges he brings against the destroyers of his city.
"The men of Umma," he exclaims, "have set fire to the Eki[kala]; they have set fire to the Antasurra; they have carried away the silver and the precious stones! They have shed blood in the palace of Tirash; they have shed blood in the Abzu-banda; they have shed blood in the shrine of Enlil and in the shrine of the Sun-god; they have shed blood in the Akhush; they have carried away the silver and the precious stones! They have shed blood in E-babbar; they have carried away the silver and the precious stones! They have shed blood in the Gikana of the goddess Ninmakh of the Sacred Grove; they have carried away the silver and the precious stones! They have shed blood in the Baga; they have carried away the silver and the precious stones! They have set fire to[Pg 190] the Dugru; they have carried away the silver and the precious stones! They have shed blood in Abzu-ega; they have set fire to the temple of Gatumdug; they have carried away the silver and the precious stones, and have destroyed the statue! They have set fire to the ... of the temple E-anna of the goddess Ninni; they have carried away the silver and the precious stones, and have destroyed the statue! They have shed blood in the Shagpada; they have carried away the silver and the precious stones! In the Khenda ...; they have shed blood in Kiab, the temple of Nindar; they have carried away the silver and the precious stones! They have set fire to Kinunir, the temple of Dumuzi-abzu; they have carried away the silver and the precious stones! They have set fire to the temple of Lugal-uru; they have carried away the silver and the precious stones! They have shed blood in the temple E-engur, of the goddess Ninâ; they have carried away the silver and the precious stones! They have shed blood in the Sag ..., the temple of Amageshtin; the silver and precious stones of Amageshtin have they carried away! They have removed the grain from Ginarbaniru, from the field of Ningirsu, all of it that was under cultivation! The men of Umma, by the despoiling of Lagash, have committed a sin against the god Ningirsu! The power that is come unto them, from them shall be taken away! Of sin on the part of Urukagina, king of Girsu, there is none. But as for Lugal-zaggisi, patesi of Umma, may his goddess Nidaba bear this sin upon her head!"
It will be noticed that, in addition to the temples in the list, the writer mentions several buildings of a more secular character,[59] but the majority of these were attached to the great temples and were used in connection with the produce from the sacred lands. Thus the Antasurra, the palace of Tirash, the Akhush, the Baga, and the Dugru were all dedicated to the service of Ningirsu, the Abzu-banda and the Shagpada to the goddess Ninâ, and the Abzu-ega to Gatumdug. The text does not record the destruction of the king's palace, or of private dwellings, but there can be little[Pg 191] doubt that the whole city was sacked, and the greater part of it destroyed by fire. The writer of the tablet is mainly concerned with the sacrilege committed in the temples of the gods, and with the magnitude of the offence against Ningirsu. He can find no reason for the wrongs the city has suffered in any transgression on the part of Urukagina, its king; for Ningirsu has had no cause to be angry with his representative. All he can do is to protest his belief that the city-god will one day be avenged upon the men of Umma and their goddess Nidaba. Meanwhile Lagash lay desolate, and Umma inherited the position she had held among the cities of Southern Babylonia. We know that in course of time the city rose again from her ruins, and that the temples, which had been laid waste and desecrated, were rebuilt in even greater splendour. But, as a state, Lagash appears never to have recovered from the blow dealt her by Lugal-zaggisi. At any rate, she never again enjoyed the authority which she wielded under the rule of her great patesis.
[1] See Messerschmidt, "Vorderasiatische Schriftdenkmäler," I., p. v.. pl. 3, No. 4.
[2] See "Collection de Clercq, Catalogue," Tome II., pl. x., No. 6, p. 92 f.; Thureau-Dangin, "Rev. d'Assyr.," vol. iv., p. 40. The name should possibly be read Ur-Khumma (cf. "Königsinschriften," p. 150, n. h.).
[3] In a very fragmentary passage of the clay-inscription of Enannatum from El-Hibba, Langdon would see a reference to the removal of Mesilim's stele during this revolt; see "Zeits. der Deutschen Morgenländ. Gesellschaft," Bd. LXII. (1908), p. 399 f.
[4] See "Cuneiform Texts," Pt. V., pl. 1, "Königsinschriften," p. 30 f.; for a drawing of the object, see Budge, "History of Egypt," vol. i., p. 67.
[5] The reading of the last syllable of the name is not certain.
[6] Cf. "Déc. en Chaldée," p. xlix.
[7] Cf. "Vorderas. Schriftdenkmäler," I., p. v., pl. 4, No. 5 a-d.
[8] The name is also read as Khummatur.
[10] So Thureau-Dangin, "Königsinschriften," p. 38 f., Cone, Col. III., ll. 19 ff. Genouillac would interpret the passage as meaning that the men of Umma abandoned in their flight sixty of their chariots of war (cf. "Tabl. sum. arch.," p. xii.). These, of course, were drawn by asses, the earliest mention of a horse in Babylonia occurring on a tablet of the period of Hammurabi or Samsu-iluna (cf. Ungnad, "Orient. Lit.-Zeit.," 1907, col. 638 f.); the regular use of the horse was introduced by the Kassites.
[11] See Thureau-Dangin, "Rev. d'Assyr.," p. 40, n. 4; "Recueil de tabl. chald.," p. 56, No. 120.
[12] See Hilprecht, "Old Bab. Inscr.," Pt. II., No. 87, pl. 40, Col. II., ll. 26 ff.
[13] "Déc. en Chald.," p. xlvii.; Thureau-Dangin, "Rev. d'Assyr.," Vol. IV., pp. 37 ff., "Königsinschriften," pp. 36 ff.
[14] Cf. Hilprecht, "Old Bab. Inscr." Pt. II., pl. 48 f., Nos. 115-117.
[16] Cf. Heuzey, "Déc. en Chald.," p. 204.
[17] The two principal building texts are engraved upon an alabaster foundation-tablet ("Déc. en Chald.," p. xlvi.), and upon a fine gate-socket of Entemena preserved in the British Museum ("Cun. Txts.," Pt. X., pl. 1). All were inscribed towards the end of Entemena's reign, the gate-socket at a rather earlier date than the tablets.
[19] That in virtue of his office the priest of Ningirsu at this period occupied a position of considerable importance is also clear from the double dates, by patesiate and priesthood; see below, p. 171.
[20] Entemena appears to have reigned at least twenty-nine years; see Allotte de la Fuÿe, "Hilprecht Anniversary Volume," p. 123.
[21] That offerings continued to be made in connection with Ur-Ninâ's statue during Lugal-anda's reign (as evinced by tablets of the period, cf. Allotte de la Fuëe, "Rev. d'Assyr.," VI., p. 107, and Genouillac, "Tabl. sum. arch.," p. lvii.) is no proof of the continuance of his dynasty, though it is evidence of the honour in which its founder was still held. Genouillac suggests that Enetarzi and Enlitarzi may have been related, and possibly sons of Enannatum II. (op. cit., p. xii.), but the suggestion is purely conjectural.
[22] See Thureau-Dangin, "Recueil de tablettes chaldéennes," pp. ii. f., 9 ff., Allotte de la Fu e, "Documents présargoniques," and Genouillac, "Tablettes sumériennes archaïques."
[23] The full form of the name appears to have been Lugal-andanushuga (see Thureau-Dangin, op. cit., p. 17, No. 33, Rev., Col. II., l. 2, and "Königsinschriften," p. 224); but it was generally abbreviated to Lugal-anda.
[24] See Allotte de la Fuÿe, "Revue d'Assyr.," Vol. VI., No. 4, p. 107. Similar figures have been found upon clay sealings, which were probably attached to bundles of such tablets. It is possible that Enlitarzi reigned for at least seven years and Lugal-anda for at least nine; see Allotte de la Fuÿe, "Hilprecht Anniversary Volume," p. 123.
[25] Cf. Thureau-Dangin, "Rec. de tabl. chald.," p. ii. f.
[26] Cf. Genouillac, "Orient. Lit.-Zeit.," XI., col. 215, n. 6. The wife of Enlitarzi was Lugunutur, and in addition to Lugal-anda he had a son named Urtar, who was living in Lugal-anda's reign (cf. "Tabl. sum. arch.," p. xii.).
[27] The "great patesi" and Barnamtarra are here mentioned in a list of functionaries. With the former Genouillac would identify Lugal-anda, who, he suggests, after being dethroned by Urukagina, was allowed to retain the title of patesi with its purely religious functions. In support of this view he cites another tablet dated in Urukagina's second year, which enumerates presents made by "the patesi" to Amat-Bau, daughter of Urukagina; it is significant that the beasts were furnished by Lugal-anda's steward. Other tablets mention offerings made by "the patesi" to Shakh-Bau and Aenragin, other children of Urukagina (see Genouillac, "Tabl. sum. arch.," p. xiv. f.). Genouillac also suggests that Enlitarzi may have survived through the patesiate of his son, Lugal-anda, until the beginning of Urukagina's reign (op. cit., p. xiii.).
[28] See Thureau-Dangin, "Rec. de tabl. chald.," No. 26, pp. ii., 9.
[29] Moreover, Enlitarzi is given the title of "priest" in the contract inscribed on the clay cone referred to on p. 170.
[30] Cf. Thureau-Dangin, "Rev. d'Assyr.," Vol. VI., pp. 137 ff.
[31] The fact that Enlitarzi may have survived during the patesiate of his son scarcely justifies the view that the office of patesi was not necessarily held for life.
[32] See Allotte de la Fuÿe, "Rev. d'Assyr.," Vol. VI., pp. 105 ff.; "Doc. présargon.," pl. v. ff. Similar sealings in the Museum of the Hermitage at St. Petersburg have been published by M. Likhatcheff (cf. also Genouillac, "Tabl. sum. arch.," p. ix.).
[33] Allotte de la Fuÿe, "Rev. d'Assyr.,5' Vol. VI., p. 110 ff.
[34] See Allotte de la Fuÿe, op. cit., p. 118.
[35] The tablets of accounts, so far as they have been examined, furnish no information on Urukagina's antecedents; but it may be noted that they give details with regard to his children, cf. Genouillac, "Orient. Lit.-Zeit.," XI., col. 216, n. 2, and "Tabl. sum. arch.," pp. xv., xxiii. f. On the Obelisk of Manishtusu, king of Kish, mention is made of a certain Urukagina, son of Engilsa, patesi of Lagash. Since a tablet of the period of Urukagina enumerates offerings made by Shagshag, Urukagina's wife, on behalf of a certain Engilsa and herself, Genouillac accepts the identification of the two Urukaginas, applying the title of patesi in Manishtusu's texts to Urukagina, not Engilsa (cf. "Tabl. sum. arch.," p. xiv.). This synchronism between the rulers of Lagash and Kish, if established, would be most valuable for the early chronology; but it is not certain, and the recurrence of the names may be merely a coincidence (see further, p. 209 f.).
[36] The reading of the name of this deity (Dun-...) is still uncertain; it has been read variously as Dun-sir, Shul-gur, and Dun-gur; see above, p. 109.
[38] Oval Plaque, Col. IV., ll. 5 ff. The passage does not refer to Urukagina's own reign, as assumed by Meyer, "Geschichte," Bd. I., Hft. II., p. 456.
[39] Cone A, Cones B and C, and the Oval Plaque; see "Découvertes en Chaldée," pp. l.-lii., and Thureau-Dangin, "Königsinschriften," pp. 44 ff.
[40] Cones B and C, Col. VII., ll. 12 ff. For an interesting discussion of many of the official titles occurring on the tablets of the period, see Genouillac, "Tabl. sum. arch.," pp. xxiii. ff.
[41] Cones B and C, Col. IV., ll. 9 ff.
[42] Cones B and C, Col. IX., ll. 7 ff.
[43] Cf. Cone A, Col. V. (end).
[44] See "Cun. Texts in the Brit. Mus.," Pt. III., pl. 2 ff., Pt. V., pl. 4 ff., and cf. Hunger, "Becherwahrsagung bei den Babyloniern," in "Leipzig. Semit. Stud.," I., 1.
[45] On this point cf. also Cuq, "Nouvelle revue historique," 1908, p. 485.
[46] The principal argument for its Semitic origin was based on a misrendering of galâbu (see Meyer, "Sum. und Sem.," p. 24, n. 3, and cf. "Geschichte," I. 2, p. 512).
[47] Cones B and C, Col. VIII., ll. 10 ff.
[48] B and C, Col. XII., ll. 26 ff.
[49] Cf. Cone A, Col. VII., and Cones B and C, Col. XII., l. 21 f. The phrase does not imply that slavery was abolished, but that abuses were put down in the administration of the state. The employment of slaves naturally continued to be a recognized institution as in earlier and later periods. In fact, tablets of this epoch prove that not only private persons, but also temples could possess slaves, and, like domestic animals, they could be dedicated to a god for life. Thus eight male and three female slaves are mentioned in a list of offerings made by Amattar-sirsirra, a daughter of Urukagina, to the god Mesandu (cf. Genouillac, "Orient. Lit.-Zeit.," 1909, col. 110 f.).
[50] Cones B and C, Col. XII., ll. 23 ff.
[51] Cf. Brick, Col. IV., Cone A, Col. III., l. 10, and Cones B and C, Col. II., ll. 11 ff.
[52] Cones B and C, Col. XII., ll. 29 ff.
[53] Olive A; cf. "Découvertes," p. 1., and "Königsinschriften," p. 44 f.
[54] Olive C; "Königsinschriften," p. 44 f.
[55] Oval Plaque, Col. IV., the end of which is wanting; cf. p. 178, n. 1.
[56] See Thureau-Dangin, "Rev. d'Assyr.," Vol. VI., pp. 26 ff., "Königsinschriften," pp. 56 ff.
The sack and destruction of Lagash, which has been described in the preceding chapter, closes an epoch, not only in the fortunes of that city, but also in the history of the lands of Sumer and Akkad. When following the struggles of the early city-states, we have hitherto been able to arrange our material in strict chronological order by the help of a nearly unbroken succession of rulers, whose inscriptions have been recovered during the French excavations at Tello. These have enabled us to reconstruct the history of Lagash herself in some detail, and from the references they furnish to other great cities it has been possible to estimate the influence she exerted from time to time among her neighbours. It is true that the records, from which our information is derived, were drawn up by the rulers of Lagash whose deeds they chronicle, and are naturally far from being impartial authorities. A victory may sometimes have been claimed, when the facts may not have fully justified it; and to this extent we have been forced to view the history of Sumer and of Akkad from the standpoint of a single city. Had the sites of other cities yielded as rich a harvest as Tello, it is probable that other states would be found to have played no less important parts. But in any case it may be regarded as certain that for a time at least Lagash enjoyed the hegemony which it was the ambition of every state of Sumer and Akkad to possess. This leading position had been definitely secured to her by the conquests of Eannatum, and, although under his successors her influence may have diminished,[Pg 193] it must have still remained considerable until the victory of Umma put an end to it.
Lugal-zaggisi, the conqueror of Lagash, is mentioned by name in the document from which our knowledge of the catastrophe is derived. The unknown writer of that composition, as we have already seen, assigns to him the title "patesi of Umma," and, had we no other information concerning him, we might perhaps have concluded that his success against the ancient rival of his own city was merely an isolated achievement. In the long-continued struggle between these neighbouring states Umma had finally proved victorious, and the results of this victory might have been regarded as of little more than local importance.[1] But, even before the discovery of the record, Lugal-zaggisi's name was known as that of a great conqueror, and it will be seen that his defeat of Urukagina was only one step in a career of conquest, in the course of which he subdued the whole of Sumer and consolidated a dominion as great as, if not greater than, any hitherto acquired by the ruler of a city-state. The inscription from which we obtain our knowledge of Lugal-zaggisi's career is engraved upon a number of fragments of vases, made of white calcite stalagmite, which were discovered at Nippur during the excavations carried out by the University of Pennsylvania. All the vases were broken into small pieces, but, as each had been engraved with the same inscription, it was found possible, by piecing the fragments together, to reconstruct a more or less complete copy of the text.[2] From this we learn that Lugal-zaggisi had dedicated the vases to Enlil, and had deposited them as votive offerings in the great temple of E-kur.
Fortunately, Lugal-zaggisi prefaces his record of their dedication with a long list of his own titles and achievements, which make up the greater part of the inscription. From this portion of the text we gather[Pg 194] considerable information with regard to the cities under his control, and the limits of the empire to which he laid claim at the time the record was drawn up. The text opens with an enumeration of the royal titles, in which Lugal-zaggisi is described as "King of Erech, king of the land, priest of Ana, prophet of Nidaba; the son of Ukush, patesi of Umma, the prophet of Nidaba; he who was favourably regarded by Ana, the king of the lands; the great patesi of Enlil; endowed with understanding by Enki; whose name was spoken by Babbar (the Sun-god); the chief minister of Enzu (the Moon-god); the representative of Babbar; the patron of Ninni; the son of Nidaba, who was nourished with holy milk by Ninkharsag; the servant of the god Mes, who is the priest of Erech; the pupil of Ninabukhadu, the mistress of Erech; the great minister of the gods."[3] Lugal-zaggisi then goes on to state in general terms the limits of his dominion. "When the god Enlil, the king of the lands," he says, "had bestowed upon Lugal-zaggisi the kingdom of the land, and had granted him success in the eyes of the land, and when his might had cast the lands down, and he had conquered them from the rising of the sun unto the setting of the same, at that time he made straight his path from the Lower Sea (over) the Euphrates and the Tigris[4] unto the Upper Sea. From the rising of the sun unto the setting of the same has Enlil granted him dominion...."[5] It is to Enlil, the chief of the gods, that, in accordance with the practice of the period, he ascribes the dominion which has been granted him to administer.
The phrases in which Lugal-zaggisi defines the limits of his empire are sufficiently striking, and it will be necessary to enquire into their exact significance. But before doing so it will be well to continue quoting from the inscription, which proceeds to describe the benefits which the king has conferred upon different cities of his realm. Referring to the peace and[Pg 195] prosperity which characterized Lugal-zaggisi's reign, the record states that "he caused the lands to dwell in security, he watered the land with waters of joy. In the shrines of Sumer did they set him up to be the patesi of the lands, and in Erech (they appointed him) to be chief priest. At that time he made Erech bright with joy; like a bull he raised the head of Ur to heaven; Larsa, the beloved city of the Sun-god, he watered with waters of joy; Umraa, the beloved city of the god ..., he raised to exalted power; as a ewe that ... her lamb, has he made Ninni-esh resplendent; the summit of Kianki has he raised to heaven."[6] Then follows the votive portion of the text and the prayer of dedication, with which for the moment we have no concern.
From the extracts which have been quoted from Lugal-zaggisi's inscription, it will have been seen that he claims a jurisdiction far wider than might have been expected to belong to a patesi of Umma. But the text itself explains the apparent discrepancy, and shows that, while Lugal-zaggisi's inheritance was a patesiate, he won by his own exertions the empire over which he subsequently ruled. It will be noticed that while he claims for himself the titles "King of Erech" and "king of the land," i.e. of Sumer, he ascribes to his father Ukush only the title "patesi of Umma." It is therefore clear that his father's authority did not reach beyond the limits of his native city, and we may conclude that such was the extent of the patesiate of Umma when Lugal-zaggisi himself came to the throne. The later titles, which he assumes on the vases found at Nippur, prove that at the time they were inscribed he had already established his authority throughout Sumer and had removed his seat of government from Umma to Erech. That the latter city had become his capital is clear from the precedence which he gives to the designation "King of Erech" over his other titles of honour; and, in accordance with this change of residence, he details the new relations into which he has entered with the deities of that city. Thus he is the servant of Mes and the pupil of Ninabukhadu, the divine priest and the mistress of Erech; and in a special[Pg 196] sense he has become the patron of Ninni, the chief seat of whose worship was at Erech, in her great temple E-anna. Ana, too, the father of the gods, had his temple in Erech, and so Lugal-zaggisi naturally became his priest and enjoyed his special favour. It was probably in consequence of Ana's close connection with his new capital that Lugal-zaggisi ascribes to him the title "king of the lands," which by right belonged only to Enlil of Nippur; and we may note that in the prayer of dedication on the vases it is with Ana that Enlil is besought to intercede on behalf of the king.[7]
Although Lugal-zaggisi had changed his capital and no longer continued to use his father's title as patesi of Umma, he naturally did not neglect his native city; moreover, he retained the title "prophet of Nidaba," and thereby continued to claim the protection of the city-goddess, who, before his recent victories, had been his patroness and that of his father before him. He even emphasized his dependence upon her by styling himself her son, and in another passage he boasts that he had raised the city of Umma to power. High in his favour also stood Ur, the city of the Moon-god, and Larsa, the city of the Sun-god; and the less-known cities of Ninni-esh and Kianki are also selected for mention as having been specially favoured by him. At first sight it is not clear on what principle the names of these cities are selected from among all those in the land of Sumer, which were presumably within the circle of his authority. That Erech, Ur, and Larsa should be referred to is natural enough, for they were close to one another, and would thus form the centre and nucleus of his dominion; and the king would naturally devote himself to improving their canalization and beautifying them by the erection of new buildings. It is not improbable that we may explain the mention of Ninni-esh and Kianki on the same principle: they probably stood in the immediate neighbourhood of the three greater cities, or of Umma, and thus participated in the benefits which they enjoyed.
In any case, the absence of a city's name from Lugal-zaggisi's list is not necessarily to be taken as[Pg 197] implying that it was not included within the limits of his dominion. This is proved by the fact that Lagash is not referred to, although it was probably one of his earliest conquests. In fact, the king's object in composing the earlier part of his inscription was not to give an accurate analysis of the extent and condition of his empire, but merely to enumerate the cities he had particularly favoured, and to record the names of those deities with whom he stood in particularly close relations. For instance, we may conclude that although the city of Eridu is not referred to by name, it nevertheless formed part of Lugal-zaggisi's kingdom. There is thus every reason to regard his dominion as having been co-extensive with the whole of Sumer, and his title "king of the land" was probably based on a confederation of all the Sumerian city-states.
A more difficult problem is presented by what at first sight appears to be a claim to a still wider empire, which follows Lugal-zaggisi's titles at the end of the first and the beginning of the second column of his inscription. He here states that, after Enlil had bestowed on him the kingdom of the land (that is, of Sumer), and had granted him success in the eyes of the land, and when his might had cast the lands down and he had conquered them from East to West, at that time Enlil "made straight his path from the Lower Sea (over) the Euphrates and the Tigris unto the Upper Sea."[8] The Lower Sea is clearly the Persian Gulf, and by the Upper Sea it is probable that the Mediterranean is intended, rather than Lake Urmi or Lake Van. On the basis of this passage Lugal-zaggisi has been credited with having consolidated and ruled an empire extending from the Persian Gulf to the shores of the Mediterranean.[9] In other words, he would have included Akkad and Syria along with Sumer within the limits of his rule.
It is true that Shar-Gani-sharri of Akkad, at a rather later period, did succeed in establishing an empire of[Pg 198] this extent, but there are difficulties in the way of crediting Lugal-zaggisi with a like achievement. For Erech, the capital of his kingdom, was in Southern Babylonia, and, unlike the city of Akkad, was not well adapted to form the centre of an administrative area extending so far to the north and west. Moreover, the actual phrase employed by Lugal-zaggisi does not necessarily imply a claim to dominion within these regions, but may be taken as commemorating little more than a victorious raid, during which he may have penetrated to the Syrian coast. Such an expedition, so far as we know, must have marked a new departure from the policy hitherto followed by the rulers of Sumerian city-states, and its successful prosecution would have fully justified the language in which it is recorded. In view of these considerations, it is preferable to regard Lugal-zaggisi's kingdom, in the strict sense of the word, as having been confined to Sumer. Of his relations to Akkad and the northern cities we have no evidence on which to form an opinion. We shall presently see reasons for believing that at about this period, or a little later, the state of Kish secured the hegemony in Northern Babylonia, and, in view of the absence of any reference to it in Lugal-zaggisi's inscription, we may perhaps conclude that in his time the city had already laid the foundations of its later power.
It was probably after his successful return from the long expedition in the north-west that Lugal-zaggisi deposited his vases as votive offerings within Enlil's shrine at Nippur, and engraved upon them the inscriptions from which we obtain our information concerning his reign. In the third column of his text he states that he has dedicated them to Enlil, after having made due offerings of loaves in Nippur and having poured out pure water as a libation. He then adds a prayer of dedication, in which he prays for life for himself, and peace for his land, and a large army. "May Enlil, the king of the lands," he says, "pronounce my prayer to Ana, his beloved father! To my life may he add life! May he cause the lands to dwell in security! Warriors as numerous as the grass may he grant me in[Pg 199] abundance! Of the celestial folds may he take care! May he look with kindness on the land (of Sumer)! May the gods not alter the good destiny they have assigned to me! May I always be the shepherd, who leads (his flock)!"[10] We may regard it as typical of the great conqueror that he should pray for a supply of warriors "as numerous as the grass."
It is fortunate for our knowledge of early Sumerian history that the shrine of Enlil at Nippur should have been the depository for votive offerings, brought thither by the rulers of city-states to commemorate their victories. Of the inscribed objects of this class that were recovered at Nippur during the American excavations on that site, by far the most important are the vase-fragments of Lugal-zaggisi, which have already been described. But others were found, which, though supplying less detailed information, are of considerable value, since they furnish the names of other rulers of Sumer, who may probably be grouped with Lugal-zaggisi. Two kings of this period are Lugal-kigub-nidudu and Lugal-kisalsi, each of whom bore the title "King of Erech" and "King of Ur," while the former, like Lugal-zaggisi, styles himself in addition "king of the land," i.e. of Sumer. Their inscriptions were found in the mound of Nippur at about the same level as the vase-fragments of Lugal-zaggisi, and a comparison of the characters employed in each set of texts suggests that they date from about the same period.
That Lugal-kigub-nidudu and Lugal-kisalsi are in any case to be set before the time of Shar-Gani-sharri of Akkad is proved by the fact that one of the rough blocks of diorite, which the former had dedicated to Enlil after inscribing his name upon it, was afterwards used by Shar-Gani-sharri as a door-socket in the temple he erected at Nippur.[11] Whether they lived still earlier than Lugal-zaggisi it is difficult to decide. The longest inscription of Lugal-kigub-nidudu which has been recovered is engraved upon a vase which he deposited as a votive offering in Enlil's temple, and from the[Pg 200] introductory phrases preceding the dedication it would appear that he founded a kingdom, or at any rate enlarged one which he already possessed. "When Enlil, the king of the lands," the passage runs, "(had spoken) to Lugal-kigub-nidudu and had addressed a favourable word to him, and had united the dominion with the kingdom, of Erech he made a dominion, of Ur he made a kingdom."[12] It would thus seem that Lugal-kigub-nidudu had at first been possessed of only one of the two cities, Erech or Ur, and that he subsequently acquired the other, probably by conquest, and proceeded to rule them both under separate administrations.
Too much emphasis is not to be set on the fact that he describes his rule of Erech as a lordship or a dominion, while he styles that of Ur a kingdom; for the difference in these phrases was not very marked in the pre-Sargonic period, and it is to be noted that Erech is mentioned before Ur. Moreover, Lugal-kisalsi assigns the title "King of Erech" as well as "King of Ur" to his predecessor as to himself, and, since he places the former title first, it is probable that Erech and not Ur was their capital. But even on this assumption it does not follow that Erech was Lugal-kigub-nidudu's native city, for we have seen that when Lugal-zaggisi conquered Sumer he transferred his capital to Erech, and Lugal-kigub-nidudu may have done the same. The fact that at a later period Gudea, when rebuilding the temple E-ninnû, came across a stele of Lugal-kisalsi[13] suggests that he exercised authority over Lagash; and we may probably conclude that both he and Lugal-kigub-nidudu included the principal cities of Southern Babylonia under their sway. That Lugal-kisalsi followed and did not precede Lugal-kigub-nidudu upon the dual throne of Erech and Ur is certain from one of his votive inscriptions,[14] which contains a reference to the earlier king. The beginning of the text is wanting, so that it is not clear whether he mentions him as his father or in some other connection. In any case[Pg 201] we may assume that he followed him at no long interval; but it is not yet certain whether we are to set their reigns in Sumer before or after that of Lugal-zaggisi.
The same uncertainty applies to another ruler of this period, who bore the name of Enshagkushanna and assumed the titles "lord of Sumer" and "king of the land." Two of his inscriptions have been recovered upon fragments of vases, which were found at Nippur at the same level as those already described, and one of these is of considerable interest, for it gives us the name of an enemy of Sumer who has already bulked largely in the earlier history of Lagash.[15] The inscription in question consists of only a few words, and reads: "Enshagkushanna has vowed to Enlil the booty of Kish, the wicked."[16] It is clear from the epithet applied to Kish that at this period, as in the time of Eannatum, the northern city was a terror to the Sumerian states in the south, and we may assume that war between them was not of infrequent occurrence. It was after some successful raid or battle in the north that Enshagkushanna dedicated a portion of the spoil to Enlil in his temple of E-kur. Similar fragments of vases have been found at Nippur, the inscriptions upon which testify to other successes against Kish, achieved by a king of Sumer, who probably reigned at a period rather earlier than Enshagkushanna, Lugal-kigub-nidudu, and even Lugal-zaggisi.
Although fragments of no less than four of his vase-inscriptions have been discovered,[17] the name of this Sumerian king unfortunately does not occur on any one of them. In the longest of the texts he takes the title of "king," and in the gap that follows we may probably restore the phrase "of the land," that is, of Sumer; on two of them, like the other Sumerian kings we have referred to, he ascribes his installation in the government of the country to Enlil, the god of Nippur. All four inscriptions were drawn up on the same occasion, and commemorate a striking victory this[Pg 202] unknown Sumerian ruler had achieved over the northern cities of Kish and Opis. Of the two conquered cities Kish was clearly the more important, for its devastation is recorded in each of the texts, whereas Opis is only mentioned in one of them. Each city was ruled by a separate king, whose overthrow is recorded on the vases, but, since they were defeated in the same battle, we may conjecture that they formed the centre of a single confederation or dominion, of which Kish was the head. In two of the texts the king of Kish is referred to, not only by his title, but by name, and, since he bore the Semitic name of Enbi-Ishtar, we may conclude that at this period Kish, and probably Opis and other northern cities, were already under Semitic domination. In the war these cities were waging with the south, the vases record what appears to have been a serious check to the increase of Semitic influence and power. For not only was Enbi-Ishtar defeated, but both Kish and Opis were sacked, and the Sumerian king returned southward laden with booty, including statues, precious metals, and rare stones. The vases on which he recorded his victory formed part of the spoil captured in the north. They were fashioned of white calcite stalagmite, dark brown sandstone, and dark brown tufa or igneous rock. In the land of Sumer, where stone was a rare commodity, these were highly prized objects, and they formed a fitting thank-offering for presentation at Enlil's shrine.
We have already referred to the question as to the nationality of the still earlier kings of Kish, Mesilim and his successors, some of whom we know to have been contemporary with the earlier rulers of Lagash. At that period the northern city had already succeeded in imposing its authority upon some of the city-states of Sumer, and later on both Kish and Opis are proved to have been engaged in active warfare in the south. Too little evidence is available for determining definitely whether these earlier kings and patesis were of Sumerian or Semitic stock, but there is much to be said in favour of regarding the later conflicts between the north and south as merely a continuation of the earlier struggle. With Enbi-Ishtar we meet at any rate with a name[Pg 203] that is genuinely Semitic,[18] and we shall presently see reasons for believing that other Semitic kings of Kish, whose inscriptions and monuments have been recovered, should be placed in the same period. According to this view, as we have already pointed out,[19] the first Semitic immigration into Northern Babylonia, or Akkad, is not to be synchronized with the empire of Akkad, which was founded by Shar-Gani-sharri and consolidated by Narâm-Sin. In spite of the absence of Semitic idiom from the few short votive inscriptions of the earlier kings of Kish that have as yet been found, the possibility must not be disregarded that they too date from a period of Semitic and not of Sumerian domination in the north. At Sippar also we have evidence of very early Semitic occupation.
One of this later group of kings of Kish, whose inscriptions prove them to have been Semites, is Urumush, or Rimush,[20] and, although in all probability the latest of them, he may be referred to first, since we have definite evidence that he is to be assigned to the epoch preceding Shar-Gani-sharri and Narâm-Sin. In an unpublished tablet from Tello, preserved in the Museum at Constantinople, there occurs the proper name Ili-Urumush, "My god is Urumush."[21] The deification of some of the early kings of Babylonia has long been recognized as having taken place, at any rate from the time of Shar-Gani-sharri; and we have evidence that the honour was not only paid to them after death, but was assumed by the kings themselves during their own lifetime.[22] The occurrence of a proper name such as Ili-Urumush can only be explained on the supposition that a king bearing the name of Urumush had already reigned, or was reigning at the time[Pg 204] the former name was employed. Now, the tablet in Constantinople, which mentions the name of Ili-Urumush, is undated, but from its form, writing, and contents it may clearly be assigned to the same epoch as certain dated tablets of Shar-Gani-sharri and Narâm-Sin with which it was found. From this it follows that Urumush was anterior to Shar-Gani-sharri and Narâm-Sin, though his reign may not have been separated from theirs by any long interval.
Fig 56.—White marble vase, engraved with the name and title of Urumush, King of Kish. From Niffer.—Pennsylvania Museum, No. 8870.
We have but a few short inscriptions of Urumush, and those of a votive character, but they enable us to form some estimate of the extent and condition of his empire. The only designation he assumes in those of his inscriptions that have been recovered is "King of Kish," so that we are without the information which might have been derived from a study of his subsidiary titles. Such titles would no doubt have been added in any lengthy text, and their absence from his known inscriptions is simply due to their brevity. On the other hand, the fact that these short inscriptions have been found on sites so widely scattered as Abû Habba, Niffer, and Tello, is probably significant. The inscriptions from Abû Habba[23] and Tello consist simply of his name and title engraved on fragments of stone vases, and, since they bear no dedication to a local deity, they might possibly have been carried there as spoil from Kish. But fragments of precisely similar vases, bearing the same inscription, have been found at Niffer, and, as the texts upon two other vases from the latter place prove that they were[Pg 205] deposited there by Urumush himself, it is a fair assumption that their presence on the other two sites is to be explained in the same way. We may therefore conclude that both Sippar and Lagash were under the control of Urumush. In other words, it is not improbable that the limits of his authority in Babylonia extended from the extreme north of Akkad to the south of Sumer.
It is fully in accordance with this view that Urumush should have controlled the central sanctuary at Nippur, and his vases found upon that site, which bear dedications to Enlil, prove that this was so. From one of them we learn too that the power of Kish was felt beyond the limits of Sumer and Akkad. The text in question states that the vase upon which it is inscribed formed part of certain spoil from Elam, and was dedicated to Enlil by Urumush, "when he had conquered Elam and Barakhsu."[24] It is possible that the conquest of Elam and the neighbouring district of Barakhsu, to which Urumush here lays claim, was not more than a successful raid into those countries, from which he returned laden with spoil. But even so, the fact that a king of Kish was strong enough to assume the offensive against Elam, and to lead an expedition across the border, is sufficiently noteworthy. The references to Elam which we have hitherto noted in the inscriptions from Tello would seem to suggest that up to this time the Elamites had been the aggressors, and had succeeded in penetrating into Sumerian territory from which they were with difficulty dislodged. Under Urumush the conditions were reversed, and we shall shortly see reason for believing that his success was not a solitary achievement, but may be connected with other facts in the history of Kish under the Semitic rulers of this period. Meanwhile we may note the testimony to the power and extent of the kingdom of Kish, which is furnished by the short inscriptions of his reign. Later tradition relates that Urumush met his end in a palace revolution;[25] but[Pg 206] the survival of his name in the omen-literature of the later Babylonians and Assyrians is further evidence of the important part he played in the early history of their country.
Another king of Kish, whose name has been recovered in short votive inscriptions from Abû Habba[26] and Niffer is Manishtusu.[27] But fortunately for our knowledge of his reign, we possess a monument, which, though giving little information of an historical nature, is of the greatest value for the light it throws upon the Semitic character of the population and the economical conditions which prevailed in Northern Babylonia at the time it was drawn up. This monument is the famous Obelisk of Manishtusu,[28] which was discovered by M. de Morgan at Susa, during his first season's work on that site in the winter of 1897-8. On the obelisk is engraved a text in some sixty-nine columns, written in Semitic Babylonian, and recording the purchase by Manishtusu of large tracts of cultivated land situated in the neighbourhood of Kish and of three other cities in Northern Babylonia. Each of the four sides of the stone is devoted to a separate area or tract of land, near one of the four great cities. Thus the first side records the purchase of certain land made up of three estates and known as the Field of Baz, which lay near the city of Dûr-Sin; the second side records the purchase of the Field of Baraz-sîrim, near the city of Kish, Manishtusu's capital; the third side, like the first, deals with three estates, and these together were known as the Meadow (or, strictly, the Marsh) of Ninkharsag, near the city of Marad; while the fourth side is concerned with the purchase of the Field of Shad-Bitkim and Zimanak, near a city the name of which may be provisionally rendered as Shid-tab.[29] The great length of the inscription [Pg 207]is due to the fact that, in addition to giving details with regard to the size, value, and position of each estate, the text enumerates by name the various proprietors from whom the land was purchased, the former overseers or managers who were dispossessed, and the new overseers who were installed in their place. The names of the latter are repeated on all four sides of the obelisk before the purchase-formula.
MACE-HEAD DEDICATED TO THE GOD MESLAMTAEA ON BEHALF OF DUNGI, KING OF UR; AND MACE-HEAD DEDICATED TO A DEITY OR DEITIES BY LASIRAB, KING OF GUTIU.—Brit. Mus., Nos. 91074 and 90852.
REPRESENTATION IN DIORITE OF A WOMAN'S HAIR, DEDICATED TO A GODDESS ON BEHALF OF DUNGI, KING OF UR; AND MACE-HEAD DEDICATED TO THE GODDESS NINA BY MANISHTUSU, KING OF KISH.—Brit. Mus., Nos. 91075 and 91018.
We may note the fact that Manishtusu did not confiscate the land, but acquired it legally by purchase, as though he were merely a private citizen or large land-owner. The exact area of each estate was first accurately ascertained by measurement, and its value was then reckoned in grain and afterwards in silver, one bur of land being regarded as worth sixty gur of grain, or one mana of silver. An additional sum, consisting of one-tenth or three-twentieths of the purchase-price, was also paid to the owners of each estate, who received besides from the king presents of animals, garments, vessels, etc., which varied in value according to the recipient's rank or his former share in the property. Not only are the owners' names and parentage duly recorded on the stone, but also those of certain associates who had an interest in the land; most of these appear to have been relatives of the owners, who had contributed capital for the cultivation or improvement of the estates. Their names were doubtless included in order to prevent any subsequent claim being raised by them against the king. The same reason appears to have dictated the enumeration by name of the former managers or overseers of each estate, who by its purchase were deprived of their occupation. The cultivation of the large tracts of land, which passed into the king's possession, had given employment to no less than fifteen hundred and sixty-four labourers, who had been in the charge of eighty-seven overseers. It is worthy of note that Manishtusu undertook to find fresh occupation and means of support for both these classes in other places, which were probably situated at no great distance from their homes.
The reason for this extensive purchase of landed property by Manishtusu may possibly have been given[Pg 208] at the beginning of the text inscribed upon the obelisk, but unfortunately very little of the first column of the inscription has been preserved. The main body of the text affords little material on which to base a conjecture. One point, however, may be regarded as certain: the reason for the purchase appears to have had some close connection with the forty-nine new managers and overseers, to whom Manishtusu entrusted the administration of his newly acquired property. The mere fact that their names and descriptions should have been repeated on each side of the obelisk is probably significant. Moreover, they are all described in the text as citizens[30] of Akkad, and the prominence given to them in each section suggests that the king purchased the land with the express object of handing it over to their charge. It may also be noted that Manishtusu removed, not only the former managers, but also every labourer who had been employed on the estates, so that we may assume that the new managers brought their own labourers with them, who would continue the cultivation of the land under their direction. If the king's object in purchasing the land had been merely to make a profitable investment, he would not have removed the former labourers, for whose maintenance he undertook to provide elsewhere. Manishtusu's action can only be explained on the supposition that he was anxious to acquire land on which he might settle the men from Akkad and their adherents. The purchase appears therefore to have been dictated by the necessity of removing certain citizens from Akkad to other sites in Northern Babylonia. We do not know the cause which gave rise to this transference of population, but we shall presently see that, in view of the high social standing of several of the immigrants, Manishtusu's action may perhaps be connected with certain traditions concerning this period which were current in later times.[31]
At the head of the inhabitants from Akkad, to whom the king handed over his new estates, stands Aliakhu, his nephew, and among them we also find sons and dependants of the rulers of important cities, who appear[Pg 209] to have acknowledged the suzerainty of Kish. Thus two of the men are described as from the household of Kur-shesh, patesi of Umma;[32] another was Ibalum, the son of Ilsu-rabi, patesi of Basime; and a third was Urukagina, son of Engilsa, patesi of Lagash. The reference to the last of these four personages has been employed in an attempt to fix the period of Manishtusu's reign. On the discovery of the obelisk Père Scheil proposed that we should identify Urukagina, the son of Engilsa, with the king of Lagash of that name, suggesting that he occupied the position assigned him in the text during his father's lifetime and before he himself succeeded to the throne.[33] At this time it was still the fashion to set Urukagina at the head of the patesis of Tello, and to regard him as the oldest of all the rulers of that city whose names had yet been recovered. Now, on the obelisk mention is also made of a certain "Me-sa-lim, the son of the king,"[34] i.e. a son of Manishtusu. Support for the proposed identification was therefore found in the further suggestion that Mesalim, the son of Manishtusu, was no other than Mesilim, the early king of Kish, who was the contemporary of Lugal-shag-engur of Lagash, and, in his character of suzerain, had interposed in the territorial dispute between that city and Umma.[35] According to this view, Lagash, under Engilsa and Urukagina, owed allegiance to Kish during the reign of Manishtusu, a state of things which continued into the reign of Mesilim, who, on this theory, was Manishtusu's son and successor.
But the recognition of Urukagina's true place in the line of the rulers of Lagash has rendered the theory untenable; and the suggested identification of Mesalim, the son of Manishtusu, with Mesilim, the early king of Kish, so far from giving support to the other proposal, is quite incompatible with it. In fact, both the proposed identifications cannot be right, and it remains to[Pg 210] be seen whether either of them can be accepted. Of the two, the proposal to identify Mesalim with Lugal-shag-engur's contemporary may be dismissed at once, since both the internal and the external evidence furnished by the obelisk are against assigning Manishtusu's reign to so early a period. Although these objections do not apply so strongly to the other proposal, its acceptance is negatived on other grounds. From Urukagina's own inscriptions we have seen reason to believe that he did not obtain the throne by right of succession, but by force; he never refers to his own father, and the antagonism to the patesiate, which characterizes his texts, suggests that his reign marks a complete break in the succession.[36] We may therefore conclude that Urukagina of the obelisk is a different personage to Urukagina, the king, and the former's father, Engilsa, would in that case have ruled as a patesi of Lagash at a period subsequent to the sack of that city by Lugal-zaggisi.[37]
We are therefore reduced to more general considerations in attempting to fix the date of Manishtusu. That his reign is to be assigned to about the same period as that of Urumush there can be little doubt, for, in contrast to those of the earlier kings of Kish, the inscriptions of both are written in Semitic Babylonian, and the forms of the characters they employ are very similar. Evidence has already been cited which proves that Urumush was anterior to Shar-Gani-sharri and Narâm-Sin. In Manishtusu, therefore, we have another Semitic king under whom the city of Kish enjoyed the hegemony in Babylonia, which afterwards passed to Akkad. That the kingdom of Kish, under these two rulers, was not separated by a long interval from the empire of Akkad would seem to follow from the references to the latter city on Manishtusu's obelisk.[38] We have already noted that the forty-nine overseers, who were entrusted with the administration of the lands purchased by the king, are described in the text as[Pg 211] citizens of Akkad, and that among their number are members of powerful ruling families from other cities of Babylonia. It would thus appear that Akkad was already of sufficient importance to attract princes from such distant cities as Umma and Lagash. This fact, indeed, has been employed as an argument in favour of the view that Manishtusu and Urumush must have ruled after, and not before, Shar-Gani-sharri and Narâm-Sin,[39] under whom Akkad was made the capital of the whole country. Although this inference does not necessarily follow, and, in point of fact, is contradicted by the evidence already cited with regard to Urumush, it is clear that, even in the time of Manishtusu, the city of Akkad enjoyed a position of considerable importance; and it is improbable that any long period elapsed before it replaced Kish as the capital.
The extent of Manishtusu's authority within the limits of Babylonia is indicated by the reference to Southern Babylonian cities in his obelisk-inscription; for, since the patesis of Lagash and Umma sent their relatives or dependants to Manishtusu's court, it may be inferred that his dominions included at least a portion of Sumer as well as Akkad. Like Urumush, he also appears to have undertaken military expeditions, by means of which he added to the territory under his control. In the British Museum are fragments of two monoliths, engraved with duplicate inscriptions, which record his defeat of a confederation of thirty-two kings "on this side (?) of the sea," and the capture of the cities over which they ruled.[40] It is difficult to determine with certainty the region in which these cities lay, but, since "the sea" is mentioned without any qualifying phrase, we may probably take it as referring to the Persian Gulf. In that case the text may have recorded the subjugation[Pg 212] of the southern portion of Sumer, or perhaps the conquest of cities within the Elamite border. Though Manishtusu's name does not occur in the few lines of the main inscription preserved upon the fragments, there is no doubt that the text is his, for upon one of them is engraved a dedication in rather larger characters, stating that the stele of which it formed a part was dedicated to Shamash by Manishtusu, King of Kish. Since both the fragments were found at Abû Habba, we may conclude that the stelæ were set up in the great temple at Sippar, and were dedicated by Manishtusu to the Sun-god in commemoration of his victory.
Other monuments of Manishtusu's reign that have come down to us consist of a number of figures and statues of the king which have been discovered at Susa during the French excavations on that site. There is no doubt that the majority of these were carried to Susa as spoil of war, and were not set up in that city by Manishtusu himself, for they bear Anzanite inscriptions to that effect. Thus one statue is stated to have been brought from Akkad to Susa by Shutruk-nakhkhunte,[41] and another[42] by the same king from "Ishnunuk," incidentally proving that the state of Ashnunnak, which lay to the east of the Tigris, formed part of Manishtusu's dominions.[43] But a more recently discovered statue of the king bears no later Anzanite record, and is inscribed with its original dedication to the god Naruti by a high official in Manishtusu's service.[44] It is a remarkable monument, for while the figure itself is of alabaster, the eyes are formed of white limestone let into sockets and held in place by bitumen; the black pupils are now wanting.[45] Though the staring effect of the[Pg 213] inlaid eyes is scarcely pleasing, the statue is undoubtedly the most interesting example of early Semitic sculpture in the round that has yet been recovered. Both in this statue and in the more famous obelisk, Père Scheil would see evidence of Manishtusu's permanent subjugation of Elam, in support of his view that Elam and Babylonia practically formed a single country at this early period.[46] But the text inscribed upon the obelisk, as we have already seen,[47] is of a purely local interest, and no object would have been gained by storing such a record at Susa, even on the hypothesis that Manishtusu had transferred his capital thither. It is safer therefore to[Pg 214] draw no historical conclusions from the provenance of the statue and the obelisk, but to class them with the other statues which we know to have been carried off as spoil to Elam at a later period. There is evidence that Manishtusu, like Urumush, carried on a successful war with Elam,[48] but it is probable that the successes of both kings were of the nature of victorious raids and were followed up by no permanent occupation of the country. The early existence of Semitic influence in Elam is amply attested by the employment of the Semitic Babylonian language for their own inscriptions by native Elamite rulers such as Basha-Shushinak.[49] But it does not necessarily follow that the inscriptions of native kings of Babylonia, which have been found at Susa, were deposited there by these kings themselves during a period of Semitic rule in Elam. In fact, it was probably not until the period of the Dynasty of Ur that Elam was held for any length of time as a subject state by kings of either Sumer or Akkad.
Fig. 57.—Alabaster statue of Manishtusu, King of Kish, dedicated by a high official to the god Naruti. Found at Susa.—See Comptes rendus, 1907, p. 398 f.; Délég. en Perse, Mém. X., pl. 1.
Until recently Manishtusu and Urumush were the only kings of Kish of this period whose names had been recovered. But a find has been made at Susa, which, while furnishing the name of another king of Kish, raises important questions with regard to the connection between the empires of Kish and Akkad. In the present chapter we have been dealing with a period of transition in the history of the lands of Sumer and Akkad. The fall of Lagash had been followed by a confederation of Sumerian cities with Erech as its capital, and the conquests of Lugal-zaggisi had sufficed to preserve for a time the integrity of the southern kingdom he had founded. But events were already taking place which were to result in the definite transference of power from Sumer to the north. The votive inscriptions from Nippur have thrown some light upon the struggles by which the Semitic immigrants into Northern Babylonia sought to extend their influence southward. The subsequent increase in the power of Kish was not followed by any fresh access of Sumerian power, but directly[Pg 215] paved the way for the Semitic empire founded by Shar-Gani-sharri with the city of Akkad as his capital. The evidence of the close connection between the rise of Kish and Akkad suggests that both cities were borne up upon the same wave of Semitic domination, which by this time had succeeded in imposing itself on Babylonia from the north. In the following chapter we shall see that Shar-Gani-sharri was not the leader of this racial movement, and that his empire rested upon foundations which other rulers had laid.
[1] It has indeed been suggested that, as Urukagina is termed "King of Girsu" in the lament on the fall of Lagash, he may have survived the catastrophe and continued to rule as king in Girsu (cf. Genouillac, "Tabl. sum. arch.," p. xvi.); but it is scarcely probable that Lugal-zaggisi, after sacking and burning the greater part of the city, would have permitted him to do so.
[2] See Hilprecht, "Old Bab. Inscr.," Pt. II., No. 87, pll. 38 ff.; Thureau-Dangin, "Königsinschriften," pp. 152 ff.
[3] Col. I., ll. 4-35.
[4] This rendering is preferable to "the Lower Sea (of) the Euphrates and the Tigris."
[5] Col. I., l. 36—Col. II., l. 16.
[6] Col. II., l. 17—Col. III., l. 2.
[9] See Hilprecht, "Explorations in Bible Lands," p. 384. In connection with this view, his earlier theory that Umma was Harran (cf. "Old Bab. Inscr.," Pt. II., pp. 54 ff.) he has, of course, given up.
[10] Col. III., ll. 14-36.
[11] See Hilprecht, "Old Bab. Inscr.," Pt. I., p. 47, No. 1; Pt. II., p. 46.
[12] "Old Bab. Inscr.," Pt. II., No. 6, p. 57 f.; "Königsinschriften," p. 156 f.
[14] "Old Bab. Inscr.," Pt. II., No. 86 b, pl. 37, p. 58.
[16] "Old Bab. Inscr.," Pt. II., pl. 43, Nos. 91 and 92.
[17] Op. cit., Pl. 45 f., Nos. 102-105, 110.
[18] With it we may compare the name Enbu-ilum on the Obelisk of Manishtusu, Face A, Col. IX., l. 24, Col.XIII., l. 17 ("Délégation en Perse," Mém. II., pll. 2 and 3).
[20] The name has also been read as Alu-usharshid, but the phonetic Sumerian rendering Uru-mu-ush is now in general use. A preferable reading would be the Semitic Rí-mu-ush, Rimush (cf. King, "Proc. Bibl. Arch.," XXX., p. 239, n. 2), since the sign URU at this period was commonly employed with the value rí. But, in order to avoid unnecessary confusion, the accepted reading Urumush is retained in the text.
[21] Cf. Thureau-Dangin, "Orient. Lit.-Zeit.," 1908, col. 313 f.
[23] The vase-inscription of Urumush in the British Museum was found at Abû Habba, not at Niffer or Tello as implied by Thureau-Dangin, "Königsinschriften," p. 160.
[24] See Hilprecht, "Old Bab. Inscr.," I., No. 5, p. 20 f.
[25] See Boissier, "Choix de textes relatifs à la divination," I., pp. 44, 81; Jastrow, "Die Religion Babyloniens und Assyriens," II., p. 333; and "Zeits. für Assyr.," XXI. (1908), pp. 277 ff.
[26] The mace-head, dedicated to the goddess Ninâ, which is preserved in the British Museum, was found at Abû Habba; see the opposite plate.
[27] Such is the form of the name in his own inscriptions. The reading is substantiated by the variants Manishduszu and Manishdussu, which occur in Anzanite, inscriptions (see Scheil, "Textes Élam.-Anzan.," I., p. 42, and "Textes Élam.-Sémit.," IV., p. 1; cf. also Hoschander, "Zeits. für Assyr.," XX., p. 246).
[28] See Scheil, "Textes Élam.-Sémit.," I., pp. 1 ff. ("Délég. en Perse," Mém. II.), and Hrozný, "Wiener Zeitschrift," XXI., pp. 11 ff.
[29] The true pronunciation of the name is uncertain.
[30] Literally, "sons."
[32] The phrase employed possibly implies that they were his grandsons; see Hrozný, "Wien. Zeits.," XXI., p. 19, n. 2, pp. 29, 40.
[33] Scheil, "Textes Élam.-Sémit.," I., p. 2.
[34] The estate described on the second side of the obelisk is stated to have been bounded on its eastern side by the field of Mesalim; see Face B, Col. VI., ll. 12-14.
[37] The mention of the name Engilsa on a tablet from Tello in connection with that of Urukagina's wife may be merely a coincidence; it has, however, been cited in support of the identification (see above, p. 176, n. 2).
[39] Cf. Hrozný, "Wien. Zeits.," XXI., p. 40.
[40] Nos. 56630 and 56631; cf. Jensen, "Zeits. für Assyr.," XV., p. 248, n. 1. Only a few signs are preserved upon each fragment, but these refer to the same lines of the inscription, and enable us to restore the passage as follows: "[Of the kings] of cities on this side (?) of the sea thirty-two collected for battle, and I conquered them, and their cities [I captured]." It should be noted that the fragmentary text found at Susa and published by Scheil, "Textes Élam.-Sémit.," II., pl. 1, No. 2, is also a duplicate of the inscription.
[41] "Textes Élam.-Sémit.," IV., pl. 2, No. 1.
[42] Op. cit., pl. 2, No. 2.
[43] It is probable that the statuette figured in "Textes Élam.-Sémit.," III., pl. 3, and four other unpublished statues, which all bear the legend of Shutruk-nakhkhunte, conqueror of Ishnunuk, also represent Manishtusu; in all of them the name of the original owner has been hammered out (cf. Scheil, "Textes Élam.-Sémit.," IV., p. 3).
[44] "Textes Élam.-Sémit.," IV., pl. 1, pp. 1 ff.
[45] See De Morgan, "Comptes rendus de l'Académie des Inscriptions et Belles-lettres," 1907, pp. 397 ff.
[46] See Scheil, "Textes Élam.-Sémit.," I., pp. 2 ff., IV., pp. 1 ff.
The name of Sargon of Agade, or Akkad, bulks largely in later Babylonian tradition, and his reign has been regarded by modern writers as marking the most important epoch in the early history of his country. The reference in the text of Nabonidus to the age of Narâm-Sin has caused the Dynasty of Akkad to be taken as the canon, or standard, by which to measure the relative age of other dynasties or of rulers whose inscriptions have from time to time been recovered upon various early Babylonian sites. Even those historians who have refused to place reliance upon the figures of Nabonidus, have not, by so doing, detracted from the significance of Sargon's position in history; and, since tradition associated his name with the founding of his empire, the terms "Pre-Sargonic" and "Post-Sargonic" have been very generally employed as descriptive of the earlier and later periods in the history of Sumer and Akkad. The finding of early inscriptions of Shar-Gani-sharri of Akkad, and of tablets dated in his reign, removed any tendency to discredit the historical value of the later traditions; and the identification of Shar-Gani-sharri with the Sargon of the Assyrian and Neo-Babylonian scribes ceased to be called in question. In fact, if any one point in early Babylonian history was to be regarded as certainly established, it was the historical character of Sargon of Agade. But a recent discovery at Susa has introduced a fresh element into the problem, and has reopened its discussion along unfamiliar lines. Before introducing the new data, that must be explained and reconciled with the old, it will be well to refer briefly to the steps[Pg 217] by which Sargon's name was recovered and his position in history deduced.
Sargon's name was first met with in certain explanatory texts of a religious or astrological character, which had been recovered from Ashur-bani-pal's library at Nineveh. Here we find references to the name Sharru-ukîn,[1] or Sargon, king of Agade, from which it appeared that he had played an important part in Assyrian heroic mythology.[2] In the year 1867, attention was first directed to Sargon's place in history when Sir Henry Rawlinson briefly announced his discovery of the famous Legend of Sargon,[3] in which the king is represented as recounting in the first person the story of his birth and boyhood, his elevation to the throne and his subsequent empire. The text of the Legend was published in 1870,[4] and two years later it was translated by George Smith, who added a translation of the Omens of Sargon and Narâm-Sin, which he had just come across in the collections of tablets from Kuyunjik.[5] Smith followed Rawlinson in ascribing to Sargon the building of the temple E-ulmash in Agade, by restoring his name as that of Narâm-Sin's father in the broken cylinder of Nabonidus found by Taylor at Mukayyar.[6]
Up to this time no original text of Shar-Gani-sharri's reign was known. The first to be published was the beautiful cylinder-seal of Ibni-sharru, a high official in Shar-Gani-sharri's service, of which Ménant gave a[Pg 218] description in 1877,[7] and again in 1883.[8] Ménant read the king's name as "Shegani-shar-lukh," and he did not identify him with Sargon the elder (whom he put in the nineteenth century B.C.), but suggested that he was a still earlier king of Akkad. In 1882 an account was published of the Abû Habba cylinder of Nabonidus, which records his restoration of E-babbar and contains the passage concerning the date of Narâm-Sin, "the son of Sargon."[9] In the following year the British Museum acquired the famous mace-head of Shar-Gani-sharri, which had been dedicated by him to Shamash in his great temple at Sippar; this was the first actual inscription of Shar-Gani-sharri to be found. In place of Ménant's reading "Shegani-shar-lukh," the name was read as "Shargani," the two final syllables being cut off from it and treated as a title, and, in spite of some dissentients, the identity of Shargani of Agade with Sargon the elder was assumed as certain.[10] Unlike Sargon, the historical character of Narâm-Sin presented no difficulties. His name had been read upon the vase discovered by M. Fresnel at Babylon and afterwards lost in the Tigris;[11] and, although he was there called simply "king of the four quarters," his identification with the Narâm-Sin mentioned by Nabonidus on his cylinder from Ur was unquestioned. Further proof of the correctness of the identification was seen in the occurrence of the name of Magan upon the vase, when it was discovered that the second section of his Omens recorded his conquest of that country.[12]
MACK-HEAD DEDICATED TO SHAMASH, THE SUN-GOD, BY SHAR-GANI-SHARRI, KING OF AGADE.—Brit. Mus., No. 91146; photo, by Messrs. Mansell & Co.
LAPIS-LAZULI TABLET WITH VOTIVE INSCRIPTION OF LUGAL-TARSI, KING OF KISH; AND MACE-HEAD DEDICATED TO A GOD ON BEHALF OF NAMMAKHNI, PATESI OF LAGASH (SHIRPURLA) —Brit. Mus., Nos. 91013 and 22445.
Apart from the difficulty presented by Sargon's name, the absence of early records concerning the reign of Shar-Gani-sharri for a time led in certain quarters to a complete underrating of the historical value of the traditions preserved in the Omen-text. The mace-head from Abû Habba alone survived in proof of the latter's existence, and it was easy to see in the later Babylonian traditions concerning Sargon valueless tales and legends of which the historian could make no use.[13] The discovery at Nippur, close to the south-east wall of the ziggurat, or temple-tower, of brick-stamps and door-sockets bearing the name of Shar-Gani-sharri and recording his building of the temple of Enlil,[14] proved that he had exercised authority over at least a considerable part of Babylonia. At a later period of the American excavations there was found in the structure of the ziggurat, below the crude brick platform of Ur-Engur, another pavement consisting of two courses of burned bricks, most of them stamped with the known inscription of Shar-Gani-sharri, while the rest bore the briefer inscription of Narâm-Sin. The pavement had apparently been laid by Sargon and partly re-laid by Narâm-Sin, who had utilized some of the former's building materials. The fact that both kings used the same peculiar bricks, which were found in their original positions in the structure of the same pavement, was employed as an additional argument in favour of identifying Shar-Gani-sharri with Sargon I., "the father of Narâm-Sin."[15]
A further stage in the development of the subject was reached on the recovery at Tello of a large number of tablets inscribed with accounts of a commercial and agricultural character, some of which were dated by events in the reigns of Shar-Gani-sharri and Narâm-Sin. This was at once hailed as confirming and completing the disputed traditions of the Omen-tablet,[16] and from[Pg 220] that time the identity of Sargon and Shar-Gani-sharri was not seriously called in question. Finally, the recent discovery of a copy of the original chronicle, from which the historical references in the Omen-tablet were taken, restored the traditions to their true setting and freed them from the augural text into which they had been incorporated.[17] The difference in the forms of the two names was ignored or explained away,[18] and the early texts were combined with the late Babylonian traditions. Both sources of information were regarded as referring to the same monarch, who was usually known by the title of Sargon I., or Sargon of Agade.
The discovery which has reopened the question as to the identity of Shar-Gani-sharri with the Sargon of later tradition was made at Susa in the course of excavations carried out on that site by the Delegation en Perse. The new data are furnished by a monument, which, to judge from the published descriptions of it,[19] may probably be regarded as one of the most valuable specimens of early Babylonian sculpture that has yet been found. Two portions of the stone have been recovered, engraved with sculptures and bearing traces of an inscription of an early Semitic king of Babylonia. The stone is roughly triangular in shape, the longest side being curved, and on all three sides reliefs are sculptured in two registers. In the upper register are battle scenes and a row of captives, and in the lower are representations of the king and his suite. On the third face of the monolith, to the right of the king in the lower register, is a scene in which vultures are represented feeding on the slain; and on a smaller detached fragment of the stone is a figure, probably that of a god, clubbing the king's enemies who are caught in a net. The details of the net and the vultures obviously recall the similar scenes on the[Pg 221] stele of Eannatum,[20] but the treatment of the birds and also of the figures in the battle scenes, is said to be far more varied and less conventional than in Eannatum's sculpture. That they are Semitic and not Sumerian work is proved by the Semitic inscription, of which a few phrases of the closing imprecations are still visible. The king also has the long pointed beard of the Semites, descending to his girdle, and, although his clothing has Sumerian characteristics, he is of the Semitic type. Several points of interest are suggested by details of the sculpture, and to these we will presently refer.
The point which now concerns us is the name of the king to whom we owe this remarkable monument. Although the main inscription has unfortunately been hammered out, the king's name has been preserved in a cartouche in front of him, where he is termed "Sharru-Gi, the king." Now Sharru-GI is practically identical with Sharru-GI-NA, one of the two forms under which Sargon's name is written in Assyrian and Neo-Babylonian texts[21]; for the sign NA in the latter name is merely a phonetic complement to the ideogram and could be dropped in writing without affecting in any way the pronunciation of the name. Hitherto, as we have seen, Sargon, the traditional father of Narâm-Sin, has been identified with Shar-Gani-sharri of Akkad. The question obviously suggests itself: Can we identify the Sharru-Gi of the new monument with Shar-Gani-sharri? Can we suppose that a contemporary scribe invented this rendering of Shar-Gani-sharri's name, and thus gave rise to the form which we find preserved in later Babylonian and Assyrian tradition? Père Scheil, who was the first to offer a solution of the problem, is clearly right in treating Sharru-Gi and Shar-Gani-sharri as different personages; the forms are too dissimilar to be regarded as variants of the same name. It has also been noted that Sharru-Gi and Narâm-Sin are both mentioned on a tablet from Tello. On these grounds Père Scheil suggested that Sharru-Gi, whose name he would render as Sharru-ukîn (=Sargon), was the father of Narâm-Sin, as represented in the late[Pg 222] tradition; Shar-Gani-sharri he would regard as another sovereign of Akkad, of the same dynasty as Sargon and Narâm-Sin and one of their successors on the throne.[22]
It may be admitted that this explanation is one that at first sight seems to commend itself, for it appears to succeed in reconciling the later tradition with the early monuments. But difficulties in the way of its acceptance were at once pointed out.[23] The occurrence of the proper name Sharru-Gi-ili, "Sharru-Gi is my god," on the Obelisk of Manishtusu clearly proves that a king bearing the name of Sharru-Gi, and presumably identical with the Sharru-Gi of the new stele, preceded Manishtusu, king of Kish, for the deification of a king could obviously only take place during his lifetime or after his death.[24] Similar evidence has already been cited to prove that Urumush of Kish was anterior to Shar-Gani-sharri and Narâm-Sin, though his reign may not have been separated from theirs by any long interval.[25] Granting these conclusions, if Narâm-Sin had been the son of Sharru-Gi, as suggested by Père Scheil, Urumush would have been separated from Manishtusu by the Dynasty of Akkad, a combination that is scarcely probable. Moreover, the context of the passage on the tablet from Tello, on which the names of Sharru-Gi and Narâm-Sin are mentioned, though of doubtful interpretation, does not necessarily imply that they were living at the same time; they may have been separated by several generations. These reasons in themselves make it probable that Sharru-Gi was not the founder of Narâm-Sin's dynasty, but was a predecessor of Manishtusu and Urumush upon the throne of Kish.
It has been further pointed out that in an inscription preserved in the Imperial Ottoman Museum at Constantinople the name of a king of Kish is mentioned, which, to judge from the traces still visible, may probably be restored as that of Sharru-GI.[26] The[Pg 223] fragmentary nature of the text, which was found at Abû Habba during the excavations conducted by the Turkish Government upon that site,[27] rendered any deductions that might be drawn from it uncertain; but it sufficed to corroborate the suggestion that Sharru-Gi was not a king of Akkad, but a still earlier king of Kish. Since then I have recognized a duplicate text of the Constantinople inscription, also from Abû Habba, which enables us to supplement and to some extent correct the conclusions based upon it. The duplicate consists of a cruciform stone object, inscribed on its twelve sides with a votive text recording a series of gifts to the Sun-god Shamash and his consort Aa in the city of Sippar, and the early part of its text corresponds to the fragmentary inscription at Constantinople. Unfortunately the beginning of the text is wanting, as is the case with the Constantinople text, so that we cannot decide with certainty the name of the king who had the monument engraved. But the duplicate furnishes fresh data on which to base a conclusion.
Although the king's name is wanting, it is possible to estimate the amount of text that is missing at the head of the first column, and it is now clear that the name of Sharru-Gi does not occur at the beginning of the inscription, but some lines down the column; in other words, its position suggests a name in a genealogy rather than that of the writer of the text. Moreover, in a broken passage in the second column the name Sharru-GI occurs again, and the context proves definitely that he was not the writer of the text, who speaks in the first person, though he may not improbably have been his father. But, although the monument can no longer be ascribed to Sharru-GI, the titles "the mighty king, the king of Kish," which occur in the first column of the text, are still to be taken as applying to him, while the occurrence of the name in the second column confirms its suggested restoration in the genealogy. It may therefore be regarded as certain that Sharru-GI was an early king of Kish, and, it would seem, the father of the king who had the cruciform monument[Pg 224] inscribed and deposited as a votive offering in the temple of Shamash at Sippar. In the last chapter reference has been made to Manishtusu's activity in Sippar and his devotion to the great temple of the Sun-god in that city.[28] For various epigraphical reasons, based on a careful study of its text, I would provisionally assign the cruciform monument to Manishtusu. According to this theory, Sharru-GI would be Manishtusu's father, and the earliest king of Kish of this period whose name has yet been recovered.
The proof that Sharru-Gi, or, according to the later interpretation of the name, Sargon, was not identical with Shar-Gani-sharri, King of Akkad, nor was even a member of his dynasty, would seem to bring once more into discredit the later traditions which gathered round his name. To the Assyrian and Neo-Babylonian scribes Sargon appears as a king of Agade, or Akkad, and the father of Narâm-Sin, who succeeded him upon his throne. It is clear, therefore, that the name of the earlier king of Kish has been borrowed for the king of Akkad, whose real name, Shar-Gani-sharri, has disappeared in the tradition. Are we to imagine that the great achievements, which later ages ascribed to Sargon of Akkad, were also borrowed along with his name from the historical Sargon of Kish? Or is it possible that the traditional Sargon is representative of his period, and combines in his one person the attributes of more than one king? In the cruciform monument, which we have seen may probably be assigned to Manishtusu, the king prefaces the account of his conquest of Anshan by stating that it took place at a time "when all the lands ... revolted against me," and the phrase employed recalls the similar expression in the Neo-Babylonian chronicle, which states that in Sargon's old age "all the lands revolted against him." The parallelism in the language of the early text and the late chronicle might perhaps be cited in support of the view that facts as well as names had been confused in the later tradition.
CRUCIFORM STONE OBJECT INSCRIBED ON TWELVE SIDES WITH A VOTIVE TEXT OF AN EARLY SEMITIC KINO OF KISH, RECORDING A SERIES OF GIFTS TO SHAMASH THE SUN-GOD AND HIS WIFE AA IN THE CITY OF SIPPAR.—Brit. Mus., No. 91022.
Fortunately we have not to decide the question as a point of literary criticism, nor even upon grounds of general probability, for we have the means of testing [Pg 225] the traditions in detail by comparison with contemporary documents. Reference has already been made to tablets dated in the reigns of Shar-Gani-sharri and Narâm-Sin, and the date-formulæ occurring upon them refer, in accordance with the custom of the period, to events of public interest after which the years were named. In the case of tablets dated in Shar-Gani-sharri's reign, we find three date-formulæ which have a direct bearing upon the point at issue, and refer to incidents which correspond in a remarkable degree to achievements ascribed to Sargon in the Omen-tablet and the Neo-Babylonian Chronicle. The conquest of Amurru, the "Western Land" on the coast of Syria, is referred to in four sections of the Omens,[29] probably representing separate expeditions thither. The third section records a decisive victory for Sargon, and apparently the deportation of the king of Amurru to Akkad; while in the fourth Sargon is recorded to have set up his images in Amurru, that is to say, he carved his image upon the rocks near the Mediterranean coast, or in the Lebanon, as a lasting memorial of his conquest of the country. Now one of the tablets of accounts from Tello is dated "in the year in which Shar-Gani-sharri conquered Amurru in Basar."[30] It is therefore certain that the conquest of Amurru, ascribed by tradition to Sargon of Akkad, is to be referred to Shar-Gani-sharri and treated as historically true.
We obtain a very similar result when we employ the same method of testing Sargon's Elamite campaigns. The Omen-tablet opens with the record of Sargon's invasion of the country, followed by his conquest of the Elamites, whom he is related to have afflicted grievously by cutting off their food supplies.[31] This would appear to have been in the nature of a successful raid into Elamite territory. On the other hand, one of the early account-tablets is dated in the year when Shar-Gani-sharri overcame the expedition which Elam and Zakhara[Pg 226] had sent against Opis and Sakli.[32] It is clear that the date, although it records a success against the Elamites, can hardly refer to the same event as the Omen-text, since the latter records an invasion of Elam by Sargon, not a raid into Babylonian territory by the Elamites. But the contemporary document at least proves that Shar-Gani-sharri was successful in his war with Elam, and it is not unlikely that the attack on Opis by the Elamites provoked his invasion of their country.[33] Such a raid as the Omens describe fully accords with the practice of this period, when the kings of Kish and Akkad used to invade Elam and return to their own country laden with spoil.[34] The date-formula which confirms a third point in the late tradition refers to the year in which Shar-Gani-sharri laid the foundations of the temple of Anunitu and the temple of Amal in Babylon,[35] proving not only that the city of Babylon was in existence at this period, but also that Sargon devoted himself to its adornment by building temples there. The late Chronicle records that Sargon removed the soil from the trenches of Babylon,[36] and a broken passage in the Omens appears to state that he increased the might of Babylon.[37] On this point the early date-formula and the late tradition confirm and supplement each other.
Thus, wherever we can test the achievements ascribed to Sargon of Akkad by comparison with contemporary records of Shar-Gani-sharri's reign, we find a complete agreement between them. Another feature in the traditional picture of Sargon admirably suits the founder of a dynasty at Akkad, whereas it would have little suitability to a king of Kish. This is the support which the goddess Ishtar is stated to have[Pg 227] given Sargon, both in raising him to the throne and in guiding his arms to victory.[38] For Akkad, which Shar-Gani-sharri made his capital, was an important seat of her worship. When, therefore, the late tradition records that Sargon conquered Subartu and Kazallu, we may ascribe these victories to Shar-Gani-sharri, although they are unrecorded in the contemporary monuments that have as yet been recovered. At any time it may happen that the name of Kashtubila of Kazallu may be found in a text of Shar-Gani-sharri's reign, as that of Mannu-dannu of Magan has been recovered on a statue of Narâm-Sin.[39] Such an attitude of expectancy is justified by the striking instances in which the late tradition has already been confirmed by the early texts; and the parallelism in the language of Manishtusu's monument and the late Chronicle of Sargon, to which reference has been made, must be treated as fortuitous. Having regard to the insecure foundations upon which these early empires were based, Shar-Gani-sharri, like Manishtusu, may well have had to face a revolt of the confederation of cities he had subjected to his rule. In such a case the scribe of Shar-Gani-sharri would probably have employed phraseology precisely similar to that in Manishtusu's text, for conventional forms of expression constantly recur in monumental inscriptions of the same period.
Our conclusion, therefore, is that in the later texts Shar-Gani-sharri has adopted Sharru-Gi's name, but nothing more. In view of the general accuracy of the late traditions concerning the conquests of these early rulers, it may seem strange that such a change of names should have taken place; but it is not difficult to suggest causes for the confusion. Both kings were great conquerors, both belonged to the same epoch, and founded dynasties in Northern Babylonia,[40] and both bore names which, in part, are not dissimilar. Moreover, the[Pg 228] suggestion has been made that the words "Gani" and "Gi," which form components of the names, may possibly have both been divine titles,[41] though we find no trace of them in the later periods of history. But whether this was so or not, and whatever renderings of the names we adopt,[42] it is clear that Sargon's traditional achievements may be credited to Shar-Gani-Sharri, who, as king of Agade or Akkad, succeeded to the earlier empire of the kings of Kish.[43]
Fig. 58.—Copper head of a colossal votive lance, engraved with the name and title of an early king of Kish. From Tello.—Déc. pl 5 ter, No 1.
We have already seen reason to believe that the kings of Kish were separated by no long interval from the empire of Akkad,[44] and this view is supported, not only by a study of their inscriptions, but also by the close connection that may be traced between the artistic achievements of the two periods. Epigraphic evidence has been strikingly reinforced by the discovery of Sharru-Gi's monolith; for the sculptures upon it share to some extent the high artistic qualities which have hitherto been regarded as the exclusive possession of the Dynasty of Akkad. The modelling of the figures on Narâm-Sin's stele of victory,[45] their natural pose and spirited attitudes, have long been recognized as belonging to a totally different category from the squat and conventional representations upon the Stele of the Vultures. The cylinder-seals of the period are marked by the same[Pg 229] degree of excellence, but between the sculptures of Eannatum and those of Narâm-Sin there has hitherto been a gap in the orderly stages of development. A single example of engraved metal-work had indeed been recovered, but the date of this was, and still is, to some extent uncertain. The object consists of the copper head of a colossal votive lance, some thirty-one and a half inches long. On one of its faces is engraved in spirited outline the figure of a lion rampant, and on the neck of the blade is the name of a king of Kish beginning with the sign "Sharru." A slight indication of date is afforded by the fact that it was found at Tello, near the eastern corner of Ur-Ninâ's building, but at a rather higher level.[46] If the second line of the inscription, which is illegible through oxidization, contained a title and not part of the name, it is probable that we may restore the name in the first line as that of Sharru-Gi himself. Otherwise we must assign the lance to some other king of Kish, but whether we should place him before or after Sharru-Gi it is difficult to say.
It was clear that the art of the later period was ultimately based upon the formal though decorative conventions of the earlier Sumerian time, but, with the doubtful exception of the copper lance-head and the rude statues of Manishtusu, no example had previously been found of the intermediate period. The missing link between the earlier sculpture of Lagash and that of Akkad has now been supplied by the monolith of Sharru-Gi. Its points of resemblance to the Vulture Stele, both in design and treatment, prove direct continuity with early Sumerian art. The divine net and the vultures were obviously borrowed from the Tello monument, while the guards attending upon Sharru-Gi display the squat and heavy appearance which[Pg 230] characterizes the warriors of Eannatum. At the same time, a new element is introduced in the battle scenes, where the designs and grouping are more varied and less conventional. Here the sculptor has allowed his fancy freer play, and has attempted a naturalistic treatment in his delineation of the combatants. He has not fully attained the masterly qualities which characterize the stele of Narâm-Sin, but his work is its direct forerunner. To judge from the striking evidence furnished by a single monument, the art of Kish must have been closely related to that of Akkad. The latter inaugurated no totally new departure, but was dependent on its predecessor, whose most striking qualities it adopted and improved.
As in the sphere of art, so, too, in that of politics and government, the Dynasty of Akkad did not originate, but merely expanded and developed its inheritance along lines already laid down. Even with Sharru-Gi, it is clear that we have not reached the beginning of the Semitic movement in Northern Babylonia, and that in this respect the kingdom of Kish resembled the later empire of Akkad. The battle scenes upon his monuments prove that Sharru-Gi was a great conqueror, but the traces of the text supply no details of his campaigns. It is significant, however, that his enemies are bearded Semites, not Sumerians, proving that the Semitic immigration into Northern Babylonia and the surrounding districts was no new thing; we may infer that kindred tribes had long been settled in this portion of Western Asia, and were prepared to defend their territory from the encroachments of one of their own race. Yet details of Sharru-Gi's sculpture prove that with him we are appreciably nearer to the time of Sumerian domination in the north. The shaven faces of the king's suite or body-guard suggest Sumerians, and their clothing, which the king himself shares, is also of that type. In such details we may see evidence of strong Sumerian influence, either in actual life or in artistic convention. Such a mixture of Sumerian and Semitic characteristics would be quite foreign to the Dynasty of Akkad, and it is probable that the earlier rulers of Kish[Pg 231] had not yet proved themselves superior to Sumerian tutelage.
Some account has already been given in the last chapter of the campaigns of Manishtusu and Urumush, which paved the way for the conquests of Shar-Gani-sharri. We there saw that Manishtusu claims to have defeated a confederation of thirty-two cities,[47] and, if we are right in assigning the cruciform monument to him, we have definite proof that his successes were not confined to Akkad and Sumer, but were carried beyond the Elamite border. Since the fragments of his stelæ, like the cruciform monument itself, were found at Sippar, where they had been dedicated in the great temple of the Sun-god, it is quite possible that they should be employed to supplement each other as having commemorated the same campaign. In that case, the kings of the thirty-two cities are to be regarded as having inaugurated "the revolt of all the lands," which the cruciform monument tells us preceded the conquest of Anshan. The leader of the revolt was clearly the king of Anshan, since the cruciform monument and its duplicate particularly record his defeat and deportation. On his return from the campaign, laden with gifts and tribute, Manishtusu led the king as his captive into the presence of Shamash, whose temple he lavishly enriched in gratitude for his victory. His boast that he ruled, as well as conquered, Anshan was probably based on the exaction of tribute; the necessity for the reconquest of Elam by Urumush, and later on by Shar-Gani-sharri would seem to indicate that the authority of these early Semitic kings in Elam was acknowledged only so long as their army was in occupation of the country.[48]
Already, in the reign of Manishtusu, Akkad and her citizens had enjoyed a position of great influence in[Pg 232] the kingdom of Kish, and it is not surprising that in the course of a few generations she should have obtained the hegemony in Babylonia. We do not know the immediate cause of the change of capital, nor whether it was the result of a prolonged period of antagonism between the rival cities. On this point the later tradition is silent, merely recording that Sargon obtained "the kingdom" through Ishtar's help. That Shar-Gani-sharri was the actual founder of his dynasty is clear from the inscription upon his gate-sockets found at Nippur, which ascribe no title to his father, Dâti-Enlil,[49] proving that his family had not even held the patesiate or governorship of Akkad under the suzerainty of Kish. Indeed, tradition related that Sargon's native city was Azupirânu, and it loved to contrast his humble birth and upbringing with the subsequent splendour of his reign. The legend of his committal to the river in an ark of bulrushes, and of his rescue and adoption by Akki, the gardener, would make its appeal to every later generation, and it undoubtedly ensured for Sargon the position of a national hero in the minds of the people. The association of the story with his name, while tending to preserve his memory, need not be held to discredit the traditions of his conquests, which, as we have already seen, are confirmed in several important details by the inscriptions of his reign.
On the transference of power from Kish to Akkad an expansion of Semitic authority from Northern Babylonia appears to have taken place throughout a considerable portion of Western Asia. Elam no longer claims the principal share of attention from the rulers of Akkad and Sumer, and Shar-Gani-sharri seems to have devoted his energies to extending his influence northwards and, more particularly, in the west. Kutû, which lay to the north-east of Akkad, in the hilly country on the east of the Lower Zâb, was conquered in the same year that Shar-Gani-sharri laid the foundations of the temples of Anunitu and Amal in Babylon, and Sharlak, its king, was taken captive.[50] The reference[Pg 233] to this event in the official title of the year during which it took place is some indication of the importance ascribed to the campaign. Unfortunately, we possess no classified date-list for the Dynasty of Akkad, such as we have recovered for the later Dynasties of Ur and Babylon, and the dated tablets of this period are too few to enable us to attempt any chronological classification of them by their contents. We are thus without the means of arranging Shar-Gani-sharri's conquests in the order in which they took place, or of tracing the steps by which he gradually increased his empire. But if the order of the sections on the Omen-tablet has any significance, it would seem that his most important conquest, that of Amurru or "the Western Land," took place in the earlier years of his reign.
A discrepancy occurs in the later accounts of this conquest, which have come down to us upon the Omen-tablet and the Neo-Babylonian Chronicle. While in the former the complete subjugation of Amurru is recorded to have taken place "in the third year," the latter states that this event occurred "in the eleventh year." It is quite possible to reconcile the two traditions; the former statement may imply that it took three years to subdue the country, the latter that the conquest was achieved in the eleventh year of Shar-Gani-sharri's reign.[51] Indeed, the fact that four sections of the Omens refer to Amurru would seem to imply that it required several expeditions to bring the whole region into complete subjection. By the extension of his authority to the Mediterranean coast Shar-Gani-sharri made a striking advance upon the ideals of empire possessed by his predecessors on the throne of Kish. But even in this achievement he was only following in the steps of a still earlier ruler. A passage in Lugal-zaggisi's text would seem to imply that, in the course of an expedition along the Euphrates, he had succeeded in penetrating to the Syrian coast.[52] But Shar-Gani-sharri's conquest appears to have been of a more permanent character than Lugal-zaggisi's raid. The position of his capital rendered it easier to maintain permanent[Pg 234] relations with the West, and to despatch punitive expeditions thither in the event of his authority being called in question.
It has been claimed on behalf of Shar-Gani-sharri that he did not stop at the coast, but crossed the Mediterranean to Cyprus, which he is said to have included within the limits of his empire. It would seem, however, that while the island may have been subject indirectly to Babylonian influence at an early period, there is no indication of any direct or vigorous Semitic influence upon the native Cypriote culture at this time.[53] But traces of such an influence we should expect to find, if the island had been politically subject to Shar-Gani-sharri, and had shared the elaborate system of communication which he established between the distant parts of his empire. In itself the archaeological evidence would scarcely have been cited to prove a definite occupation of the island, had not a statement occurred upon Sargon's Omen-tablet to the effect that "he crossed the Sea of the West." But the newly discovered chronicle proves that the true reading should be "the Sea in the East," which without doubt indicates the Persian Gulf.
From the Chronicle we gather that in the original composition this passage was not cast in the form of a consecutive narrative. It is a poetical summary of Sargon's might, elaborating in greater detail the preceding phrase that "he poured out his glory over the world." In it the clauses are balanced in antithesis, and the Western Land and the Eastern Sea, that is Syria and the Persian Gulf, are mentioned together as having formed the extreme limits of Sargon's empire. On the Omen-tablet the original text has been cut up into sections and applied piecemeal to different augural phenomena. In its new setting as a consecutive narrative of events the mention of the Persian Gulf was obviously inconsistent with the conquest of Amurru, and hence it was natural for a copyist to amend the text to the form in which it has reached us on the[Pg 235] Omen-tablet.[54] The Omens still retained the reference to the despoiling of the Country of the Sea, i.e. the littoral of the Persian Gulf, which Shar-Gani-sharri doubtless included within the southern border of his empire. With this record we may connect the tradition, reproduced in the Legend of Sargon, that he conquered Dilmun, an island in the Persian Gulf, and with his maritime enterprise in this region we may compare that of Sennacherib at a later date who crossed the Gulf in the course of his conquest of Elam. From the earliest periods we know that the rivers and canals of Babylonia were navigated,[55] and the Persian Gulf was a natural outlet for the trade of the Sumerian cities in the south. In organizing a naval expedition for the conquest of the coast and the islands, Shar-Gani-sharri would have had native ships and sailors at his disposal, whose knowledge of the Gulf had been acquired in the course of their regular coastal trading.
In the internal administration of his empire Shar-Gani-sharri appears to have inaugurated, or at any rate to have organized, a regular system of communication between the principal cities and the capital. The references to separate cities, which occur in the contemporary inscriptions of his reign, are not numerous. From the texts found at Nippur, we know that he rebuilt E-kur, the great temple of Enlil, and many of the bricks which formed his temple-platform and that of Narâm-Sin have been found in place.[56] The mace-head from Abû Habba[57] is an indication that, like his predecessors on the throne of Kish, he devoted himself[Pg 236] to enriching the great temple of the Sun-god in Northern Babylonia; while one of his date-formulæ supports the tradition of his building activity in Babylon.[58] But such votive texts and records throw no light upon his methods of government, or upon the means he took to retain his hold upon the more outlying districts of his empire. Some striking evidence upon this point has, however, been recovered at Tello, and this is furnished, not by any formal record or carefully inscribed monument, but by some rough lumps of clay, which had been broken and thrown on one side as useless débris during the reigns of Shar-Gani-sharri himself and his successor.
Along with the dated tablets of this period there were found at Tello, in a mound to the S.S.E. of the "Tell of Tablets," a number of sun-dried lumps of clay, most of them broken in pieces, but bearing traces of seal-impressions upon their upper surface.[59] A careful comparison and examination of them showed that on their under sides impressions of cords and knots were still visible, and it was evident that the clay had been used for sealing bales or bundles of objects, which had been tied up and secured with cords. Some of the seal-impressions bear short inscriptions, consisting of the name of the king and that of some high functionary or officer of state, such as "Shar-Gani-sharri, the mighty, the king of Akkad: Lugal-ushumgal, patesi of Lagash, thy servant"; here the king is addressed in the second person by the officer whose name and title were engraved upon the seal. Similar inscriptions occur upon impressions from the seals of the shakkanakku or grand vizir, the magician of the royal household, and the king's cup-bearer. The seals were obviously employed by the officials whose names occur in the second part of each inscription, the name of the king being also included to give them the royal authority. The right to use the royal name was evidently a privilege enjoyed only by the higher officials of the court.
From the fact that the broken lumps of clay were found at Tello, it is clear that the sealed bundles had[Pg 237] been despatched thither from Akkad, and we have in them incontestable evidence of a service of convoys between Akkad and Lagash, under the direct control of the king's officers. We may note that in addition to the seal-impressions several of the clay fragments were inscribed in a cursive hand with the name of an official, or private person, for whom the sealed packet was intended. Thus a sealed bundle from the grand vizir was addressed "To Alla," that from Dada, the magician, "To Lugal-ushumgal," whose name occurs in the seal on other fragments; while one sent in Narâm-Sin's reign appears to have been addressed simply "To Lagash," indicating the packet's place of destination. Apart from the fact that, with the exception of Lugal-ushumgal, the high court-officials mentioned on the seals would naturally be living in Akkad, not in Lagash, the addresses on the different fragments, particularly the one last referred to, definitely prove that the sealings were employed on bundles actually despatched from city to city and not stored in any archive or repository. It is therefore certain that, during the reigns of Shar-Gani-sharri and Narâm-Sin, a regular system of communication was kept up between Lagash and the court, and it may legitimately be inferred that the capital was linked up in a similar way to the other great cities of the empire.
In addition to the system of official convoys, the commercial tablets of this period that have been found at Tello bear witness to an active interchange of goods and produce between Lagash, Akkad, and other cities in the empire.[60] Thus in some we read of the despatch of gold to Akkad, or of herds of oxen, or flocks of sheep, lambs and goats. In return we find Akkad sent grain and dates southwards, and probably garments and woven stuffs; the importance of the first two exports is indicated by the frequent occurrence of the expressions "grain of Akkad" and "dates of Akkad" in the commercial texts. Moreover, a study of the proper names occurring on the tablets suggests that, in consequence of these commercial relations, a considerable[Pg 238] Semitic immigration now took place from Akkad and the north. Among southern Sumerian cities Erech and Umma, Ninni-esh and Adab had particularly close relations with Lagash, while goods despatched from Kish, Nippur, and Ur are invoiced in the lists. The conquests of Shar-Gani-sharri and Narâm-Sin were also reflected in the articles of commerce that reached the market of Lagash, where contributions from Magan, Melukhkha, and Elam were not infrequently met with, and we even find the sale of slaves from such distant countries as Gutiu and Amurru recorded. To regulate the trade relations between the different cities, and to instruct his local officials on details of their administration, it is probable that the kings of Akkad, like those of the First Dynasty of Babylon, wrote letters and despatches which were delivered by royal messengers. Though no royal letters have been found inscribed with the regular epistolary formulæ, a few tablets of the period contain what are obviously directions from the king.
It was probably due to his encouragement of official and commercial intercourse between the scattered cities over which he ruled, that Shar-Gani-sharri was enabled to establish an efficient control over an empire which was more extensive than that of any earlier ruler. A study of the names upon the Obelisk of Manishtusu makes it clear that, already under the kings of Kish, the barriers which had previously surrounded and isolated each city-state had begun to disappear under the influence of a central administration. This process was accelerated in Shar-Gani-sharri's reign, and, although under the kings of Ur and Isin a conservative reaction appears to have set in, the great cities never returned to their former state of isolation even in the south. Another factor, which may have contributed to this process of centralization, may probably be traced in Manishtusu's text itself, and echoes of it may perhaps be detected in some of the later traditions of Sargon's reign. It will be remembered that the obelisk records the purchase by the king of some large landed estates in the neighbourhood of Kish and three other cities in Northern Babylonia, on which he intended to settle certain citizens of Akkad and their[Pg 239] adherents.[61] This wholesale transference of a large section of the population of a city may well have been dictated by political motives, and it is possible that it was part of a general system, inaugurated by the kings of Kish with the object of substituting national feeling in place of the local patriotism of the city-state. According to this theory, Manishtusu's object would have been to weaken Akkad by the deportation of many of her principal citizens to the neighbourhood of Kish.
The high social standing of several of the immigrants, whose names are enumerated on the obelisk, suggests a comparison with the late traditions concerning Sargon's high-handed treatment of "the sons of his palace."[62] The Neo-Babylonian Chronicle relates that Sargon caused "the sons of his palace," that is his relatives and personal attendants, to settle for five kasgid around, and it adds that over the hosts of the world he reigned supreme. The Omen-tablet represents certain nobles, or powerful adherents of the king, as having been dispossessed of their dwellings in consequence of additions made to the royal palace; and they are recorded to have appealed to Sargon to tell them where they should go. It is quite possible that these episodes in the Assyrian and Neo-Babylonian texts had some such historical basis as that suggested in the preceding paragraph. Shar-Gani-sharri may have adopted Manishtusu's policy and carried it out on a more extensive scale. The deportations from Akkad, referred to in the late tradition, may have been intended to strengthen the loyal elements in the provinces. In the course of centuries the motive which prompted the movement would be forgotten or misunderstood, and it would be ascribed to some such material cause as an increase in the size of the royal palace. If this was only part of a settled policy, we may conjecture that similar transfers were effected in the population of other parts of the empire.
The effect of such a policy would undoubtedly have been to weaken the power of resistance formerly possessed by self-contained city-states against the hegemony of any one of their number. In this respect the kings of Kish and Akkad would only have been[Pg 240] carrying out, on a less ambitious scale and over a smaller area, the policy which the later Assyrian kings so ruthlessly enforced throughout the whole of Western Asia. But, although successful for a time, no state could be permanently established upon such a basis. The forces of discontent were bound to come to a head, and in Shar-Gani-sharri's own case we may perhaps trace to this cause the revolt of all the lands, which is recorded to have taken place in his old age. It is perhaps significant, too, that Urumush is related to have met his end in a palace revolution.[63]
Tradition does not speak with any certain voice concerning the fate of Shar-Gani-sharri. Both the Omen-tablet and the Chronicle relate that he was besieged in the city of Akkad, and that he sallied forth and signally defeated his enemies. But the latter text ends its account of Sargon's reign with a record of disaster. "Because of the evil which he had committed," the text runs, "the great god Marduk was angry and he destroyed his people by famine. From the rising of the sun unto the setting of the sun they opposed him and gave him no rest." The expedition against Erech and Naksu, recorded in dates upon certain tablets inscribed during the patesiate of Lugal-ushumgal, may perhaps be referred to this period of unrest during the latter part of Sargon's reign.[64] The reference to Sargon's closing years on the Neo-Babylonian tablet is quite in the manner of the Hebrew books of Chronicles. The writer traces Sargon's misfortunes to his own evil deeds, in consequence of which the god Marduk sent troubles upon him as a punishment. It may seem strange that such an ending should follow the account of a brilliant and victorious reign. But it is perhaps permissible to see in the evil deeds ascribed to Sargon a reference to his policy of deportation, which may have raised him bitter enemies among the priesthood and the more conservative elements in the population of the country.
There can be little doubt that Shar-Gani-sharri was succeeded on the throne of Akkad by Narâm-Sin, whom we may regard with considerable confidence as his son as well as his successor. In the later tradition Narâm-Sin is represented as the son of Sargon, and, although in his own inscriptions he never mentions his father's name, we have contemporary proof that his reign and that of Shar-Gani-sharri were very close to one another. The relation of Shar-Gani-sharri's pavement in the temple of Ekur to that of Narâm-Sin and the similar character of their building materials suggest that the structures were laid with no long interval between them, and the fact that Lugal-ushumgal, patesi of Lagash, was the contemporary of both Shar-Gani-sharri and Narâm-Sin[65] supports the presumption that the latter was Shar-Gani-sharri's successor on the throne. Hence such evidence as we possess is in favour of accepting the later tradition of their relationship to one another.
Narâm-Sin's fame as a great conqueror, like that of his father, survived into later times, and the Omen-tablet and the Neo-Babylonian Chronicle relate his siege of the city of Apirak and the defeat of its governor and of Rîsh-Adad its king. Both texts also briefly record his successful expedition against the land of Magan. In the Omen-tablet the name of the king is wanting, but the lately recovered Chronicle has supplied it as Mannu-dannu. On this point the later tradition has been strikingly confirmed by the discovery at Susa of the base of a diorite statue of the king, on which it is recorded that he conquered Magan and slew Mani[...],[66] its prince or "lord." The precise position of the land of Magan is still unsettled, some setting[Pg 242] it in the Sinaitic peninsula, others regarding it as a portion of Eastern Arabia. In favour of the latter view it may be noted that from Southern Babylonia it would be easy of access by way of the Persian Gulf, and the transport of heavy blocks of diorite, which Narâm-Sin, and at a rather later period Gudea, brought from Magan, would be more easily effected by water than overland. In that case Narâm-Sin's invasion of Magan was in direct continuation of Shar-Gani-sharri's policy of extending his empire southwards to include the shores of the Persian Gulf.
In the inscription upon this same statue, which Narâm-Sin records was fashioned from diorite brought to Akkad for that purpose from the mountains of Magan, he claims the proud title of "king of the four quarters (of the world)." Shar-Gani-sharri, in addition to his usual titles of "the mighty one, the king of Akkad," describes himself in one of the texts upon his gate-sockets from Nippur as "king of Enlil's realm," but in none of his inscriptions that have been recovered does he employ the title "king of the four quarters." This may be merely a coincidence, and no inference should perhaps be drawn from the absence of the title from his texts. On the other hand, it is possible that its assumption by Narâm-Sin was based on a definite claim to a world-wide empire, the full extent of which his predecessor had not enjoyed. However this may be, we have ample evidence of Narâm-Sin's military activity. In the introductory lines on the statue already referred to he claims to have been the victor in nine separate battles, forced upon him by the attack of hostile forces, in the course of a single year. Conquests recorded in other inscriptions of Narâm-Sin are that of Armanu,[67] and of Satuni, king of Lulubu.[68] The latter region lay to the east of Akkad, in the mountainous region to the north-east of Elam, and its king appears to have formed a confederacy of the neighbouring districts to oppose the advance of Akkadian influence in that direction.
The monument, which Narâm-Sin set up and dedicated[Pg 243] in the temple of his god in commemoration of this latter victory, is one of the finest pieces of Babylonian sculpture that has yet been recovered.[69] It is a stele of victory, and the face is sculptured with a representation of the king conquering Satuni and his other enemies in a mountainous country. The king, whose figure is on a larger scale than the others, is nearly at the summit of a high mountain. He wears a helmet adorned with the horns of a bull, and he carries a battle-axe and a bow and arrow. Up the mountain side and along paths through the trees which clothe the lower slopes, the king's allies and warriors climb after him, bearing standards and weapons in their hands. Some of the king's foes are fleeing before him, and they turn in their flight to sue for mercy, while one still grasps a broken spear. Another has been shot by the king and crouches on the ground, seeking to draw the arrow from his throat. Two others lie prone before Narâm-Sin, who has planted his foot upon the breast of one of them. The peak of the mountain rises to the stars.
The fact that the stele was found at Susa has been employed as an argument in favour of regarding Elam as a dependency of Akkad during his reign. But, in addition to Narâm-Sin's own text, the stele bears a later inscription of the Elamite king Shutruk-Nakhkhunte, from which we may infer that it was captured in Northern Babylonia and carried off to Susa as a trophy of war. But it is not unlikely that Narâm-Sin, like Shar-Gani-sharri and the kings of Kish, achieved successes against Elam. Apirak, his conquest of which tradition records, was a country within the Elamite region, and its capture may well have taken place during a successful raid. Mention has been made of two early Elamite patesis, whose names have been recovered upon a tablet from Tello and an archaic text from Susa.[70] The patesi of Susa, whose name may be read as Ilishma, belongs to a period when that city acknowledged the suzerainty of Akkad. But this single name does not prove that Elam, however closely connected[Pg 244] with Akkad by commercial ties, formed a regular province of the Akkadian empire. Ilishma may have been appointed to the throne of Susa by the king of Akkad during an invasion of that country, which reached its culmination in the deportation of the native king, as Shar-Gani-sharri deported the kings of Kutû and Amurru, and Manishtusu the king of Anshan. The available evidence suggests that, during the Dynasty of Akkad, Susa and Elam generally enjoyed their independence, subject to occasional periods of interruption.
Within the limits of Sumer and Akkad Narâm-Sin appears to have followed his father's policy of materially benefiting the provincial cities, while keeping their administration under his immediate control. Thus he continued the service of convoys, and at the same time devoted himself to the erection of temples to the gods. His rebuilding of the temples of Enlil at Nippur and of Shamash at Sippar has been already referred to, while his votive onyx vases found at Tello[71] prove that he did not neglect the shrines of Lagash. Another Sumerian city in which he undertook building operations was Ninni-esh, for there he rebuilt the temple dedicated to the goddess Ninni in the same year that he laid the foundation of the temple at Nippur.[72]
Fig. 59.—Stele sculptured with the figure of Narâm-Sin, King of Akkad, which was found at Pir Hussein near Diarbekr. In the Imperial Ottoman Museum.
But by far the most interesting of his building records is the stele sculptured with the figure of himself,[73] which is usually known as the Diarbekr stele. When first brought to the Museum at Constantinople it was said to have been found at Mardin,[74] and later on, certainly with greater accuracy, to have come from Diarbekr.[75] As a matter of fact, it was discovered at Pir Hussein, a small village built beside a low tell, and situated about four and a half hours to the N.N.E. of Diarbekr, on the Ambar Su, a stream which rises in the lower slopes of the Taurus, and, after running[Pg 245] parallel to the Sebene Su, joins the Tigris below Diarbekr. It was found by the villagers some nineteen years ago when they were digging for building materials on the site of the ancient city below the tell.[76] There is no doubt that the stele was found in situ,[77] and it[Pg 246] furnishes remarkable evidence of the extent of Narâm-Sin's influence northwards. The inscription upon the stone is broken, but it contains a reference to the defeat of the king's enemies by the god Enki, or Ea, within the four quarters of the world. That Narâm-Sin and his army should have penetrated to the upper reaches of the Tigris is remarkable enough in itself, but that he should have erected a stele of victory, and possibly a building, in at least one of the towns he subdued during the campaign, suggests that his occupation of this region was effective for some time.
Of Narâm-Sin's successors upon the throne of Akkad we know little. The name of Bin-Gani-sharri, one of his sons, has been recovered upon a seal,[78] and on a seal-impression from Tello,[79] but his name has not been found with the royal title, so that we do not know whether he succeeded his father upon the throne. Another son of Narâm-Sin, the reading of whose name is uncertain, held the post of patesi of Tutu, for his name and title have been preserved on a perforated plaque from Tello, engraved by Lipush-Iau, who describes herself as his daughter and lyre-player to the Moon-god, Sin.[80] The famous seal of Kalki, the scribe, who was in the service of Ubil-Ishtar, "the king's brother," is also to be assigned to this period, but to which reign we cannot tell. The scene engraved upon the seal[81] gives an interesting picture of one of these early Semitic princes attended by his suite. The central figure, who carries an axe over his left shoulder, is probably Ubil-Ishtar, and he is followed by a Sumerian servant, whom we may identify with the scribe Kalki, the holder of the seal. The other attendants, consisting of the prince's huntsman, his steward with his staff of office, and a soldier, are all [Pg 247]bearded Semites. The shaven head and fringed garment of the Sumerians are here retained by the scribe, suggesting that, though the Sumerians were employed by their conquerors, little racial amalgamation had taken place.
IMPRESSION OF THE CYLINDER-SEAL OF THE SCRIBE OF UBIL-ISHTAR, BROTHER OF AN EARLY SEMITIC KING OF NORTHERN BABYLONIA. —Brit. Mus., No. 89137.
IMPRESSION OF THE CYLINDER-SEAL OF KHASHKHAMER, VASSAL OF UR-ENGUR, KING OF UR.—Brit. Mus., No. 89126.
IMPRESSION OF THE CYLINDER-SEAL DEDICATED TO THE GOD MESLAMTAEA BY KILULLA-GUZALA ON BEHALF OF DUNGI, KING OF UR.—Brit. Mus., No. 89131.
To the time of the kings of Akkad must also be assigned the Stele of Victory, two fragments of which have been found at Tello, sculptured on both faces with bas-reliefs, arranged in registers, above an inscription.[82] The sculptor has represented his battle-scenes as a series of hand-to-hand conflicts, and here we see bearded Semitic warriors, armed with spear, axe, or bow and arrows, smiting their enemies. The inscription is very broken, but enough is preserved to indicate that it enumerates a number of estates or tracts of land, some, if not all of them, situated in the neighbourhood of Lagash, which have been assigned to different high officials. The summary at the end of the text is partly preserved, and states that the list comprised seventeen chief cities and eight chief places, and it ends with a record that may probably be restored to read: "Besides Akkad, the kingdom, which he had received, [was the patesiate of Lagash given to ...]." It would thus seem that the stele was set up in Lagash to commemorate its acquisition by a king of Akkad, who at the same time rewarded his own courtiers and officials by assigning them parts of the conquered territory. The name of the king is wanting in the text, and we must depend on conjecture to decide the reign or period to which it belongs.
A comparison of the monument with Narâm-Sin's Stele of Victory will show that, though the attitudes of the figures are natural and vigorous, the sculptor does not display quite the same high qualities of composition and artistic arrangement. This fact might conceivably be employed in favour of assigning the stele to a period of decadence when the dynasty of Shar-Gani-sharri may have fallen before the onset of some fresh wave of Semitic hordes. But the impression given by the monument is that of a vigorous art struggling towards[Pg 248] perfection rather than the rude imitation of a more perfect style, and it is probable that we must date it in an early, rather than in a late, period during this epoch of Semitic domination.[83]
The reference to "Akkad, the kingdom," in the summary at the end of the text, renders it difficult to assign it to an early king of Kish such as Sharru-Gi, for we should then have to assume that Shar-Gani-sharri's dynasty was not the earliest one to rule in Akkad, and
Fig. 60. Portion of a Stele of Victory of a king of Akkad, sculptured in relief with battle scenes; from Tello.—In the Louvre: Cat. No. 21.
that still earlier Semitic kings reigned in that city before the rise of Kish. But in view of the total absence of other evidence in support of such a conclusion, it is preferable to assign the Tello stele provisionally to Shar-Gani-sharri himself. It will have been noted that[Pg 249] the foes sculptured upon the monument are Semites, not Sumerians, and, if our assumption is correct, we may see in them the men of Kish, on whose defeat by Shar-Gani-sharri the whole of Sumer, including the city of Lagash, would have fallen under the rule of Akkad.[84] In that case the stele may well have commemorated the decisive victory by which Shar-Gani-sharri put an end to the domination of Kish and founded his own empire.
The absence of Sumerians from the battle-scenes in the reliefs of the period that we possess is significant of their political annihilation before the Semitic onslaught.
Fig. 61. Portion of a Stele of Victory of a king of Akkad, sculptured in relief with battle scenes; from Tello. For the other face of the fragment see above.
In the scenes engraved upon the stele of Sharru-Gi[85] the king's enemies are Semites, so that even in his time we have the picture of different Semitic clans or tribes contending among themselves for the possession of the countries they had overrun. That the racial movement was not confined to Akkad and Sumer is proved by[Pg 250] Semitic inscriptions of the rulers of other districts. Lasirab, King of Gutiu, has left us a ceremonial mace-head, which was found at Abû Habba.[86] Whether it was carried to Sippar as spoil of war, or deposited there by Lasirab himself, we cannot say; but its text proves that Gutiu was ruled by Semitic monarchs. The neighbouring district of Lulubu was similarly governed, and Anu-banini, one of its kings, has left us sculptured images of himself and his goddess Ninni, or Ishtar, upon the face of a cliff near Ser-i-Pul-i-Zohab.[87] Here the river Hulvan flows through a natural rift in a low range of limestone hills that rise abruptly from the plain. The track runs through the rift in the hills beside the stream, and on to the foot of the Zagros pass and through the mountains into Elam. Road, river, and cliff form a striking combination, and not only Anu-banini but other monarchs who passed that way have left their records on the rock. One of these, on the further bank of the stream, was set there by another early Semitic king, whose sculpture was influenced by that of Anu-banini.[88]
Among the various Semitic kingdoms and small principalities which were founded and endured for a time in this portion of Western Asia, that of Akkad won the pre-eminent place. In the mountainous regions to the east and north of Elam the immigrants doubtless dominated the country, but they found a population in a state of culture little more advanced than their own, and, if subject to no other influence, they must have remained in a condition of semi-barbarity. But in Babylonia the case was different. Here the vigorous nature of the nomad found a rich soil to support its growth and development. The[Pg 251] ancient culture of the Sumerians was adopted by their conquerors, at whose hands it underwent a gradual change. The sculptor slowly freed himself from the stiff conventions of his Sumerian teachers, and, while borrowing their technical skill, he transformed the work of their hands. Such a cylinder-seal as that of Ibni-sharru, Shar-Ganni-sharri's scribe, with its design of kneeling heroes watering oxen,[89] is a marvellous product of the engraver's art; while the delicate modelling of the figures upon Narâm-Sin's stele, their natural attitudes, and the decorative arrangement of the composition as a whole, are not approached on any earlier monument. The later sculptures of Lagash owe much to the influence of Akkadian work.
In the political sphere the Dynasty of Akkad attained a similar position. Not only did her kings secure the hegemony in Akkad and Sumer, but they pushed their influence beyond the limits of Babylonia, and consolidated an empire in the strict sense of the term. His rule over the four quarters of the world may have led Narâm-Sin to add to his titles, and the growth of their power probably increased the tendency of these early monarchs to assume the attributes and privileges of gods. Of the kings of Kish we have evidence that some were deified, and the divine determinative is set before the name of Shar-Gani-sharri in two inscriptions that have come down to us. In nearly every text of Narâm-Sin the determinative for deity precedes his name, and in some of the contemporary seal-inscriptions he is even termed "the god of Akkad." Under the later kings of Ur the cult of the reigning monarch was diligently practised, and his worship was continued after death. There is no evidence that this custom obtained among the earlier Sumerian kings and patesis, and we may with some confidence set its origin in this period of Semitic supremacy. That the kings of Akkad should have claimed divine honours during their own lifetime may probably be connected with the increase in their dominion, based upon conquests which extended from the Persian Gulf to the Mediterranean, and from Arabia to the mountains of Kurdistan.
[1] Written both as Sharru-GI-NA and as Sharru-DU.
[2] Cf. "Cuneiform Inscriptions from Western Asia," Vol. II. (1866), pl. 39, No. 5, l. 41, where Sargon's name occurs in conjunction with his title "King of Agade," or pl. 48, l. 40, where he is credited with such descriptions as "king of justice" (shar kitti), "proclaimer of justice" (dabib kitti), "proclaimer of favours" (dabib damkâti); the passage in pl. 50, l. 64, which mentions the old Babylonian city of Dûr-Sharrukîn, "Sargon's Fortress," was also referred to him.
[3] Rawlinson announced his discovery of the Legend of Sargon in the Athenæum, No. 2080, Sept. 7, 1867, p. 305, where he made the acute suggestion that Sargon of Assyria, the father of Sennacherib, may have been called "the later Sargon" (Sharru-ukîn arkû) "to distinguish him from the hero of romance whose adventures were better known among the Assyrian people."
[4] "Cun. Inscr. West. Asia," Vol. III. (1870), pl. 4, No. VII.
[5] "Trans. Soc. Bibl. Arch.," Vol. I. (1872), p. 46 f.
[6] See "Cun. Inscr. West. Asia," Vol. I. (1861), pl. 69, Col. II., ll. 29-32; Oppert had restored the name of Narâm-Sin's father as Sagaraktiyas (cf. "Expédition scientifique en Mésopotamie," Vol. I. (1863), p. 273, and "Histoire des Empires de Chaldée et d'Assyrie" (1865), pp. 22 ff.).
[7] See "Comptes rendus de l'Académie des Inscriptions et Belles-lettres," Ser. IV., Tome V. (Oct., 1877), pp. 330 ff. An impression of the seal had been sent from Baghdad to Constantinople, whence M. Ménant had received it from M. Barré de Lancy in 1865. It was later acquired by M. de Clercq (cf. "Collection de Clercq," Tome I., 1888, No. 46, pl. V., p. 49 f.).
[8] "Recherches sur la glyptique orientale," I. (1883), p. 73 f.
[9] See Pinches, "Proc. Soc. Bibl. Arch.," Vol. V. (Nov. 7, 1882), pp. 8 f., 12. For a discussion of the date, see above, Chap. III., p. 60 f.
[10] See Pinches, op. cit., Vol. VI. (Nov. 6, 1883), pp. 11 ff. The identification was opposed by Ménant, who pointed out that the two final syllables of the name could not be treated as a title (op. cit., Feb. 5, 1884, pp. 88 ff., and "Collection de Clercq," p. 49 f.). Ménant adhered to his former opinion that Shargani-shar-lukh (as he now read the name) was an earlier king of Agade.
[11] See Oppert, "Expedition scientifique," II. (1859), p. 62, and "Cun. Inscr. West. Asia," Vol. I., pl. 3, No. VII.
[12] See George Smith, "Trans. Soc. Bibl. Arch.," Vol. I., p. 52.
[13] Cf. Winckler, "Geschichte Babyloniens und Assyriens" (1892), pp. 30, 39, and "Altorientalische Forschungen," I., p. 238 (1895); and Niebuhr, "Chronologie" (1896), p. 75.
[14] Hilprecht, "Old Bab. Inscr.," I. (1893), pll. 1-3, p. 15.
[15] Op. cit., II. (1896), p. 19 f.
[16] Cf. Thureau-Dangin, "Comptes rendus de l'Académie des Inscriptions et Belles-lettres," Ser. IV., Tome XXIV., 1896, pp. 355 ff.; and Heuzey, "Revue d'Assyr.," IV. (1897), p. 2.
[17] See King, "Chronicles concerning early Babylonian Kings" (1907), Vol. I., pp. 27 ff.
[18] Shargani, the first part of the name Shar-Gani-sharri, was equated with Sharru-GI-NA (=ukîn), and the second part of the name, read as shar-ali, "king of the city" was regarded as having been dropped by a process of abbreviation.
[19] See Gautier, "Recueil de travaux," Vol. XXVII., pp. 176 ff., and Scheil, "Textes Élam.-Sémit.," IV., pp. 4 ff.
[22] See Scheil, "Textes Élam.-Sémit," IV., pp. 4 ff.
[23] See Thureau-Dangin, "Orient. Lit.-Zeit.," 1908, col. 313 ff.; cf. also King, "Proc. Soc. Bibl. Arch.," Vol. XXX. (1908), pp. 239 ff.
[26] See King, op. cit., p. 240 f. M. Thureau-Dangin has since examined the text at Constantinople, and he confirms the restoration.
[27] Cf. Scheil, "Une saison de fouilles à Sippar," p. 96.
[28] See above, pp. 206, 212
[29] King, "Chronicles," Vol. II., pp. 27 ff., Sections II, IV., V., and VII.
[30] Thureau-Dangin, "Comptes rendus de l'Académie des Inscriptions," 1896, p. 358, No. 2 and n. 1, "Recueil de tablettes chaldéennes," p. 57, No. 124 (cf. p. 46, No. 85); see also "Königsinschriften," p. 225.
[31] "Chronicles," Vol. II., p. 25 f., Section I.
[32] "Comptes rendus," 1896, p. 357, No. 1; "Recueil de tablettes," p. 60, No. 130.
[33] The warlike expedition to Dêr (Dûr-ilu), which is referred to in the Legend of Sargon (see "Chronicles," Vol. II., p. 92), may possibly be connected with this campaign of Shar-Gani-sharri.
[35] "Comptes rendus," 1896, p. 359, No. 6; "Recueil de tablettes," p. 56, No. 118.
[36] "Chronicles," II., p. 8, l. 18.
[37] Op. cit., II., p. 27. The passage has no reference to Kish, as suggested by Hilprecht, "Old Bab. Inscr.," II., p. 26.
[38] "Chronicles," II., pp. 3, 30 f., 90 f.
[40] Though we have no direct evidence in his case, Sharru-Gi may well have been the founder of his dynasty; the absence of his father's name from the genealogy in the Constantinople text and the cruciform monument accords with this suggestion. Shar-Gani-sharri ascribes no title to his father Dâti-Enlil (see further, p. 232).
[41] Cf. Scheil, "Textes Élam.-Sémit.," I., pp. 16, 26.
[42] Dhorme's suggestion that GI was an ideographic writing for Gani in the early period (cf. "Orient. Lit.-Zeit.," 1909, col. 53 f.) is scarcely probable, though the fact that the commonest ideographic value for GI was kanû or ganû ("a reed") may possibly have contributed in some way to the later confusion. It should also be noted that Clay has recently pointed out the occurrence of the name Sha-ru-ki-in, on a fragment of an early text (see "Amurru," p. 194), as apparently that of a ruler of "the four quarters." Since the final n can hardly be treated as the nunnation (as in the word ir-bi-ti-in in the fifth line of the text), we may probably regard the passage as proving the early existence of the name Sharrukîn, Sargon, which would be the natural rendering of the name Sharru-GI (see above, p. 221). But the title of the king in the new text, and his description as "the beloved of Ishtar," would suit a king of Akkad rather than a king of Kish, thus affording additional excuse for a confusion by the later scribes.
[43] I is therefore still permissible to employ the name "Sargon" as a synonym of Shar-Gani-sharri, the predecessor of Narâm-Sin upon the throne of Akkad. Similarly the terms "Pre-Sargonic" and "Post-Sargonic" need not be given up. In the text, however, the forms Sharru-Gi and Shar-Gani-sharri have been employed for the sake of clearness.
[46] See Heuzey, "Rev. d'Assyr.," Vol. IV., p. 111.
[48] It should be noted that on a tablet from Tello of the time of the Dynasty of Akkad mention is made of a patesi of Susa who must have been the dependent of the reigning king. His name should probably be read as Ilishma, but as the end of the line is broken, it is also possible that the personage referred to was Ilish, an official in the service of the patesi of Susa (cf. "Rec. de tabl.," p. 57, No. 122, Rev., 1. 2 f.). It is possible that to this period also should be assigned a patesi, whose name, occurring upon the fragment of an archaic inscription from Susa, has been provisionally read as Ur-ilim (see Scheil, "Textes Elam.-Sémit.", III., p. 1); see further, p. 243 f.
[49] Cf. "Old Bab. Inscr.," Pt. II., pl. 2, No. 2; and see further, p. 248 f.
[50] See Thureau-Dangin, "Comptes rendus," 1890, p. 359, No. 6; "Recueil de tablettes," p. 56, No. 118; and "Königsinschriften," p. 225.
[51] See King, "Chronicles," Vol. I., p. 38 f.
[53] For a discussion of the archaeological evidence adduced in favour of the theory, see further, Chap. XII., p. 343 f.
[54] The phrase "the Sea in the East," opposed to the Country of the West, can only mean the Eastern Sea, i.e. the Persian Gulf. It would be more than a fanciful interpretation to take it as implying a maritime expedition in the eastern portion of the Western Sea, as Winckler suggests (see "Orient. Lit.-Zeit.," Nov. 1907, col. 580). The Neo-Babylonian Chronicle, though the tablet on which it is written is later in point of time than the Omen-tablet from Ashur-bani-pal's Library, clearly represents the more original version. There would be no object in amending the Chronicle's text, while its mutilation to fit the Liver-omens would naturally introduce inconsistencies, which it would be tempting to a copyist to correct.
[55] In the commercial tablets of the period of Shar-Gani-sharri and Narâm-Sin, reference is frequently made to transport by water. Thus the arrival of grain-boats at Lagash is often noted, or arrangements are made for the despatch of cattle and asses by boat to other places.
[59] See Heuzey, "Rev. d'Assyr.," Vol. IV., pp. 2 ff.
[60] See Thureau-Dangin, "Rec. de tabl.," pp. 44 ff., Nos. 77 ff.; "Rev. d'Assyr.," IV., pp. 71 ff.
[62] See "Chronicles," I., p. 40 f.; II., pp. 5, 32.
[64] See Thureau-Dangin, "Recueil de tablettes," Nos. 99, 136, 176. The possibility may also be noted that the expedition represents one of Narâm-Sin's successful efforts, at the beginning of his reign, to recover his predecessor's empire which had dwindled during his later years.
[65] In addition to Lugal-ushumgal's seal-impression with its address to Shar-Gani-sharri, another has been recovered with a similar address to Narâm-Sin, which he evidently employed after the latter's ascension of the throne; see Heuzey, "Rev. d'Assyr.," Vol. IV., p. 11.
[66] On the monument the end of the name is wanting. Scheil suggested the restoration Mani[um] (see "Textes Élam.-Sémit.," III., p. 5), a reading that would not be inconsistent with the traces on the Omen-tablet (see King, "Chronicles," II., p. 39, n. 1). But M. Thureau-Dangin informs me that the traces upon the statue are not those of the sign UM, but possibly of DAN, so that the form Mannu-dannu may be a fairly accurate transcription of the original name.
[67] See "Comptes rendus," 1899, p. 348.
[68] See "Textes Élam.-Sémit.," I., pp. 53 ff.
[69] See the frontispiece to this volume.
[71] See Heuzey, "Rev. d'Assyr.," IV., p. 1. He also built in Lagash a temple to Sin, the Moon-god; see King, "Proc. Soc. Bibl. Arch.," Nov. 1909.
[72] See the date-formulæ on tablets Nos. 86, 106, and 144 in "Rec. de tabl.," pp. 46, 53, 65; "Königsinschriften," p 226.
[74] See Scheil, "Rec. de trav.," Vol. XV., p. 62.
[75] See Hilprecht, "Old Bab. Inscr.," II., p. 63, No. 120; and Meyer, "Geschichte des Altertums," Bd. I., Hft. II., p. 473.
[76] I visited the site in the summer of 1904, when on my way from Persia to Samsun, and the exact spot was pointed out to me where the stele was found. Narâm-Sin's building, or platform, was on lower ground below the tell, on which probably stood the citadel. The stele was found only about five feet below the surface, and it is clear that no considerable accumulation of debris covers the remains of the city of Narâm-Sin's time, and that its excavation would be a comparatively simple matter.
[77] On being discovered by the villagers no particular value was attached to it, and, as it was too large for them to use, it was left lying for three years on the spot where it was found. It was then brought to Diarbekr by the owner of the village, Chialy Effendi, who built it into the edging of a fountain in the court of his house on the left bank of the Tigris outside the city. On his death, about fourteen years ago, Natik Effendi sent it to the Museum at Constantinople.
[78] See Ménant, "Recherches sur la glyptique orientale," p. 76, pl. 1, No. 1. The seal is that of Izinum, the scribe, who was evidently in Bin-Gani-sharri's service.
[79] The seal of Abi-ishar, the scribe, bore the names of both Narâm-Sin and Bin-Gani-sharri; see Thureau-Dangin, "Rec. de tabl.," p. 70, No. 169. Erinda is mentioned on a commercial tablet of the period as the slave of a certain Bi-Gani-sharri (op. cit., p. 48, No. 94, "Rev. d'Assyr.," IV., p. 76), who may possibly be identified with Narâm-Sin's son.
[80] "Comptes rendus," 1899, p. 348.
[81] See the opposite plate.
[82] See Heuzey, "Comptes rendus," 1895, pp. 22 ff.; "Rev. d'Assyr.," Vol. III., pp. 113 ff.; and Thureau-Dangin, "Revue Sémitique," 1897, pp. 166 ff. For the sculptures, see p. 248 f., Figs. 60 and 61.
[83] Certain epigraphic peculiarities in the inscription, which are not characteristic of the Sargonic period, may perhaps be explained as due to the influence of Lagash: the inscription may have been engraved by a scribe of that city, who has reproduced the local forms of the characters with which he was familiar (cf. "Rev. Sémit.," 1897, p. 169).
[84] As the stele was set up in Lagash, the section dealing with the distribution of that city's land would naturally be added to the historical record.
[85] See above, p. 220.
[87] See De Morgan, "Mission scientifique en Perse," Vol. IV., p. 161, pl. ix.
[88] When passing by this route into Persia from Turkey, in the spring of 1904, I made a careful study of all the sculptured panels on both sides of the Hulvan. The second largest panel is that of this early Semitic king; on the ledge below the sculpture are traces of an inscription, of which sufficient is preserved to prove that it is written in Semitic Babylonian. The sculptured panel at Sheikh-Khân, with its fragmentary Semitic inscription (De Morgan, op. city pl. x.), is a very much ruder production, and is probably of a considerably later date.
We have seen that the Dynasty of Akkad marks the culminating point attained by the races of Sumer and Akkad during the earlier periods of their history. It is true that the kings of this period owed much to their immediate predecessors, but they added to and improved their inheritance. Through long centuries of slow development the village community had gradually been transformed into the city-state, and this institution had flourished and had in its turn decayed before the centralizing influence of the kingdoms of Sumer and Kish. It was on the ruins of the latter monarchy that Shar-Gani-sharri founded his empire, which differed from that of Kish in its extent, rather than in the principles of its formation. A similarly close connection can be traced between the cultural remains of the successive periods with which we have hitherto been dealing. The rude, though vigorous, artistic efforts of the earlier Sumerians furnished the models upon which the immigrant Semites of Northern Babylonia improved. In the sculpture of Kish and upon cylinder-seals of that period we see the transition between the two styles, when the aim at a naturalistic treatment sometimes produced awkward and grotesque results. The full attainment of this aim under the patronage of the Akkadian kings gives their epoch an interest and an importance, which, from their empire alone, it would not perhaps have enjoyed.
While the earlier ages of Babylonian history afford a striking picture of gradual growth and development,[Pg 253] the periods succeeding the Dynasty of Akkad are marked by a certain retrograde movement, or reversion to earlier ideals. The stimulus, which produced the empire and the art of Akkad, may be traced to the influx of fresh racial elements into Northern Babylonia and their fusion with the older and more highly cultured elements in the south. When the impulse was exhausted and the dynasties to which it had given rise had run their course, little further development along these lines took place. Both in art and politics a Sumerian reaction followed the period of Semitic power, and the establishment of the Dynasty of Ur was significant of more than a shifting of political influence southwards. It would appear that a systematic attempt was made to return to the earlier standards. But the influence of Akkad and her monarchs, though deliberately ignored and combated, was far from ineffective. As the sculptures of Gudea owe much to the period of Narâm-Sin, so the empire of Dungi was inevitably influenced by Shar-Gani-sharri's conquests. There was no sudden arrest either of the political or of the cultural development of the country. A recovery of power by the Sumerians merely changed the direction in which further development was to take place. Although, when viewed from a general standpoint, there is no break of continuity between the epoch of Akkad and that of Ur, there is some lack of information with regard to events in the intervening period. There is every indication that between the reign of Narâm-Sin and that of Ur-Engur, the founder of the Dynasty of Ur, we have to count in generations rather than in centuries, but the total length of the period is still unknown. The close of the Dynasty of Akkad, as we have already seen, is wrapped in mystery, but the gap in our knowledge may fortunately to some extent be bridged. At this point the city of Lagash once more comes to our assistance, and, by supplying the names of a number of her patesis, enables us to arrange a sequence of rulers, and thereby to form some estimate of the length of the period involved.
It will be remembered that under Shar-Gani-sharri and Narâm-Sin a certain Lugal-ushumgal was patesi of[Pg 254] Lagash, and that the impressions of his seals have been recovered which he employed during the reigns of these two monarchs.[1] The names of three other patesis of Lagash are known, who must also be assigned to the period of the Dynasty of Akkad, since they are mentioned upon tablets of that date. These are Ur-Babbar, Ur-E, and Lugal-bur; the first of these appears to have been the contemporary of Narâm-Sin,[2] and in that case he must have followed Lugal-ushumgal. As to Ur-E and Lugal-bur, we have no information beyond the fact that they lived during the period of the kings of Akkad. A further group of tablets found at Tello, differentiated in type from those of the Dynasty of Akkad on the one hand, and on the other from tablets of the Dynasty of Ur, furnishes us with the names of other patesis to be set in the period before the rise of Ur-Engur. Three of these, Basha-mama,[3] Ur-mama, and Ug-me, were probably anterior to Ur-Bau, who has left us ample proof of his building activity at Lagash. We possess a tablet dated in the accession year of Ur-mama, and another dated during the patesiate of Ug-me, in the year of the installation of the high priest in Ninâ.[4] A sealing of this last patesi's reign has also been found, which supports the attribution of this group of tablets to the period between the Sargonic era and that of Ur. The subject of the engraving upon the seal is the adoration of a deity, a scene of very common occurrence during the later period; but by its style and treatment the work vividly recalls that of the epoch of Shar-Gani-sharri and Narâm-Sin. On the strength of this evidence it has been argued that Ug-me's period[Pg 255] was not far from that of Lugal-ushumgal, Ur-E, and Lugal-bur.[5]
One of the documents of this period is dated during the patesiate of Ur-Bau himself, in the year in which he undertook certain extensive works of irrigation, while others are dated in the year of Ur-gar's accession, and in that which followed the accession of Nammakhni.[6] From other evidence we know that Nammakhni was Ur-Bau's son-in-law, since he espoused Ningandu, Ur-Bau's daughter, and secured through her his title to the throne.[7] Ur-gar, too, must belong to the generation following Ur-Bau, since a female statue has been found at Tello, which was dedicated to some deity by a daughter of Ur-Bau on behalf of her own life and that of Ur-gar, the patesi.[8] Tablets are also dated in the accession-years of Ka-azag, Galu-Bau, and Galu-Gula,[9] and their contents furnish indications that they date from about the same time.[10] Ur-Ninsun, whose name and title occur on the fragment of a bowl very similar to that employed by Nammakhni's wife,[11] is not mentioned on the tablets, but several are dated in the reigns of Gudea and of his son Ur-Ningirsu.[12] Now, in the reign of Dungi, the son of Ur-Engur, there lived a high priest of the goddess Ninâ named Ur-Ningirsu; and, if we may identify this priestly official with the patesi of that name, as is very probable,[13] we obtain a definite point of contact between the later history of Lagash and that of Ur. But even if the synchronism between Ur-Ningirsu and Dungi be regarded as non-proven, there[Pg 256] is no doubt that no long interval separated Gudea's reign from the Dynasty of Ur. The character of the art and the style of writing which we find in Lagash at this time are so similar to those of Ur, that the one period must have followed the other without a break. A striking example of the resemblance which existed in the artistic productions of the two cities at this time is afforded by the votive copper cones, or nails, of Gudea and Dungi, surmounted by the figures of a bull couchant. A glance will show the slight changes in the form and treatment of the subject which have been introduced by the metal-workers of Dungi's reign.
Fig. 62.—Fig. 63. Copper figures of bulls surmounting cones which were employed as votive offerings in the reigns of Gudea and Dungi.—Déc., pl. 28, Figs. 5 and 6; Cat. Nos. 159 and 162.
From the brief summary given in the preceding paragraphs it will have been noted that we have recovered the names of some twelve patesis of Lagash, who may be assigned to the period between the dynasties of Akkad and Ur. Of these twelve names no less than eleven occur upon a group of tablets, which were found together at Tello, and are marked out by their[Pg 257] shape and contents as belonging to a single period. The tablets themselves are of unbaked clay, and they form a transition between the types of Akkad and Ur. In the last of the reigns mentioned it is probable that we may trace a synchronism with the Dynasty of Ur, and, although no actual point of contact can yet be established with the Dynasty of Akkad, such evidence as that furnished by Ug-me's sealing suggests that no considerable lapse of time can have taken place. That these twelve patesis were the only ones who ruled at Lagash during this interval is improbable, and at any time the names of other rulers may be recovered. But it is certain the reigns of many of these patesis were extremely brief, and that we have not to do with a single dynasty, firmly established throughout the whole period, whose separate members, after their accession, each held the throne for the term of his natural life. We have definite proof that several of the patesis, such as Ka-azag, Galu-Bau, and Galu-Gula, ruled only for a few years, and it would seem that at certain points during this period a change of rulers took place in Lagash with considerable frequency.
The employment of the title of patesi, and the total absence of that of "king" at this time, suggests that Lagash had not succeeded in establishing her independence, and still owed allegiance to some alien dynasty. It is in accordance with this view that the dates inscribed upon the commercial tablets do not refer to events of a military character. We may conclude that, at any rate until the reign of Gudea, Lagash and her rulers were not concerned to enforce their authority over other cities, nor to defend their own border from attack. The existence of a more powerful city, claiming the hegemony in Babylonia, would account for the absence of military enterprise reflected in the date-formulæ and in the foundation-records of the time. For such a city, while guaranteeing the integrity of each of her tributary states, would have resented the inauguration of an ambitious policy by any one of them. On the other hand, the purely local character of the events commemorated in the date-formulæ is no less significant. These are without exception drawn[Pg 258] from the local history of Lagash, and betray no evidence of the authority exercised by a foreign suzerain. It is therefore probable that during the greater part of this period Lagash enjoyed a considerable measure of autonomy, and that such bonds as may have united her to any central administration were far less tightly drawn than at the time of Shar-Gani-sharri and Narâm-Sin. Like Lagash, her old rival Umma seems to have survived as a patesiate under the later Semitic rulers in the north, and it is probably to this time that we may assign Galu-Babbar, the patesi of that city, three of whose votive cones are preserved in the British Museum.[14] During the earlier part of this period Lagash presents the picture of a compact and peaceful state, content to develop her own resources. A considerable increase of power is noticeable in the reign of Gudea, the most famous ruler of the period, who, though still retaining the title of patesi, must be regarded as practically an independent sovereign, since he was strong enough to undertake a successful campaign in Elam, and imported his building materials from Arabia and the Syrian coast.
With the exception of Gudea, the only ruler of this period who has left us any considerable records or remains is Ur-Bau, the predecessor of Nammakhni and Ur-gar upon the throne of Lagash. We possess a small diorite statue of this ruler, which, like most of those found at Tello, is without its head.[15] It is a standing figure, and its squat and conventional proportions suffice to show that it must date from a rather earlier period than the larger and finer statues of Gudea, which are fashioned from the same hard material. Gudea definitely states that he fetched the diorite for his series of large statues from Magan, but Ur-Bau makes no such boast; and, although it is clear that his stone must have come from the same quarries, we may probably conclude that the small block he employed for his figure had not been procured as the result of a special expedition. In fact, such records as he has left us portray him as devoting all his energies to the [Pg 259]building of temples within the different quarters of his city.[16]
CLAY CONES BEARING VOTIVE INSCRIPTIONS OF THE PATESIS GALU-BABBAR, GUDEA, AND UR-BAU.—Brit. Mus., Nos. 15782, 91046, and 91063.
CLAY CONES BEARING VOTIVE INSCRIPTIONS OF SIN-IDINNAM, KING OF LARSA, AND SIN-GASHID, KING OF ERECH.—Brit. Mus., Nos. 91152 and 91150.
His chief care appears to have been the rebuilding, upon a new and enlarged site, of E-ninnû, the great temple of Ningirsu at Lagash, in which he placed the statue of himself that has been recovered. Little of this temple now remains in the mounds of Tello, beyond a wall the lower part of which was found still standing under the south-east corner of the later palace erected in the second century B.C.[17] In addition to the rebuilding of the temple of the city-god, Ur-Bau records that he erected three temples in Girsu in honour of the goddesses Ninkharsag and Geshtin-anna, and of Enki, "the king of Eridu." In Uru-azagga he built a temple for the goddess Bau, and in Uru, another quarter of the city, he constructed a shrine in honour of Ninni, or Nin-azag-nun, the goddess Ishtar. Other deities honoured in a similar way by Ur-Bau were Nindar, Ninmar, and Ninagal, the last of whom stood in the mystical relation of mother to the patesi. Attached to E-ninnû he also built a "House of the Asses" in honour of Esignun, the deity whose duty it was to tend the sacred asses of Ningirsu.
Ur-Bau may probably be regarded as representative of the earlier patesis of this epoch, who, while acting with freedom and independence within the limits of their own state, refrained from embarking on any policy of conquest or expansion. With the accession of Gudea a distinct change is noticeable in the circumstances of Lagash. Like his predecessors, he devoted himself to the building of temples, but his work was undertaken on a wider and more sumptuous scale. Of all the kings and patesis of Lagash, he is the one under whom the city appears to have attained its greatest material prosperity, which found its expression in a lavish architectural display. Although not much of his great temple of E-ninnû still survives at Tello, his monuments are more numerous than all the others that have been recovered on that site.[18] Moreover, the texts engraved[Pg 260] upon his statues, and inscribed upon the great clay cylinders which he buried as foundation-records in the structure of E-ninnû, are composed in a florid style and form a striking contrast to the dry votive formulæ employed by the majority of his predecessors. The cylinder-inscriptions especially are cast in the form of a picturesque narrative, adorned with striking similes and a wealth of detailed description such as are not found in the texts of any other period. In fact, Gudea's records appear to have been inspired by the novelty and magnitude of his architectural constructions and the variety of sacred ornament with which they were enriched.
We have no information as to the events which led to his accession, beyond the negative evidence afforded by the complete absence of any genealogy from his inscriptions. Like Ur-Bau, Gudea does not name his father, and it is possible that he was a man of obscure or doubtful birth. The energy which he displayed as patesi is sufficient to account for his rise to power, and the success which attended his period of rule may be held to have amply justified a break in the succession. Another problem suggested by a study of his texts concerns the source of the wealth which enabled him to undertake the rebuilding and refurnishing of the temples of Lagash upon so elaborate a scale. The cause of such activity we should naturally seek in the booty obtained during a number of successful campaigns, but throughout the whole of his inscriptions we have only a single reference to an act of war. On the statue of himself in the character of an architect, holding the plan of E-ninnû upon his knees, he gives in some detail an account of the distant regions whence he obtained the materials for the construction of Ningirsu's temple. At the close of this list of places and their products, as though it formed a continuation of his narrative, he adds the record that he smote with his weapons the town of Anshan in Elam and offered its booty to Ningirsu. This is the only mention of a victory that occurs in Gudea's inscriptions, and, although in itself it proves that he was sufficiently independent to carry on a war in[Pg 261] Elam on his own account, it does not throw light upon the other causes of his success.
The absence of military records from Gudea's texts is rendered the more striking, when we read the names of the countries he laid under contribution for the materials employed in the building of E-ninnû. The fullest geographical list is that given on the statue of the architect with the plan,[19] and, although unfortunately some of the places mentioned have still to be identified, the text itself furnishes sufficient information to demonstrate the wide area of his operations. Gudea here tells us that from Mount Amanus, the mountain of cedars, he fetched beams of cedar-wood measuring fifty and even sixty cubits in length, and he also brought down from the mountain logs of urkarinnu-wood five-and-twenty cubits long. From the town of Ursu in the mountain of Ibla he brought zabalu-wood, great beams of ashukhu-wood and plane-trees. From Umanu, a mountain of Menua, and from Basalla, a mountain of Amurru, he obtained great blocks of stone and made stelæ from them, which he set up in the court of E-ninnû. From Tidanu, another mountain of Amurru, he brought pieces of marble, and from Kagalad, a mountain of Kimash, he extracted copper, which he tells us he used in making a great mace-head. From the mountains of Melukhkha he brought ushû-wood, which he employed in the construction of the temple, and he fetched gold-dust from the mountain of Khakhu and with it he gilded a mace-head carved with the heads of three lions. In Gubin, the mountain of khuluppu-wood, he felled khuluppu-trees; from Madga he obtained asphalt, which he used in making the platform of E-ninnû; and from the mountain of Barshib he brought down blocks of nalua-stone, which he loaded into great boats and so carried them to Lagash in order to strengthen the base of the temple.
The above list of places makes it clear that Gudea obtained his wood and stone from mountains on the coast of Syria and in Arabia, and his copper from mines in Elam. On the first of his cylinders he also states that the Elamite came from Elam and the man of Susa[Pg 262] from Susa, presumably to take part as skilled craftsmen in the construction of the temple. In this account he does not mention the names of so many places as in the statue-inscription, but he adds some picturesque details with regard to the difficulties of transport he encountered. Thus he records that into the mountain of cedars, where no man before had penetrated, he cut a road for bringing down the cedars and beams of other precious woods. He also made roads into the mountains where he quarried stone, and, in addition to gold and copper, he states that he obtained silver also in the mountains. The stone he transported by water, and he adds that the ships bringing bitumen and plaster from Madga were loaded as though they were barges carrying grain.
A third passage in Gudea's texts, referring to the transport of materials from a distance, occurs upon the colossal statue of himself which he erected in E-ninnû.[20] Here he states that Magan, Melukhkha, Gubi, and Dilmun collected wood, and that ships loaded with wood of all kinds came to the port of Lagash. Moreover, on eight out of his eleven statues he records that the diorite, from which he fashioned them, was brought from Magan. In his search for building materials, he asserts that he journeyed from the lower country to the upper country; and, when summarizing the area over which he and his agents ranged, he adopts an ancient formula, and states that Ningirsu, his beloved king, opened the ways for him from the Upper to the Lower Sea, that is to say, from the Mediterranean to the Persian Gulf.
The enumeration of these distant countries, and Gudea's boastful reference to the Upper and the Lower Sea, might, perhaps, at first sight be regarded as constituting a claim to an empire as extensive as that of Shar-Gani-sharri and Narâm-Sin. But it is a remarkable fact that, with the exception of Lagash and her constituent townships, Gudea's texts make no allusion to cities or districts situated within the limits of Sumer and Akkad. Even the names of neighbouring great towns, such as Ur, Erech, and Larsa, are not once [Pg 263]cited, and it can only be inferred that they enjoyed with Lagash an equal measure of independence. But if Gudea's authority did not extend over neighbouring cities and districts within his own country, we can hardly conclude that he exercised an effective control over more distant regions. In fact, we must treat his references to foreign lands as evidence of commercial, not of political, expansion.
Gudea's reign may be regarded as marking a revival of Sumerian prosperity, consequent on the decay of Semitic influence and power in the north. The fact that he was able to import his wood and stone from Syria, and float it unmolested down the Euphrates, argues a considerable weakening of the northern cities. Whether Akkad, or some other city, still claimed a nominal suzerainty over the southern districts it is impossible to say, but it is at least clear that in the reign of Gudea no such claim was either recognized or enforced. We may suppose that Lagash and the other great cities in the south, relieved from the burden of Semitic domination, enjoyed a period of peace and tranquillity, which each city employed for the development of her material resources. The city of Ur was soon to bring this state of affairs to a close, by claiming the hegemony among the southern cities and founding the kingdom of Sumer and Akkad by force of arms. But during Gudea's reign Ur appears to have made no movement, and Lagash and the other great cities of the land may be pictured as maintaining commercial relations with each other, unhampered by the striving of any one of them for political supremacy.
It is possible that we may trace the unparalleled building activity, which characterized Gudea's reign, in part to a development in the art of building, which appears to have taken place at about this period. It has been suggested that both Gudea and Ur-Engur, the founder of the Dynasty of Ur, participated in the same great architectural movement,[21] and proof of this has been seen in their common employment of the smaller square brick, measuring from about twelve to thirteen inches, which was more easy to handle than[Pg 264] the larger bricks employed by Ur-Bau and at the time of the Dynasty of Akkad. The inherent advantages of this form of brick are attested by its retention, with but slight variations, down to the end of the Babylonian empire. That Gudea himself set considerable store by the form of the bricks which he employed would seem to follow from the passage in his first cylinder-inscription, where he describes the ceremonies with which he inaugurated their manufacture, including the offer of sacrifices and the pouring of a libation into the sacred mould.[22] The use of an improved material may well have incited him to rebuild the greater number of the sanctuaries in Lagash on their ancient sites, but enlarged and beautified in accordance with the new architectural ideas. From another passage in his texts it would seem that he definitely claimed to have inaugurated a novel form of building, or decoration, such as no patesi before him had employed.[23] The meaning of the phrase is not quite certain, but it may, perhaps, have reference to the sculptured reliefs with which he adorned E-ninnû. It may also refer to the use of raised pilasters for the adornment of facades and external walls, a form that is characteristic of later Babylonian architecture, but is not found in the remains of buildings at Lagash before Gudea's time.
In addition to E-ninnû, the great temple of the city-god Ningirsu, Gudea records that he rebuilt the shrines dedicated to Bau and Ninkharsag, and E-anna, the temple of the goddess Ninni, and he erected temples to Galalim and Dunshagga, two of Ningirsu's sons. In Uru-azagga he rebuilt Gatumdug's temple, and in Girsu three temples to Nindub, Meslamtaea, and Nindar, the last of whom was associated with the goddess Ninâ, in whose honour he made a sumptuous throne. In Girsu, too, he built a temple to Ningishzida, his patron god, whom he appears to have introduced at this time into the pantheon of Lagash. One of the most novel of his reconstructions was the E-pa, the temple of the seven zones, which he erected for Ningirsu. Gudea's building probably took the form of a tower in seven stages, a[Pg 265] true ziggurat, which may be compared with those of Ur-Engur. But the work on which he most prided himself was the rebuilding of E-ninnû, and to this he devoted all the resources of his city. From a study of the remains of this temple that were uncovered at Tello by M. de Sarzec, it would appear that Gudea surrounded the site of Ur-Bau's earlier building with an enclosure, of which a gateway and a tower, decorated with pilasters in relief, are all that remains.[24] These were incorporated in the structure of the late palace at Tello, a great part of which was built with bricks from the ancient temple. It is difficult to determine the relation of these slight remains at Tello, either to the building described by Gudea himself, or to the plan of a fortified enclosure which one of the statues of Gudea, as an architect, holds upon his knees. That the plan was intended, at any rate, for a portion of the temple is clear from the inscription, to the effect that Gudea prepared the statue for E-ninnû, which he had just completed.
Fig. 65.—Tablets with architect's rule and stilus, which the statues B and F of Gudea bear upon their knees. A ground-plan is engraved on the upper tablet from statue B.—Déc., pl. 15, Figs. 1 and 2.
The detailed account of the building of this temple, which Gudea has left us, affords a very vivid picture of the religious life of the Sumerians at this epoch, and of the elaborate ritual with which they clothed the cult and worship of their gods. The record is given upon[Pg 266] two huge cylinders of clay, one of which was inscribed while the work of building was still in progress, and the other after the building and decoration of the temple had been completed, and Ningirsu had been installed within his shrine. They were afterwards buried as foundation-records in the structure of the temple itself, and so have survived in a wonderfully well-preserved condition, and were recovered during the French excavations at Tello.[25] From the first of the cylinders we learn that Gudea decided to rebuild the temple of the city-god in consequence of a prolonged drought, which was naturally ascribed to the anger of the gods. The water in the rivers and canals had fallen, the crops had suffered, and the land was threatened with famine, when one night the patesi had a vision, by means of which the gods communicated their orders to him.
Gudea tells us that he was troubled because he could not interpret the meaning of the dream, and it was only after he had sought and received encouragement from Ningirsu and Gatumdug that he betook himself to the temple of Ninâ, the goddess who divines the secrets of the gods. From her he learnt that the deities who had appeared to him in his vision had been Ningirsu, the god of his city, Ningishzida, his patron deity, his sister Nidaba, and Nindub, and that certain words he had heard uttered were an order that he should build E-ninnû. He had beheld Nindub drawing a plan upon a tablet of lapis-lazuli, and this Ninâ explained was the plan of the temple he should build. Ninâ added instructions of her own as to the gifts and offerings the patesi was to make to Ningirsu, whose assistance she promised him in the carrying out of the work. Gudea then describes in detail how he obtained from Ningirsu himself a sign that it was truly the will of the gods that he should build the temple, and how, having consulted the omens and found them favourable, he proceeded to purify the city by special rites. In the course of this[Pg 267] work of preparation he drove out the wizards and sorcerers from Lagash, and kindled a fire of cedar and other aromatic woods to make a sweet savour for the gods; and, after completing the purification of the city, he consecrated the surrounding districts, the sacred cedar-groves, and the herds and cattle belonging to the temple. He then tells us how he fetched the materials for the temple from distant lands, and inaugurated the manufacture of the bricks with solemn rites and ceremonies.
Fig. 66. Figure of a god seated upon a throne, who may probably be identified with Ningirsu, the city-god of Lagash (Shirpurla). Epoch of Gudea.—Déc., pl 22, Fig. 5; Cat No. 24.
We are not here concerned with Gudea's elaborate description of the new temple, and of the sumptuous furniture, the sacred emblems, and the votive objects with which he enriched its numerous courts and shrines. A large part of the first cylinder is devoted to this subject, and the second cylinder gives an equally elaborate account of the removal of the god Ningirsu from his old shrine and his installation in the new one that had been prepared for him. This event took place on a duly appointed day in the new year, after the city and its inhabitants had undergone a second course of purification. Upon his transfer to his new abode Ningirsu was accompanied by his wife Bau, his sons, and his seven virgin daughters, and the numerous attendant deities who formed the members of his household. These included Galalim, his son, whose special duty it was to guard the throne and place the sceptre in the hands of the reigning patesi; Dunshagga, Ningirsu's water-bearer; Lugal-kurdub, his leader in battle; Lugal-sisa, his counsellor and chamberlain; Shakanshabar, his[Pg 268] grand vizir; Uri-zi, the keeper of his harîm; Ensignun, who tended his asses and drove his chariot; and Enlulim, the shepherd of his kids. Other deities who accompanied Ningirsu were his musician and flute-player, his singer, the cultivator of his lands, who looked after the machines for irrigation, the guardian of the sacred fish-ponds, the inspector of his birds and cattle, and the god who superintended the construction of houses within the city and fortresses upon the city-wall. All these deities were installed in special shrines within E-ninnû, that they might be near Ningirsu and ready at any moment to carry out his orders.
The important place which ritual and worship occupied in the national life of the Sumerians is well illustrated by these records of the building and consecration of a single temple. Gudea's work may have been far more elaborate than that of his predecessors, but the general features of his plan, and the ceremonies and rites which he employed, were doubtless fixed and sanctified by long tradition. His description of Ningirsu's entourage proves that the Sumerian city-god was endowed with all the attributes and enjoyed all the privileges of the patesi himself, his human counterpart and representative. His temple was an elaborate structure, which formed the true dwelling-place of its owner and his divine household; and it included lodgings for the priests, treasure-chambers, storehouses, and granaries, and pens and stabling for the kids, sheep and cattle destined for sacrifice. It is interesting to note that in the course of building Gudea came across a stele of Lugal-kisalsi, an earlier king of Erech and Ur.[26] From the name which he gave it we may infer that he found it in Girnun, which was probably one of the shrines or chapels attached to E-ninnû; and he carefully preserved it and erected it in the forecourt of the temple. In the respect which he showed for this earlier record, he acted as Nabonidus did at a later day, when he came across the foundation-inscriptions of Narâm-Sin and Shagarakti-Buriash in the course of his rebuilding of E-babbar and E-ulmash, the temples of Shamash and of the goddess Anunitu.
Of the artistic productions of Gudea's period the most striking that have come down to us are the series of diorite statues of himself, which were found together in the late palace at Tello. From the inscriptions upon them it is clear that they were originally prepared by the patesi for dedication in the principal temples of Lagash, which he either founded or rebuilt. Three were installed in E-ninnû, of which one is the statue of the architect with the plan, and another, a seated figure, is the only one of the series of colossal proportions. Three more were made for the temple of Bau, and others for Ninni's temple E-anna, and the temples of the goddesses Gatumdug and Ninkharsag. The small seated figure, destined for the temple of Ningishzida, is the only one of which we possess the head, for this was discovered by Commandant Cros during the more recent diggings at Tello, and was fitted by M. Heuzey to the body of the figure which had been preserved in the Louvre for many years.[27] From the photographic reproduction it will be seen that the size of the head is considerably out of proportion to that of the body; and it must be admitted that even the larger statues are not all of equal merit. While in some of them the stiffness of archaic convention is still apparent, others, such as the seated statues for E-ninnû and that of the architect with the rule from the temple of Gatumdug, are distinguished by a fine naturalism and a true sense of proportion.
Some interesting variations of treatment may also be noted in two of the standing statues from the temple of Bau. One of these is narrow in the shoulders and slender of form, and is in striking contrast to the other, which presents the figure of a strong and broad-shouldered man. It would seem that the statues were sculptured at different periods of Gudea's life, and from the changes observable we may infer that he ascended the throne while still a young man and that his reign must have been a long one. The diorite which he used for them was very highly prized for its durability and beauty, and the large block that was required for his[Pg 270] colossal figure appears, when the carving was completed, to have been regarded as far more precious than lapis-lazuli, silver, and other metals.[28] Certainly the preparation of so hard a stone presented more difficulty than that of any other material, and that Gudea's sculptors should have learnt to deal successfully with such large masses of it argues a considerable advance in the development of their art.
The small copper figures of a kneeling god grasping a cone are also characteristic of Gudea's period, but in design and workmanship they are surpassed by the similar votive figure which dates from Ur-Bau's reign.[29] A fine example of carving in relief is furnished by the oval panel, in which Gudea is represented as being led into the presence of his god;[30] a similar scene of worship, though on a smaller scale, is engraved upon his cylinder-seal.[31] A happy example of carving in the round, as exhibited by smaller objects of this period, is his small mace-head of breccia decorated with the heads of three lions. In design this clearly resembles the mace-head referred to on one of the statues from E-ninnû, though, unlike it, the small mace-head was probably not gilded, since the inscription upon it mentions the mountain in Syria whence the breccia was obtained. But other carved objects of stone that have been recovered may well have been enriched in that way, and to their underlying material they probably owe their preservation. The precious metal may have been stripped from these and the stone cores thrown aside; but similar work in solid gold or silver would scarcely have escaped the plunderer's hands.
With the exception of the period of drought, in consequence of which Gudea decided to rebuild Ningirsu's temple, it is probable that during the greater part of his reign the state of Lagash enjoyed unparalleled abundance, such as is said to have followed the completion of that work. The date-formula for one of his years of rule takes its title from the cutting of a new canal which he[Pg 271] named Ningirsu-ushumgal, and there is no doubt that he kept the elaborate system of irrigation, by which Lagash and her territories were supplied with water, in a perfect state of repair. Evidence of the plentiful supplies which the temple-lands produced may be seen in the increase of the regular offerings decreed by Gudea. On New Year's day, for instance, at the feast of Bau, after he had rebuilt her temple, he added to the marriage-gifts which were her due, consisting of oxen, sheep, lambs, baskets of dates, pots of butter, figs, cakes, birds, fish, and precious woods, etc. He also records special offerings of clothing and wool which he made to her, and of sacrificial beasts to Ningirsu and the goddess Ninâ. For the new temple of Gatumdug he mentions the gift of herds of cattle and flocks of sheep, together with their herdsmen and shepherds, and of irrigation-oxen and their keepers for the sacred lands of E-ninnû. Such references point to an increase in the revenues of the state, and we may infer that the people of Lagash shared the prosperity of their patesi and his priesthood.
Mace-head of breccia, from a mountain near the "Upper Sea" or Mediterranean, dedicated to Ningirsu by Gudea.—Déc., pl. 25 bis, Fig. 1.
While Gudea devoted himself to the service of his gods, he does not appear to have enriched the temples at the expense of the common people. He was a strict upholder of traditional privileges, such as the freedom from taxation enjoyed by Gu-edin, Ningirsu's sacred plain; but he did not countenance any acts of extortion on the part of his secular or sacred officials. That Gudea's ideal of government was one of order, law, and justice, and the protection of the weak, is shown by his description of the state of Lagash during the seven days he feasted with his people after the consecration of E-ninnû. He tells us that during this privileged time the maid was the equal of her mistress, and master and slave consorted together as friends; the powerful and[Pg 272] the humble man lay down side by side, and in place of evil speech only propitious words were heard; the laws of Ninâ and Ningirsu were observed, and the rich man did not wrong the orphan, nor did the strong man oppress the widow. This reference to what was apparently a legal code, sanctioned by the authority of the city-god and of a goddess connected with the ancient shrine of Eridu, is of considerable interest. It recalls the reforms of the ill-fated Urukagina, who attempted to stamp out the abuses of his time by the introduction of similar legislation.[32] Gudea lived in a happier age, and he appears to us, not as a reformer, but as the strong upholder of the laws in force.
That the reign of Gudea was regarded by the succeeding generations in Lagash as the golden age of their city may perhaps be inferred from his deification under the last kings of the Dynasty of Ur. There is no evidence that, like Sar-Gani-sharri and Narâm-Sin, he assumed divine honours during his own lifetime, for in his inscriptions his name is never preceded by the determinative of divinity, and it also occurs without the divine prefix upon the seals of Gimdunpae, his wife, and of Lugal-me, his scribe. In the later period his statues were doubtless worshipped, and it has been suggested that the perpetual offerings of drink and food and grain, which he decreed in connection with one of them,[33] prove that it was assimilated from the first to that of a god.[34] But the names of his statues suggest that they were purely votive in character, and were not placed in the temples in consequence of any claim to divinity on Gudea's part.
It was the custom of the Sumerian patesis to give long and symbolical names to statues, stelæ and other sacred objects which they dedicated to the gods, and Gudea's statues do not form an exception to this rule. Thus, before he introduced the statue with the offerings into E-ninnû, he solemnly named it "For-my-king-have-I-built-this-temple-may-life-be -my-reward!" A smaller statue for E-ninnû was named "[The-Shepherd]-who -loveth-his-king-am-I-may-my-life-be-prolonged!",[Pg 273] while to the colossal statue for the same temple he gave the title "Ningirsu-the-king-whose -weighty-strength-the-lands-cannot-support-hath -assigned-a-favourable -lot-unto-Gudea-the-builder-of-the-temple." The small standing statue for the temple of Ninkharsag bore the equally long name "May-Nintud (i.e. Ninkharsag)-the-mother-of-the-gods-the-arbiter-of-destinies -in-heaven-and-upon-earth-prolong-the-life-of-Gudea-who-hath-built -the-temple!", and another small statue for the temple of Bau was named "The-lady-the-beloved-daughter-of-the-pure-heaven-the-mother-goddess -Bau-in-Esilsirsir-hath-given-Gudea-life." The statue for the temple of Ningishzida was named "To-Gudea-the-builder-of-the-temple-hath-life -been-given," and that for E-anna bore the title "Of-Gudea-the-man-who -hath-constructed-the-temple-may-the-life-be-prolonged!" It will be seen that these names either assert that life and happiness have been granted to Gudea, or they invoke the deity addressed to prolong his life. In fact, they prove that the statues were originally placed in the temples like other votive objects, either in gratitude for past help, or to ensure a continuance of the divine favour.
BRONZE CONES, EACH OF WHICH IS HELD BY THE KNEELING FIGURE OF A GOD, AND BEARS A VOTIVE INSCRIPTION OF GUDEA, PATESI OF SHIRPURLA.—Brit. Mus., Nos. 91056 and 91058.
BRONZE VOTIVE FIGURES BEARING INSCRIPTIONS OF ARAD-SIN, KING OF LARSA, AND BUR-SIN, KING OF UR.—Brit. Mus., Nos. 91144 and 91017.
Such evidence as we possess would seem to show that at the time of Gudea no Sumerian ruler had ever laid claim to divine rank. It is true that offerings were made in connection with the statue of Ur-Ninâ during Lugal-anda's reign,[35] but Ur-Ninâ had never laid claim to divinity himself. Moreover, other high personages treated their own statues in the same way. Thus Shagshag, the wife of Urukagina, made offerings in connection with her own statue, but there is no evidence that she was deified. In fact, during the earlier periods, and also in Gudea's own reign, the statue was probably intended to represent the worshipper vicariously before his god.[36] Not only in his lifetime, but also after death, the statue continued to plead for him. The offerings were not originally made to the statue itself, but were probably placed near it to represent symbolically the owner's offerings to his god.
This custom may have prepared the way for the[Pg 274] practice of deification, but it did not originate in it. Indeed, the later development is first found among the Semitic kings of Akkad, and probably of Kish, but it did not travel southward until after the Dynasty of Ur had been established for more than a generation. Ur-Engur, like Gudea, was not deified in his own lifetime, and the innovation was only introduced by Dungi. During the reigns of the last kings of that dynasty the practice had been regularly adopted, and it was in this period that Gudea was deified and his cult established in Lagash along with those of Dungi and his contemporary Ur-Lama I.[37] By decreeing that offerings should be made to one of his statues, Gudea no doubt prepared the way for his posthumous deification, but he does not appear to have advanced the claim himself. That he should have been accorded this honour after death may be regarded as an indication that the splendour of his reign had not been forgotten.
Gudea was succeeded upon the throne of Lagash by his son Ur-Ningirsu, and with this patesi we may probably establish a point of contact between the rulers of Lagash and those of Ur. That he succeeded his father there can be no doubt, for on a ceremonial mace-head, which he dedicated to Ningirsu, and in other inscriptions we possess, he styles himself the son of Gudea and also patesi of Lagash. During his reign he repaired and rebuilt at least a portion of E-ninnû, for the British Museum possesses a gate-socket from this temple, and a few of his bricks have been found at Tello recording that he rebuilt in cedar-wood the Gigunû, a portion of the temple of Ningirsu, which Gudea had erected as symbolical of the Lower World.[38] Moreover, tablets have been found at Tello which are dated in his reign, and from these we gather that he was patesi for at least three years, and probably longer. From other monuments we learn that a highly placed religious official of Lagash, who was a contemporary of Dungi, also bore the name of Ur-Ningirsu, and the point to be decided is whether we may identify this personage with Gudea's son.
GATE-SOCKET OF GUDEA, PATESI OF SHIRPURLA, INSCRIBED WITH A TEXT RECORDING THE RESTORATION OF THE TEMPLE OF THE GODDESS NINA.—Brit. Mus., No. 90849; photo. by Messrs. Mansell & Co.
Ur-Ningirsu, the official, was high-priest of the goddess Ninâ, and he also held the offices of priest of Enki and high-priest of Anu. Moreover, he was a man of sufficient importance to stamp his name upon bricks which were probably used in the construction of a temple at Lagash.[39] That he was Dungi's contemporary is known from an inscription upon a votive wig and headdress in the British Museum, which is made of diorite and was intended for a female statuette.[40] The text engraved upon this object states that it was made by a certain Bau-ninam for his lady and divine protectress, who was probably the goddess Bau, as an adornment for her gracious person, and his object in presenting the offering was to induce her to prolong the life of Dungi, "the mighty man, the King of Ur." The important part of the text concerns Bau-ninam's description of himself as a craftsman, or subordinate official, in the service of Ur-Ningirsu, "the beloved high-priest of Ninâ." From this passage it is clear that Ur-Ningirsu was high-priest in Lagash at a period when Dungi, king of Ur, exercised suzerainty over that city. If therefore we are to identify him with Gudea's son and successor, we must conclude that he had meanwhile been deposed from the patesiate of Lagash, and appointed to the priestly offices which we find him holding during Dungi's reign.
The alternative suggestion that Ur-Ningirsu may have fulfilled his sacerdotal duties during the lifetime of Gudea while he himself was still crown-prince,[41] is negatived by the subsequent discovery that during the reign of Dungi's father, Ur-Engur, another patesi, named Ur-abba, was on the throne of Lagash; for tablets have been found at Tello which are dated in the reign of Ur-Engur and also in the patesiate of Ur-abba.[42] To reconcile this new factor with the preceding identification, we must suppose that Ur-Ningirsu's[Pg 276] deposition occurred in the reign of Ur-Engur, who appointed Ur-abba as patesi in his place. According to this view, Ur-Ningirsu was not completely stripped of honours, but his authority was restricted to the purely religious sphere, and he continued to enjoy his priestly appointments during the early part of Dungi's reign. There is nothing impossible in this arrangement, and it finds support in account-tablets from Tello, which belong to the period of Ur-Ningirsu's reign. Some of the tablets mention supplies and give lists of precious objects, which were destined for "the king," "the queen," "the king's son," or "the king's daughter," and were received on their behalf by the palace-chamberlain.[43] Although none of these tablets expressly mention Ur-Ningirsu, one of the same group of documents was drawn up in the year which followed his accession as patesi, another is dated in a later year of his patesiate, and all may be assigned with some confidence to his period.[44] The references to a "king" in the official account-lists point to the existence of a royal dynasty, whose authority was recognized at this time in Lagash. In view of the evidence afforded by Bau-ninam's dedication we may identify the dynasty with that of Ur.
The acceptance of the synchronism carries with it the corollary that with Ur-Ningirsu's reign we have reached another turning point in the history, not only of Lagash, but of the whole of Sumer and Akkad. It is possible that Ur-Engur may have founded his dynasty in Ur before Gudea's death, but there is no evidence that he succeeded in forcing his authority upon Lagash during Gudea's patesiate; and, in view of the comparative shortness of his reign, it is preferable to assign his accession to the period of Gudea's son. Sumer must have soon acknowledged his authority, and Lagash and the other southern cities doubtless formed the nucleus of the kingdom on which he based his claim to the hegemony in Babylonia. This claim on behalf of Ur[Pg 277] was not fully substantiated until the reign of Dungi, but in Sumer Ur-Engur appears to have met with little opposition. Of the circumstances which led to Ur-Ningirsu's deposition we know nothing, but we may conjecture that his acknowledgment of Ur-Engur's authority was not accompanied by the full measure of support demanded by his suzerain. As Gudea's son and successor he may well have resented the loss of practical autonomy which his city had enjoyed, and Ur-Engur may in consequence have found it necessary to remove him from the patesiate. Ur-abba and his successors were merely vassals of the kings of Ur, and Lagash became a provincial city in the kingdom of Sumer and Akkad.
[2] It has been suggested that Ur-E was Narâm-Sin's contemporary, since his name and that of Narâm-Sin are both found on the same tablet (see Thureau-Dangin, "Rec. de tabl.," pp. iii. f., 45, No. 83, and "Königsinschriften," p. 59, n. 1); but the phrase in which Narâm-Sin's name occurs, like that which precedes it, appears to refer to a past event. On the other hand, Ur-Babbar is mentioned on this tablet in the same phrase with Narâm-Sin, and, although no title follows his name, we may probably identify him with "Ur-Babbar, the patesi," referred to on another tablet of this class (op. cit., No. 132); here and in similar passages, where Lagash is not named, it is obviously implied. The name of Lugal-bur is found upon a tablet of the Sargonic period (see Thureau-Dangin, "Rev. d'Assyr.," Vol. V., p. 68).
[3] "Rec. de tabl.," p. 73, No. 181.
[4] Op. cit., Nos. 184 and 183.
[5] See Thureau-Dangin, "Rev. d'Assyr.," Vol. V., p. 68.
[6] "Rec. de tabl.," Nos. 185-187.
[7] See Heuzey, "Rev. d'Assyr.," Vol. II., p. 79.
[8] See Thureau-Dangin, "Rev. d'Assyr.," Vol. V., p. 98, and "Königsinschriften," p. 62 f.
[9] "Rec. de tabl.," Nos. 188-190.
[10] It is improbable that we should identify Ka-azag, the patesi, with Ka-azag, the father of Ninkagina, who dedicated a mace-head to Uri-zi on behalf of her own life and that of Nammakhni, the patesi (cf. "Cun. Texts in the Brit. Mus.," I., pl. 50). For Ninkagina was Nammakhni's mother, and Ka-azag was therefore his grandfather. But if Nammakhni's grandfather had held the patesiate, his daughter would not have omitted the title after his name; moreover, Nammakhni himself obtained the patesiate through marriage, not by inheritance.
[11] See Heuzey, "Rev. d'Assyr.," Vol. II., p. 79.
[12] "Rec. de tabl.," Nos. 192 ff., 207, and 209-211.
[13] See below, pp. 274 ff.
[14] See the opposite plate; and cf. "Cun. Texts," Pt. I., pl. 50.
[15] See De Sarzec, "Déc. en Chaldée," pl. 7.
[16] See Thureau-Dangin, "Königsinschriften," pp. 60 ff.
[18] For his inscribed monuments, see "Königsinschriften," pp. 66 ff.
[19] See De Sarzec, "Déc. en Chaldée," pl. 16-19.
[20] See "Déc. en Chaldée," pl. 9.
[21] Cf. Heuzey, "Catalogue des antiquités chaldéennes," p. 49.
[22] Cylinder A, col. XVIII., ll. 5 ff.
[23] Statue B, col. VI., l. 77—col. VII. l. 6.
[25] For their text, see De Sarzec, "Déc. en Chaldée," pl. 33-36; Price, "The Great Cylinder Inscriptions A and B of Gudea"; and Toscanne, "Les Cylindres de Gudéa"; for their translation see Thureau-Dangin, "Les Cylindres de Goudéa," and "Königsinschriften," pp. 88 ff.; a summary and discussion of their contents are given by King and Hall, "Egypt and Western Asia," pp. 195 ff.
[28] Cf. Statue B, col. VII., ll. 49-54.
[29] See De Sarzec, "Déc. en Chaldée," pl. 8 bis, Fig. 1, and Heuzey, "Catalogue," pp. 300 ff.
[31] See Heuzey, "Rev. d'Assyr.," V., p. 135; "Déc. en Chaldée," p. 293 f.
[33] See Statue B, col. I.
[34] Cf. Scheil, "Rec. de trav.," Vol. XVIII., p. 64.
[36] Cf. Genouillac, "Tabl. sum. arch.," p. lvi. f.
[38] See Thureau-Dangin, "Zeits. für Assyr.," XVIII., p. 132.
[39] See "Déc. en Chaldée," pl. 37, No. 8. A comparison of this brick with one of Ur-Ningirsu, the patesi (see No. 9 on the same plate), will show the similarity in the forms of the characters employed.
[41] Cf. Winckler, "Untersuchungen zur altorientalischen Geschichte," p. 42.
[42] See Thureau-Dangin, "Rev. d'Assyr.," Vol. V., p. 7.
[43] See Thureau-Dangin, op. cit., p. 70, and "Rec. de tabl.," p. v.
[44] One of the tablets of the group is dated by the construction of the temple of Ningirsu; this need not be referred to Gudea's building of E-ninnû, but rather to Ur-Ningirsu's work upon the temple, or even to a later reconstruction.
The more recent finds at Tello have enabled us to bridge the gap which formerly existed in our knowledge of Chaldean history and civilization between the age of Narâm-Sin and the rise of the city of Ur under Ur-Engur, the founder of the kingdom of Sumer and Akkad. What we now know of Lagash during this period may probably be regarded as typical of the condition of the other great Sumerian cities. The system of government, by means of which Shar-Gani-sharri and Narâm-Sin had exercised control over Sumer from their capital in the north, had doubtless been maintained for a time by their successors; but, from the absence of any trace of their influence at Tello, we cannot regard their organization as having been equally effective. They, or the Semitic kings of some other northern city, may have continued to exercise a general suzerainty over the whole of Babylonia, but the records of Lagash seem to show that the larger and more distant cities were left in the enjoyment of practical independence. The mere existence of a suzerain, however, who had inherited the throne or empire of Shar-Gani-sharri and Narâm-Sin, must have acted as a deterrent influence upon any ambitious prince or patesi, and would thus have tended to maintain a condition of equilibrium between the separate states of which that empire had been composed. We have seen that Lagash took advantage of this time of comparative inactivity to develop her resources along peaceful lines. She gladly returned to the condition of a compact city-state, without dropping the intercourse with distant countries[Pg 279] which had been established under the earlier Akkadian kings.
During this period we may suppose that the city of Ur enjoyed a similar measure of independence, which increased in proportion to the decline of Semitic authority in the north. Gudea's campaign against Anshan affords some indication of the capability of independent action, to which the southern cities gradually attained. It is not likely that such initiative on the part of Lagash was unaccompanied by a like activity within the neighbouring, and more powerful, state of Ur. In an earlier age the twin kingdoms of Ur and Erech had dominated southern Babylonia, and their rulers had established the kingdom of Sumer, which took an active part in opposing the advance of Semitic influence southwards. The subjection of Sumer by the Dynasty of Akkad put an end for a time to all thoughts of independence on the part of separate cities, although the expedition against Erech and Naksu, which occurred in the patesiate of Lugal-ushumgal, supports the tradition of a revolt of all the lands in the latter part of Sargon's reign. Ur would doubtless have been ready to lend assistance to such a movement, and we may imagine that she was not slow to take advantage of the gradual weakening of Akkad under her later rulers. At a time when Gudea was marching across the Elamite border, or sending unchecked for his supplies to the Mediterranean coast or the islands of the Persian Gulf, Ur was doubtless organizing her own forces, and may possibly have already made tentative efforts at forming a coalition of neighbouring states. She only needed an energetic leader, and this she found in Ur-Engur, who succeeded in uniting the scattered energies of Sumer and so paved the way for the more important victories of his son.
That Ur-Engur was the founder of his dynasty we know definitely from the dynastic chronicle, which was recovered during the American excavations at Nippur.[1] In this document he is given as the first king of the Dynasty of Ur, the text merely stating that he became king and ruled for eighteen years. Unfortunately the[Pg 280] preceding columns of the text are wanting, and we do not know what dynasty was set down in the list as preceding that of Ur, nor is any indication afforded of the circumstances which led to Ur-Engur's accession. From his building-inscriptions that have been recovered on different sites in Southern Babylonia[2] it is possible, however, to gather some idea of his achievements and the extent of his authority. After securing the throne he appears to have directed his attention to putting the affairs of Ur in order. In two of his brick-inscriptions from Mukayyar, Ur-Engur bears the single title "king of Ur," and these may therefore be assigned to the beginning of his reign, when his kingdom did not extend beyond the limits of his native city. These texts record the rebuilding of the temple of Nannar, the Moon-god, and the repair and extension of the city-wall of Ur.[3] His work on the temple of the city-god no doubt won for him the support of the priesthood, and so strengthened his hold upon the throne; while, by rebuilding and adding to the fortifications of Ur, he secured his city against attack before he embarked upon a policy of expansion.
We may assume with some confidence that the first city over which he extended his authority was Erech. It would necessarily have been his first objective, for by its position it would have blocked any northward advance. The importance attached by Ur-Engur to the occupation of this city is reflected in the title "Lord of Erech," which precedes his usual titles upon bricks from the temple of the Moon-god at Ur, dating from a later period of his reign; his assumption of the title indicates that Erech was closely associated with Ur, though not on a footing of equality. That he should have rebuilt E-anna, the great temple of Ninni in Erech, as we learn from bricks found at Warka, was a natural consequence of its acquisition, for by so doing he exercised his privilege as suzerain. But he honoured the city above others which he acquired, by installing his own son there as high priest of the goddess Ninni,[Pg 281] an event which gave its official title to one of the years of his reign. We have definite evidence that he also held the neighbouring city of Larsa, for bricks have been found at Senkera, which record his rebuilding of the temple of Babbar, the Sun-god. With the acquisition of Lagash, he was doubtless strong enough to obtain the recognition of his authority throughout the whole of Sumer.
BRICK OF UR-ENGUR, KING OF UR, RECORDING THE REBUILDING OF THE TEMPLE OF THE GODDESS NINNI IN THE CITY OF ERECH.—Front Warka; Brit. Mus., No. 90015; photo, by Messrs. Mansell & Co.
The only other city, in which direct evidence has been found of Ur-Engur's building activity, is Nippur. From the American excavations on that site we learn that he rebuilt E-kur, Enlil's great temple, and also that of Ninlil, his spouse. It was doubtless on the strength of his holding Nippur that he assumed the title of King of Sumer and Akkad. How far his authority was recognized in Akkad it is impossible to say, but the necessity for the conquest of Babylon in Dungi's reign would seem to imply that Ur-Engur's suzerainty over at least a part of the country was more or less nominal. Khashkhamer, patesi of Ishkun-Sin, whose seal is now preserved in the British Museum,[4] was his subject, and the Semitic character of the name of his city suggests that it lay in Northern Babylonia. Moreover, certain tablets drawn up in his reign are dated in "the year in which King Ur-Engur took his way from the lower to the upper country," a phrase that may possibly imply a military expedition in the north. Thus some portions of Akkad may have been effectively held by Ur-Engur, but it is certain that the complete subjugation of the country was only effected during Dungi's reign.
In Sumer, on the other hand, Ur-Engur's sway was unquestioned. His appointment of Ur-abba as patesi of Lagash was probably characteristic of his treatment of the southern cities: by the substitution of his own adherents in place of the reigning patesis, he would have secured loyal support in the administration of his dependent states. We have evidence of one of his administrative acts, so far as Lagash is concerned. On a clay cone from Tello he records that, after he had built the temple of Enlil, he dug a canal in honour of the Moon-god, Nannar, which he named Nannar-gugal.[Pg 282] He describes the canal as a boundary-ditch, and we may conjecture that it marked a revision of the frontier between the territories of two cities, possibly that between Lagash and lands belonging to the city of Ur. In the same inscription he tells us that, in accordance with the laws of the Sun-god, he caused justice to prevail, a claim that affords some indication of the spirit in which he governed the cities he had incorporated in his kingdom.
In the reign of Dungi, who succeeded his father upon the throne and inherited from him the kingdom of Sumer and Akkad, the whole of Northern Babylonia was brought to acknowledge the suzerainty of Ur. Considerable light has been thrown upon Dungi's policy, and indirectly upon that of the whole of Ur-Engur's dynasty, by the recently published chronicle concerning early Babylonian kings, to which reference has already been made. The earlier sections of this document, dealing with the reigns of Sargon and Narâm-Sin, are followed by a short account of Dungi's reign, from which we learn two facts of considerable significance.[5] The first of these is that Dungi "cared greatly for the city of Eridu, which was on the shore of the sea," and the second is that "he sought after evil, and the treasure of E-sagila and of Babylon he brought out as spoil." It will be noted that the writer of the chronicle, who was probably a priest in the temple of E-sagila, disapproved of his treatment of Babylon, in consequence of which he states that Bêl (i.e. Marduk) made an end of him. In view of the fact that Dungi reigned for no less than fifty-eight years and consolidated an extensive empire, it is not improbable that the evil fate ascribed to him in the chronicle was suggested by Babylonian prejudice. But the Babylonian colouring of the narrative does not affect the historical value of the other traditions, but rather enhances them. For it is obvious that the disaster to the city and to E-sagila was not an invention, and must, on the contrary, have been of some magnitude for its record to have been preserved in Babylon itself through later generations.
In Dungi's treatment of Babylon, and in his profanation of the temple of its city-god, we have striking proof that the rise of the Dynasty of Ur was accompanied by a religious as well as a political revolution. Late tradition retained the memory of Sargon's building activity in Babylon, and under his successors upon the throne of Akkad the great temple of E-sagila may well have become the most important shrine in Northern Babylonia and the centre of Semitic worship. Eridu, on the other hand, was situated in the extreme south of Sumer and contained the oldest and most venerated temple of the Sumerians. Dungi's care for the latter city to the detriment of Babylon, emphasized by contrast in the late records of his reign, suggests that he aimed at a complete reversal of the conditions which had prevailed during the preceding age. The time was ripe for a Sumerian reaction, and Ur-Engur's initial success in welding the southern cities into a confederation of states under his own suzerainty may be traced to the beginning of this racial movement. Dungi continued and extended his father's policy, and his sack of Babylon may probably be regarded as the decisive blow in the struggle, which had been taking place against the last centres of Semitic influence in the north.
Other evidence is not lacking of the Sumerian national revival, which characterized the period of the kings of Sumer and Akkad. Of Ur-Engur's inscriptions every one is written in Sumerian, in striking contrast to the texts which date from the time of Shar-Gani-sharri and Narâm-Sin. Of the still more numerous records of Dungi's reign, only two short votive formulæ are written in Semitic Babylonian, and one of these is from the northern city of Cutha. The predominant use of Sumerian also characterizes the texts of the remaining members of Ur-Engur's dynasty and the few inscriptions of the Dynasty of Isin that have been recovered.[6] In fact, only one of[Pg 284] these is in Semitic, a short brick-inscription giving the name and titles of Gimil-Sin, which was found at Susa. It is true that the last three kings of the Dynasty of Ur apparently bear Semitic names, and of the rulers of the Dynasty of Isin the Semitic character of the majority of the names is not in doubt. But this in itself does not prove that their bearers were Semites, and a study of the proper names occurring in the numerous commercial documents and tablets of accounts, which were drawn up under the kings of Ur and Isin, are invariably Sumerian in character.[7] A more convincing test than that of the royal names is afforded by the cylinder-seals of the period. In these both subject and treatment are Sumerian, resembling the seals of Lagash at the time of Gudea and having little in common with those of the Dynasty of Akkad. Moreover, the worshippers engraved upon the seals are Sumerians, not Semites. Two striking examples are the seal of Khashkhamer, the contemporary and dependant of Ur-Engur, and that which Kilulla-guzala,[8] the son of Ur-baga, dedicated to Meslamtaea for the preservation of Dungi's life.[9] It will be noticed that on each of these seals the worshipper has a shaven head and wears the fringed Sumerian tunic. There can be little doubt, therefore, that Ur-Engur and his descendants were Sumerians, and we may probably regard the Dynasty of Isin as a continuation of the same racial movement which led to the establishment of the kingdom of Sumer and Akkad.[10]
Besides affording information with regard to the racial characteristics of the inhabitants of Southern Babylonia, the official lists and commercial documents of this period indirectly throw light upon historical events. In the first great collection of tablets found by M. de Sarzec at Tello, the majority of those belonging to Dungi's period were dated in the later years of his reign; but among the tablets recovered during the more recent diggings on the site are many dated in his earlier years. The date-formulæ inscribed upon these documents, in conjunction with fragmentary date-lists, have rendered it possible to arrange the titles of the years in order for the greater part of his reign; and, since the years were named after important occurrences, such as the building or inauguration of temples in different cities and the successful prosecution of foreign campaigns, they form a valuable source of information concerning the history of the period.[11] From these we can gather some idea of the steps by which Dungi increased his empire, and of the periods in his reign during which he achieved his principal conquests. During his earlier years it would seem that he was occupied in securing complete control within the districts of Northern Babylonia, which he had nominally inherited from his father. The sack of Babylon may well have been commemorated in the title for the year in which it took place, and, if so, it must be placed within the first decade of his reign, where a gap occurs in our sequence of the date-formulæ. Such of the earlier titles as have been recovered refer for the most part to the building of palaces and temples, the installation of deities within their shrines, and the like. It is not until the thirty-fourth year of his reign that a foreign conquest is explicitly recorded.
But before this period there are indications that an expansion of Dungi's empire was already taking place. In the nineteenth year of his reign he installed the goddess Kadi in her temple at Der, an act which proves that the principal frontier town on the Elamite border was at this time in his possession. In the following year he[Pg 286] installed in his temple the god Nutugmushda of Kazallu, in which we may see evidence that he had imposed his suzerainty over this country, the conquest of which, according to the late tradition, had been a notable achievement of Sargon's reign. In his twenty-sixth year he appointed his daughter to be "lady" of the Elamite region of Markharshi, a record that throws an interesting light upon the position enjoyed by women among the Sumerians. These districts, and others of which we have no knowledge, may well have been won by conquest, for it is obvious that the official date-formulæ could not take account of every military expedition, especially in years when an important religious event had also taken place. But, in the case of the three countries referred to, it is also possible that little opposition was offered to their annexation, and for that reason the title of the year may have merely recorded Dungi's performance of his chief privilege as suzerain, or the appointment of his representative as ruler. Whichever explanation be adopted, it is clear that Dungi was already gaining possession of regions which had formed part of the empire of the Semitic kings of Akkad.
In addition to acquiring their territory, Dungi also seems to have borrowed from the Semites one of their most effective weapons, for the twenty-eighth year of his reign was known as that in which he enrolled the sons of Ur as archers. The principal weapon of the earlier Sumerians was the spear, and they delivered their attack in close formation, the spearmen being protected in line of battle by heavy shields carried by shield-bearers. For other purposes of offence they depended chiefly on the battle-axe and possibly the dart, but these were subsidiary weapons, fitted rather for the pursuit of a flying enemy when once their main attack had been delivered. Eannatum's victories testify to the success achieved by the method of attack in heavy phalanx against an enemy with inferior arms. The bow appears to have been introduced by the Semites, and they may have owed their success in battle largely to its employment: it would have enabled them to break up and demoralize the serried ranks of the Sumerians, before they could get to close quarters.[Pg 287] Dungi doubtless recognized the advantage the weapon would give his own forces, especially when fighting in a hilly country, where the heavy spear and shield would be of little service, and it would be difficult to retain a close formation. We may conjecture that he found his companies of bowmen of considerable assistance in the series of successful campaigns, which he carried out in Elam and the neighbouring regions, during the latter half of his reign.
Of these campaigns we know that the first conquest of Gankhar took place in Dungi's thirty-fourth year, and that of Simuru in the year that followed. The latter district does not appear to have submitted tamely to annexation, for in his thirty-sixth year Dungi found it necessary to send a fresh expedition for its reconquest. In the following year he followed up these successes by the conquest of Kharshi and Khumurti. Gankhar and Simuru were probably situated in the mountainous districts to the east of the Tigris, around the upper course of the Diyala, in the neighbourhood of Lulubu; for the four countries Urbillu, Simuru, Lulubu, and Gankhar formed the object of a single expedition undertaken by Dungi in his fifty-fifth year.[12] Kharshi, or Kharishi, appears to have also lain in the region to the east of the Tigris.[13] These victories doubtless led to the submission of other districts, for in his fortieth year Dungi married one of his daughters to the patesi of Anshan, among the most important of Elamite states. The warlike character of the Elamites is attested by the difficulty Dungi experienced in retaining control over these districts, after they had been incorporated in his empire. For in the forty-first year of his reign he was obliged to undertake the reconquest of Gankhar, and to send a third expedition there two years later; in the forty-third year he subdued Simuru for the third time, while in the[Pg 288] forty-fourth year Anshan itself revolted and had to be regained by force of arms.
In the course of these ten years it is probable that Dungi annexed the greater part of Elam, and placed his empire upon an enduring basis. It is true that during the closing years of his reign he undertook a fresh series of expeditions, conquering Shashru in the fifty-second year, subduing Simuru and Lulubu in the fifty-fourth year "for the ninth time," and Urbillu, Kimash, Khumurti and Kharshi in the course of his last four years. But the earlier victories, by means of which he extended his sway far beyond the borders of Sumer and Akkad, may be held to mark the principal era of expansion in the growth of his empire. It was probably during this period that he added to his other titles the more comprehensive one of "king of the four quarters (of the world)," thus reviving a title which had already been adopted by Narâm-Sin at a time when the empire of Akkad had reached its zenith. Another innovation which Dungi introduced in the course of his reign, at a period it would seem shortly before his adoption of Narâm-Sin's title, was the assumption of divine rank, indicated by the addition of the determinative for divinity before his name. Like Narâm-Sin, who had claimed to be the god of Akkad, he styled himself the god of his land, and he founded temples in which his statue became the object of a public cult. He also established a national festival in his own honour, and renamed the seventh month of the year, during which it was celebrated, as the Month of the Feast of Dungi. He appears to have been the first Sumerian ruler to claim divine honours. By so doing he doubtless challenged comparison with the kings of Akkad, whose empire his conquests had enabled him to rival.
DIORITE VOTIVE TABLETS OF DUNGI, KING OF UR, RIM-SIN, KING OF LARSA, AND BUR-SIN, KING OF UR.—Brit. Mus., Nos. 90897, 90898, and 91014.
LIMESTONE VOTIVE TABLETS OF THE TIME OF RIM-SIN, KING OF LARSA, AND OF SIN-GAMIL, KING OF ERECH; ON THE LEFT IS A NEO-BABY. LONIAN COPY IN CLAY OF A VOTIVE INSCRIPTION OF SIN-GASHID, KING OF ERECH.—Brit. Mus., Nos. 91081, 90899, and 91082.
Dungi's administration of the Elamite provinces of his empire appears to have been of a far more permanent character than that established by any earlier conqueror from Babylonia. In the course of this history we have frequently noted occasions on which Elam has come into contact with the centres of civilization in the valley of the Tigris and Euphrates. In fact, from her geographical position, she was not only the [Pg 289]nearest foreign neighbour of Sumer and Akkad, but she was bound to influence them and be influenced by them in turn. To the earlier Sumerian rulers Elam was a name of terror, associated with daring raids across the Tigris on the part of hardy mountain races. The Semitic kings of Kish had turned the tables by invading Elamite territory, and their conquests and those of the kings of Akkad had opened the way for the establishment of close commercial relations between the two countries. Although their expeditions may have been undertaken with the object of getting spoil rather than of acquiring territory, there is no doubt that they resulted in a considerable Semitic immigration into the country. Moreover, the Semitic conquerors brought with them the civilization they had themselves acquired. For their memorial and monumental records the native princes of Elam adopted from their conquerors the cuneiform system of writing and even their Semitic language, though the earlier native writing continued to be employed for the ordinary purposes of life.[14] Basha-Shushinak,[15] patesi of Susa and governor of Elam, who may probably be placed at a rather earlier period than the Dynasty of Ur, employs the Semitic Babylonian language for recording his votive offerings, and he not only calls down Shushinak's vengeance upon the impious, but adds invocations to such purely Babylonian deities as Shamash, Nergal, Enlil, Enki or Ea, Sin, Ninni or Ishtar, and Ninkharsag. We could not have more striking evidence of the growth of Semitic influence in Elam during the period which followed the Elamite victories of the kings of Kish and Akkad.
Close commercial relations were also maintained between Elam and Sumer, and Gudea's conquest of Anshan may be regarded as the first step towards the Sumerian domination of the country. In establishing his own authority in Elam, Dungi must have found many districts, and especially the city of Susa, influenced by Sumerian culture, though chiefly through[Pg 290] the medium of Semitic immigrants from Northern Babylonia. His task of administering the conquered provinces was thus rendered proportionately easier. That his expeditions were not merely raids, but resulted in the permanent occupation of the country, is proved by a number of tablets found at Tello, which throw considerable light upon the methods by which he administered the empire from his capital at Ur. Many of these documents contain orders for supplies allotted to officials in the king's service, who were passing through Lagash in the course of journeys between Ur and their districts in Elam. The tablets enumerate quantities of grain, strong drink and oil, which had been assigned to them, either for their sustenance during their stay in Lagash, or as provision for their journey after their departure.
It is interesting to note that the towns or countries, from which they came, or to which they set out on their return journey from Ur, are generally specified. In addition to Susa, we meet with the names of Anshan, Kharishi, Kimash and Markharshi, the conquest or annexation of which by Dungi, as we have already seen, is recorded in the date-formulæ. Other places, the officials of which are mentioned, were Khukhnuri, Shimash, Sabu, Ulu, Urri, Zaula, Gisha, Siri, Siu, Nekhune, and Sigiresh. Like the preceding districts, these were all in Elam, while Az, Shabara, Simashgi, Makhar and Adamdun, with which other officers were connected, probably lay in the same region.[16] From the number of separate places, the names of which have already been recovered on the tablets from Tello, it is clear that Dungi's authority in Elam was not confined to a few of the principal cities, but was effectively established throughout the greater part of the country. While much of his administrative work was directed from Ur, it is probable that Susa formed his local capital. From inscriptions found during the French excavations on that site we know that Dungi rebuilt there the temple of Shushinak the national god,[17] and it may be inferred that he made[Pg 291] the city his headquarters during his periods of residence in the country.
The functions of many of the officials it is difficult to determine, but some of the titles that can be explained include couriers and royal messengers, who were entrusted with despatches. In the case of officials of a higher grade the object of their mission is sometimes indicated on the tablet, and it is seen that the majority superintended the collection and distribution of supplies, the transport of building materials, and the provision of labour for the public works undertaken by the king. In fact, a very large number of the royal officers were employed in recruiting public slaves in Elam, and in transporting them to Ur and other cities, for work upon temples and palaces in course of construction. From the situation of Lagash on the high-road between Ur and Susa, it is natural that the majority of the officials mentioned on the tablets should be on their way to or from Elam, but some whose business lay in other directions are occasionally mentioned. Thus certain of them were from towns in the immediate neighbourhood of Lagash, such as Tig-abba, while others journeyed northward to Nippur. Others, again, were on their way south to the coast, and even to the island of Dilmun in the Persian Gulf.
Among the higher officials whose stay in Lagash is recorded, or whose representatives passed through the city on business, a prefect, a local governor, and even a patesi are sometimes mentioned, and from this source of information we learn the names of some of the patesis who ruled in Susa under the suzerainty of Dungi and his successors on the throne of Ur. Thus several of the tablets record the supply of rations for Urkium, patesi of Susa, on his way back to that city during Dungi's reign. Another tablet mentions a servant of Zarik, patesi of Susa, who had come from Nippur, while a third patesi of Susa, who owed allegiance to one of the later kings of Ur, was Beli-arik.[18] It[Pg 292] is noteworthy that these names, like that of Lipum, patesi of Anshan, who is also mentioned, are not Elamite but Semitic Babylonian, while Ur-gigir and Nagidda, who were patesis of Adamdun during this period, are Sumerian. It is therefore clear that, on his conquest of Elam, Dungi deposed the native rulers and replaced them by officials from Babylonia, a practice continued by his successors on the throne. In this we may see conclusive evidence of the permanent and detailed control over the administration of the country, which was secured by the later kings of Ur. Such a policy no doubt resulted in a very effective system of government, but its success depended on the maintenance of a sufficient force to overawe any signs of opposition. That the Elamites themselves resented the foreign domination is clear from the number of military expeditions, which were required to stamp out rebellions and reconquer provinces in revolt. The harsh methods adopted by the conquerors were not calculated to secure any loyal acceptance of their rule on the part of the subject race, and to this cause we may probably trace the events which led not only to the Elamite revival but to the downfall of the Dynasty of Ur itself.
CLAY TABLETS INSCRIBED WITH SUMERIAN TEMPLE-ACCOUNTS CONCERNING ASSES AND CATTLE, AND SHEEP AND LAMBS, DRAWN UP IN THE REIGN OF DUNGI, KING OF UR.—Brit. Mus., Nos. 19024 and 12231.
CLAY TABLETS INSCRIBED WITH SUMERIAN TEMPLE-ACCOUNTS CONCERNING GRAIN AND LABOURERS, DRAWN UP IN THE REIGN OF DUNGI, KING OF UR.—Brit. Mus., Nos. 18957 and 18344.
It is clear that Elam under Dungi's administration formed a rich source of supply for those material products, in the lavish display of which the later rulers of Sumer loved to indulge. Her quarries, mines, and forests were laid under contribution, and her cities were despoiled of their accumulated wealth in the course of the numerous military expeditions by which her provinces were overrun. From the spoil of his campaigns Dungi was enabled to enrich the temples of his own land, and by appropriating the products of the country he obtained an abundance of metal, stone and wood for the construction and adornment of his buildings. Large bodies of public slaves supplied the necessary labour, and their ranks were constantly recruited from among the captives taken in battle, and from towns and villages which were suspected of participation in revolts. He was thus enabled to continue, on an even more elaborate scale, the rebuilding of the [Pg 293]ancient temples of his country, which had been inaugurated by his father, Ur-Engur.
Among the cities of Akkad we know that at Cutha he rebuilt E-meslam, the great temple of Nergal, the city-god, but it is from Sumer that the principal evidence of his building activity has come. The late tradition that he greatly favoured the city of Eridu is supported by a votive text in the British Museum, which records his restoration of Enki's temple in that city; moreover, under Dungi, the chief priest of Eridu enjoyed a position of great favour and influence. Another city in the south, in which he undertook large building-operations, was Erech; here he restored E-anna, the temple of the goddess Ninni, and built a great wall, probably in connection with the city's system of defence. We know few details concerning the condition of these cities, but the wealth enjoyed by the temples of Lagash may be regarded as typical of the other great Sumerian religious centres during Dungi's reign. Among the baked clay tablets from Tello which date from this period are extensive lists of cattle, sheep, and asses, owned by the temples, and detailed tablets of accounts concerning the administration of the rich temple lands. It is interesting to note that these documents, which from the nature of their clay and the beauty of their writing are among the finest specimens yet recovered in Babylonia,[19] were found by M. de Sarzec in the original archive-chambers in which they had been stored by the Sumerian priests. Though they had apparently been disturbed at some later period, the majority were still arranged in layers, placed one upon the other, upon benches of earth which ran along both sides of narrow subterranean galleries.[20]
In spite of Dungi's devotion to the ancient Sumerian cult of Enki in the south, he did not neglect Nippur, though he seems to have introduced some novelties in the relations he maintained with this central shrine of Babylonia. In the fifteenth year of his reign he appears to have emphasized the political connection between Nippur and the capital, and six years later he dedicated[Pg 294] a local sanctuary to the Moon-god at the former city, in which he installed a statue of Nannar, the city-god of Ur. Enlil and his consort Ninlil were not deposed from their place at the head of the Sumerian pantheon; the Moon-god, as the patron deity of the suzerain city, was merely provided with a local centre of worship beside E-kur, the great temple of his father. Indeed, under Dungi's successors Enlil enjoyed a position of enhanced importance; but it is possible that with Nannar the same process of evolution was at this time beginning to take place, which at a later period characterized the rise in importance of Marduk, the city-god of Babylon. But the short duration of the Dynasty of Ur did not give time for the development of the process beyond its initial stages. At Nippur Dungi also built a temple in honour of the goddess Damgalnunna, and we possess a cylinder-seal which Ur-nabbad,[21] a patesi of Nippur, dedicated to Nusku, Enlil's chief minister, on behalf of Dungi's life. Ur-nabbad describes himself as the son of Lugal-ezendug, to whom he also assigns the title of patesi of Nippur. It is probable that at Nippur the office of patesi continued to be hereditary, in spite of political changes, a privilege it doubtless enjoyed in virtue of its peculiarly sacred character.
In his capital at Ur it was but natural that Dungi should still further enlarge the great temple which Ur-Engur had erected in honour of the Moon-god, and it was probably in Ur also that he built a temple in honour of Ninib, whose cult he particularly favoured. He also erected two royal palaces there, one of them, E-kharsag, in the eighteenth year of his reign, and the other, E-khalbi, three years later. In Ur, too, we obtain evidence of an important administrative reform, by the recovery of three weights for half a maneh, two manehs, and twelve manehs respectively. The inscription upon one of these states that it had been tested and passed as of full weight in the sealing-house dedicated to Nannar. Dungi, in fact, introduced a uniform standard of weights for use in at least the Babylonian portion of his empire; and he sought to render his enactments with regard to them effective, by[Pg 295] establishing an offical testing-house at Ur, which was probably attached to the temple of the Moon-god and conducted under the direction of the central priesthood. Here the original standards were preserved, and all local standards that were intended for use in other cities had no doubt to be attested by the official inscription of the king. It may be added that, in addition to the weights of his own period that have been recovered, a copy of one has survived, which was made after his standard in the Neo-Babylonian period.[22]
A considerable part of our knowledge of Dungi's reign has been derived from the tablets found at Tello, and from them we also obtain indirect evidence of the uniform character of his system of administration. As he introduced a fixed standard of weight for use throughout Babylonia, so he applied a single system of time-reckoning, in place of the local systems of dating, which had, until the reign of his father, prevailed in the different cities since the fall of the Dynasty of Akkad. The official title for each year was fixed in Ur, and was then published in each city of his empire, where it was adopted as the correct formula. This change had already been begun by Ur-Engur, who had probably introduced the central system into each city over which he obtained control; with Dungi we may infer that it became universal, not only throughout Sumer and Akkad, but also in the outlying provinces of his empire. In the provincial cities the scribes frequently added to the date-formula the name of their local patesi, who was in office at the time, and from such notes upon the Tello tablets we obtain the names of four patesis of Lagash who were Dungi's contemporaries during the last twenty years he occupied the throne. Similarly on tablets found at Jôkha[23] we learn that in the forty-fourth year of Dungi's reign Ur-nesu was patesi of the city of Umma; while a seal-impression on another tablet from Tello supplies the name of Ur-Pasag, who was patesi of the city of Dungi-Babbar. The sealings upon tablets of the period afford some indication of the decrease in influence attaching to the[Pg 296] office of patesi, which resulted from the centralization of authority in Ur. Subordinate officials could employ Dungi's name, not that of their local patesi, upon their seals of office, proving that, like the patesi himself, they held their appointments direct from the king.
Of the patesis who held office in Lagash during Dungi's earlier years, the name of only one, a certain Galu-kazal, has been recovered. He dedicated a vase to Ningirsu for the preservation of Dungi's life,[24] and his daughter Khala-Lama presented a remarkable female statuette to the goddess Bau with the same object.[25] Of the later patesis we know that Galu-andul was in office during the thirty-ninth year of Dungi's reign, and that Ur-Lama I. ruled for at least seven years from his forty-second to his forty-eighth year. The patesiate of Alla, who was in office during his fiftieth year, was very short, for he was succeeded in the following year by Ur-Lama II., who survived Dungi and continued to rule in Lagash for three, and possibly four, years of Bûr-Sin's reign. Among the public works undertaken by Dungi in Lagash, we know that he rebuilt E-ninnû, Ningirsu's temple, the great temple dedicated to the goddess Ninâ, and E-salgilsa, the shrine of the goddess Ninmar in Girsu. Excavations upon other sites will doubtless reveal traces of the other buildings, which he erected in the course of his long reign of fifty-eight years. Indeed, the texts already recovered contain references to work on buildings, the sites of which are not yet identified, such as the restoration of Ubara, and the founding of Bad-mada, "The Wall (or Fortification) of the Land." As the latter was constructed in his forty-seventh year, after the principal epoch of his Elamite campaigns, it may have been a strongly fortified garrison-town upon the frontier, from which he could exercise control over his recently acquired provinces.
In view of Dungi's exceptionally long reign, it is probable that Bûr-Sin was already advanced in years when he succeeded his father upon the throne of Ur.[Pg 297] However this may be, he reigned for only nine years, and Gimil-Sin, his son who succeeded him, for only seven years.[26] A longer reign was that of Ibi-Sin, Gimil-Sin's son and successor, who held his throne for a generation, but finally lost it and brought Ur-Engur's dynasty to an inglorious end. These last rulers of the Dynasty of Ur appear to have maintained the general lines of Dungi's policy, which they inherited from him along with his empire. The Elamite provinces required to be kept in check by the sending of military expeditions thither, but in Babylonia itself the rule of Ur was accepted without question, and her kings were free to devote themselves to the adornment of the great temples in the land. It is of interest to note that under Bûr-Sin and his son the importance of the central shrine of Nippur was fully recognized, and emphasis was laid on Enlil's position at the head of the Babylonian pantheon. Evidence of this may be seen in the additional titles, which these two rulers adopted in their foundation-inscriptions and votive texts that have come down to us. Bûr-Sin's regular titles of "King of Ur, king of the four quarters" are generally preceded by the phrase "whose name Enlil has pronounced in Nippur, who raised the head of Enlil's temple," while Gimil-Sin describes himself as "the beloved of Enlil," "whom Enlil has chosen as his heart's beloved," or "whom Enlil in his heart has chosen to be the shepherd of the land and of the four quarters." From inscriptions found at Nippur we know that Bûr-Sin added to the great temple of E-kur, and also built a storehouse for offerings of honey, butter and wine, while his third year was dated by the construction of a great throne in Enlil's honour. Gimil-Sin appears to have been equally active in his devotion to the shrine, for two years of his short reign derive their titles from the setting up of a great stele and the construction of a sacred boat, both in honour of Enlil and his consort.
The peculiar honour paid to Enlil does not appear to have affected the cult of the Moon-god, the patron[Pg 298] deity of Ur, for both Bûr-Sin and Gimil-Sin rebuilt and added to the great temple of Sin, or Nannar, in their capital.[27] They also followed Dungi in his care for the shrine of Enki at Eridu; and there is evidence that Bûr-Sin rebuilt the temple of Ninni at Erech, while the last year of Gimil-Sin's reign was signalized by the rebuilding of the city-temple at Umma. It is thus clear that the later members of Ur-Engur's dynasty continued the rebuilding of the temples of Babylonia, which characterized his reign and that of Dungi. Another practice which they inherited was the deification of the reigning king. Not only did they assume the divine determinative before their names, but Bûr-Sin styles himself "the righteous god of his land," or "the righteous god, the sun of his land." He also set up a statue of himself, which he named "Bûr-Sin, the beloved of Ur," and placed it in the temple of the Moon-god under the protection of Nannar and Ningal. It would seem that it became the custom at this time for the reigning king to erect statues of himself in the great temples of the land, where regular offerings were made to them as to the statues of the gods themselves. Thus a tablet from Tello mentions certain offerings made at the Feast of the New Moon to statues of Gimil-Sin, which stood in the two principal temples of Lagash, those of Ningirsu and the goddess Bau.[28] It should be added that the tablet is dated in the fifth year of Gimil-Sin's reign. In view of Nannar's rank as god of the suzerain city, the Feasts of the New Moon were naturally regarded, even in the provincial cities, as of peculiar importance in the sacred calendar.
TWO TABLETS OF BAKED CLAY INSCRIBED WITH DETAILS OF A SURVEY OF CERTAIN PROPERTY DURING THE REIGN OF BUR-SIN, KING OF UR. —Brit. Mus., Nos. 18039 and 19030; photo, by Messrs. Mansell & Co.
Whenever the king rebuilt or added to a temple we may assume that he inaugurated there a new centre of his cult, but it is certain that temples were also erected which were devoted entirely to his worship. Thus Dungi dated a year of his reign by the appointment of a high-priest of his own cult, an act which suggests that on his assumption of divine rank he founded a temple in his own honour. Moreover, under his successors [Pg 299]high officials sought the royal favour by building and dedicating shrines to the reigning king. This is proved by a votive inscription of Lugal-magurri, the patesi of Ur and commander of the fortress, which records that he founded a temple in honour of Gimil-Sin, "his god." At the king's death his cult did not die with him, but he continued to be worshipped and offerings were made to him at the Feast of the New Moon. Tablets from Tello, dated during the later years of the Dynasty of Ur, record the making of such offerings to Dungi, and it is noteworthy that the patesis Ur-Lama and Gudea were also honoured in the same way. We have seen that Gudea was probably not deified in his own lifetime, but at this period he takes his place beside the god Dunpae in the rites of the New Moon. Offerings in his honour, accompanied by sacrifices, were repeated six times a year, and a special class of priests was attached to his service.[29] An interesting survival, or trace, of this practice occurs in an explanatory list of gods, drawn up for Ashur-bani-pal's Library at Nineveh, where Bûr-Sin's name is explained as that of an attendant deity in the service of the Moon-god.[30]
The later kings of Ur appear to have retained possession of the empire acquired by Dungi, but we may assume that, like him, they were constantly obliged to enforce their authority. Tablets have been found at Susa dated by the official formulæ of Bûr-Sin,[31] proving that the capital of Elam remained under his control, but, before he had been two years upon the throne, he was obliged to undertake the reconquest of Urbillu. Other successful expeditions were made in his sixth and seventh years, which resulted in the subjugation of Shashru and Khukhunuri, or Khukhnuri. The date-formulæ of Gimil-Sin's reign record that he conquered Simanu in his third year, and four years later the land of Zabshali, while the only conquest of Ibi-Sin of which we possess a record is that of Simuru. A date-formula of this period also commemorates the marriage of the patesi of Zabshali to Tukîn-khatti-migrisha, the[Pg 300] daughter of the king, but it is not certain to which reign this event should be assigned. Evidence of the extent of Gimil-Sin's authority in the direction of the Mediterranean may be seen in the date-formula for his fourth year, which commemorates his building of the Wall, or Fortification, of the West, entitled Murîk-Tidnim. Since Tidnu was explained by the Assyrian geographers as another name for Amurru[32] and may be connected with Tidanu, the mountain in Amurru from which Gudea obtained his marble,[33] we may infer that at least a portion of Syria acknowledged the suzerainty of Ur during his reign.
Of the comparatively long reign of Ibi-Sin, and of the events which preceded the downfall of the Dynasty of Ur, we know little, but already during the reigns of his predecessors it is possible to trace some of the causes which led to the decline of the city's power. The wealth obtained from the Elamite provinces and the large increase in the number of public slaves must have introduced an element of luxury into Sumerian life, which would tend to undermine the military qualities of the people and their inclination for foreign service. The incorporation of Sumer and Akkad into a single empire had broken down the last traces of political division between the great cities of the land, and, while it had put an end to local patriotism, it had not encouraged in its place the growth of any feeling of loyalty to the suzerain city. All the great provincial towns were doubtless required to furnish contingents for the numerous military campaigns of the period, and they could have had little satisfaction in seeing the fruits of their conquests diverted to the aggrandizement of a city other than their own. The assumption of divine rank by the later kings of Ur may in itself be regarded as a symptom of the spirit which governed their administration. In the case of Dungi the innovation had followed the sudden expansion of his empire, and its adoption had been based upon political as much as upon personal grounds. But with his descendants the practice had been carried to more extravagant lengths, and it undoubtedly afforded[Pg 301] opportunities for royal favourities to obtain by flattery an undue influence in the state.
We have already seen that Lugal-magurri, who combined the civil office of patesi of Ur with the military appointment of commander of the fortress, founded a temple for the worship of Gimil-Sin, and it is clear that such an act would have opened an easier road to the royal favour than the successful prosecution of a campaign. It was probably by such methods that ministers at the court of Ur secured the enjoyment of a plurality of offices, which had previously been administered with far greater efficiency in separate hands. The most striking example is afforded by Arad-Nannar, whose name as that of a patesi of Lagash is frequently mentioned upon dated tablets from Tello. He was "sukkal-makh," or chief minister, under the last three kings of Ur, and appears to have succeeded his father Ur-Dunpae, who had held this post in Dungi's reign. From the Tello tablets we know that he also held the patesiate of Lagash during this period, for he received the appointment towards the end of Bûr-Sin's reign[34] and continued to hold it under Ibi-Sin. But the patesiate of Lagash was only one of many posts which he combined. For two gate-sockets have been found at Tello, which originally formed parts of a temple founded in Girsu by Arad-Nannar for the cult of Gimil-Sin, and in the inscriptions upon them he has left us a list of his appointments.[35]
In addition to holding the posts of chief minister and patesi of Lagash, he was also priest of Enki, governor of Uzargarshana, governor of Babishue, patesi of Sabu and of the land of Gutebu, governor of Timat-Enlil, patesi of Al-Gimil-Sin,[36] governor of Urbillu, patesi of Khamasi and of Gankhar, governor of Ikhi, and governor of the Su-people and of the land of Kardaka. At some time during the reign of Gimil-Sin Arad-Nannar thus combined in his own person twelve[Pg 302] important appointments, involving the administration of no less than thirteen separate cities and provinces. The position of some of the places enumerated is still uncertain, but it is clear that several were widely separated from one another. While Lagash, for instance, lay in the south of Sumer, Sabu was in Elam and Urbillu and Gankhar more to the north in the region of the Zagros mountains.
This centralization of authority under the later kings of Ur undoubtedly destroyed the power attaching to the patesiate at a time when the separate cities of the land had enjoyed a practical autonomy; and it incidentally explains the survival of the title, under the First Dynasty of Babylon, as that of a comparatively subordinate class of officials. But the policy of centralization must have had a more immediate effect on the general administration of the empire. For it undoubtedly lessened the responsibilities of local governors, and it placed the central authority, which the king himself had previously enjoyed, in the hands of a few officials of the court. The king's deification undoubtedly tended to encourage his withdrawal from the active control of affairs, and, so long as his divine rites were duly celebrated, he was probably content to accept without question the reports his courtiers presented to him. Such a system of government was bound to end in national disaster, and it is not surprising that the dynasty was brought to an end within forty-one years of Dungi's death. We may postpone until the next chapter an account of the manner in which the hegemony in Babylonia passed from the city of Ur to Isin.
[1] See Hilprecht, "Math., Met., and Chron. Tablets," p. 46 f.
[2] See Thureau-Dangin, "Königsinschriften," pp. 186 ff.
[3] The rebuilding of the wall of Ur was also commemorated in the date-formula for one of the early years of his reign.
[5] See King, "Chronicles concerning early Babylonian Kings," Vol. I., pp. 60 ff.; Vol. II., p. 11.
[6] The same characteristics were probably presented by the votive texts of local patesis, who were contemporary with the kings of Sumer and Akkad. Thus Khaladda, patesi of Shuruppak, and the son of Dada who was patesi before him, records in Sumerian his building of the great door of the god or goddess of that city; see his cone-inscription found at Fâra and published in the "Mitteil. der Deutsch. Orient-Gesellschaft," No. 16, 1902-3, p. 13. On the other hand, Semitic influence is visible in the inscription of Itûr-Shamash a high official (rabiânu), who built at Kisurra and on an inscribed brick found at Abû Hatab styles himself the son of Idin-ilu, patesi of Kisurra (op. cit., No. 15, 1902, p. 13).
[7] See Huber, "Die Personennamen ... aus der Zeit der Könige von Ur und Nisin," and Langdon, "Zeits. der Deutsch. Morgenländ. Gesellschaft," Bd. LXII., p. 399.
[8] Or better, "Kilulla, the guzalû"; cf. "Königsinschriften," p. 194 f.
[10] In spite of the use of Sumerian for their inscriptions and the continuance of the traditions of Ur, Meyer suggests that the Dynasty of Isin may have been of Amorite origin (cf. "Geschichte des Altertums," Bd. I., Hft. II., p. 501 f.). But the presence of the name of the god Dagan in two of the royal names is scarcely sufficient to justify this view, especially as the suggested Amorite invasion in Libit-Ishtar's reign has been to all intents and purposes disproved; see below, p. 315 f.
[11] See Thureau-Dangin, "Comptes rendus," 1902, pp. 77 ff., "Rev. d'Assyr.," Vol. V., pp. 67 ff., and "Königsinschriften," pp. 229 ff.
[12] Cf. Thureau-Dangin, "Orient. Lit.-Zeit.," 1898, col. 169, n. 2, and "Comptes rendus," 1902, p. 85.
[13] It may perhaps be connected with Khurshitu (cf. Meyer, "Geschichte des Altertums," Bd. I., Hft. II., p. 498 f.), the site of which is indicated by the brick from the palace of Pukhia, King of Khurshitu, which was found at Tuz-Khurmati on the river Adhem (cf. Scheil, "Rec. de trav.," XVI., p. 186; XIX., p. 61). Pukhia was probably contemporary with the earliest rulers of Ashur.
[15] The name has also been read as Karibu-sha-Shushinak. He does not appear to have inherited his patesiate, for in his inscriptions he assigns no title to his father Shimbi-ishkhuk.
[16] See Thureau-Dangin, "Comptes rendus," 1902, p. 88 f.
[17] See Scheil, "Textes Élam.-Sémit.," III., p. 20 f.
[18] Cf. Scheil, "Rec. de trav.," Vol. XXII., p. 153. Khunnini, patesi of Kimash and governor of Madka, whose seal in the Hermitage at St. Petersburg is published by Sayce ("Zeits. für Assyr.," VI., p. 161), is probably also to be set in this period. Madka is to be identified with Madga, whence Gudea obtained bitumen; see above, p. 261 f.
[20] Cf. Heuzey, "Rev. d'Assyr.," III., p. 66.
[21] The reading of the last syllable of the name is uncertain.
[22] Brit. Mus. No 91,005; cf. "Guide," p. 193 f.
[23] Cf. Scheil, "Rec. de trav.," XIX., p. 62 f.
[24] See Heuzey, "Rev. d'Assyr.," IV., p. 90.
[25] Cf. "Déc. en Chaldée," pl. 21, Fig. 4.
[26] Gimil-Sin possibly reigned for nine years; see Kugler, "Sternkunde," II., p. 151 f. Another son of Bûr-Sin was Ur-Bau, whose name occurs on a seal-impression from Tello (cf. Scheil, "Rec. de trav.," XIX., p. 49).
[27] Devotion to the Moon-god is also expressed by their names and that of Ibi-Sin.
[28] Cf. Thureau-Dangin, "Rec. de trav.," XIX., pp. 185 ff.
[29] See Scheil, "Rec. de trav.," XVIII., pp. 64 ff.
[30] See "Cuneiform Texts in the British Museum," Pt. XXV., p. 7.
[31] Cf. Scheil, "Textes Élam.-Sémit.," IV., p. 73 f.
[32] Cf. Thureau-Dangin, "Rec. de trav.," XIX., p. 185.
[34] One other patesi, the reading of whose name is uncertain, appears to have separated Arad-Nannar from Ur-Lama II.
[35] See Thureau-Dangin, "Rev. d'Assyr.," V., pp. 99 ff.; VI., p. 67 f.; and "Königsinschriften," pp. 148 ff.; cf. also "Comptes rendus," 1902, pp. 91 ff.
[36] "The City of Gimil-Sin," i.e., a town named after the reigning king and probably founded by him.
The kingdom of Sumer and Akkad, which had been founded by Ur-Engur, survived the fall of his dynasty, and the centre of authority merely passed from one city to another. The change of capital did not imply the existence of any new racial movement, such as that which had led to the rise of Kish and the Empire of Akkad. The kings of Isin were probably Sumerians like their immediate predecessors, and they shared with them the same ideals and culture. No doubt a rivalry existed between the great Sumerian cities, and any one of them would have been ready to contest the power of Ur had there been a prospect of success. At first sight indeed it might appear that Isin now emerged as the victor from such a struggle for the hegemony. In the dynastic chronicle from Nippur the close of the Dynasty of Ur and the rise of Isin is briefly recorded in the words "the rule of Ur was overthrown, Isin took its kingdom." From this passage alone it might be imagined that Ishbi-Ura, the founder of the Dynasty of Isin, had headed a revolt against the rule of Ur, and had been the direct agent in Ibi-Sin's deposition.
But the fall of the Dynasty of Ur, like that of the First Dynasty of Babylon, was due to an external cause and not to any movement within the limits of Babylonia itself. We possess no contemporary record of the catastrophe which at this time overwhelmed the empire, but an echo of it has been preserved in an omen-text, inscribed upon an Assyrian tablet from the Library of[Pg 304] Ashur-bani-pal. We have already noted instances in which genuine historical traditions have been incorporated in the later augural literature, and we need have no hesitation in accepting the historical accuracy of this reference to past events. The text in question enumerates certain omens which it associates with the fall of "Ibi-Sin, the King of Ur," who, it states, was carried captive to Anshan.[1] We may thus infer that it was an Elamite invasion that put an end to the Dynasty of Ur. The foreign provinces, on the possession of which Dungi had based his claim to the rule of the four quarters of the world, had finally proved the cause of his empire's downfall.
We have few data on which to form an estimate of the extent of the Elamite conquest of Babylonia, or of the period during which the country or a portion of it was in the hands of the invaders. The deportation of the king of Ur can hardly have been the result of a spasmodic raid, following one of the numerous provincial revolts which had at last proved successful. It is far more likely that the capture followed the fall of Ur itself, and such an achievement argues the existence of an organized force in Elam, which it must have required some years to build up. It is therefore permissible to conjecture that, in the course of the twenty-five years of his reign, Ibi-Sin had gradually been losing his hold upon the Elamite portion of his empire, and that an independent kingdom had been formed in Elam under a native ruler. For a time Ibi-Sin may have continued to hold certain districts, but, after the successful invasion of Babylonia, the whole of Elam, and for a time a part of Babylonia itself, may have fallen to the lot of the conqueror.
It would be tempting to connect the fall of Ur with the sack of the neighbouring city of Erech by the Elamite king Kudur-Nankhundi, which is referred to in an inscription of Ashur-bani-pal. When he captured Susa in 650 B.C., the Assyrian king relates that he recovered the image of the goddess Nanâ, which Kudur-Nankhundi had carried off from Erech sixteen hundred[Pg 305] and thirty-five years before.[2] By accepting these figures Kudur-Nankhundi's invasion has been assigned to an approximate date of 2285 B.C., and it was formerly supposed that it was an episode in the Elamite wars of the First Dynasty of Babylon. But, in consequence of the reduction in dates necessitated by recent discoveries, it follows that, if Ashur-bani-pal's figures be accepted as correct, Kudur-Nankhundi's invasion must have taken place before the rise of Babylon. It cannot have occurred at a time when the kings of Ur were all-powerful in Babylonia, and still retained an effective hold on Elam; so that, unless we assign the invasion to some period of unrest during the Dynasty of Isin, no more probable epoch presents itself than that of the Elamite invasion which put an end to the Dynasty of Ur, and allowed Isin to secure the hegemony in Babylonia.
The want of some synchronism, or fixed point of contact, between the earlier history of Elam and that of Sumer and Akkad renders it difficult to settle the period of those native Elamite rulers whose names occur in building-inscriptions, recovered during the French excavations at Susa. Some of the texts enumerate a succession of Elamite princes, who had in turn taken part in the reconstruction of buildings in that city,[3] and, although we are thus enabled to arrange their names in relative chronological order, it is not until towards the close of the First Dynasty of Babylon that we can definitely fix the date of any one of them. Of earlier rulers, the members of the dynasty of Khutran-tepti probably reigned at a period subsequent to that of Basha-Shushinak.[4] In addition to Khutran-tepti himself, the names of three of his descendants have been recovered, Itaddu I., and his son Kal-Rukhuratir, and his grandson Itaddu II. Since these rulers bore the title patesi of Susa, it is possible that, like Urkium, Zarik and Belia-rik, who are mentioned on tablets from Tello,[5] they owed allegiance to Babylonia, during the period of the[Pg 306] Dynasty of Ur.[6] A later Elamite dynasty was that which traced its descent from Ebarti, or from his son Shilkhakha. Two of Shilkhakha's descendants[7] were Shirukdu' or Shirukdukh, and Simebalar-khuppak, and these were divided from a later group by Kuk-Kirmesh, the son of Lankuku. The later group of his descendants, whose names have yet been recovered, consists of Adda-Pakshu, Temti-khalki and Kuk-Nashur, or Kukka-Nasher, the descendant of Kal-Uli.[8] What intervals of time separated the different members of the dynasty from one another is still a matter for conjecture.
It is noteworthy that the members of Ebarti's dynasty, whose inscriptions have been recovered, bear different titles to those of the earlier dynasty of Khutran-tepti. While the latter styled themselves patesis of Susa and governors (shakkanakku) of Elam, their successors claim the title of sukkal of Elam, of Simash, and of Susa. It has been suggested that the title of sukkallu may have carried with it an idea of independence from foreign control, which is absent from that of patesi, and the alteration of title has been regarded as reflecting a corresponding change in the political condition of Elam. The view has been put forward that the rulers of Elam, who styled themselves sukkallu, reigned at a period when Elam was independent and possibly exercised suzerainty over the neighbouring districts of Babylonia.[9] The worker of this change was assumed to be Kudur-Nankhundi, and in support of the suggestion it was pointed out that a certain Kutir-Nakhkhunte, whose name occurs in a votive inscription[Pg 307] of the period, should possibly be identified with the conqueror of Erech. He is mentioned on inscribed bricks of Temti-agun, a sukkal of Susa and a descendant of Shirukdukh, from a temple built by this ruler with the object of prolonging his own life and those of four other Elamites, among them Kutir-Nakhkhunte.[10] It was thought possible that Temti-agun might have been the local ruler of Susa, at a time when Kutir-Nakhkhunte exercised control over the whole of Elam and a great part of Babylonia.
The suggested synchronism, if established, would have been of considerable assistance in arranging the chronology of an obscure period of history, but it cannot be regarded as probable. Temti-agun sets no title after Kutir-Nakhkhunte's name, an omission that is hardly compatible with the theory that he was his superior and suzerain. Moreover, it is now certain that the title of sukkallu, so far from implying a measure of independence, was a distinctive mark of subjection to foreign control. For an inscription of the sukkal Kukka-Nasher has recently been published,[11] which is dated by a formula of Ammi-zaduga, the last king but one of the first Babylonian dynasty, proving that he governed Susa in Ammi-zaduga's name. This synchronism is the only certain one in the early history of the two countries, for it probably disposes of another recently suggested between Adda-Pakshu and Sumu-abu, the founder of the Babylonian monarchy. A contract-tablet of the epoch of Adda-Pakshu is dated in "the year of Shumu-abi," who has been identified with Sumu-abu, the Babylonian king.[12] Apart from the fact that no title follows Shumu-abi's name, it has been pointed out that a far shorter interval separated Adda-Pakshu from Kuk-Nashur.[13] We are therefore reduced to the conclusion that at any rate the later members of[Pg 308] Ebarti's dynasty owed allegiance to Babylon, and it is a legitimate assumption that the earlier rulers, who also bore the title of sukkallu, acknowledged the suzerainty of either Babylon or Isin. The control exercised by the sovereign state was doubtless often nominal, and it is probable that border warfare was not of infrequent occurrence. A reflection of such a state of affairs may probably be seen in the short inscription of Anu-mutabil, a governor of the city of Der, which he engraved upon an olive-shaped stone now in the British Museum.[14] This local magnate, who probably lived at about the period of the Dynasty of Isin, boasts that he broke the heads of the men of Anshan, Elam and Simash, and conquered Barakhsu.
We thus obtain from native Elamite sources no evidence that Elam exercised control over a portion of Babylonia for any considerable period after the fall of Ur. The invasion of the country, which resulted in the deportation of Ibi-Sin, no doubt freed Elam for a time from foreign control, and may well have led to the establishment of a number of independent states under native Elamite rulers. In addition to Kudur-Nankhundi we may provisionally assign to this period Kisâri, king of Gankhar,[15] a district which had previously been held by the kings of Ur. But it would seem that the Elamite states, after their long period of subjection, were not sufficiently strong or united to follow up the success achieved by Anshan. The dynastic chronicle from Nippur records that Isin took the kingdom of Ur, and we may assume that Ishbi-Ura was not long in re-establishing the kingdom of Sumer and Akkad with his own city as its capital. The Elamite invasion may well have been confined to the south of Sumer, and among the cities that had been left unaffected the most powerful would naturally assert itself. Evidence that Ishbi-Ura soon freed himself from Elamite interference may possibly be seen in a reference to him upon an Assyrian[Pg 309] omen-tablet, which states that "he had no rivals."[16] The phrase is certainly vague, but it at least bears witness to the reputation which his achievements secured for him in the traditions of a later age.
We possess few records of the kings of Isin, and the greater part of our information concerning the dynasty is furnished by the Nippur dynastic list. From this document we know that it lasted for two hundred and twenty-five years and six months, and consisted of sixteen kings. These fall naturally into four groups. The first group comprises the family of Ishbi-Ura, four of whose direct descendants succeeded him upon the throne, their reigns together with his occupying a period of ninety-four years. The second group consists of Ur-Ninib and three of his descendants, who reigned for sixty-one years. Then followed a period of thirty-six and a half years, during which no less than five kings ruled in Isin, and, since none of them were related, it was clearly a time of great political unrest. A more stable condition of things appears to have prevailed during the closing period of thirty-four years, occupied by the reigns of Sin-magir and his son Damik-ilishu, under whom the dynasty came to an end. A number of tablets dated during the Dynasty of Isin have been found at Niffer, and at least one at Abû Habba, while a few short votive inscriptions of some of the kings themselves have been recovered on these two sites and also at Ur and Babylon. References to four of the kings of Isin in later Babylonian traditions complete the material from which a knowledge of the period can be obtained. The information derived from these rather scanty sources, combined with the succession of rulers on the Nippur list, enables us to sketch in outline the progress of events, but it naturally leaves many problems unsettled, for the solution of which we must await further discoveries.
The late tradition of Ishbi-Ura's successful reign is supported by the fact that he ruled for thirty-two years and firmly established his own family upon the throne of Isin. He was succeeded by his son Gimil-ilishu,[Pg 310] who reigned for ten years. A very fragmentary inscription of Idin-Dagan, the son of Gimil-ilishu, who reigned for twenty-one years, has been found at Abû Habba,[17] proving that Sippar acknowledged his authority. Indeed, it is probable that already in Ishbi-Ura's reign Akkad as well as Sumer formed part of the kingdom of Isin, and evidence that this was the normal state of affairs may be seen in the fact that each king of Isin, of whom we possess a building-inscription or a votive text, lays claim to the title of King of Sumer and Akkad. The earliest record of this character is an inscription upon bricks found at Mukayyar and dating from the reign of Ishme-Dagan, the son and successor of Idin-Dagan. In addition to his titles of King of Isin and King of Sumer and Akkad, he styles himself Lord of Erech and records in various phrases the favour he has shown to the cities of Nippur, Ur, and Eridu; while his building activity at Nippur is attested by numerous bricks bearing his name and titles, which have been found on that site. The same cities are also mentioned in the titles borne by Libit-Ishtar, Ishme-Dagan's son, who succeeded to the throne after his father had reigned for twenty years. Both these rulers appear to have devoted themselves to the cult of Ninni, the great goddess of Erech, and Ishme-Dagan even styles himself her "beloved spouse." His claim to be the consort of the goddess was doubtless based on his assumption of divine rank, a practice which the kings of Isin inherited from the Dynasty of Ur.[18]
BRICKS OF BUR-SIN, KING OF UR, AND ISHME-DAGAN, KING OF ISIN.—From Mukayyar; Brit. Mus., Nos. 90056 and 90178; photo, by Messrs. Mansell & Co.
Libit-Ishtar was the last member of Ishbi-Ura's family to occupy the throne of Isin. He reigned for eleven years, and with his successor, Ur-Ninib, the throne passed to a different family. We may probably connect this change in the succession with the fact that about this time an independent kingdom makes its appearance in Larsa and Ur. For another son of Ishme-Dagan, named Enannatum, who was chief priest in the temple of the Moon-god at Ur, has left us an [Pg 311]inscription upon clay cones, in which he records that he rebuilt the temple of the Sun-god at Larsa for the preservation of his own life and that of Gungunu, the king of Ur.[19] Gungunu himself, upon a brick-inscription commemorating his building of the great wall of Larsa, claims to be king of that city and also of the whole of Sumer and Akkad. It would therefore seem that towards the close of Libit-Ishtar's reign, or immediately after it, Gungunu established an independent kingdom with its capital at Larsa. It is strange that in the city of Ur, which was under his control, a son of Ishme-Dagan should continue to hold, or should be invested with, the office of chief priest, and there is something to be said for the suggestion that Libit-Ishtar's fall may not have been brought about by any active hostility on the part of Gungunu, but by a foreign invasion from Elam.[20]
According to this view Isin was captured by the invaders,[21] and in the confusion that followed Larsa secured the hegemony in Sumer. However this may be, it is probable that Gungunu's authority was of brief duration; for Ur-Ninib is represented by the dynastic list as Libit-Ishtar's immediate successor, and in an inscription of his own upon a brick from Nippur he not only claims the titles of King of Isin and King of Sumer and Akkad, but, like the earlier king Ishme-Dagan, styles himself Lord of Erech, and the patron of Nippur, Ur, and Eridu.[22] We may therefore assume that Ur-Ninib was successful in re-establishing the power of Isin, and in uniting once more the whole of[Pg 312] Sumer and Akkad under its sway. After a reign of twenty-eight years he was followed by his son Bûr-Sin II., who bore the same titles as his father and mentions the same list of cities as having enjoyed his special favour. His comparatively long reign of twenty-one years is a further indication that Ur-Ninib's restoration of order had been effective. The last two descendants of Ur-Ninib to occupy the throne of Isin were sons of Bûr-Sin. Of Iter-kasha, who reigned for only five years, we know nothing, but the name of his brother Ura-imitti, and the strange manner in which he met his death after appointing his successor, have been preserved in later Babylonian tradition.
In the chronicle concerning Sargon of Akkad and other early Babylonian kings, to which reference has already been made,[23] a section is devoted to Ura-imitti, from which we gather that, having no son to succeed him upon the throne, he named Enlil-bani, his gardener, as his successor.[24] The text relates that, after placing the crown of his sovereignty upon Enlil-bani's head, he met his own death within his palace either through misadventure or by poison.[25] With him, therefore, Ur-Ninib's family came to an end, and, in view of the strange manner of his death and the humble rank of the successor he had appointed, it was but natural that Enlil-bani's claim to the throne should not have been at once, nor universally, recognized. During the struggle that followed Ur-imitti's death a certain Sin-ikisha[26] established himself in Isin, and for six months retained the throne. But at the end of this time Enlil-bani[Pg 313] succeeded in ousting him from that position, and, having secured the throne himself, he continued to reign in Isin for twenty-four years. As he had been called to the throne by Ura-imitti, he cannot be regarded as a usurper, but he did not succeed in establishing a settled dynasty. Zambia,[27] who followed him, was a usurper, and after only three years he was in turn displaced. Two other usurpers held the throne for five and four years respectively, and only with Sin-magir, the fifteenth king of Isin, was a settled dynasty once more established.
During this period of confusion it is probable that the internal troubles of Isin reacted upon her political influence in Babylonia. It is also possible that the quick changes in the succession may have, in part, been brought about by events which were happening in other cities of Sumer and Akkad.[28] It has, indeed, been suggested that the Dynasty of Isin and the First Dynasty of Babylon overlapped each other,[29] as is proved to have been the case with the first three dynasties of the Babylonian List of Kings. If that were so, not only the earlier kings of Babylon, but also the kings of Larsa and the less powerful kings of Erech, would all have been reigning contemporaneously with the later kings of Isin. In fact, we should picture the kingdom[Pg 314] of Sumer and Akkad as divided into a number of smaller principalities, each vying with the other in a contest for the hegemony, and maintaining a comparatively independent rule within their own borders. Such a condition of affairs would amply account for the confusion in the succession at Isin, and our scanty knowledge of the period could be supplemented from our sources of information concerning the history of the earlier kings of Babylon.
The view is certainly attractive, but for that very reason it is necessary to examine carefully the grounds upon which it is based. For deciding the inter-relations of the first three dynasties of the Babylonian King-List, we have certain definite synchronisms established between members of the different dynasties.[30] But between the kings of Babylon and Isin no such synchronism has been furnished by the texts. The theory that the two dynasties were partly contemporaneous rests upon data which admit of more than one interpretation, while additional reasons adduced in its support have since been discredited.
SPECIMENS OF BABYLONIAN CLAY CONES BEARING VOTIVE INSCRIPTIONS OF GUDEA, PATESI OF SHIRPURLA, OF NUR-ADAD, KING OF LARSA, OF ENANNATUM, AN OFFICIAL IN UR DURING THE REIGN OF GUNGUNU, AND OF UR-ENGUR, KING OF UR.—Brit. Mus., Nos. 30089, 30070, 30062, and 30090; photo, by Messrs. Mansell & Co.
The principal fact upon which those who accept the theory rely is that a capture of the city of Isin is commemorated in the formula for the seventeenth year of Sin-muballit, the fifth king of the First Dynasty of Babylon and the father of Hammurabi.[31] Now a capture of the city of Isin by Rîm-Sin, King of Larsa, is also recorded in formulas upon contract-tablets found at Tell Sifr, and that considerable importance was attached locally to this event is attested by the fact that it formed an epoch for dating tablets in that district.[32] The theory necessitates two assumptions, the first to the effect that the date-formulæ of Rîm-Sin and Sin-muballit refer to the same capture of the city; and, secondly, that this event brought the Dynasty of Isin to an end. Granting these hypotheses, the twenty-third year of Damik-ilishu would have coincided with [Pg 315]the seventeenth year of Sin-muballit, and the dynasties of Isin and of Babylon would have overlapped for a period of about ninety-nine years. Thus Sumu-abu, the founder of the first Babylonian dynasty, would have been the contemporary of Bûr-Sin II., king of Isin, in the sixth year of whose reign he would have ascended the throne of Babylon. By the acceptance of the theory, not only would the relations of the two dynasties be definitely fixed, but the chronology for the later periods of Sumerian history would be put on a comparatively settled basis, as far back at least as the age of Ur-Engur and Gudea.
Additional grounds in support of the theory have been deduced from a tablet in the British Museum, which is dated in "the year in which the Amurru drove out Libit-Ishtar."[33] We have already seen, from information supplied by the Nippur dynastic list, that with Libit-Ishtar, the fifth king of the Dynasty of Isin, the family of Ishbi-Ura, its founder, came to an end, and that with Ur-Ninib a new family was established on the throne. By identifying Libit-Ishtar, the king, with the personage mentioned in the date-formula, it would follow that he lost his throne in consequence of an invasion of the Amurru, or Western Semites, who drove him from the city. But presumably they were at once dislodged by Ur-Ninib, who retook the city and established his own family upon the throne. According to this view, the supposed invasion was but an advance wave of the racial movement that was eventually to overwhelm the whole of Babylonia. Some thirty-three years later, in the reign of Bûr-Sin, Ur-Ninib's son, the Western Semites are represented as again invading the country, and, although this time they do not penetrate to Isin, they succeed in establishing a dynasty of their own at Babylon.
But there are difficulties in the way of accepting this further development of the original theory. In the first place, it will have been noticed that no title follows the name of Libit-Ishtar in the date-formula[Pg 316] already cited, and there is no particular reason why this not uncommon name should be identified with the king of Isin. It has further been pointed out that another tablet in the British Museum,[34] of about the same period, contains a reference to a Libit-Ishtar who was certainly not the king of Isin, but appears to have occupied the important post of governor of a provincial city, probably Sippar.[35] The writer of this tablet recounts how he had been imprisoned and had appealed to Libit-Ishtar to try his case and set him free; but he was met with a refusal, and he afterwards made a similar appeal to Amananu, to whom he ascribes the title of governor. In this passage Libit-Ishtar has no title, but since appeals in legal cases could be referred to him, he may very probably have held the same office as Amananu, that of governor of the city. In certain contract-tablets of Apil-Sin's reign a Libit-Ishtar is also mentioned in the place of honour at the head of the lists of witnesses, and he too should probably be identified with the same official. We may therefore conclude that the Libit-Ishtar in the date-formula served as the local governor of Sippar in the time of Apil-Sin, until he was driven out by the Amurru. Whether the Amurru are here to be regarded as the inhabitants of a neighbouring town,[36] or as a fresh wave of Western Semites, does not affect the point at issue. Since the Libit-Ishtar who was driven out was not the king of Isin, the arguments deduced from the tablet for the overlapping of the dynasties of Isin and of Babylon no longer apply.
There only remain to be discussed the original grounds for the suggestion that Damik-ilishu was Sin-muballit's contemporary, and that the fall of the Dynasty of Isin is to be set in the seventeenth year of the latter's reign. According to this view the conqueror of Isin would have been Rîm-Sin, assisted by his vassal, Sin-muballit. But a recent discovery has shown that Rîm-Sin can hardly have been a contemporary of Sin-muballit, or, at any rate, old enough in the[Pg 317] seventeenth year of the latter's reign to have captured the city of Isin. From the chronicle concerning early Babylonian kings we already knew that he was not finally defeated in Hammurabi's thirty-first year, but lived on into the reign of Samsu-iluna, by whom he was apparently defeated or slain.[37] It is true that the passage is broken, and it has been suggested that the record concerns the son of Rîm-Sin, and not Rîm-Sin himself.[38] But it has now been pointed out that two of the contract-tablets found at Tell Sifr, which appear to record the same act of sale, and are inscribed with the names of the same witnesses, are dated, the one by Rîm-Sin, the other in Samsu-iluna's tenth year.[39] However we may explain the existence of these two nearly identical copies of the same document, their dates certainly imply that Rîm-Sin was in possession of a portion of Babylonia at least as late as the ninth year of Samsu-iluna's reign.[40] If, therefore, he captured Isin in the seventeenth year of Sin-muballit, Samsu-iluna's grandfather, we must suppose that his military activity in Babylonia extended over a period of at least fifty-six years, and probably longer. Such an achievement is within the bounds of possibility, but it cannot be regarded as probable.
But, quite apart from this objection, there are small grounds for the belief that Sin-muballit was Rîm-Sin's vassal, or that they could have taken part in any united action at this period. In fact, every indication we have points to the conclusion that it was from a king of Larsa that Sin-muballit captured Isin in the seventeenth year of his reign.[41] Three years previously the date-formula for his fourteenth year commemorated his defeat of the army of Ur, and there are good[Pg 318] grounds for believing that Ur was acting at this time with the army of the king of Larsa. For certain tablets are dated in the year in which Sin-muballit defeated the army of Larsa, and we may with some confidence regard this as a variant formula for the fourteenth year.[42] Thus, three years after his defeat of the king of Larsa, Sin-muballit followed up his success by capturing the city of Isin, which he commemorated in the formula for the seventeenth year. But he cannot have held it for long, for it must have been shortly retaken by Larsa, before being again recaptured in Hammurabi's seventh year.[43] Thus, in less than eleven years, from the seventeenth year of Sin-muballit to the seventh year of Hammurabi, the city of Isin changed hands three times. We may therefore conclude that the date-formula for Sin-muballit's seventeenth year, and those found upon the Tell Sifr tablets,[44] did not commemorate the fall of the Dynasty of Isin in Damik-ilishu's reign, but were based upon two episodes in the struggle for that city, which took place at a later date, between the kings of Larsa and of Babylon.
In view of the importance of the question, we have treated in some detail the evidence that has been adduced in favour of the theory, that the later kings of Isin were contemporaneous with the earlier rulers of Babylon. It will have been seen that the difficulties involved by the suggested synchronism between Damik-ilishu and Sin-muballit are too grave to admit of its acceptance, while they entirely disappear on referring the disputed date-formulæ to their natural place in the[Pg 319] struggle between Babylon and Larsa. This does not preclude the possibility that the dynasties may have overlapped for a shorter period than ninety-nine years. But in view of the total absence of any information on the point, it is preferable to retain the view that the Babylonian monarchy was not established before the close of the Dynasty of Isin.[45] Whatever troubles may have befallen Isin after Ur-Ninib's family had ceased to reign, there is no doubt that under her last two kings the city's influence was re-established, and that she exercised control over Babylon itself. In the course of the German excavations, a clay cone has been found in the temple E-patutila at Babylon, bearing a votive inscription of Sin-magir, the fifteenth king of Isin; and this was evidently dedicated by him as a votive offering in his character of suzerain of the city.[46] Moreover, in this text he lays claim to the rule of Sumer and Akkad. Akkad, as well as Sumer, was also held by his son Damik-ilishu, who succeeded him upon the throne. For a tablet has been found at Abû Habba, dated in the year in which Damik-ilishu built the wall of Isin,[47] and the date upon a tablet from Nippur commemorates his building of the temple of Shamash, named E-ditar-kalama, which was probably in Babylon.[48] Thus both Sippar and Babylon were subject to the city of Isin under the last of her rulers, who, like his father before him, maintained an effective hold upon the kingdom of Sumer and Akkad.
With the rise of Babylon we reach the beginning of a new epoch in the history of the two countries. The seat of power now passes finally to the north, and, through the long course of her troubled history,[Pg 320] the city of Babylon was never dislodged from her position as the capital. Foreign invasions might result in the fall of dynasties, and her kings might be drawn from other cities and lands, but Babylon continued to be the centre of their rule. Moreover, after the fresh wave of immigration which resulted in the establishment of her First Dynasty, the racial character of Babylonia became dominantly Semitic. Before the new invaders the Sumerians tended to withdraw southwards into the coastal districts of the Persian Gulf, and from here, for a time, an independent dynasty, largely of Sumerian origin, attempted to contest with Babylon her supremacy. But with the fall of Isin the political career of the Sumerians as a race may be regarded as closed. Their cultural influence, however, long survived them. In the spheres of art, literature, religion, and law they left behind them a legacy, which was destined to mould the civilization of the later inhabitants of the country, and through them to exert an influence on other and more distant races.
[1] See Boissier, "Choix de textes relatifs à la divination," II., p. 64, and Meissner, "Orient. Lit.-Zeit.," March, 1907, col. 114, n. 1.
[2] See "Cun. Inscr. West. Asia," Vol. III., pl. 38, No. 1, Obv., l. 16.
[3] Cf. Scheil, "Textes Élam.-Anzan.," II., p. 20; "Textes Élam.-Sémit.," III., p. 29, and IV., p. 15.
[6] The patesis Ur-Ningishzida, Ibalpel, Belaku and [...]mashu, who ruled in Tupliash, or Ashnunnak, in the neighbourhood of Elam (cf. Thureau-Dangin, "Königsinschriften," p. 174 f.) probably owed allegiance to the kings of Ur or Isin. Ur-Ningirsu, who was also said to be a patesi of Tupliash, is merely a misreading of Ur-Ningishzida's name; cf. Ungnad, "Orient. Lit.-Zeit.," 1909, col. 161 f.
[7] The phrase "son of the sister of," which occurs in the inscriptions, is clearly not to be taken literally, but is used in the sense of a descendant (cf. Thureau-Dangin, "Königsinschriften," p. 183, n. 2); it does not necessarily imply that the throne actually passed through the female branch (as Meyer, "Geschichte des Altertums," Bd. I., Hft. II., p. 542, suggests), except possibly in the absence of direct descendants in the male line.
[8] One of the native texts sets Kuk-Nashur before Temti-khalki, but this was obviously due to a confusion with Adda-Pakshu; cf. Ungnad, "Beitr. zur Assyr.," Bd. VI., No. 5, p. 6.
[9] Cf. Scheil, "Textes Élam.-Anzan.," II., p. x.
[10] Cf. "Textes Élam.-Sémit.," III., p. 23, pl. 7, Nos. 1-3.
[11] See "Vorderasiatische Schriftdenkmäler," VII., p. 28, No. 67, and cf. Ungnad, "Beitr. zur. Assyr.," Bd. VI., No. 5, p. 3 f.
[12] See Scheil, "Textes Élam.-Sémit.," IV., pp. 18 and 20.
[13] The titles borne by Kuk-Kirmesh, who reigned before Adda-Pakshu, and those of Temti-khalki and Kuk-Nashur are so similar, that it is unlikely their periods were separated by the great political upheaval which took place in Hammurabi's reign; cf. Ungnad, "Beitr. zur Assyr.," Bd. VI., No. 5, p. 6 f.
[14] Cf. "Cun. Texts in the Brit. Mus.," Pt. XXI., pl. 1 and "Königsinschriften," p. 176 f.
[15] His name occurs upon a cylinder-seal of Masiam-Ishtar, an official in his service; see "Collection de Clercq," p. 83, pl. xiv., No. 121, and "Königsinschriften," p. 174 f.
[16] See Boissier, "Doc. rel. à la div.," I., p. 30, K. 3970, Rev. l. 16, and Meissner, "Orient. Lit.-Zeit.," 1907, col. 114, n. 1.
[17] See Scheil, "Rec. de trav.," Vol. XVI., pp. 187 ff., and Radau, "Early Bab. Hist.," p. 232 f.
[18] This is proved by the fact that in their own inscriptions that have been recovered the determinative for divinity precedes their names.
[19] For one of the cones, see the plate opposite p. 314. In a brick-inscription from Mukayyar, inscribed with Enannatum's name and title, he calls himself the son of Ishme-Dagan, the King of Sumer and Akkad; and it is quite possible that he received his appointment as priest of the Moon-god during his father's lifetime or in the reign of his brother Libit-Islitar.
[20] Cf. Hilprecht, "Math., Met., and Chron. Tablets," p. 54. For an alternative suggestion that the invasion was from Amurru, see below, p. 315 f.
[21] Nippur, too, may have shared the like fate, if the breaking and scattering of votive objects, deposited by earlier kings in the temple of Enlil, is to be traced to this invasion.
[22] Gungunu's death is recorded in a date-formula upon a tablet from Senkera (Larsa), which reads "the year in which Gungunu died" (see Scheil, "Rec. de trav.," Vol. XXI., p. 125.) Since the death of a king from natural causes was never commemorated in this fashion, we may conclude that he was slain in battle, probably by Ur-Ninib.
[24] The story was also told in the history of Agathias (II., 25, ed. Dindorf, p. 222) of Beleous and Beletaras, who are described by him as early Assyrian kings (see King, "Chronicles," I., p. 63 f.). But there is no doubt that Ura-imitti was the ninth king of Isin, since Hilprecht has since deciphered traces of his name in the Nippur dynastic list and has also found it in a date-formula on an early contract from Nippur (see "Zeits. für Assyr.," pp. 20 ff.). Moreover, the name of Enlil-bani occurs in the Nippur list as that of the eleventh king of Isin.
[25] The meaning of the phrases in the text is exceedingly obscure; cf. King, "Chronicles," I., p. 64 f., n. 1.
[26] Sin-ikisha's name, which is broken in the Nippur list, has been restored from a contract-tablet preserved in the Pennsylvania Museum (see Poebel, "Orient. Lit.-Zeit.," 1907, col. 461 ff.). The contract is dated in the year in which Sin-ikisha made an image of gold and silver for the Sun-god.
[27] For the recovery of Zambia's name, by means of a contract-tablet at Constantinople dated in his accession-year, see Hilprecht, "Orient. Lit.-Zeit.," 1907, col. 385 ff. Hommel and Hilprecht (cf. "Zeits. für Assyr.," XXI., p. 29) regard Zambia as an abbreviated form of the name of Sab-Dagan, which occurs as that of a king on the obverse of the Neo-Babylonian map of the world preserved in the British Museum ("Cun. Texts," XXII., pl. 48, Obv., l. 10). But the name of the city or land, which followed the title of the king, is wanting, and Hilprecht's suggested reading of the name preceding Sab-Dagan as that of Ura-imitti is not supported by the traces on the tablet. The god's name is written clearly as Shamash, not Ura.
[28] It is probable that Sumu-ilu, an early king of Ur, reigned in this period. His name is known from the steatite figure of a dog, which the priest Abba-dugga, the son of a certain Urukagina, dedicated on his behalf to the goddess Nin-Isin, "the Lady of Isin" (cf. Thureau-Dangin, "Rev. d'Assyr.," VI., p. 69 f.). His date is uncertain, but, like Gungunu, he may have taken advantage of troubles in Isin to establish an independent kingdom for a time in Ur.
[29] See Hilprecht, "Math., Met., and Chron. Tablets," pp. 43, 49 f., n. 5. I also mentioned the possibility in "Chronicles," I., p. 168, n. 1, and the view has been adopted by Ranke, "Orient. Lit.-Zeit.," 1907, col. 109 ff., and Ungnad, "Zeits. der Deutsch. Morgenländ. Gesellschaft," Bd. LXI., p. 714, and "Orient. Lit.-Zeit.," 1908, col. 66. Meyer also accepts the hypothesis; see "Geschichte des Altertums," Bd. I., Hft. II., pp. 344 f., 504 f.
[31] See King, "Letters of Hammurabi," III., p. 228 f.
[32] Op. cit., p. 228 f., n. 39. There is no certain indication of the provenance of the tablet referred to by Scheil in "Rec. de trav.," XXI., p. 125, though he implies that it was found at Senkera, from which Tell Sifr is not far distant. The evidence available seems to show that the Isin-era was confined to Larsa and its neighbourhood.
[33] See Ranke, "Orient. Lit.-Zeit.," 1907, col. 109 ff. The tablet in question is published in "Cun. Texts," Pt. IV., pl. 22, No. 78,395 (Bu. 88-5-12, 294).
[34] Cf. "Cun. Texts," Pt. VI., pl. 8, No. 80,163 (Bu. 91-5-9, 279).
[35] See Meissner, "Orient. Lit.-Zeit.," 1907, col. 113 ff.
[36] So Meissner, loc. cit.
[37] Cf. "Chronicles," II., p. 18 f.
[38] Cf. Winckler, "Orient. Lit.-Zeit.," 1907, col. 585 f., and Hrozný, "Wiener Zeitschrift," Bd. 21 (1908), p. 382. But Winckler and Hrozný in their rendering ignore the fact that in these late chronicles "son" is always expressed by TUR (mâru), never by A (aplu).
[39] See Ungnad, "Zeits. für Assyr.," XXIII., pp. 73 ff.
[40] Confirmation of this view has now been obtained. I learn from M. Thureau-Dangin that he has found a variant date for the tenth year of Samsu-iluna, which mentions not only the cities of Erech and Isin but also the land of Iamutbal (cf. "Journal asiatique," 1909, pp. 335 ff.)
[41] See Delitzsch, "Beitr. zur Assyr.," IV., p. 406 f., and Thureau-Dangin, "Orient. Lit.-Zeit.," 1907, col. 256 f.
[42] See Thureau-Dangin, op. cit., col. 256, and King, "Hammurabi," III., p. 229, n. 41. The only other possible year in Sin-muballit's reign would be the twentieth, the formula for which is broken on the principal date-list A; I have made a fresh examination of the tablet, and the slight traces preserved at the beginning of the line do not suggest this restoration, though it is possible.
[43] See King, "Hammurabi," III., p. 230 f., and "Chronicles," I., p. 166. The traces on the date-list D suggest that the formula for this year records the destruction and not the building of the wall of Isin. This is now put beyond a doubt by the formula upon a contract of Hammurabi's reign dated in the year of his capture of Erech and Isin (see Thureau-Dangin, "Orient. Lit.-Zeit.," 1907, col. 257, n. 2).
[44] It should be added that the local system of dating tablets at Tell Sifr was not necessarily continuous. If the city ever changed hands, the conqueror would re-introduce his own date-formulæ, as we have seen was done by Samsu-iluna.
[45] While the later kings of Isin were suzerains of Babylon, there is little doubt that the earlier kings of Babylon controlled, not only their own city, but a considerable part of Akkad. Thus from the date-formulæ of Sumu-abu, the founder of the First Dynasty, we gather that his authority was recognized at Dilbat and at Kish, and that he was strong enough to undertake the conquest of Kazallu in his thirteenth year; moreover a contract, probably from Sippar, is dated in his reign (cf. King, "Hammurabi," III., p. 212 f., and Thureau-Dangin, "Journal des savants," 1908, p. 200).
[46] Cf. Weissbach, "Babylonische Miscellen," p. 1.
[47] Cf. Scheil, "Rec. de trav.," XXIII., p. 94, and "Une saison de fouilles à Sippar," p. 140.
In the preceding pages we have followed the history of the Sumerian race from the period of its earliest settlement in Babylonia until the time when its political power was drawing to a close. The gradual growth of the state has been described, from the first rude settlements around a series of ancient cult-centres, through the phase of highly developed but still independent city-states, to a united kingdom of Sumer and Akkad, based on ideals inherited from the Semitic North. We have traced the inter-relations of North and South, of Sumerians and Semites, and have watched their varying fortunes in the racial conflict which bulks so largely in the history of the two countries. Points have also been noted at which contact with other lands can be historically proved, and it has thus been found possible to estimate the limits of the kingdoms which were established in Sumer or Akkad during the later periods. Of foreign lands which came into direct relationship with Babylonia, Elam plays by far the most conspicuous part. In the time of the city-states she invades the land of Sumer, and later on is in her turn conquered by Akkadian and Sumerian kings. The question naturally arises, how far this close political contact affected the cultural development of the two countries, and suggests the further query as to what extent their civilizations were of common origin.
Another region which figures in the list of conquered countries is Amurru, or the "Western Land," and an attempt must be made to trace the paths of[Pg 322] Babylonian influence beyond the limits of Syria, and to ascertain its effects within the area of Aegean culture. The later trade routes were doubtless already in existence, and archaeological research can often detect evidence of cultural connection, at a time when there is no question of any political contact. Moreover, in spite of the absence of Neolithic settlements in Babylonia, and the comparatively advanced state of culture which characterizes the earliest of Sumerian sites, it is possible that contact with other and distant races had already taken place in prehistoric times. One of the most fascinating problems connected with the early history of Sumer concerns the relationship which her culture bore to that of Egypt. On this point recent excavations have thrown considerable light; and, as the suggested connection, whether direct or indirect, must admittedly have taken place in a remote age, it will be well to attack this problem before discussing the relationship of Sumer to the other great centres of ancient civilization.
Although no direct contact between Babylonia and Egypt has been proved during the earlier historical periods, the opinion has been very generally held that the Egyptian civilization was largely influenced in its first stages by that of Babylonia. The use of the stone cylinder-seal by the Egyptians certainly furnished a very cogent argument in favour of the view that some early cultural connection must have taken place; and, as the cylinder-seal was peculiarly characteristic of Babylonia during all periods, whereas its use was gradually discontinued in Egypt, the inference seemed obvious that it was an original product of Babylonia, whence it had reached Egypt in late predynastic or early dynastic times. This view appeared to find support in other points of resemblance which were noted between the early art and culture of the two countries. Mace-heads of bulbous or "egg-shaped" form were employed by the early inhabitants of both lands. The Egyptian slate carvings of the First Dynasty were compared with the early bas-reliefs and engraved seals of the Sumerians, and resemblances were pointed out both in subject-matter and in the symmetrical arrangement of the designs. The employment[Pg 323] of brick, in place of stone, as a building material, was regarded as due to Babylonian influence; and the crenelated walls of Early Egyptian buildings, the existence of which was proved not only by pictured representations on the slate carvings, but also by the remains of actual buildings such as the mastaba-tomb of King Aha at Nakâda, and the ancient fortress of Abydos, known as the Shunet ez-Zebîb, were treated as borrowed from Sumerian originals. That irrigation was practised on the banks of the Nile as well as in the Euphrates valley, and that wheat was grown in both countries, were cited as additional proofs that Babylonia must have exercised a marked influence on Egyptian culture during the early stages of its development.
In order to explain such resemblances between the early cultures of Sumer and Egypt, it was necessary to seek some channel by which the influence of the former country could have reached the valley of the Nile; and a solution of the problem was found in the theory of a Semitic invasion of Upper Egypt towards the end of the predynastic period. That a Semitic element existed in the composition of the ancient Egyptian language is established beyond dispute; and this fact was combined with the Egyptian legends of their origin on the Red Sea coast, and with the situation of the predynastic and early dynastic cemeteries in Upper Egypt, in support of the theory that Semitic tribes, already imbued with Sumerian culture, had reached the Nile from the shore of the Red Sea by way of the Wâdi Hammamât. According to this view the Neolithic and predynastic population of Egypt was of a different race to the early dynastic Egyptians. The former were regarded as indigenous to the country, speaking a language possibly akin to the Berber dialects of North Africa. With little or no knowledge of metal, they were pictured as offering a stubborn but unsuccessful resistance to their Semitic conquerors. The latter were assumed to have brought with them a copper age culture, ultimately derived from the Sumerians of Babylonia. Crossing from southern Arabia by the Straits of Bab el-Mandeb, and making their way northward along the western shore of the Red Sea, they would have reached the Nile in the[Pg 324] neighbourhood of Koptos. Here they would have formed their first settlements, and, after subduing the older inhabitants of Upper Egypt, they would have pushed their way northwards along the valley of the Nile.[1]
There is no doubt that the union of Upper and Lower Egypt into a single monarchy, traditionally ascribed to Mena, the legendary founder of the first Egyptian dynasty, did result from a conquest of the North by the South. Mena himself was regarded as sprung from a line of local rulers established at This, or Thinis, in the neighbourhood of Abydos, and also as the founder of Memphis at the head of the Delta, whither he transferred his throne. Further traces of the conquest of the North by the South have been preserved in the legends concerning the followers of Horus, the patron deity of the first kings of Upper Egypt. The advance of the Sky-god of Edfu with his Mesniu or "Smiths,"[2] who are related to have won battle after battle as they pressed northwards, is amply confirmed by the early dynastic monuments that have been recovered by excavation. The slate carving of Narmer, on which is portrayed the victory of Horus over the kingdom of the Harpoon near the Canopic branch of the Nile, may well represent one of the last decisive victories of the Horus-worshippers, as they extended their authority northwards to the sea.[3] Of the historical[Pg 325] character of this conquest of Lower Egypt by the kings of the South, which resulted in the union of the whole country under a single monarchy, there are now no two opinions. The point, about which some uncertainty still exists, concerns the racial character of the conquerors and the origin of their higher culture, by virtue of which their victories were obtained.
On the hypothesis of a Semitic invasion, the higher elements in the early culture of Egypt are, as we have seen, to be traced to a non-Egyptian source. The Semitic immigrants are assumed to have introduced, not only the use of metal, but also a knowledge of letters. The Sumerian system of writing has been regarded as the parent of the Egyptian hieroglyphic characters; and comparisons have been made between the names of Sumerian and Egyptian gods.[4] The suggestion has also been put forward that the fashion of extended burial, which in Egypt gradually displaced the contracted position of the corpse, was also to be traced to Babylonian influence.
It must be admitted that, until quite recently, this view furnished a very plausible explanation of the various points of resemblance noted between the civilizations of the two countries. Moreover, the evidence obtained by excavation on early sites certainly appeared to show a distinct break between the predynastic and early dynastic cultures of Egypt. To account for what seemed so sudden a change in the character of Egyptian civilization, the theory of a foreign invasion seemed almost inevitable. But the publication of the results of Dr. Reisner's excavations at Naga-ed-Dêr and other early cemeteries in Upper Egypt,[5] has rendered it[Pg 326] necessary to revise the theory; while the still more recent diggings of M. Naville at Abydos prove that the changes, in certain districts, were even more gradual than had been supposed.
Put briefly, Dr. Reisner's conclusion is that there was no sudden break of continuity between the Neolithic and early dynastic cultures of Egypt. His extensive and laborious comparison of the predynastic burials with those of the First and Second Dynasties, has shown that no essential change took place in the Egyptian conception of the life after death, or in the rites and practices which accompanied the interment of the body. In early dynastic as in Neolithic times the body of the dead man was placed in a contracted position on its left side and with the head to the south, and the grave was still furnished with food, arms, tools, and ornaments. Moreover, the changes observable in the construction of the grave itself, and in the character of the objects within it, were not due to the sudden influence of any alien race, but may well have been the result of a gradual process of improvement in the technical skill of the Egyptians themselves.
The three most striking points of difference beween the products of the predynastic and dynastic periods centre round the character of the pottery and vessels for household use, the material employed for tools and weapons, and the invention of writing. It would now appear that the various changes were all gradually introduced, and one period fades into another without any strongly marked line of division between them. A knowledge of copper has always been credited to the later predynastic Egyptians, and it is now possible to trace the gradual steps by which the invention of a practical method of working it was attained. Copper ornaments and objects found in graves earlier than the middle predynastic period are small and of little practical utility, as compared with the beautifully flaked flint knives, daggers, and lances, which still retained the importance they enjoyed in purely Neolithic times. At a rather later stage in the predynastic period copper dagger-blades and adzes were produced in imitation of flint and stone forms, and these mark the transition to[Pg 327] the heavy weapons and tools of copper, which in the early dynastic period largely ousted flint and stone implements for practical use.
The gradual attainment of skill in the working of copper ore on the part of the early Egyptians had a marked effect on the whole status of their culture. Their improved weapons enabled them by conquest to draw their raw materials from a far more extended area; and the adaptation of copper tools for quarrying blocks of stone undoubtedly led to its increased employment as a stronger and more permanent substitute for clay. The use of the copper chisel also explains the elaborate carvings upon the early dynastic slates, and the invention of the stone borer brought about the gradual displacement of pottery in favour of stone vessels for household purposes. Thus, while metal-casting and stone-working improved, they did so at the expense of the older arts of flint-knapping and the manufacture of pottery by hand, both of which tended to degenerate and die out. Dr. Reisner had already inferred that for ceremonial purposes, as distinct from the needs of everyday life, both flint implements and certain earlier types of pottery continued to be employed. And M. Naville's diggings at Abydos, during the season of 1909-10, seem to prove that the process was even slower and less uniform than had been thought possible. In fact, according to the excavators, it would appear that in certain districts in Egypt a modified form of the predynastic culture, using the characteristic red and black pottery, survived as late as the Sixth Dynasty; while it is known that in Nubia a type of pottery, closely akin to the same prehistoric ware, continued in use as late as the Eighteenth Dynasty.[6] However such survivals are to be explained, the beginning of the dynastic period in Egypt does not appear to present a break in either racial or cultural continuity. Indeed, a precisely parallel development may be traced between the early dynastic period, and that represented by the Third and Fourth Dynasties, when there is no question of any such break. As the stone vessels of the[Pg 328] first two dynasties had proved themselves superior to hand-made pottery for practical purposes, so they in turn were displaced by wheel-made pottery.[7] These changes may be traced to gradual improvements in manufacture; arts such as mat-weaving and bead-making, which were unaffected by the new inventions, continued to be practised without change in the early dynastic as in the predynastic periods.
Recent archaeological research thus leaves small room for the theory that Egyptian culture was subjected to any strong foreign influence in early dynastic times, and its conclusions on this point are confirmed by anatomical evidence. The systematic measurement and comparison of skulls from predynastic and dynastic burials, which have been conducted by Dr. Elliot Smith of the Khedivial School of Medicine in collaboration with the Hearst Expedition, has demonstrated the lineal descent of the dynastic from the predynastic Egyptians. The two groups to all intents and purposes represent the same people, and in the later period there is no trace of any new racial element, or of the admixture of any foreign strain. Thus the theory of an invasion of Egypt by Semitic tribes towards the close of the predynastic period must be given up, and, although this does not in itself negative the possibility of Sumerian influence having reached Egypt through channels of commercial intercourse, it necessitates a more careful scrutiny of the different points of resemblance between the cultures of the two countries on which the original theory was founded.
One of the subjects on which the extreme upholders of the theory have insisted concerns the invention of the Egyptian system of writing, which is alleged by them to have been borrowed from Babylonia. But it must be noted that those signs which correspond to one another in the two systems are such as would naturally be identical in any two systems of pictorial writing, developed independently but under similar conditions. The sun all the world over would be represented by a circle, a mountain by a rough outline of a mountain peak, an ox by a horned head, and so on. To prove[Pg 329] any connection between the two systems a resemblance should be established between the more conventionalized signs, and here the comparison breaks down completely. It should further be noted that the Egyptian system has reached us in a far more primitive state than that of Babylonia. While the hieroglyphic signs are actual pictures of the objects represented, even the earliest line-characters of Sumer are so conventionalized that their original form would scarcely have been recognized, had not their meaning been already known. In fact, no example of Sumerian writing has yet been recovered which could have furnished a pattern for the Egyptian scribe.
Moreover, the appearance of writing in Egypt was not so sudden an event as it is often represented. The buff-coloured pottery of predynastic times, with its red line decoration, proves that the Eygptian had a natural faculty for drawing men, animals, plants, boats and conventional designs. In these picture-drawings of the predynastic period we may see the basis of the hieroglyphic system of writing, for in them the use of symbolism is already developed. The employment of fetish emblems, or symbols, to represent the different gods,[8] is in itself a rough form of ideographic expression, and, if developed along its own lines, would naturally lead to the invention of a regular ideographic form of writing. There is little doubt that this process is what actually took place. The first impetus may have been given by the necessity for marks of private ownership, and by the need for conveying authority from the chief to his subordinates at a distance. Symbols for the names of rulers and of places would thus soon be added to those for the gods, and when a need was felt to commemorate some victory or great achievement of the king, such symbols would naturally be used in combination. This process may be traced on the earlier monuments of the First Dynasty, the records on which are still practically ideographic in character. A very[Pg 330] similar process doubtless led to the invention of the cuneiform system, and there is no need to assume that either Egypt or Babylonia was indebted to the other country for her knowledge of writing.
We obtain a very similar result in the case of other points of resemblance which have been cited to prove a close connection between the early cultures of the two countries. Considerable stress has been laid on a certain similarity, which the Egyptian slate carvings of the dynastic period bear to examples of early Sumerian sculpture and engraving. It is true that composite creatures are characteristic of the art of both countries, and that their arrangement on the stone is often "heraldic" and symmetrical. But the human-headed bull, the favourite monster of Sumerian art, is never found upon the Egyptian monuments, on which not only the natural beasts but also the composite creatures are invariably of an Egyptian or African character. The general resemblance in style has also been exaggerated. To take a single instance, a comparison has frequently been made between the Stele of the Vultures and the broken slate carving in the British Museum, No. 20791.[9] On the former vultures are depicted carrying off the limbs of the slain, and on the latter captives are represented as cast out into the desert to be devoured by birds and beasts of prey. But the style of the two monuments is very different, and the Egyptian is far more varied in character. In addition to a single vulture, we see a number of ravens, a hawk, an eagle, and a lion, all attracted by the dead; and the arrangement of the composition and the technique[Pg 331] itself are quite unlike Sumerian work. There is also no need to trace the symmetrical arrangement of other of the Egyptian compositions to Babylonian influence, for, given an oval plaque to decorate while leaving a circular space in the centre, a symmetrical arrangement would naturally arise.[10]
Another Egyptian characteristic, also ascribed to Babylonian influence, is the custom of extended burial with mummification, which only begins to be met with during the Third and Fourth Dynasties. Since the dead are portrayed on the Stele of the Vultures as arranged in the extended position beneath the burial-mound,[11] it was formerly assumed that this was the regular Sumerian practice; and the contracted forms of burial, which had been found at Warka, Mukayyar, Surghul, Niffer and other Babylonian sites, were usually assigned to very late periods. The excavations at Fâra and Abû Hatab have corrected this assumption, and have proved that the Sumerian corpse was regularly arranged for burial in the contracted position, lying on its side.[12] The apparent exception to this rule upon the Stele of the Vultures may probably be regarded as characteristic only of burial upon the field of battle. There it must often have been impossible to furnish each corpse with a grave to itself, or to procure the regular offerings and furniture which accompanied individual interment. The bodies were therefore arranged side by side in a common grave, and covered with a tumulus of earth to ensure their entrance into the under world. But this was clearly a makeshift form of burial, necessitated by exceptional circumstances, and was not the regular Sumerian practice of the period.[13] Whatever may have given rise to the[Pg 332] Egyptian change in burial customs, the cause is not to be sought in Babylonian influence.
A further point, which has been cleared up by recent excavation on early Babylonian sites, concerns the crenelated form of building, which was formerly regarded as peculiarly characteristic of Sumerian architecture of the early period and as having influenced that of Egypt. It is now known that this form of external decoration is not met with in Babylonia before the period of Gudea and the kings of Ur. Thus, if any borrowing took place, it must have been on the Babylonian side. The employment of brick as a building material may also have been evolved in Egypt without any prompting from Babylonia, for the forms of brick employed are quite distinct in both countries. The peculiar plano-convex brick, which is characteristic of early Sumerian buildings, is never found in Egypt, where the rectangular oblong form was employed from the earliest period.[14] Thus many points of resemblance, which were formerly regarded as indicating a close cultural connection between the two countries, now appear to be far less striking than was formerly the case.[15] Others, again, may be explained as due to Egyptian influence on Babylonian culture rather than as the result of the reverse process. For example, the[Pg 333] resemblance that has been pointed out between Gudea's sculpture in the round and that of the Fourth Dynasty in Egypt may not be fortuitous. For Gudea maintained close commercial relations with the Syrian coast, where Egyptian influence at that time had long been effective.
There remains to be considered the use of the bulbous mace-head and of the stone cylindrical seal, both of which are striking characteristics of the early Egyptian and Sumerian cultures. It is difficult to regard these classes of objects, and particularly the latter, as having been evolved independently in Egypt and by the Sumerians. In Babylonia the cylinder-seal is already highly developed when found on the earliest Sumerian sites, and it would appear that the Sumerian immigrants brought it with them into the country, along with their system of writing and the other elements of their comparatively advanced state of civilization. Whether they themselves had evolved it in their original home, or had obtained it from some other race with whom they came into contact before reaching the valley of the Euphrates, it is still impossible to say. The evidence from Susa has not yet thrown much light upon this point. While some stone seals and clay sealings have been found in the lowest stratum of the mound, they are not cylindrical but in the form of flat stamps. The cylindrical seal appears, however, to have been introduced at Susa at a comparatively early period, for examples are said to have been found in the group of strata representing the "Second Period," at a depth of from fifteen to twenty metres below the surface. The published material does not yet admit of any certain pronouncement with regard to the earliest history of the cylinder-seal and its migrations. In favour of the view that would regard it as an independent product of the early Egyptians, it may be noted that wood and not stone was the commonest material for cylinders in the earliest period.[16] But if[Pg 334] the predynastic cylinder of Egypt is to be regarded as ultimately derived from Asia, the connection is to be set at a period anterior to the earliest Sumerian settlements that have yet been identified.
Thus the results of recent excavation and research, both in Egypt and Babylonia, have tended to diminish rather than to increase the evidence of any close connection between the early cultures of the two countries. Apart from any Babylonian influence, there is, however, ample proof of a Semitic element, not only in the language, but also in the religion of ancient Egypt. The Egyptian sun-worship, which forms so striking a contrast to the indigenous animal-cults and worship of the dead, was probably of Semitic origin, and may either have reached Upper Egypt from Southern Arabia,[17] or have entered Lower Egypt by the eastern Delta. The latter region has always formed an open door to Egypt, and the invasion of the Hyksos may well have had its prototype in predynastic times. The enemies, whose conquest is commemorated on several of the early dynastic slate-carvings, are of non-Egyptian type; they may possibly have been descendants of such Semitic immigrants, unless they were Libyan settlers from the west. In the historic period we have evidence of direct contact between Syria and Egypt at the time of the Third Dynasty, for the Palermo Stele records the arrival in Egypt of forty ships laden with cedar-wood in Sneferu's reign. These evidently formed an expedition sent by sea to the Lebanon, and we may assume that Sneferu's predecessors had already extended their influence along the Syrian coast.[18] It is in Syria that we may also set the first contact between the[Pg 335] civilizations of Egypt and Babylonia in historic times. The early Sumerian ruler Lugal-zaggisi boasts that he reached the Mediterranean coast, and his expedition merely formed the prelude to the conquest of Syria by Shar-Gani-sharri of Akkad.[19] It has indeed been suggested that evidence of Egyptian influence, following on the latter's Syrian campaign, is to be seen in the deification of early Babylonian kings.[20] And although this practice may now be traced with greater probability to a Sumerian source,[21] there can be little doubt that from Shar-Gani-sharri's reign onwards Syria formed a connecting-link between the two great civilizations on the Euphrates and the Nile.
Far closer than her relations with Egypt were the ties which connected Babylonia with the great centre of civilization which lay upon her eastern frontier. In the course of this history reference has frequently been made to the contact which was continually taking place from the earliest historical period between Elam and the Sumerian and Semitic rulers of Sumer and Akkad. Such political relationships were naturally accompanied by close commercial intercourse, and the effects of Sumerian influence upon the native culture of Elam have been fully illustrated by the excavations conducted at Susa by the "Délégation en Perse."[22] Situated on the river Kerkha, Susa occupied an important strategic position at the head of the caravan routes which connected the Iranian plateau with the lower valley of the Tigris and Euphrates and the shores of the Persian Gulf. The river washed the foot of the low hills on which the town was built, and formed a natural defence against attack from the west. The situation of the city on the left bank of the stream is an indication that even in the earliest period its founders sought to protect themselves from the danger of sudden raids from the direction of Sumer and Akkad. The earliest Sumerian records also reflect the feelings of hostility to Elam which animated their writers. But from these scattered[Pg 336] references it would appear that the Elamites at this time were generally the aggressors, and that they succeeded in keeping their country free from any political interference on the part of the more powerful among the Sumerian city-states. It was not until the period of Semitic expansion, under the later kingdom of Kish and the empire of Akkad, that the country became dominated by Babylonian influence.
We could not have more striking evidence of the extent to which Elam at this time became subject to Semitic culture than in the adoption of the Babylonian character and language by the native rulers of the country. We are met with the strange picture of native patesis of Susa and governors of Elam recording their votive offerings in a foreign script and language, and making invocations to purely Babylonian deities.[23] The Babylonian script was also adopted for writing inscriptions in the native Elamite tongue, and had we no other evidence available, it might be urged that the use of the Semitic language for the votive texts was dictated by purely temporary considerations of a political character. There is no doubt, however, that the Semitic conquest of Elam was accompanied, and probably preceded, by extensive Semitic immigration. Even at the time of the Dynasty of Ur, when Elam was subject to direct Sumerian control, the Semitic influence of Akkad had become too firmly rooted to be displaced, and it received a fresh impetus under the later rulers of the First Dynasty of Babylon. The clay tablets of a commercial and agricultural character, dating from the period of Adda-Pakshu,[24] are written in the Babylonian character and language,[25] like those found at Mal-Amîr to the east of Susa.[26] The[Pg 337] latter do not date from a period earlier than about 1000 B.C., and they throw an interesting light on the permanent character of Babylonian influence in the country. The modified forms of the Babylonian characters, which were employed by the Achaemenian kings for the Elamite column of their trilingual inscriptions, are to be traced to a comparatively late origin. The development of the writing exhibited by the Neo-Anzanite texts may be connected with the national revival which characterized the later Elamite monarchy.
The evidence furnished by the inscriptions found at Susa and other sites in Elam is supported by the archaeological discoveries in proving that, from the time of the Semitic kings of Kish and Akkad, the cultural development of Elam was to a great extent moulded by Babylonia. But the later products of native Elamite workmanship that have been recovered are no slavish copies of Babylonian originals, and the earlier examples of sculpture and engraving are of a character quite distinct from anything found on Babylonian soil.[27] Moreover, in the casting of metal and in the jewellers' art Elam certainly in time excelled her neighbour,[28] and, even in the later periods, her art presents itself as of vigorous growth, influenced it is true by that of Babylonia, but deriving its impetus and inspiration from purely native sources. It is also significant that the earlier the remains that have been recovered the less do they betray any trace of foreign influence.
A very striking proof of the independent development of Elamite culture prior to the Semitic conquest is now furnished by the texts inscribed in the so-called "proto-Elamite" system of writing.[29] The majority consist of small roughly-formed tablets of clay, and the signs upon them are either figures or ideographs for various objects. Though they have not been fully deciphered, it is clear that they are tablets of accounts and inventories. A very few of the signs, such as those for "tablet" and "total," resemble the corresponding Babylonian characters, but the great majority are entirely different and have been evolved on a system of their own. Lapidary forms of the characters have been found in inscriptions accompanying Semitic texts of Basha-Shushinak;[30] and, from the position of each upon the stone, it was inferred that the Semitic text was engraved first and the proto-Elamite section added to it. That they were contemporary additions seemed probable, and this has now been put beyond a doubt by the discovery at Susa of a stone statuette seated upon a throne, which was dedicated to a goddess by Basha-Shushinak.[31] On the front of the throne at each side of the seated figure is an inscription; that on the left side is in Semitic, and that on the right in proto-Elamite characters. The one is obviously a translation of the other, and their symmetrical arrangement leaves no doubt that they were inscribed at the same time.
It is therefore clear that at the time of Basha-Shushinak the two languages and scripts were sometimes employed side by side for votive inscriptions, while the clay tablets prove that the native script had not yet been superseded for the purposes of everyday life. The "proto-Elamite" characters present very few parallelisms to Babylonian signs, and those that do occur are clearly later accretions. Thus it would be natural enough to borrow the Babylonian sign for "tablet," at a time when the clay tablet itself found its way across[Pg 339] the border; and, though the signs for "total" correspond, the Elamite figures differ and are based on a decimal, not on a sexigesimal system of numeration. It may therefore be inferred that the writing had no connection in its origin with that of the Sumerians, and was invented independently of the system employed during the earliest periods in Babylonia. It may have been merely a local form of writing and not in general use throughout the whole of Elam, but its existence makes it probable that the district in which Susa was situated was not subject to any strong influence from Babylonia in the age preceding the Semitic expansion. This inference is strengthened by a study of the seal-impressions upon many of the tablets;[32] the designs consist of figured representations of animals and composite monsters, and their treatment is totally different to that found on early Sumerian cylinders. In the total disappearance of its local script Cappadocia offers an interesting parallel to Elam. The Hittite hieroglyphs were obviously of purely native origin, but they did not survive the introduction of the clay tablet and of cuneiform characters.
The earlier strata of the mounds at Susa, which date from the prehistoric periods in the city's history, have proved to be in some confusion as revealed by the French excavations; but an explanation has recently been forthcoming of many of the discrepancies in level that have previously been noted.[33] It would seem that the northern and southern extremities of the Citadel Tell were the most ancient sites of habitation, and that from this cause two small hills were formed which persisted during the earlier periods of the city's history. In course of time the ground between them was occupied and was gradually filled in so that the earlier contour of the mound was lost. It thus happens that while remains of the Kassite period are found in the centre of the tell at a depth of from fifteen to twenty metres, they occur at the two extremities in strata not more than ten metres below the surface. Even so, the later of the two prehistoric strata at the extremities of[Pg 340] the mound, representing an epoch anterior to that of the "proto-Elamite" inscriptions, contains only scattered objects, and it is still difficult to trace the gradual evolution of culture which took place in this and in the still earlier period. It should also be noted that the presence of a single stratum, enclosing remains of a purely Neolithic period, has not yet been established at Susa. There is little doubt, however, that such a stratum at one time existed, for stone axes, arrow-heads, knives and scrapers, representing a period of Neolithic culture, are found scattered at every level in the mound. It is thus possible that, in spite of the presence of metal in the same stratum, much of the earlier remains discovered at Susa, and particularly the earlier forms of painted pottery,[34] are to be assigned to a Neolithic settlement upon the site.
Fortunately for the study of the early ceramics of Elam, we have not to depend solely on the rather inconclusive data which the excavations at Susa have as yet furnished. Digging has also been carried out at a group of mounds, situated about ninety-three miles to the west of Susa, which form a striking feature on the caravan route to Kermanshah. The central and most important of the mounds is known as the Tepe Mussian, and its name is often employed as a general designation for the group. The excavations conducted there in the winter of 1902-3 have brought to light a series of painted wares, ranging in date from a purely Neolithic period to an age in which metal was already beginning to appear.[35] This wealth of material is valuable for comparison with the very similar pottery from Susa, and has furnished additional data for determining the cultural connections of the earlier inhabitants of the country. The designs upon the finer classes of painted ware, both at Susa and Mussian, are not only geometric in character, but include vegetable and animal forms. Some of the latter have been held to bear a certain likeness to designs which occur upon the later pottery of the predynastic[Pg 341] age in Egypt, and it is mainly on the strength of such points of resemblance that M. de Morgan would trace a connection between the early cultures of the two countries.[36]
But quite apart from objections based on the great difference of technique, the absence of any pottery similar to the Egyptian in Babylonia and Northern Syria renders it difficult to accept the suggestion; and it is in other quarters that we may possibly recognize traces of a similar culture to that of the earlier age in Elam. The resemblance between the more geometric designs upon the Elamite pottery and that discovered at Kara-Uyuk in Cappadocia has been pointed out by Professor Sayce;[37] and Mr. Hall has recently compared them in detail with very similar potsherds discovered by the Pumpelly Expedition at Anau in Russian Turkestan,[38] and by Professor Garstang[39] at Sakjegeuzi in Syria.[40] It should be noted that, so far as Elam is concerned, the resemblance applies only to one class of the designs upon the early painted pottery, and does not include the animal and a majority of the vegetable motives. It is sufficiently striking, however, to point the direction in which we may look for further light[Pg 342] upon the problem. Future excavations at Susa itself and on sites in Asia Minor will doubtless show how far we may press the suggested theory of an early cultural connection.
While such suggestions are still in a nebulous state, it would be rash to dogmatize on the relation of these prehistoric peoples to the Elamites of history. A study of the designs upon the Elamite potsherds makes it clear, however, that there was no sudden break between the cultures of the two periods. For many of the animal motives of a more conventionalized character are obviously derived from the peculiarly Elamite forms of composite monsters, which are reproduced in the seal-impressions upon "proto-Elamite" tablets.[41] Moreover, it is stated that among the decorative motives on pot-sherds recently discovered in the lowest stratum at Susa are a number of representations of a purely religious character.[42] It is possible that these will prove to be the ancestors of some of the sacred emblems which, after being developed on Elamite soil, reached Babylonia during the Kassite period.[43] How far Babylonia participated in the prehistoric culture of Elam it is difficult to say, since no Neolithic settlement has yet been identified in Sumer or Akkad. Moreover, the early Sumerian pottery discovered at Tello, which dates from an age when a knowledge of metal was already well advanced, does not appear to have resembled the prehistoric wares of Elam, either in composition or in design. It should be noted, however, that terra-cotta female figurines, of the well-known Babylonian type, occur in Elam and at Anau[44]; and it is possible that in Babylonia they were relics of a prehistoric culture. On sites in the alluvial portion of the country it is probable that few Neolithic remains[Pg 343] have been preserved.[45] But it should be noted that fragments of painted pottery have been found at Kuyunjik, which bear a striking resemblance to the early Syro-Cappadocian ware;[46] and these may well belong to a Neolithic settlement upon the site of Nineveh.[47] It is thus possible that the prehistoric culture, which had its seat in Elam, will be found to have extended to Southern Assyria also, and to non-alluvial sites on the borders of the Babylonian plain.
It would seem that the influence of Sumerian culture during the historic period first began to be felt beyond the limits of Babylonia at the time of the Semitic expansion. The conquest of Syria by Shar-Gani-sharri undoubtedly had important results upon the spread of Babylonian culture. The record, which has been interpreted to mean that he went still further westward and crossed the Mediterranean to Cyprus, is now proved to have been due to the misunderstanding of a later scribe.[48] It is true that some seals have been found in Cyprus, which furnish evidence of Babylonian influence in the island, but they belong to a period considerably later than that of the Akkadian empire. Of these, the one said to have been found in the treasury of the temple at Curium by General di Cesnola refers to the deified Narâm-Sin,[49] but the style of its composition and its technique definitely prove that it is of Syro-Cappadocian workmanship, and does not date from a much earlier period than that of the First Dynasty of Babylon. The most cursory comparison of the seal with the clay-sealings of Narâm-Sin's period, which[Pg 344] have been found at Tello,[50] will convince any one of this fact. The other, which was found in an early bronze age deposit at Agia Paraskevi with its original gold mounting, may be definitely dated in the period of the First Babylonian Dynasty,[51] and Nudubtum, its original owner, who styles himself a servant of the god Martu (Amurru), may well have been of Syrian or West Semitic origin. Beyond such isolated cylinders, there is, however, no trace of early Babylonian influence in Cyprus.[52] This is hardly compatible with the suggested Semitic occupation during Shar-Gani-sharri's reign; there may well have been a comparatively early trade connection with the island, but nothing more.
Yet the supposed conquest of Cyprus by Shar-Gani-sharri has led to the wildest comparisons between Aegean and Babylonian art. Not content with leaving him in Cyprus, Professor Winckler has dreamed of still further maritime expeditions on his part to Rhodes,[Pg 345] Crete, and even to the mainland of Greece itself.[53] There is no warrant for such imaginings, and the archaeologist must be content to follow and not outrun his evidence. Babylonian influence would naturally be stronger in Cyprus than in Crete, but with neither have we evidence of strong or direct contact. There are, however, certain features of Aegean culture which may be traced to a Babylonian source, though some of the suggested comparisons are hardly convincing. The houses at Fâra, for instance, are supplied with a very elaborate system of drainage, and drains and culverts have been found in the pre-Sargonic stratum at Nippur, at Surghul, and at most early Sumerian sites where excavations have been carried out. These have been compared with the system of drainage and sanitation at Knossos.[54] It is true that no other parallel to the Cretan system can be cited in antiquity, but, as a matter of fact, the two systems are not very like, and in any case it would be difficult to trace a path by which so early a connection could have taken place. It has indeed been suggested that both Babylonia and Crete may have inherited elements of some prehistoric culture common to the eastern world, and that what looks like an instance of influence may really be one of common origin.[55] But, as in the case of a few parallels between early Egyptian and Elamite culture, it is far more probable that such isolated points of resemblance are merely due to coincidence.
A far more probable suggestion is that the clay tablet and stilus reached Crete from Babylonia.[56] Previous to its introduction the Minoan hieroglyphs, or pictographs, had been merely engraved on seal-stones, but with the adoption of the new material for writing they were employed for lists, inventories and the like, and these forms became more linear.[57] The fact[Pg 346] that the cuneiform system of writing was not introduced along with the tablet, as happened in Anatolia, is sufficient proof that the connection between Babylonia and Crete was indirect. It was doubtless by way of Anatolia that the clay tablet travelled to Crete,[58] for the discoveries at Kara-Uyuk prove that, before the age of Hammurabi, both tablet and cuneiform writing had penetrated westward beyond the Taurus.[59] Through its introduction into Crete the Babylonian tablet may probably be regarded as the direct ancestor of the wax tablet and stilus of the Greeks and Romans.[60]
Unlike the clay tablet, the cylinder-seal never became a characteristic of the Aegean cultural area, where the seal continued to be of the stamp or button-form. A cylinder-seal has indeed been found in a larnax-burial at Palaikastro, on the east coast of Crete; and it is a true cylinder, perforated from end to end, and was intended to be rolled and not stamped upon the clay.[61] The designs upon it are purely Minoan, but the arrangement of the figures, which is quite un-Egyptian in character, is similar to that of the Mesopotamian cylinder.[62] In spite of the rarity of the type[Pg 347] among Cretan seals, this single example from Palaikastro is suggestive of Babylonian influence, through the Syro-Cappadocian channel by which doubtless the clay tablet reached Crete.
Anatolia thus formed a subsidiary centre for the further spread of Babylonian culture, which had reached it by way of Northern Syria before crossing the Taurus. The importance of the latter district in this connection has been already emphasized by Mr. Hogarth.[63] Every traveller from the coast to the region of the Khâbûr will endorse his description of the vast group of mounds, the deserted sites of ancient cities, which mark the surface of the country. With one or two exceptions these still await the spade of the excavator, and, when their lowest strata shall have yielded their secrets, we shall know far more of the early stages in the spread of Babylonian culture westwards. We have already noted the rôle of Syria as a connecting-link between the civilizations of the Euphrates and the Nile,[64] and it plays an equally important part in linking both of them with the centre of early Hittite culture in Asia Minor. It was by the coastal regions of Syria that the first Semitic immigrants from the south reached the Euphrates, and it was to Syria that the stream of Semitic influence, now impregnated with Sumerian culture, returned. The sea formed a barrier to any further advance in that direction, and so the current parted, and passed southwards into the Syro-Palestinian region and northwards through the Cilician Gates, whence by Hittite channels it penetrated to the western districts of Asia Minor. Here, again, the sea was a barrier to further progress westwards, and the Asiatic coast of the Aegean forms the western limit of Asiatic influence. Until the passing of the Hittite power, no attempts were made by Aegean sea-rovers or immigrants from the mainland of Greece to settle on the western coast of Asia Minor,[65] and it is not therefore surprising that Aegean[Pg 348] culture should show such scanty traces of Babylonian influence.
Of the part which the Sumerians took in originating and moulding the civilization of Babylonia, it is unnecessary to treat at greater length. Perhaps their most important achievement was the invention of cuneiform writing, for this in time was adopted as a common script throughout the east, and became the parent of other systems of the same character. But scarcely less important were their legacies in other spheres of activity. In the arts of sculpture and seal-engraving their own achievements were notable enough, and they inspired the Semitic work of later times. The great code of Hammurabi's laws, which is claimed to have influenced western codes besides having moulded much of the Mosaic legislation, is now definitely known to be of Sumerian origin, and Urukagina's legislative effort was the direct forerunner of Hammurabi's more successful appeal to past tradition. The literature of Babylon and Assyria is based almost throughout on Sumerian originals, and the ancient ritual of the Sumerian cults survived in the later temples of both countries. Already we see Gudea consulting the omens before proceeding to lay the foundations of E-ninnû, and the practice of hepatoscopy may probably be set back into the period of the earliest Sumerian patesis. Sumer, in fact, was the principal source of Babylonian civilization, and a study of its culture supplies a key to many subsequent developments in Western Asia. The inscriptions have already yielded a fairly complete picture of the political evolution of the people, from the village community and city-state to an empire which included the effective control of foreign provinces. The archaeological record is not so complete, but in this direction we may confidently look for further light from future excavation and research.
[1] For discussions of the merits of the theory, in view of the admitted resemblance of certain features in the civilizations of Babylonia and Egypt, see King and Hall, "Egypt and Western Asia," pp. 32 ff., and Sayce, "The Archaeology of the Cuneiform Inscriptions;" cf. also De Morgan, "Les premières civilisations," pp. 170 ff. The publication of the results obtained by Dr. Reisner's prolonged diggings, supplemented by the more recent work of M. Naville at Abydos, has considerably increased the material on which a more definite decision can be based. I may add that Mr. Hall agrees with me as to the necessity of modifying many points in the theory, in consequence of the additional information that has recently become available for use. It should be noted that in his "Oldest Civilization of Greece," p. 179, n. 1, he had already emphasized the indigenous origin of much of Egyptian culture; cf. also "Egypt and Western Asia," p. 45 f.
[2] As a subsidiary meaning, the word possibly conveys the idea of soldiers armed with dagger and lance; see Maspero, "Bibliothèque Egyptologique," II., pp. 313 ff. On the walls of the temple of Edfu the Mesniu are represented as holding in the left hand a kind of dagger, and in the right a light dart tipped with metal. The important part played by metal in their armament is emphasized by these late representations, as by the name assigned them in the Legend of Edfu. They bore the same relation to their patron deity as the Shemsu-Hor, or "Followers of Horus," bore to him in his other aspect as the son of Isis.
[3] Cf. Newberry, "Annals of Archaeology," pp. 17 ff.
[4] The most striking of these comparisons is that of Asari, a Sumerian god who was afterwards identified with Marduk, and Asar, the Egyptian god Osiris. For not only is there identity of name-sound, but there is also a resemblance between the Egyptian and Sumerian sign-groups for the names (cf. Sayce, "The Archaeology of the Cuneiform Inscriptions," p. 119). The resemblance, however, is not quite so close as it is sometimes represented, for the Sumerian sign eri or uru is invariably employed for "city," a meaning which never attaches to as, the character in the corresponding half of the Egyptian group. To regard the resemblance as other than a coincidence, it is necessary to assume a very close relationship between the early religious ideas of Sumer and Egypt, an assumption that would only be justified by the strongest proofs of connection from the archaeological side.
[5] See Reisner, "The Early Dynastic Cemeteries of Naga-ed-Dêr," Part I., published as Vol. II. of the "University of California Publications," 1908.
[6] Cf. Maciver and Woolley, "Areika," pp. 14 ff. Mr. Maciver also cites the occurrence of a similar black-topped red-ware on sites in Egypt, dated between the Twelfth and Eighteenth Dynasties (op. cit., p. 16).
[7] See Reisner, "Naga-ed-Dêr," I., p. 133 f.
[8] For discussions of the identity of the predynastic emblems with gods of the dynastic period, see Budge, "The Gods of the Egyptians," I., p. 30 f., Foucart, "Comptes rendus," 1905, pp. 262 ff., and Reisner, "Naga-ed-Dêr," p. 125; cf. also Legge, "Proc. Soc. Bibl. Arch.," XXXI., pp. 205 ff.
[9] For a reproduction and description of the slate carving, see Legge, "Proc. Soc. Bibl. Arch.," Vol. XXII., pl. vi; cf. also Vol. XXXI., p. 204 f. Whatever view be taken of the ceremonial purpose for which these slates were intended, it is clear that the carving of slate was no new departure in Egypt at this period. Many of the practical slate palettes from Nakâda, on some of which traces have been found of the grinding of malachite and haematite for face-paint (cf. Petrie, "Naqadaand Balias," p. 43), are carved in animal forms. It may be added that the colour-dishes for face or body-paint, which have been found at Fâra, are quite distinct both in form and material from the Egyptian slate palettes. They are of alabaster, with divisions for separate paints, and usually stand on four feet (cf. Andræ, "Mitteil. der Deutsch. Orient-Gesellschaft," No. 17, p. 6); they thus form a closer parallel to the small conical vases of clay or stone, still enclosing paint, which have been found in the lowest stratum of the mound of Susa and belong to the period of its first settlement (cf. De Morgan, "Rev. d'Assyr.," VI., p. 5).
[10] Cf. Meyer, "Geschichte des Altertums," Bd. I., Hft. II., p. 107 f.
[13] It is also possible that to represent the contracted position of his corpses was beyond the power of Eannatum's sculptor. Moreover, the employment of a common grave beneath a tumulus upon the field of battle may possibly have been a modified survival of an earlier practice, its retention having been dictated by convenience. Although no instance of its occurrence has been noted during excavations in Babylonia, we find a very similar form of burial employed at Susa during the period of its first settlement. It would appear that the dead were there buried outside the earthern rampart which marked the city-wall, without any special order or direction, and not enclosed by matting, pot, or sarcophagus. The bodies were placed in a common ditch and covered with earth, others being added from time to time beside or above them, so that sometimes four or five layers of skeletons are found super-imposed. That the corpses here were separately interred would seem to follow from the fact that each is accompanied by its own funerary offerings and furniture placed around the head; see De Morgan, "Rev. d'Assyr." Vol. VII., No. 1 (1909), p. 4 f. It may be added that the Sumerians, like the predynastic and early dynastic Egyptians, did not embalm their dead. The use of oil and honey for this purpose (see King, "Babylonian Religion," p. 49 f.), the latter of which is ascribed to the Babylonians by Herodotus (I., 198), would seem to have been of comparatively late introduction, and suggested by the Egyptian processes of mummification. It is interesting to note that, according to the evidence obtained by M. Naville at Abydos during the season of 1909-10, the contracted form of burial survived in Egypt at least as late as the Sixth Dynasty.
[14] The use of a sun-dried brick made of Nile mud and chopped straw may well have been evolved by the Egyptians themselves. As to the original home of wheat there is little evidence, though it may be noted that traces of cultivated wheat and barley were found in the earliest stratum at Anau in Russian Turkestan; see Pumpelly, "Explorations in Turkestan," p. 39 f.
[15] Negative evidence also points in the same direction. For instance, the extensive use of ivory by the predynastic and dynastic Egyptians is in striking contrast to the fact that not a single object of ivory was found by M. de Sarzec at Tello. With the Sumerians its place was taken by shell; see above, p. 78.
[16] Against the view may be cited the gradual discontinuance of the cylinder in Egypt, suggestive of a foreign origin. Comparatively few wooden cylinder-seals have been recovered. The fact that wood and not stone was the favourite material has, however, been deduced from many of the seal-impressions, in which a raised line runs from top to bottom across the signs. This can only have been produced by a split in the wood of which the cylinder was composed; cf. Petrie, "Royal Tombs," I., p. 27, and Newberry, "Scarabs," p. 48. The earliest form of cylinder-seal may well have been a piece of notched reed.
[17] If the land of Punt may be set in Abyssinia and Somaliland, it is possible that it formed a secondary centre of Semitic influence in this region; cf. King and Hall, "Egypt and Western Asia," p. 40.
[18] See Meyer, "Geschichte," Bd. I., Hft. II., pp. 155, 162, 393 f.; and cf. Breasted, "Ancient Records," I., p. 66. According to Schäfer's translation, the forty ships were made of cedar-wood, not loaded with it (see "Ein Bruchstück altägyptischer Annalen," p. 30). But this does not affect the inference drawn from the passage, for the cedar must have been obtained in Lebanon, and the record in any case proves a connection between Egypt and Syria in Sneferu's reign.
[20] See Thureau-Dangin, "Recueil de travaux," XIX., p. 187.
[22] See De Morgan, "Recherches archéologiques," published as the first, seventh, and eighth volumes of the "Mémoires de la Délégation en Perse."
[23] The manner in which the Semitic culture of Babylonia persisted in influencing that of Elam in the religious sphere is well illustrated by the bronze votive plaque of Shilkhak-In-Shushinak, recently found at Susa; cf. Gautier, "Rec. de trav.," XXXI., pp. 41 ff. It is termed a "Sit-Shamshi," and probably represented a rite of purification which was performed at sunrise. As its title would seem to imply, the rite had been bodily taken over by the Elamites and incorporated along with its Semitic name into the native ritual.
[25] Cf. Scheil, "Textes Élam.-Sémit.," IV., pp. 14 ff.
[26] "Textes Élam.-Sémit.," II., pp. 169 ff.
[27] A good example of Elamite sculpture of the earlier period is furnished by the fragment of a bas-relief, published by De Morgan, "Recherches archéologiques," II., pl. i., A; in the treatment of the mythological being, half-man and half-beast, who is holding a sacred tree, it is quite unlike the early work of Sumer or Akkad. That, in spite of Babylonian and Assyrian influence, the Elamite sculptor continued to retain his individuality is clear from such a work as the well-known "bas-relief of a spinning woman," which probably dates from the time of the Sargonids (op. cit., I., pl. ix., p. 159 f.).
[28] The decorated table and bas-relief published in "Recherches," I., pl. xii and xiii are fine examples of casting in bronze. They date from the period of Shutruk-Nakhkhunte, and both in design and technique surpass any bronze casting yet found in Babylonia. The varied ornaments, jewellery, and figurines, fashioned of gold, silver, copper, and precious stones, published in "Rech. arch.," II., pp. 65 ff., pl. xii ff. as "foundation offerings" from the temple of Shushinak at Susa, are beautiful specimens of the finer class of Elamite metalwork; it is difficult to determine their date accurately, but the disorder in which they were found tells against the theory of a single foundation-deposit, and different groups may well belong to different periods.
[29] See Scheil, "Textes Élam.-Sémit.," III., pp. 57 ff.
[30] See above, p. 289. The lapidary forms of the characters are more linear and less ornate than those upon the tablets. But the differences are such as would naturally arise from the use of the harder material, and we may probably assign both classes to about the same period.
[31] See Scheil, "Rev. d'Assyr.," Vol. VI., p. 48.
[32] Cf. Jéquier, in "Recherches archéologiques," III., pp. 7 ff.
[33] See De Morgan, "Rev. d'Assyr.," VI., p. 8.
[34] For coloured reproductions of Susian wares, see De Morgan, "Recherches archéologiques," I., pl xvii-xxii; cf. also pp. 183 ff.
[35] See Gautier and Lampre, "Fouilles de Moussian," in "Recherches archéologiques," III., pp. 59 ff.
[36] See De Morgan, "Revue de l'École d'Anthropologie," 1907, p. 410 f. Still less convincing parallels are drawn between the early cultures of Crete and Elam by Lagrange in "La Crète ancienne," pp. 80 ff.
[37] See "The Archaeology of the Cuneiform Inscriptions," p. 47.
[38] See Pumpelly, "Explorations in Turkestan," Vol. II., Schmidt's section on "The Archaeological Excavations," pp. 127 ff.; see further, p. 355.
[39] Cf. "The Annals of Archaeology," I., pp. 97 ff.
[40] See Hall, "Proc. Soc. Bibl. Arch.," XXXI., pp. 311 ff. He also cites a general resemblance, which these three classes of pottery bear to the geometric designs on wares of the Neolithic period from Boeotia and Thessaly. On the strength of this resemblance Mr. Hall suggests that in Iran and in Northern Greece there may have been two closely related stone-using cultures, of which the former reached the age of metal at a much earlier period than the latter. He would, however, regard it as possible that the Neolithic art of Northern Greece went back to 3000 B.C. or even earlier. According to this view, the geometric and often polychrome ceramics found on prehistoric sites as widely separated as Elam, Transcaspia, Syria, Cappadocia, Cyprus, and Northern Greece would represent a development quite independent from that of the Aegean area, with which the early art of Egypt may possibly be connected. For a description of the pottery of Northern Greece, with figured examples and references to the recent literature, see the Reports of Wace, Droop, and Thompson in "Annals of Archaeology," I., pp. 118 ff. It must be admitted that the suggested resemblance between the early ceramics of Northern Greece and Western Asia is not so striking as that between the separate members of the latter group.
[41] Compare, for example, the animal motives from Mussian pottery, figured in "Recherches archéologiques," III., p. 134 f., Figs. 262-264, with the half-human bull-monsters from "proto-Elamite" seal-impressions in Figs. 22-26, p. 11 f.
[42] See De Morgan, "Rev. d'Assyr.," VI., p. 5.
[43] It is noteworthy that the "Greek cross," which is a very characteristic emblem on Kassite cylinder-seals from Babylonia, and also occurs on the "proto-Elamite" seal-impressions, is already met with as a decorative symbol on the early painted pottery of Susa and Mussian. It is also possible that the spear-headed emblem of the god Marduk was ultimately of Elamite origin; it might well have been transferred to Marduk at the time of the Kassite kings of Babylon.
[46] See Myres, "The Early Pot-Fabrics of Asia Minor" in "The Journal of the Anthropological Institute," Vol. XXXIII., p. 379. Prof. Myres would regard them as of Sargonid date, and it is true that some fragments of painted pottery of that period have been found at Kuyunjik. But the latter may be distinguished, both by subject and technique, from those which reproduce characteristics of the Cappadocian ware and are probably very much earlier (cf. Hall, "Proc. Soc. Bibl. Arch.," XXXI., p. 313 f., n. 137).
[47] In the course of excavations at Kuyunjik, when sinking shafts into the lowest stratum just above the level of the plain, I came across obsidian implements and beds of ashes, indicating the existence of a Neolithic settlement.
[49] For a reproduction of the seal, see Sayce, "Trans. Soc. Bibl. Arch.," Vol. V., p. 442.
[50] For the sealings, see Heuzey, "Rev. d'Assyr.," IV., pp. 3 ff. The points of contrast presented by the Cyprus seal may be summarized: (1)The signs employed in the inscription are not of Narâm-Sin's period, but of the time of the First Dynasty. (2)The presence of the Storm-god, the number and nature of the religious emblems, the arrangement of the design dictated by the horror vacui, and the engraving of the seal itself with its undisguised employment of the drill, are all Syro-Cappadocian in character; they are in striking contrast to the beauty of proportion and restrained design of the figures arranged on a plain field by the early Semitic seal-engravers of Akkad. (3)The deification of Narâm-Sin is of course no proof that he was dead (see above, p. 251). But it should be noted that on seals of Narâm-Sin's period, which mention the reigning king or a member of his family, the royal name is included in order to indicate a delegation of authority. The text is always couched in the second person, in the form of an address, and the royal name is invariably mentioned first. Had Mâr-Ishtar, the owner of the seal, been a contemporary of Narâm-Sin, the inscription on the seal would have run: "O Narâm-Sin, God of Akkad (or King of Akkad), Mâr-Ishtar, the (here would follow the title of his office), is thy servant." As a matter of fact, the inscription runs: "Mâr-Ishtar, son of Ilu-bani, servant of the god Narâm-Sin." Here Mâr-Ishtar's name comes first, then that of his father, and lastly that of his patron deity. Narâm-Sin is no longer the living God of Akkad, but is just an ordinary deity, and occupies an ordinary deity's place upon the seal. The survival of his name as that of a god in the period of the Western Semites is paralleled by the occurrence of the name of Bûr-Sin I., King of Ur, as that of a deity in the Moon-god's suite, on a god-list of the seventh century B.C.; see above, p. 299.
[51] For a reproduction of the seal, see Bezold, "Zeits. für Keilschrift.," II., pp. 191 ff.; cf. also Myres and Ohnefalsch-Richter, "Catalogue of the Cyprus Museum," pp. 15, 134.
[52] Of the Enkomi cylinder-seals, for example, only two are purely Babylonian (of the First Dynasty), and the others, with the exception of a few rude specimens of native Cypriote workmanship, are Syro-Cappadocian and Hittite importations.
[53] See Winckler, "Die Euphratländer und das Mittelmeer," in "Der Alte Orient," VII., 2 (1905), p. 10.
[54] See Burrows, "The Discoveries in Crete," p. 9.
[55] Op. cit., p. 134.
[56] See Sayce, "Archaeology of the Cuneiform Inscriptions," p. 181, Burrows, "The Discoveries in Crete," p. 139, and Hall, "Proc. Soc. Bibl. Arch.," XXXI., p. 225.
[57] For the evolution of Minoan writing, see Evans, "Scripta Minoa," I., pp. 19 ff., 28 ff.
[58] The clay disk stamped with hieroglyphic characters, which has been discovered by Prof. Halbherr at Phaestos, may be cited in support of this view. From a scrutiny of the characters upon it, Dr. Evans concludes that the original home of its peculiar non-Cretan form of writing is to be sought in the South-West coast-lands of Asia Minor, or in an island in close contact with the mainland. The disk belongs to a period when the linear form of script had succeeded the hieroglyphic in Crete itself (see "Scripta Minoa," I., pp. 22 ff., 273 ff.).
[59] It is also through a Hittite medium that we may possibly trace a connection between the composite monsters of Babylonian and Minoan art; see Sayce, op. cit., p. 180. It should be noted, however, that, although the idea underlying the designs upon the Zakro sealings may be of foreign origin, the development of the variant types of many of the monster forms was purely local and confined to a single period (cf. Hogarth, "Journal of Hellenic Studies," Vol. XXII., p. 91). Moreover, the bull-monsters, or "Minotaurs," of Aegean art were obviously derived from the local cult of Knossos; in the winged and bird-like types Cappadocian influence is more probable.
[60] See Burrows, "Discoveries in Crete," p. 149.
[61] In this respect it forms a striking contrast to the clay cylinder from the sepulchral deposit of Hagios Onuphrios near Phaestos. The latter is unperforated and the designs are cut at each end of the seal; it is thus no true cylinder, but merely a double-button seal (see Evans, "Cretan Pictographs," pp. 105, 107).
[62] The figures engraved upon the seal consist of a lion-headed demon and two female figures, possibly with the heads of animals; they are arranged across the field of the cylinder from edge to edge. The seal is of soft, black stone, much worn (see Bosanquet, "The Annual of the British School at Athens," No. VIII., p. 302).
[63] See "Ionia and the East," p. 96 f.
I.—Recent Explorations in Turkestan in their Relation to the Sumerian Problem.
II.—A Chronological List of the Kings and Rulers of Sumer and Akkad.
In the second chapter of this volume the opinion was expressed that, in spite of the unsoundness of certain arguments in favour of the theory, the original home of the Sumerians was to be sought beyond the mountains to the east of the Babylonian plain.[1] The arrival of the Sumerians on the banks of the Euphrates would thus have been a single episode in a series of similar migrations from the east, which, during the historical period, are known to have made their appearance in that quarter of Western Asia. Until recently it was only possible to suggest that such migratory movements were to be traced to racial unrest in more distant regions, and few data were available for supporting any detailed theory as to the causes of this occasional pressure westwards. Important evidence, which has both a direct and an indirect bearing on the problem, has, however, been obtained as a result of recent explorations in Russian and Chinese Turkestan.
The two expeditions conducted by Mr. Raphael Pumpelly, on behalf of the Carnegie Institution of Washington, in 1903 and 1904, the results of which have now been fully published, were occupied mainly with work in the Transcaspian province of Russian Turkestan. The physiographical observations collected by the first Pumpelly Expedition were supplemented during the second of them by archaeological evidence, obtained by excavations at Anau near Askhabad, and in the Merv Oasis, under the direction of Dr. Hubert Schmidt, of Berlin, who joined the staff of the expedition for that purpose. Both classes of evidence have a direct bearing upon the problem under discussion.
Of more remote interest, in the present connection, are the explorations and excavations carried out by Dr. Stein in Chinese Turkestan, on behalf of the Indian Government, during his journeys of 1900-1 and 1906-8. Lying in the Tarim basin to the east of the Pamirs, the principal scene of his labours is far removed from those regions of Western and Central Asia from which direct light may be expected upon the Sumerian problem. But the Khotan oases and the Taklamakan Desert[Pg 352] present in many respects an interesting parallel to the conditions prevailing in the southern districts of the Russian province; and they illustrate, during more recent historical periods, a climatic and geological process of which far earlier traces have been noted in the latter region. The investigation of the archaeological remains, till lately buried in Khotan, has also demonstrated the comparatively short period of time required for extensive physical changes to have taken place. Finally, the physiographical researches of Mr. Ellsworth Huntington, who accompanied the first Pumpelly expedition, have been extended during 1905-7 into the region of Dr. Stein's travels, along the southern and eastern borders of the Taklamakan Desert, and have resulted in obtaining corroborative evidence of theories already deduced from observations in Russian Turkestan.
It has already been remarked that the work of the Pumpelly Expeditions was of a twofold character. On the one hand, the majority of the members devoted themselves to the collection of material bearing on the physiography of the Central Asian deserts and oases; and, as a result of their labours, they have produced a valuable series of monographs, illustrating climatic and physical changes which have taken place in that region of the world. On the other hand, the excavations conducted at Anau by Dr. Schmidt have been followed by a careful presentment of the archaeological material, including a very complete ceramic record. The general discussion of the results was undertaken by Mr. Raphael Pumpelly, the leader of the expeditions, who has given an able and suggestive summary of what he conceives to be their general bearing, not only from the geological side, but also in their relation to the early history of Western Asiatic, and even of North African culture.[2] At the outset it should be mentioned that, on the archaeological side, several of Mr. Pumpelly's generalizations appear to be too far reaching, and he seems to push some of his conclusions beyond the limit of his evidence. But this does not detract in any way from the value of the new data, which he has been largely instrumental in acquiring.
I.—THE NORTH KURGAN AT ANAU AND THE CAMP OF THE PUMPELLY EXPEDITION. II.—THE SOUTH KURGAN AT ANAU, SHOWING EXCAVATIONS IN PROGRESS.—From Pumpelly, Expl. in Turk. 1, p. 17, Figs. 5 and 6
TERRA-COTTA FIGURINES FROM THE SOUTH KURGAN AT ANAU. —From Pumpelly, Expl. in Turk., 1, pl. 46, Figs. 9-17
We are not here concerned with details of the earlier geological evidence, except in so far as they illustrate or explain the physical changes in the character of the country during more recent times. It has long been recognized that the deserts of Central Asia owe their existence to a process of [Pg 353]desiccation that has taken place since the Glacial epoch,[3] and recent investigations have shown that the contrast to present conditions was even more marked than was previously supposed. The members of the first Pumpelly Expedition have noted that glaciers existed on a greatly extended scale throughout the mountains bordering the great basins of Central Asia on the south and east, and they have proved the existence of several great glacial expansions, each of which naturally reacted on the climate of the central region. During the sub-glacial period there was a general trend towards desolation, and the dried silts of seas and rivers were carried by the wind across the surface of the ground. The lightest material was carried farthest, and, wherever the scanty vegetation could hold it, it was deposited in beds of "loess," the extraordinarily fine and fertile soil which covers a great part of Northern China and Turkestan, and extends in a continuous zone from North of the Caspian to Central Europe.[4] The heavier silts in the shape of sands moved more slowly under the pressure of the wind, and they formed great deserts of sand-dunes, heaped in places more than a hundred feet high. It is to the shifting or formation of such sand-deserts in historic times that we owe the burial of the cities in the Khotan region, which have been so successfully excavated by Dr. Stein for the Indian Government.[5]
Although it is clear that since Glacial times there has been a general trend towards the present arid condition of Central Asia, there is reason to believe that, as in the Glacial epoch, the subsequent climatic changes have not been uniform. Periods of extreme aridity have occurred in which the condition of certain regions may have been more desolate than it is to-day. But these appear to have alternated with more humid periods, when the tracts which were deserted may again have been rendered capable of sustaining life. Already in the prehistoric period, however, the sea of sand-dunes had encroached upon the fertile plains of loess, and it is mainly in the delta-oases, formed by streams emerging from the mountains, or at points where large rivers lose themselves in the plain, as at Merv, that traces of man's handiwork have been discovered.
Throughout the region of the oases in Southern Turkestan, to the north of the Kopet Dagh, the Pumpelly Expedition constantly noted the sites of former habitations in regions which are now desolate. Not only are there traces of occupation where villages exist to-day, but there are also large areas which must once have been densely peopled, although they are now deserted. The present supply of water in the region could support but a small proportion of its former inhabitants, and it is necessary to suppose either that there was a greater rainfall, or that evaporation was less rapid owing to a lower temperature. Similar evidence has been collected with regard to the former condition of Chinese Turkestan,[6] and it is clear that extensive tracts in Central Asia, which are now abandoned to the desert, at one time supported a considerable population. The evidence points to a change in climatic conditions, which has reacted on the character of the country in such a way as to cause racial migrations.[7]
In the hope of throwing light on the character of the former dwellers in the deserted regions of Russian Turkestan, the second Pumpelly Expedition undertook excavations at selected sites. At Ghiaur Kala in the Merv Oasis it was ascertained that the earliest period of occupation was not older than a few centuries B.C., though it is probable that among the great[Pg 355] number of mounds in the oasis some are of a considerably earlier date. Far more important were the results obtained by excavations in the region below the northern slopes of the Kopet Dagh. It was at one of the delta-oases, at Anau, near Askhabad, some three hundred miles east of the Caspian, that the Pumpelly Expedition found traces of prehistoric cultures, and obtained its principal material for archaeological study.
Near the middle of the Anau oasis, and about a mile apart, are two hills with rounded contours, rising some forty and fifty feet above the plain, and marking the sites of long-forgotten cities. The structure of the North Kurgan, or tumulus, had already been exposed by a trench cut in it some twenty-five years ago by General Komorof, which showed stratified remains, including bones of animals and potsherds of plain and painted wares. It was this trench that first directed Mr. Pumpelly's attention to the mound during his first expedition, and his subsequent excavations, both here and in the South Kurgan, exposed the same stratified structure.
Fig. 68. Designs on painted potsherds of the Neolithic period (Culture I.) from the North Kurgan at Anau.—From Pumpelly, Expl. in Turk., I., p. 128, Nos. 67-73.
The strata represented successive occupations of the site, and, as its inhabitants lived in houses built of sun-dried bricks, the hills gradually rose in height. Of the two hills, the North Kurgan was of earliest formation, its earlier strata containing the remains of a stone-age culture, and its upper culture representing an aeneolithic stage of civilization. The third culture, that of the lowest strata in the South Kurgan, dates from a copper age. The archaeological part of the work was directed by Dr. Schmidt, and to his admirable method of noting the precise spot and level of every object recovered we owe the possibility of tracing the gradual development of culture during the successive periods of settlement. Moreover, the Transcaspian railway passes little more than half a mile to the north of the northern mound, or Kurgan. Hence there was no[Pg 356] difficulty and little risk involved in the conveyance to Europe of all the archaeological material obtained. The collection of animal bones from the North Kurgan weighed nearly half a ton, but they were despatched without difficulty to Dr. Duerst of Zurich, who contributed a report on them to the record of the second expedition.
Fig. 69. Designs on painted potsherds of the Aeneolithic period (Culture II.) from the North Kurgan at Anau.—From Pumpelly, Expl. in Turk., I., p. 133, Nos. 106-113.
The cultural progress of the three periods is, however, most clearly revealed by the pottery, which exhibits a gradual evolution in form, technique, and decoration. Although the vessels of the first two cultures are hand-made, and the wheel was not introduced until Culture III., yet the vessels of both earlier epochs are excellent ceramic productions. It has already been noted that many of the geometric designs occurring on pottery of the earlier periods from the North Kurgan bear a certain resemblance to similar pottery found by MM. Gautier and Lampre at Mussian, and by M. de Morgan at Susa. This may well point to some connection between the stone and early metal-using cultures of Transcaspia and Elam; while the baked clay figurines from the copper culture of the South Kurgan may be held to prove some early cultural contact with the Sumerians.[8]
Mr. Pumpelly himself would regard the Central Asian oases as the fountain-head of Western Asiatic culture. According to his theory, they were isolated from Europe and Africa from the Glacial period onwards, and their cultural requirements were evolved in complete independence. Changes in climatic conditions, however, took place, under which the early civilizations in these regions tended to disappear, and these gave rise to extensive migrations, which reacted in turn on the outside world. In support of his theory he would trace the early appearance of wheat and barley both in Egypt and Babylonia, and the presence of certain breeds of domestic animals, to their first establishment in the Transcaspian oases. But, in addition to differences in their ceramics, the total absence of any form of writing in the mounds at Anau tells against any theory necessitating a very close racial connection between the early inhabitants of the oases and the Sumerians of Babylonia.
The evidence, in fact, does not justify us in placing the original home of the Sumerians at Anau, nor indeed in any particular spot in Central Asia or Iran that has yet been examined. But it serves to indicate the region of the world in which we may expect that future excavations will reveal data of a more conclusive character. It may be that the ruined sites of Seistan and the Kirman province will exhibit closer parallels with the civilizations of Elam and Sumer. Meanwhile it is clear that some contact must have taken place between the early peoples of the latter countries and the settlements to the north of the Kopet Dagh. We may thus picture the Sumerians before their arrival in Babylonia as inhabitants of some district to the east of the Euphrates valley, where they evolved the elements of their culture, which is already found in a comparatively advanced stage of development on the earliest of South Babylonian sites.
A further result of the recent explorations in Turkestan is that an adequate explanation is afforded of the unrest in Central Asia, which gave rise to the Sumerian immigration and to similar racial movements westward. It may now be regarded as established that periods of desiccation and extreme aridity have led to the abandonment of extensive tracts of country, with the result that their former inhabitants have, from time to time, been forced to seek sanctuary in more favoured districts. While nomad tribes in their search for fresh pasturage might drift over the broad steppes to the north and west of Turkestan, the agricultural peoples on its southern border would be forced[Pg 358] to turn south of the Caspian. The bleak uplands of the Iranian plateau offer small attractions for permanent settlement, and the routes of the migrant tribes would naturally lead in the direction of Asia Minor and the Mesopotamian plain. Such a condition of unrest in Central Asia would naturally react on peoples at a considerable distance, and this fact explains the periodical invasions to which Babylonia has been subjected from the east. It may be added that the immigration of Semitic tribes into Syria and Northern Babylonia should possibly be traced to physical causes of a like nature. Periods of aridity may have occurred in the central portions of the Arabian continent, and may have given rise to the Semitic invasions of prehistoric and historic times.
Thus it is possible that the two races, which we find in possession of Sumer and Akkad during the earliest historical periods, though they arrived from opposite quarters, were forced into the region of the Euphrates by causes of a precisely similar character. As the Semites, on their way northwards from Arabia, colonized the Syrian coast-lands through which they passed, so the Sumerian race may well have left permanent traces of its presence in the valleys and more fertile oases of Iran. There are already indications that work on Syrian and West Mesopotamian sites will throw a flood of light upon the problems of early Semitic history, and it may perhaps fall to the lot of a fortunate excavator, in some region east of the Euphrates valley, to recover the cult-images of primitive Sumerian gods, and to bring to light examples of the picture-writing from which the early cuneiform characters were derived.
[2] Accounts of the first expedition were published under the title "Explorations in Turkestan," as Publication No. 26 of the Carnegie Institution of Washington (1905). The various monographs on the results of the second expedition are published in two volumes, entitled "Explorations in Turkestan; Expedition of 1904," as Publication No. 73 (1908) of the same institution. Both works were edited by Mr. Raphael Pumpelly, who in 1906 had already summarized his conclusions in his Presidential Address before the Geological Society of America (see "Bulletin of the Geol. Soc. of Amer.," Vol. 17, pp. 637 ff.). In a separate volume, entitled "The Pulse of Asia," Mr. Huntington has given an account of his more recent journey.
[3] Cf. Geikie, "The Great Ice Age and its Relation to the Antiquity of Man," 3rd ed., pp. 694, 698. In 1894, Prof. James Geikie had noted the probability that glacial phenomena were more extensively developed in the mountains and tablelands of Asia than he felt justified in representing in his Glacial Map of Asia. In it he incorporated only the results of previous observations, at the same time emphasizing its "necessarily unsatisfactory character" (op. cit., p. 831, PI. xiii.). This lack of evidence has now in great measure been remedied.
[4] Loess was formerly regarded as simply a deposit of glacial or fluvial origin, but Richthofen's theory that its subsequent distribution was largely due to wind-transport (cf. "China," Bd. I., pp. 56 ff.) is now generally accepted. The fact that it is found heaped up against the sides of mountains and contains land, and not water, shells, is unanswerable evidence. For its general character and distribution, see Sir Archibald Geikie's "Text-book of Geology," 4th ed., I., pp. 439 f.; II., p. 1351. It may be noted that the formation of loess-beds and sand-deserts is a continuous process at the present day, under the strong winds which prevail in certain seasons in Central Asia; and even when there is little wind the air is often thick with fine dust. The reverse of the process is visible in the effects of wind-erosion, very striking instances of which have been described by Dr. Stein; cp. e.g. "Ruins of Khotan," p. 189 f., and "Ancient Khotan." I., p. 107.
[5] It should be noted that the substance of the dunes around Khotan is to be distinguished from the true drifting sand of other Central Asian deserts. For Prof. de Lóczy has shown by analysis that there is almost complete uniformity in composition between the recently formed fertile loess of Yotkan (the site of the ancient capital of Khotan) and the moving "sand" now surrounding and covering the ancient sites in the desert; cf. "Ancient Khotan," I., pp. 127 f., 199, 242. The thickness of pure loess above the culture stratum at Yotkan was no less than from nine to eleven feet, a fact which had led earlier European visitors to suppose that some catastrophe, such as a great flood, had overwhelmed the old town. It is merely a striking example of the manner in which vegetation, under irrigation, catches and retains the floating loess-dust.
[6] After his recent journey Dr. Stein writes of the Khotan region that it appears to him certain that "the water-supply at present available in the Yurung-kash could under no system whatever be made to suffice for the irrigation of the whole of the large tracts now abandoned to the desert, and for this broad fact desiccation alone supplies an adequate explanation"; see the "Geographical Journal," vol. xxxiv. (1909), p. 17.
[7] For a discussion of the modern theories as to the laws governing climatic changes and the possibility of their cyclical recurrence, see Huntington, "The Pulse of Asia," pp. 365 ff. It seems most probable that the changes are of solar origin, the variations being caused by varying forms of heat and other energy received from the sun. Such changes would be more intensely felt in mid-continental areas, where high mountains tend to intercept moisture from the sea, which is precipitated without hindrance in the peripheral or coastal regions.
[8] See above, pp. 340 ff. For photographic reproductions of clay figurines from the South Kurgan, see the plate facing p. 352. It will be noted that the figurines are clearly of the Babylonian type. The resemblance may be emphasized by contrast with the terra-cotta figurines of a very much later date discovered by Dr. Stein at Yotkan; see "Ruins of Khotan," p. 261. Moreover, lapis-lazuli is already found in the second culture of the North Kurgan. This points to commercial intercourse with regions still further east on the part of the Anau settlements; but the employment of lapis-lazuli by the Sumerians may be cited as further evidence in favour of some early cultural connection on their part with Anau.
EXPLANATORY NOTE.—p. = patesi; k. = king; a comma after a ruler's name indicates that he was succeeded by his son. A dotted line (......) joins the names of rulers who are proved to have been contemporaries; the position of names within parentheses is conjectural. In Table I., Col. II. the rulers belong to Kish, and in Col. IV. to Umma, unless otherwise stated. In Table III. (see p. 362) the figures which follow the name of a king represent the number of years he ruled.
Aa, gifts to, 223
Abba-dugga, 313
Abi-ishar, seal of, 246
Abû Habba, site of Sippar, 8 f.;
excavations at, 37, 223;
objects and inscriptions from, 204, 206, 212, 218, 223, 235,
250, 309 f.
Abû Hatab, site of Kisurra, 9;
excavations at, 28 ff.;
plan of, 29;
inscribed brick from, 284;
contracted burials at, 331
Abû Khuwâsîj, 31
Abû Shahrain, site of Eridu, 35;
excavations at, 35 f.; plan of, 36
Abydos, 323 f., 332;
recent diggings at, 324, 326 f., 332
Abyssinia, 334
Abzu-banda, 111, 189 f.
Abzu-ega, 190
Accounts, tablets of, 169, 177, 284, 293
Achaemenian kings, 337
Adab, site of, 9, 97, 163;
excavations at, 30;
in relation to Euphrates, 11;
its commercial relations with Lagash, 238;
destruction of, 31 f.;
see also Bismâya
Adamdun, situation of, 290;
patesis of, 292
Adda-Pakshu, sukkal of Elam, 306 f.;
tablets from period of, 336
Addatur, 113
Adhem, 7, 287
Aegean, sites, 81;
Asiatic coast of, 347;
sea-rovers of, 347
Aegean culture, stages of, 1;
its early connection with Egypt, 341;
traces of Babylonian influence in, 322, 345 ff.;
wild comparisons between Aegean and Babylonian art, 344 f.
Aenragin, 171
'Afej marshes, 85 f.
Agade, older name of Akkad, 14;
site of, 37;
Sargon of, 216 ff.;
see Akkad
Agathias, 312
Agia Paraskevi, 344
Aha, mastaba-tomb of, 323
'Akarkûf, 38
Akhush, 189 f.
Akkad, city, site of, 37;
early centre of Semitic settlement, 53;
in relation to Kish, 210 f., 214 f., 228, 231 f., 249;
in relation to Elam, 226;
"sons," or citizens, of, 208, 211;
siege of, 240;
Dynasty of, 216 ff, 252 ff., 351 f.;
in relation to the Dynasty of Ur, 253;
kings of Sumer and, 362
Akkad, land, limits of, 6 f., 12 f.;
name of, 13 ff., 17;
inhabitants of, 40 ff.;
Semitic immigration into, 203;
system of land tenure in, 95;
influence of art of, 66;
early relations with Elam, 214, 244;
cultural connections with Elam, 335 ff.
Akkadian, the Semitic speech of Babylonia, 52 f.
Akkadians, the Semitic inhabitants of Northern Babylonia, 4;
former use of the term, 4
Akkadû, 14
Akki, 232
Akurgal, patesi of Lagash, 117 f.;
sculptured figures of, 112 ff.;
in chronological table, 360
Al[...], king of Kish, 141;
in chronological table, 360
Al-Batîha, 8
Al-Gimil-Sin, "the City of Gimil-Sin," 301
Aliakhu, 208
Alla, patesi of Lagash, 296;
in chronological table, 362
Alla, resident in Lagash, 237
Alloys, evidence as to use of, 73 f.
Alluvium, limit of Babylonian, 7
Alu-usharshid, a former reading of the name Urumush or Rimush, 203
Amageshtin, temple of, 190
Amal, temple of, 226, 232
[Pg 364]Amananu, governor of Sippar, 316
Amanus, 261
Amat-Bati, 171
Amattar-sirsirra, 184
Ambar Su, 244
Amiaud, Arthur, 18, 20, 109
Ammi-zaduga, 307
Amorite invasion, disproved in reign of Libit-Ishtar, 284
Amurru (Martu), a West Semitic god, 344
Amurru, the Western Semites, 55;
origin of, 55
Amurru, the Western Land, 261, 300, 321;
Sargon's conquest of, 225, 233 f.;
its king deported, 244;
slaves from, 238;
relation of kings of Isin to, 311, 315 f.;
Babylonian influence in and beyond, 322
Ana, 194, 196, 198; see also Anu
Anatolia, 346 f.
Anau, excavations at, 2, 351, 355 f.;
potsherds from, 341, 355 f.;
terra-cotta figurines from, 342, 356;
wheat and barley found in earliest stratum at, 332, 357
Andrae, W., 11, 22 ff., 28 f.,78, 330
Anikurra, 112
Animal cults, Egyptian, 334
Animal forms, Sumerian treatment of, 80
Animal motives, on Elamite painted pottery, 341 f.;
on proto-Elamite seal-impressions, 342
Anita, 112 ff., 116
Anshan, its conquest by Manishtusu, 224, 231, 244;
its conquest by Gudea, 279, 289;
alliance of Dungi's daughter with the patesi of, 287;
its conquest by Dungi, 288;
officials for, 290;
a patesi of, 292;
captivity of Ibi-Sin in, 304;
its success against Ur, 308;
its defeat by Anu-mutabil, 308
Antasurra, 146, 189 f.
Antimony, 73 f.
Anu, 48, 104, 275;
see also Ana
Anu-banini, king of Lulubu, 250
Anu-mutabil, governor of Dêr, 308
Anunitu, 226, 232, 268
Anunpad, 113
Anzanite inscriptions, 206, 212
Apirak, 241, 243
Apil-Sin, contracts of reign of, 316
Arabesque pattern, on Sumerian sealing, 176
Arabia, 242, 251, 258, 261, 323, 358
Arabian desert, 6
Arad-Nannar, patesi of Lagash, 301 f.;
in chronological table, 362
Archers, in the army of Ur, 286
Architect, Gudea as, 260 f., 269
Archive-chambers, at Tello, 293
Ark, of bulrushes, 232
Armanu, 242
Art, comparison of early Sumerian
and Akkadian, 228 f.;
of Kish and Akkad, 230
Arua, 149 ff.
Asar, Osiris, 325
Asari, Sumerian god, 325
Ashnunnak, or Tupliash, 306;
under Manishtusu, 212;
patesis of, 306
Ashukhu-wood, 261
Ashur, 287
Ashur-bani-pal, 12, 204 f.;
tablets from Library of, 4, 59, 217, 299, 303 f.
Asia Minor, 342, 347, 358;
Central, 54, 351 ff.
Askhabad, 351, 355
Asphalt, 261; see also Bitumen
Asses, for chariots, 162;
House of the, 259
Assyria, 7
Assyrian kings, their policy of deportation, 240
Assyrians, sculpture of, 68 ff.;
omen-literature of, 206
Astrological texts, 217
Asukhur Canal, 109, 149 f.
Axe, Sumerian form of, 137
Az, 150 f., 290
Azupirânu, 232
Bab el-Mandeb, Straits of, 323
Babbar, 84, 124, 127, 129, 148, 194, 281
Babishue, 301
Babylon, 13, 38, 309;
excavations at, 37;
pot-burials and early remains at, 30, 37;
Sargon's buildings at, 226, 236;
Dungi's sack of, 281 ff., 285;
in relation to the Dynasty of Isin, 63 f., 313 ff.;
rise of, 319;
in relation to the Dynasty of the Sea-country, 62 f.;
her struggle with Larsa, 318 f.;
her position in later history, 319 f.
Babylonia, in the Neolithic period, 2;
relics of prehistoric culture in, 342;
her early cultural influence, 321 ff.;
in relation to Egypt, 322 ff., 334 f.;
in relation to Elam, 335 ff.;
in the West, 322, 343 ff.
Babylonian Chronicle, 62
Babylonian Monarchy, foundation of, 63 f., 313 ff.
[Pg 365]Bad-mada, 296
Badu, king of Lagash, 105;
in chronological table, 360
Baga, 189 f.
Baghdad, 38 f., 218
Bahr Nejef, 10
Banar, 114
Banks, E. J., 97
Barakhsu, 205, 308
Baraz-sîrim, Field of, 206
Barges, for grain, 262
Barkiba, 160
Barley, 357;
in earliest stratum at Anau, 332
Barnamtarra, wife of Lugal-anda, 170 f., 173
Barsagannudu, 113 f.
Barshib, 261
Basalla, 261
Basar, 225
Basha-mama, patesi of Lagash, 254;
in chronological table, 361
Basha-Shushinak, patesi of Susa, 214, 289;
period of, 305;
proto-Elamite inscriptions of, 338
Basime, 209
Bas-reliefs, Sumerian, 66 ff., 110 ff., 129 ff.;
early Semitic, 220 f., 228 f., 242 f., 247 ff.;
Assyrian, 68 ff., 82
Battle-axe, Sumerian use of the, 286;
of Narâm-Sin, 243
Battle-mace, 131, 156
Battle-scenes, 135 ff., 220, 230, 247 ff.
Bau, 108, 181, 185 f., 271, 275, 296;
temples of, 259, 264, 267, 269, 273, 298;
bowls dedicated to, 107 ff.;
representation of, 135
Bau-ninam, official of Ur-Ningirsu, 275 f.
Bavian, 63
Baz, Field of, 206
Bazuzu, father of Utug, 103
Bead-making, Egyptian art of, 328
Bedouin custom, 40
Bêl, name of, 52;
the god Marduk, 282
Belaku, patesi of Ashnunnak, 306
Beleous, 312
Beletaras, 312
Beli-arik, patesi of Susa, 291, 305
Berber dialects, 323
Berossus, 53, 59;
Dynasties of, 63
Berthelot, M. P. E., 73
Bezold, Prof. C., 344
Bi-Gani-sharri, 246
Bilâdhuri, 8
Bilingual compositions, 4
Bin-Gani-sharri, son of Narâm-Sin, 246
Bint el-Mderre, 31
Birs, site of Borsippa, 10
Bismâya, site of Adab, 9;
excavations at, 30, 97;
character of buildings uncovered at, 89
Bitumen, 76, 212, 262
"Black-headed ones," 40
Blau monuments, 65
Boat-inspectors, 181
Boats, for transport, 235, 261
Body-paint, 27, 330
Boeotia, Neolithic potsherds from, 341
Boissier, A., 205, 304, 309
Borsippa, 10, 13; excavations at, 37
Bosanquet, Prof. R. C., 346
Boundary-ditch, between Lagash and Umma, 126;
of Ur-Engur, 282;
see also Frontier
Boundary-stones, 143
Bow, introduced by the Semites, 247 f., 286;
of Narâm-Sin, 243;
adopted by Dungi, 287
Breasted, Prof. J. H., 334
Breccia, 270 f.
Bricks, of Sumer, 13;
character of Babylonian, 91;
plano-convex, 26, 35, 91, 94, 332;
change in size of, 263 f.;
manufacture of, 267;
stamped with figure of Imgig, 98;
origin of the Egyptian brick, 323, 332
Brick-stamps, 75, 219
Bronze, evidence with regard to, 72 ff.;
later Elamite work in, 337
Budge, Dr. E. A. Wallis, 37, 160, 329
Bull-monsters, proto-Elamite, 242
Bulls, as offerings, 129, 140;
copper figures of, 256;
human-headed, 77, 330
Bûr-Sin I., king of Ur, reign of, 296 ff.;
expeditions of, 299;
buildings of, 298;
in relation to Enlil, 297;
statue of, 298;
his deification and cult, 298;
his survival as a deity in the Moon-god's suite, 299, 344;
in chronological table, 362
Bûr-Sin II., king of Isin, 312;
in chronological table, 362
Burial, of the dead, 21;
different forms of, 26 f., 30;
after battle, 138 f., 149, 331;
Egyptian and Babylonian fashions of, 325 f., 331 f.;
earliest Susian form of, 331 f.
Burial fees, 181 f.
Burial-mounds, after battle, 125, 162 331
Burrows, Prof. R. M., 345
[Pg 366]Buwârîya, 33
Canals, 3, 107, 153 ff., 185
Canopic branch, of the Nile, 324
Cappadocia, 339;
prehistoric pottery from, 341
Caravan-routes, from the Iranian plateau, 335
Carnegie Institution, of Washington, 351 f.
Caspian, 353, 355, 358
Casting, in metal, 72 ff.
Cattle, transport of, 235, 237
Cedar, remains of pillars of, 93;
from Mt. Amanus, 261
Cedar-groves, sacred, 267
Cemeteries, in Upper Egypt, 326
Central Arabia, 358
Central Asia, 54, 351 ff.
Cesnola, General di, 343
Chamberlain, royal, 115
Chariots, of war, 162;
representation of a, 134
Chialy Effendi, 245
China, 353
Chinese, 54
Chinese Turkestan, 351, 354
Chronicle, the Babylonian, 62;
of Sargon and Narâm-Sin, 220, 225, 233 ff., 240 f.;
concerning early Babylonian kings, 282, 312;
Dynastic, from Nippur, 59, 63, 279 f., 303, 308 f., 311 f., 315
Chronicles, Hebrew Books of, 240
Chronological table, of kings and rulers of Sumer and Akkad, 360 ff.
Chronology, classes of data for determining, 57 ff.;
Babylonian, 62 ff.;
of the later Sumerian period, 315
Chicago, Exploration Fund of the University of, 30
Chieftains, meeting of, 45 f.
Chipiez, Charles, 66
Cilician Gates, 347
Citadel Tell, at Susa, 339
Cities, in Babylonia, 16 ff.;
origin of, 84 f.;
communication between, 237
City-gods, origin and development of, 84 f.;
description of a, 268;
position of, 101 f.;
in relation to the patesi, 181;
disputes between, 101, 121 f.
City-states, development of, 84 f., 321;
wars of the, 120 ff.;
weakening and decay of the, 239 f., 252
Clay, Prof. A. T., 9, 52, 228
Clay tablet, borrowed by Elam, 338 f.;
introduced into Cappadocia, 339;
reached Crete, 345
Climatic changes, a cause of racial migrations, 354, 357 f.
Clothing, Sumerian and Semitic, 41 f.
Code, of Hammurabi, 184;
Sumerian origin of, 184, 348;
of Gudea, 272;
see also Laws
Codes, legal, 347
Colour-dishes, for face or body-paint, 27, 330
Commercial intercourse, in Babylonia, 237 f.;
with foreign countries, 238, 321 f.
Conch-shells, cylinders and plaques from, 78
Cones, votive, 258;
of copper, 256;
coloured, 34;
historical, 164 f., 178 ff.
Confiscation, Sumerian laws against, 182
Constantinople, 218
Contract tablets, 64
Contracted burial, Sumerian practice of, 331
Convoys, early service of, 237, 244
Copper, Babylonian evidence with regard to, 72 ff.;
objects from Fâra, 3, 26 f.;
from Kimash, 261;
lance of, 229;
known to predynastic Egyptians, 326;
its displacement of flint in Egypt, 327;
effect of Egyptian skill in working, 327
Copper-mines, in Elam, 261
Corn, tribute of, 164;
fees of, 181 f.;
see also Grain
Corvée, 182
Couriers, 291
Court, expenses of the, 169
Crenelated buildings, Egyptian and Sumerian, 332
Crenelation, in walls of early Egyptian buildings, 323
Crete, traces of Babylonian culture in, 345 f.;
parallels between cultures of Elam and, 341
Cros, Commandant Gaston, 17, 172, 189, 269
Cruciform monument, from Sippar, 223
Cult-centres, 84, 321
Cult-images, 50, 358
Cults, survival of Sumerian, 347
Cuneiform writing, invention of, 65, 348;
the Sumerian form the parent of other systems, 348
Cupbearers, 112 f., 236
Cuq, Prof. Edouard, 184
Curium, 343
Cutha, 8 f., 13, 37 f., 283, 293;
[Pg 367]centre of Nergal's cult, 38
Cylinders, of Gudea, 266 f.
Cylinder-seal, early migrations of the, 333 f.;
introduced into Babylonia by Sumerians, 333;
possible Egyptian evolution of the, 333 f.;
earliest form of, 334
Cylinder-seals, engraving of, 78;
composite monsters on, 77;
official use of, 236 f.;
Sumerian, 3, 27, 48, 174 ff., 284;
early Semitic or Akkadian, 176, 229, 344;
Egyptian, 322, 334 f.;
Cypriote, 343 f.;
Cyro-Cappadocian and Hittite, 344;
Cretan, 346
Cyprus, prehistoric pottery of, 341;
its alleged conquest by Sargon of Agade, 234, 343;
inadequate evidence for the theory, 343 f.;
extent of Babylonian influence in, 234, 343 ff.
Dada, patesi of Shuruppak, 283
Dada, magician, 237
Dagan, 284
Daggers, Sumerian, 79;
engraved panels from handles of, 81 f.
Damgalnunna, temple of, 294
Damik-ilishu, king of Isin, 309, 316 ff., 319;
in chronological table, 362
Date-formulæ, 225, 257 f., 285, 295
Date-lists, 58
Dates, trade in, 237
Dâti-Enlil, father of Shar-Gani-sharri, 227, 232
Dating, methods of, 57 f., 168, 170, 219, 318
De Clercq Collection, 158, 218, 308
De la Fuÿe, Col. Allotte, 168 ff., 170, 173 ff.
De Lancy, Barré, 218
De Morgan, J., 39, 66, 206, 212, 324, 330, 332, 335, 337,
339 ff., 356
De Sarzec, E., 17 ff., 77 f., 90, 92 f., 96, 130, 169, 258,
261, 266, 270, 332
Dead, treatment of the, 21, 26 f., 125, 138 ff., 149, 162, 331;
Egyptian worship of the, 334
Decadence, in Sumerian art, 82
Deification, of early Babylonian kings, 203, 222, 251, 273 f.,
288, 298 f., 310;
effect of, 300 ff.;
origin of, 273 f., 335
Deir, 37
Deke, 31
Delitzsch, Prof. Friedrich, 5, 12, 317
Delta, Egyptian, 2, 324, 334
Demonology, 76
Deportation, policy of, 239 f.
Dêr, 226, 285, 308
Dhorme, Père Paul, 228
Diarbekr, 244 f.
Dilbat, 319
Dilmun, 235, 262, 291
Diorite, 71;
from Magan, 242, 258, 262, 269 f.
Disk, from Phaestos, 346
Divination, by oil, 183
Diviners, professional, 183
Divorce, fees for, 183 f.;
abuse of, 184
Dîwânîya, 85
Diyala, 287
Door-sockets, 219
Dorians, 50
Doves, as offerings, 128 f.
Dragons, in Sumerian art, 77
Drainage, systems of, 345
Dreams, of Eannatum, 124; of Gudea, 266
Dress, 41 ff., 111 f.
Drill, in engraving, 78, 344
Droop, J. P., 341
Dubâ'i, 31
Dudu, official at Ur-Ninâ's court, 113
Dudu, chief priest of Ningirsu under Entemena, 166 ff.;
perforated block of, 100, 110, 166
Duerst, Dr. J. Ulrich, 356
Dugru, of Ningirsu, 190
Dumuzi-abzu, 190
Dun-..., patron deity of Ur-Ninâ's dynasty, 109, 177
Dungi, king of Ur, policy of, 282;
empire of, 253, 285 f.;
his adoption of the bow, 286 f.;
Elamite campaigns of, 287;
provincial administration of, 288 ff.;
buildings of, 293 f.;
copper cone of, 256;
deification of, 274, 288;
cult of, 274, 298 f.;
in chronological table, 362
Dungi-Babbar, 295
Dunpae, 299
Dunshagga, 109, 181, 267;
temples to, 185, 264
Dûr-ilu, former reading of the name of Der, 226
Dûr-Sharrukîn, 217
Dûr-Sin, 206
Dynastic Chronicle, from Nippur, 59, 63, 279 f., 303,
308 f., 311 f., 315
Dynastic Egyptians, 323
Dynastic lists, 59
Dynasties, Babylonian, 62 f.
E-abzu, king of Umma, 97
[Pg 368]E-anna, in Erech, 12, 33, 196, 280, 293;
in Lagash, 121, 161, 190, 264, 269, 273
E-babbar, in Sippar, 218, 268;
in Larsa, 186;
in Lagash, 186, 189
E-ditar-kalama, 319
E-engur, 190
E-khalbi, 294
E-kharsag, 294
E-kur, 32, 86, 88,193, 198, 201, 235, 281, 297
E-meslam, 293
E-meteursagga, 39
E-ninnû, 77, 107 f., 160, 168, 185, 261, 265 ff., 269,
272, 274, 276, 296;
earliest mention of, 95;
remains of, 19, 259
E-pa, 108, 264
E-patutila, 319
E-sagila, 282
E-salgilsa, 296
E-silsirsir, 273
E-ulmash, 217
Ea, 246, 289; see Enki
Ea-[...], king of Isin, 313;
in chronological table, 362
Ea-bani, figures identified with, 77, 174 f.
Eagle, as emblem, 133;
lion-headed, 81 f.
Eannatum, patesi of Lagash, 42 f., 68, 104, 192, 229 f.;
reign of, 120 ff.;
conquests of, 144 ff.;
character of, 152, 155 f.;
titles of, 152;
buildings and canals of, 152 ff.;
well of, 93, 155;
representations of, 136 ff., 140 f.;
in chronological table, 360
Ebarti, Elamite dynasty of, 306, 308
Eclipse, 62
Edfu, 324;
legend of, 324
Egypt, Palaeolithic and Neolithic remains in, 2;
recent excavations on early sites in, 324 ff.;
early cultural connections with Babylonia, 78, 322 ff., 332 f.,
328, 334 f., 346;
suggested relations with Elam, 340 f., 345;
early influence in Syria, 334 f., 346;
connection with Hittite culture, 346;
with the Aegean, 341;
hypothetical Semitic invasion of Upper, 323 ff., 328;
granaries of, 92
Egyptian culture, 326 ff.;
legends, 323 f.;
language, 323;
religion, Semitic element in, 334;
writing, origin of, 329 f.
Egyptians, Neolithic and predynastic, 1, 323, 332;
early dynastic, 323, 332
Ekikala, 189
El-Hibba, excavations at, 20 f.;
inscriptions from, 157 ff.
El-Katr, 8
El-Ohêmir, site of Kish, 8 f., 38 f.
Elam, prehistoric peoples of, 342;
prehistoric pottery of, 340 ff.;
early cultural relations with Babylonia, 321, 335 ff.;
suggested cultural parallels with Egypt, 340 f., 345;
with Crete, 341;
frontier of, 6 f.;
defeated by Eannatum, 145, 148 ff., 160;
defeated by Lu-enna, 172;
relations of Manishtusu with, 212 ff., 231;
conquered by Urumush, 205, 231;
relations of Sargon and Narâm-Sin with, 225 f., 231 f., 243 f.;
commercial intercourse with, 238, 289;
early Semitic immigration into, 250, 289, 336;
Gudea's campaign in, 258;
Dungi's conquest and administration of, 287 ff., 292;
under the later kings of Ur, 299 f., 304;
defeated by Anu-mutabil, 308;
Elamite invasions, 304 f., 308, 311;
copper mines in, 261;
craftsmen from, 261 f.;
patesis of, 231, 243, 305;
governors of, 306;
sukkals of, 306;
sculpture and metal-work of, 337
Elamite titles, 306 ff.
Elamites, 54
Embalming, of the dead, 332
Emblems, sacred, 267;
of Ningirsu, 98;
of a goddess, 133;
of Lagash, 98, 100, 131, 134, 167;
of a city, 150;
Elamite origin of certain Babylonian, 342
Enakalli, patesi of Umma, 126;
successor of, 158 f.;
in chronological table, 360
Enannatum I., patesi of Lagash, 157 ff.;
titles of, 160;
in chronological table, 360
Enannatum II., patesi of Lagash, 168 ff.;
raid of Elamites in reign of, 172;
in chronological table, 360
Enannatum, chief priest of the Moon-god at Ur, 310 f.
Enbi-Ishtar, king of Kish, 202 f.;
racial character of, 53; in chronological table, 360
Enbu-ilum, 203
Enetarzi, patesi of Lagash, 169 ff.;
letter to, 172;
in chronological table, 360
Engilsa, patesi of Lagash, 176, 209 f.;
in chronological table, 360
[Pg 369]Engraving, of stone, shell, etc., 78 ff., 347;
of metal, 78, 167, 229
Eniggal, royal steward, 170; sealings of, 173
Enkhegal, king of Lagash, 106;
in chronological table, 360
Enki, 48, 84 f., 107, 128 f., 148, 167, 194, 246, 275, 301;
his temple in Eridu, 35 f., 108, 293, 298;
his temple in Girsu, 259
Enkigal, 158
Enkomi, 344
Enlil, 85, 101, 103 f., 128, 165 f., 193 f., 196, 198 f., 201,
289, 294, 297;
his temple at Nippur, 87 f., 219, 244, 281;
his temple in Lagash, 185, 189;
frontier shrine to, 127;
canal dedicated to, 107;
name of, 52
Enlil-bani, king of Isin, 312;
in chronological table, 362
Enlitarzi, patesi of Lagash, 168 ff.;
in chronological table, 360
Enlulim, 268
Enshagkushanna, lord of Sumer, 201;
in chronological table, 360
Ensignun, 259, 268
Entemena, patesi of Lagash, 52, 90, 125;
reign of, 161 ff.;
silver vase of, 78, 167 f.;
cone of, 100 ff., 117, 122, 126 f., 143, 154, 157 ff, 164 f.;
in chronological table, 360
Enzu, 84, 128 f., 148, 194
Eponym Lists, 62
Erech, 9 f., 12 f., 84, 104, 147, 152, 163, 186, 194 f., 198 ff,
214, 238, 240, 279 f., 293, 298, 304, 310 f., 313, 317 f.;
excavations at, 32 ff.;
see also Warka
Eridu, 6, 13,84 f., 148,152, 167, 197, 282, 293, 298, 310 f.;
excavations at, 35 f.;
see also Abû Shahrain Erinda, 246
Erythraean Sea, 53
Esar, king of Adab, 97 f.
Estates, purchase of, 206 ff.
Euphrates, names of, 9;
changes in course of, 7 ff.;
contrasted with Tigris, 11 f.;
period of high water in, 11 f.;
at Nippur, 88 f.
Evans, Dr. Arthur, 345 f.
Excavations, in Sumer and Akkad, 16 ff.;
in Egypt, 324 ff.;
in Persia, 335, 339 f.;
in Turkestan, 351 f., 355 f.
Eyes, of statues, 76, 212 f.
Face-paint, 330
Falûja, 10, 38
Fâra, site of Shuruppak, 9, 28, 84;
excavations at, 24 ff.;
plan of, 25;
discoveries at, 3, 65, 89, 331, 345;
objects from, 73, 78, 283, 330
Fees, priestly, 181 f.;
of diviners, 183;
of the grand vizir and patesi, 183;
for divorce, 183
Fetish emblems, 329
Figurines, of terra-cotta, 342, 356;
in precious metals, 337
Fire-necropoles, so-called, 21
Fish, as offerings, 129
Fisher, C. S., 8, 86 ff.
Fishery inspectors, 181
Fish-men, 53
Fish-ponds, 182;
sacred, 268
Flint-knapping, 327
Flints, Egyptian, 2, 326 f.
Flute-player, to Ningirsu, 268
Forced labour, 164, 182;
see also Slaves
Fossey, Prof. Charles, 6, 17
Foucart, G., 329
Foundation-figures, 72 ff.
Foundation-offerings, 337
Fresnel, F., 218
Frontier-ditches, 126 ff., 153 f., 159, 162, 164 f.
Frontier-shrines, 127 f., 159
Funeral rites, 140 f.
Galalim, 185, 264, 267
Galu-andul, patesi of Lagash, 296;
in chronological table, 362
Galu-Babbar, patesi of Umma, 23, 258;
in chronological table, 361
Galu-Bau, patesi of Lagash, 255, 257;
in chronological table, 361
Galu-Gula, patesi of Lagash, 255, 257;
in chronological table, 361
Galu-kazal, patesi of Lagash, 296;
in chronological table, 362
Gankhar, 287, 301 f., 308
Garments, Sumerian and Semitic, 41 ff, 111 f.;
as fees, 181;
trade in, 237
Garstang, Prof. J., 341
Gatumdug, 108, 152, 168, 190, 264, 266, 269, 271
Gautier, J.-E., 220, 336, 340, 356
Geikie, Sir Archibald, 353
Geikie, Prof. James, 353
Genouillac, H. de, 112, 116, 162, 169 ff., 173, 176, 179, 184,
190, 193, 273
Geometric designs, on pottery, 341
Geshtin-anna, 259
Ghiaur Kala, 354
[Pg 370]Gifts, accompanying the sale of land, 95, 207
Gigunû, 274
Gikana, of Ninmakh, 189
Gilding, of carved stone objects, 270
Gilgamesh, figures identified with, 75 ff., 174 f.;
epic of, 9
Gimdunpae, wife of Gudea, 272
Gimil-ilishu, king of Isin, 309 f.;
in chronological table, 362
Gimil-Sin, king of Ur, 284;
reign of, 297 ff.;
cult of, 298, 301;
in chronological table, 362
Ginarbaniru, 190
Girnun, 268
Girsu, a division of Lagash, 108, 152, 163, 190, 193;
temples in, 259, 264, 296, 301;
House of, 91, 108;
wall of, 186;
canal of, 185
Gisha, 290
Gishkhu, Gishukh, former readings of the name of Umma, 21
Gladstone, Dr. J. H., 73
Gods, racial character of Sumerian, 47 ff.;
earliest Babylonian, 84 f.;
Sumerian and Egyptian, 325;
symbols for Egyptian, 329
Gold, despatch of, 237
Gold-dust, 261
Grain, as tribute, 127;
fees of, 182;
trade in, 237;
value of land reckoned in, 207
Grain-barges, 235, 262
Granary-inspectors, 181
Grand vizir, seal of, 236
Graves, at Fâra, 26 f.;
at Surgliul and El-Hibba, 21 f.;
at Abû Hatab, 30;
at Mukayyar, 30, 35;
at Warka, 34;
at Babylon, 30, 37;
at Susa, 331 f.;
at Mussian, 2;
in Egypt, 2, 326;
see also Burial
Greece, 341, 345, 347
Greek civilization, 1
Greek cross, 342
Greeks, 346
Grove, sacred, 189
Gu-edin, sacred land of Ningirsu, 117, 121 f., 126, 162;
its freedom from taxation, 271;
divisions of, 127;
Stele of, 154
Gubi, 262
Gubin, 261
Gudea, patesi of Lagash, 42 f., 47, 54, 242, 255, 279, 300, 348;
reign of, 259 ff.;
date of, 61, 64, 256, 276;
buildings of, 18 f., 90 f., 264 ff., 332;
monuments of, 47 f., 259 f., 270;
statutes of, 70 f., 260 ff., 269;
seal of, 48, 270;
cylinders of, 260, 266 f.;
sculpture of the period of, 66, 253, 333;
character of, 271 f.;
deification of, 272 ff.;
cult of, 274, 299;
in chronological table, 361
Gula, 113 f.
Gungunu, king of Ur, 311;
in chronological table, 362
Gunidu, father of Ur-Ninâ, 106
Gursar, grandfather of Ur-Ninâ, 106
Gutebu, 301
Gutiu, 55, 238;
slaves from, 238
Hadadnadinakhe, palace of, 18
Haematite, for face-paint, 330
Hagios Onuphrios, 346
Hair, treatment of the, 40 ff., 72, 97, 112
Halbherr, Prof., 346
Halévy, J., 4 ff., 52
Hall, H. R., 12, 266, 324, 334, 341, 343, 345
Hammâm, 9, 23
Hammurabi, 9, 43, 162, 184, 307, 317 f., 345, 348
Harp, Sumerian form of, 69
Harpoon, Egyptian kingdom of the, 324
Harran, 197
Head-dresses, forms of divine, 51, 133
Hearst Expedition, 328
Hebrews, 132
Helm, Otto, 73
Helmets, Sumerian, 137 f.;
of Narâm-Sin, 243
Hepatoscopy, Sumerian origin of, 348
Herodotus, 40, 332
Hêtime, 30 f.
Heuzey, Léon, 18, 48, 66, 68, 70, 72 f., 77, 92, 95 ff.,
99 f., 107, 111, 151, 166, 219, 229, 241, 244, 247, 255,
263, 265, 269 f., 293, 296, 344
Hieroglyphs, Egyptian, 325;
Hittite, 339;
Minoan, 345;
on Phaestos disk, 346
Hilla, 38
Hilprecht, Prof. H. V., 9, 17, 49, 59 f., 64, 73 f., 86,
98, 102 f., 163, 165, 168, 170, 193, 197, 205, 219, 226,
244, 279, 311 ff., 319
Hît, 7
Hittite culture, 347;
cylinder-seals, 344;
script, 339;
power, 347
Hogarth, D. G., 346 f.
Hommel, Prof. Fritz, 9, 14, 313
Honey, for embalming, 332
Horse, introduction of the, 162
Horus, 324 f.
Hoschander, J., 206
Hrozný, F., 14, 21, 206, 211, 317
Huber, E., 284
[Pg 371]Hulvan, 250
Human-headed bulls, 77, 330
Hunger, J., 183
Huntington, Ellsworth, 352, 354
Huntsman, in suite of Semitic prince, 246
Hyksos, 334
Iamutbal, 317
Ibalpel, patesi of Ashnunnak, 306
Ibalum, 209
Ibi-Sin, king of Ur, 297, 299 f., 304, 308;
in chronological table, 362
Ibla, 261
Ibn Rusta, 8
Ibn Serapion, 8
Ibni-sharru, seal of, 217, 251
Idin-Dagan, king of Isin, 310;
in chronological table, 362
Idin-ilu, patesi of Kisurra, 284
Ikhi, 301
Ili, patesi of Umma, 163 f.;
in chronological table, 360
Ili-Urumush, 203 f.
Ilishma, 231, 243 f.
Ilsu-rabi, patesi of Basime, 209
Ilu-bani, 344
Iluma-ilu, 32
Imagery, in Sumerian art, 77
Imgig, the lion-headed eagle of Ningirsu, 98
Impae, 185
Imprecations, 143
Indian Ocean, 78
Indo-Europeans, 54
Inlaying, 74 ff.
Inspectors, Sumerian, 179 ff.
Invocations, 128 f., 148
Iran, 341, 357 f.
Iranian plateau, 335, 358
Iron, 50
Irrigation, in Babylonia and Egypt, 323;
methods of, 154 f.;
oxen for, 271
Ishbi-Ura, king of Isin, 303, 308 ff.;
in chronological table, 362
Ishkun-Sin, 281
Ishme-Dagan, king of Isin, 310 f.;
in chronological table, 362
Ishnunuk, Anzanite form of the name Ashnunnak, 212
Ishtar, 33, 226 f., 250, 259, 289
Isin, in Sumer, 13;
the Dynasty of, 63 f., 309 ff.;
racial character of the kings of, 283 f., 303;
relation of its dynasty to that of Babylon, 313 ff.
Isis, 324
Itaddu I., patesi of Susa, 305
Itaddu II,, patesi of Susa, 305
Iter-kasha, king of Isin, 312;
in chronological table, 362
Itûr-Shamash, 284
Ivory, 78, 332
Izinum, seal of, 246
Jastrow, Prof. Morris, 205
Jensen, Prof. P., 39, 54 f., 109, 211
Jéquier, G., 339
Jewellery, Elamite, 337
Jidr, 31
Jôkha, site of Umma, 9, 21 f.;
plan of, 22;
cones from, 23;
tablets from, 295
Ka-azag, patesi of Lagash, 255, 257;
in chronological table, 361
Ka-azag, father of Ninkagina, 255
Kadi, 101; temple of, 285
Kagalad, 261
Kal-Rukhuratir, patesi of Susa, 305
Kal-Uli, ancestor of Kuk-Nashur, 306
Kalki, seal of, 246
Kanizi, early official of Shuruppak, 95
Kara-Uyuk, pottery from, 341;
tablets from, 346
Kardaka, 301
Karkar, 164
Kashtubila, of Kazallu, 227
Kassite Dynasty, of Babylon, 62 f.;
period, 38, 89, 339, 342
Kassites, 162
Kazallu, 227, 286, 319
Kengi, 14
Ker Porter, Sir R., 39
Kerkha, 335
Kermanshah, 340
Kesh, 13, 128, 152
Khâbûr, 347
Khakhu, 261
Khala-Lama, daughter of Galu-khazal, 296
Khaladda, patesi of Shuruppak, 28, 283
Khamasi, 301
Khamazi, 103
Kharakene, kingdom of, 18
Kharshi, Kharishi, 287 f., 290
Khashkhamer, patesi of Ishkun-Sin, 281, 284
Khegir, 185
Khenda, 190
Khotan, 351 ff.
Khukhnuri, Khukhunuri, 290, 299
Khuluppu-trees, 261
Khummatur, possible reading of the name Lummadur, 161
[Pg 372]Khumurti, 287 f.
Khunnini, patesi of Kimash, 291
Khurshitu, site of, 287
Khutran-tepti, Elamite dynasty of, 305 f.
Ki-babbar, 147
Ki-uri, 14
Ki-urra, 14
Kiab, 190
Kianki, 195 f.
Kids, fees of, 181 f.
Kilulla, seal of, 284
Kimash, 261, 288, 290 f.
King, early signification of the title, 106
Kingi, 14
Kings, deification of, 203, 222, 251, 273 f., 288, 298 f.,
300 ff., 310, 335;
Babylonian list of, 61 f.
Kinunir, 190
Kirman, 357
Kisâri, king of Gankhar, 308
Kish, site of, 8 f.,. 38 f.;
earliest kings of, 53, 99 ff, 202 f.;
Sumerian victories over, 144 ff., 152, 201 f.;
later kingdom of, 53, 65, 198, 203 ff., 210 f., 214 f., 226,
228, 230 ff., 249, 252;
deification of kings of, 251;
purchase of land at, 206;
commercial relations with Lagash, 238;
under Sumu-abu, 319
Kisurra, site of, 9 f.;
excavations at, 28 ff.;
destruction of, 31 f.;
brick from, 284;
see also Abû Hatab
Knives, panels from handles of, 81
Knossos, 345 f.
Koldewey, Dr. Robert, 20 f., 24, 37, 157, 160
Komorof, Gen., 355
Kopet Dagh, 354 f., 357
Koptos, 324
Kubâdh I., 8
Kudur-Nankhundi, king of Elam, 304 ff.
Kudurru-inscriptions, 143
Kûfa, 8, 10
Kugler, F. X., 297
Kuk-Kirmesh, sukkal of Elam, 306 f.
Kuk-Nashur, or Kukka-Nasher, sukkal of Elam, 306 f.
Kur-shesh, patesi of Umma, 209;
in chronological table, 360
Kurdistan, 86, 251
Kurgans, at Anau, 2, 355 f.
Kurna, 8
Kût el-'Amâra, 8
Kutir-Nakhkhunte, 306 f.
Kutû, 232, 244
Kuyunjik, 217;
painted pottery from, 343;
Neolithic settlement at, 343
Lagash, 11, 13;
name and site of, 17;
excavations at, 17 ff.;
destruction of, 20, 31 f.;
early history of, 84, 98 ff.;
under Eannatum and his successors, 120 ff.;
sack of, 186 ff.;
under Erech and Ur, 197, 200;
under Semitic domination, 205, 244, 247 ff.;
later rulers of, 252 ff.;
in the kingdom of Sumer and Akkad, 277;
under the Dynasty of Ur, 290 f., 296, 298 f.;
emblem of, 78, 98, 100, 131, 160, 167, 174 f.;
see also Tello
Lagrange, Père M. J., 341
Lament on the fall of Lagash, 188 ff., 193
Lampre, G., 340, 356
Lance, votive, 229
Lance-bearers, Sumerian, 137
Land, system of tenure, 95;
purchase of, 206 ff.
Langdon, S., 51, 54, 57, 159
Lankuku, 306
Lapis-lazuli, 74 f., 104, 158, 266, 270, 357
Larsa, site of, 9 f.;
excavations at, 34;
as cult-centre, 84 f.;
history of, 147, 152, 195 f., 281, 310 f., 313, 317 f.;
see also Senkera Lasirab, king of Gutiu, 250
Laws, Sumerian, 184;
of Urukagina, 182 ff.;
of Hammurabi, 184;
of Ninâ and Ningirsu, 272;
of the Sun-god, 282;
see also Code
Le Strange, G., 8
Lebanon, 225, 334
Legends, Sumerian, 175;
Semitic, 77;
Egyptian, 323 f.;
of Sargon, 217, 226, 232
Legge, F., 329 f.
Lehmann-Haupt, Prof. C. F., 61, 63
Letters, royal, 238;
earliest example of a, 172
Libations, 48 f., 68, 140, 198
Libation-vase, 76 f.
Libation-water, 68
Libit-Ishtar, king of Isin, 284, 310 f.;
in chronological table, 362
Libit-Ishtar, governor of Sippar, 315 f.
Libyan settlers, in Egypt, 334
Lidda, child of Ur-Ninâ, 112;
sex of, 115 ff.
Likhatcheff, M., 173
Limestone, inlaying with, 212
Line-characters, 329
Lion, in decoration, 70, 79 f., 99 f., 229, 270 f.
[Pg 373]Lion-headed eagle, of Ningirsu, 98 f.
Lipum, patesi of Anshan, 292
Lipush-Iau, 246
Literature, influence of Sumerian, 347
Liver-omens, 235
Loan-words, 52
Loaves, fees of, 181 f.;
as offerins, 198
Lóczy, Prof. de, 353
Loess, 353 f.
Loftus, W. K., 5, 9, 17, 28, 32 ff., 73
Loin-cloth, Semitic, 42
Lower Egypt, 325, 334
Lower Sea, the Persian Gulf, 194, 197, 262
Lower World, 274; see also Underworld
Lu-enna, priest of Ninmar, letter from, 172
Lugunutur, wife of Enlitarzi, 170
Lugal-anda, patesi of Lagash, 169 ff., 273;
sealings of, 173 ff.;
full name of, 169;
in chronological table, 360
Lugal-andanushuga; see Lugal-anda
Lugal-bur, patesi of Lagash, 254 f.;
in chronological table, 361
Lugal-ezen, 112 f., 115
Lugal-ezendug, patesi of Nippur, 294
Lugal-kigub-nidudu, king of Erech and Ur, 199 ff.;
in chronological table, 360
Lugal-kisalsi, king of Erech and Ur, 199 f., 268;
in chronological table, 360
Lugal-kurdub, 267
Lugal-magurri, patesi of Ur and commander of the fortress, 299, 301
Lugal-me, 272
Lugal-shag-engur, patesi of Lagash, 99 f., 209 f.;
in chronological table, 360
Lugal-sisa, 267
Lugal-tarsi, king of Kish, 104;
in chronological table, 360
Lugal-uru, 109, 168;
temple of, 190
Lugal-ushumgal, patesi of Lagash, 236 f., 241, 253 ff, 279;
in chronological table, 361
Lugal-zaggisi, king of Erech, 52, 163, 214;
his sack of Lagash, 188 ff., 210;
reign of, 193 ff.;
his western expedition, 197 f., 233, 335;
in chronological table, 360
Lulubu, 55, 242, 250, 287 f.
Luminadimdug Canal, 153, 161, 168
Lummagirnunta Canal, 154, 162
Lupad, 96 f.
Lyre-player, to the Moon-god 246
Mace-heads, in Babylonia and Egypt, 322, 333;
of Mesilim, 80, 99;
of Shar-Gani-sharri, 218;
of Lasirab, 250;
of Gudea, 270 f.;
supports for ceremonial, 111
Maciver, Prof. D. Randall, 327
Madga, 261, 291
Madka, 291
Magan, 14, 218, 238, 241 f., 258, 262
Ma'er, Mari, 97 f., 146
Magician, royal, 236
Makhar, 290
Makkan, 14
Mal-Amîr, 336
Malachite, for face-paint, 330
Managers, of estates, 207 f.
Manishdussu, Manishduzzu, Anzanite forms of the name Manishtusu, 206
Manishtusu, king of Kish, 206 ff.;
campaigns of, 211 f., 224, 231;
obelisk of, 95, 176, 203, 206 ff., 222, 238;
statues of, 212 f.;
cruciform monument probably to be assigned to, 223 f.;
date of, 53, 65, 210 f.;
in chronological table, 360
Mannu-dannu, prince of Magan, 227, 241
Mantle, Sumerian, 42
Map, Babylonian, of the world, 313
Mâr-Ishtar, seal of, 344
Marad, 206
Mardin, 244
Marduk, 240, 294;
origin of emblem of, 342
Mari; see Ma'er
Markharshi, 286, 290
Marsh, of Ninkharsag, 206
Martu (Amurru), a West Semitic god, 344
Masiam-Ishtar, 308
Maspero, Prof. G., 324
Mash-Shuruppak, early official of Shuruppak, 95
Mastaba-tomb, of Aha, 323
Mat-burials, 3, 26 f.
Mat-weaving, Egyptian, 328
Median Wall, 38
Mediterranean, culture, 2;
Lugal-zaggisi's expedition to, 197 f.;
Sargon and the, 225, 233 ff., 251, 343 ff.;
Gudea's supplies from, 262, 279;
Gimil-Sin and the, 300
Meissner, Prof. B., 17, 304, 309, 316
Melukhkha, 238, 261 f.
Memphis, 324
Mena, 324
Ménant, J., 217 f., 246
Menêdir, 31
[Pg 374]Menua, 261
Menudgid, 113
Minoan hieroglyphs, 345
Merv, 354;
oasis of, 351, 354
Mes, 194 f.
Mesalim, son of Manishtusu, 209 f.
Mesandu, slaves dedicated to, 184
Mesilim, king of Kish, 53, 65, 80, 99 ff., 159, 209;
in chronological table, 360
Meslamtaea, 284;
temple to, 264
Mesniu, 324
Mesopotamia, 7
Messengers, royal, 291
Messerschmidt, L., 21, 52, 157
Metal-casting, Sumerian, 72 ff.;
Egyptian, 327;
Elamite, 337
Metal-work, engraved, 78, 167, 229
Meyer, Prof. Edouard, 40, 47 ff., 50 ff., 62, 66, 73, 97,
110, 178, 184, 244, 284, 306, 313, 334
Migrations, causes of, 354
Minotaurs, 346
Mishime, 150 f.
Mjelli, 31
Mongols, 54
Monsters, in Sumerian art, 76
Moon-god, 45;
dress of the, 48;
see also Enzu, Nannar, Sin
Moon-cult, 84 f.
Mosaic legislation, 348
Mother-of-pearl, 74 f., 81 f.
Moulds, for casting, 74;
for bricks, 264
Mukayyar, site of Ur, 34;
excavations at, 34 f.;
plan of, 34;
contracted burials at, 30, 331;
inscriptions from, 217, 280, 310 f.
Mummification, 331 f.
Muninnikurta, 112, 115
Murîk-Tidnim, the Wall of the West, 300
Musayyib, 10
Mussian, excavations at, 2, 340;
painted pottery from, 340 f., 356
Mycenaean epoch, 1
Myres, Prof. J. L., 343 f.
Mythological beings, 174 f.
Nabataeans, 40
Nabonidus, 60 ff., 216 ff., 268
Naga-ed-Dêr, 326
Nagidda, patesi of Adamdun, 292
Nahr Hindîya, 10
Nakâda, 323, 330
Naksu, 240, 278
Nalua-stone, 261
Namazua, 115
Names, symbolical, 272 f.
Nammakhni, patesi of Lagash, 255, 258;
in chronological table, 361
Nanâ, 12, 84, 146 f., 304 f.
Nannar, Moon-god of Ur, 84, 280, 294 f., 298
Nannar-gugal Canal, 281 f.
Narâm-Sin, king of Akkad, reign of, 241 ff.;
buildings of, 37, 88 f., 219, 235, 244 f.;
date of, 60 ff., 65, 203, 216, 218, 253;
successors of, 246, 278;
dress of, 42;
his Stele of Victory, 228 f., 243, 251;
the Pir Hussein Stele, 244 ff.;
Omens of, 217, 241;
titles of, 242, 251;
deification of, 251, 343 f.;
in chronological table, 361
Narmer, 324
Naruti, 212 f.
Natik Effendi, 245
Naturalistic treatment, in Sumerian design, 80 f.;
in early Semitic sculpture, 252
Naville, Prof. E., 324, 326 f., 332
Nebuchadnezzar II., 37 f.
Nekhune, 290
Neo-Anzanite texts, 337
Neolithic period, in Babylonia, 2 f., 322, 342 f.;
remains of, at Nineveh, 343;
at Susa, 340;
at Mussian, 2, 340;
at Anau, 2, 341;
in Egypt, 1 f., 323;
in Aegean and Mediterranean areas, 1 f.;
in Northern Greece, 341;
wares of the, 340 ff.
Nergal, 38, 289, 293
Nets, of the gods, 128 ff., 165, 220, 229
New Moon, Feast of the, 298 f.
Newberry, P. E., 325, 334
Nidaba, 190 f., 194, 196, 266
Niebuhr, Carl, 219
Niffer, site of Nippur, 8 f., 85;
excavations at, 86;
votive inscriptions from, 204, 206;
dated tablets from, 309;
contracted burials at, 331;
see also Nippur
Nin-azag-nun, 259
Nin-Isin, 313
Ninâ, goddess, 108, 111, 152 f., 164 f., 168, 185, 190, 206,
254 f., 264, 266, 271 f., 275, 296
Ninâ, division of Lagash, 108
Ninab, possible reading of the name Ninni-esh, 163
Ninabukhadu, 194 f.
Ninagal, 259
Nindar, 190, 259, 264
Nindub, 266
Nineveh, 4;
Neolithic settlement at, 343
Ningal, 298
Ningandu, wife of Nammakhni, 255
Ningirsu, 43, 84, 127, 156, 164 ff., 168, 172, 177, 180 f.,
[Pg 375]184 f., 190 f., 259, 271;
temple of, 89 f., 95, 99 f., 108 f., 111, 113, 123, 155,
266 ff., 298;
laws of, 272;
emblem of, 98, 100, 175;
representations of, 67, 130 f., 156
Ningirsu-ushumgal Canal, 271
Ningishzida, Gudea's patron deity, 47, 108, 264, 266;
monsters of, 76 f.;
temple of, 264, 269, 273;
representation of, 47
Ninib, 294
Ninkagina, 255
Ninkharsag, 13, 121, 127 f., 148, 168, 194, 289;
temple of, 259, 264, 269, 273;
Marsh of, 206
Ninki, 128 f.
Ninlil, 104, 281
Ninmakh, 168, 189
Ninmar, 108, 172, 259, 296
Ninni, 84, 104, 145, 194, 310;
her temple at Erech, 33,196, 280, 298;
her temples at Lagash, 161, 190, 259, 264;
her temple at Ninni-esh, 244;
representations of, 135, 250
Ninni-esh, 163, 195 f., 238, 244
Ninsar, 185
Ninshakh, Urukagina's patron deity, 177
Nintud, 273
Niphates, 11
Nippur, site of, 8 f.;
excavations at, 32, 85 ff.;
early Babylonian plan of, 87;
plan of the inner city at, 86, 88;
character and history of, 13, 51 f., 85 ff., 98, 107, 185,
198, 238, 293 f., 310 f.;
buildings at, 86 ff., 219, 235, 244, 281, 345;
objects and inscriptions from, 48 f., 73, 102 f., 193, 199,
201, 279 f., 311;
see also Niffer
Noeldeke, A., 24 f., 28 f.
North Africa, 323, 352
Northern Babylonia, Semitic immigration into, 214, 230, 250 f., 358;
see also Akkad
Northern China, 353
Northern Greece, prehistoric pottery from, 341
Northern Syria, 347
Nubia, 327
Nudubtum, seal of, 344
Nuffar, 85; see Niffer
Numeration, systems of, 339
Nusku, 294
Nutugmushda, 286
Oannes, 53
Oaths, ratification of, 128
Obelisk, of Manishtusu, 95,176, 203;
description of, 206 ff.;
names from, 222, 238
Obsidian implements, from Kuyunjik, 343
Offerings, votive, 199;
funerary, 140 f.
Officials, 179 ff.;
orders for supplies for, 290 f.
Ohnefalsch-Richter, M. H., 344
Oil, divination by, 183;
for embalming, 332
Omen-texts, historical traditions in, 206, 219, 304, 309
Omens, of Sargon and Narâm-Sin, 217, 219 f., 224 f., 233 ff., 240 f.;
consultation of the, 266, 348
Opis, site of, 11,13, 38 f.;
history of, 145 f., 152, 202, 226
Oppert, Jules, 4, 217 f.
Overseers, of landed property, 207 f., 210 f.
Painting, of the body, 27
Palace-chamberlain, 276
Palace Tell, at Tello, 18, 90 f.
Palaeoliths, 2
Palaikastro, 346 f.
Palermo Stele, 334
Palettes, early Egyptian, 27, 330
Pamirs, 351
Parthian fortress, 89;
palace, 18
Patesi, signification of the title, 106;
in relation to the city-god, 101 f., 181, 268;
decrease in influence of, 173, 295 f., 302
Patron deities, 47, 108 f., 177, 264, 266;
on cylinder-seals, 344
Perforated plaques, 68, 98,110 f.
Perquisites, of the priesthood, 180 ff.
Perrot, G., 66
Persia, 1, 39, 55, 245
Persian Gulf, 6 f., 53, 62 f., 211, 234 f., 242, 251, 262, 279, 320
Petrie, Prof. W. M. Flinders, 330, 334
Petticoat, Sumerian, 42 f.
Phaestos, 346;
disk from, 346
Pictographs, Minoan, 345
Pictorial writing, systems of, 328 f.
Picture characters, 3
Pilasters, 264
Pinches, T. G., 218
Pir Hussein, 42, 244 f.
Plaid, Semitic, 42
Plans, Babylonian, 87 f., 260, 265
Plane-trees, 261
Plano-convex bricks, 26, 35, 91, 94, 332
Plaster, 262
[Pg 376]Plating, with copper, 74
Poebel, A., 63, 312
Population, transference of, 208, 238 ff.
Post-Sargonic, use of term, 216, 228
Pot-burials, 30, 34, 37
Pottery, Sumerian, 3, 342;
Elamite, 340 f.;
Cappadocian, 341;
Egyptian, 326 ff.
Prayer, of dedication, 198
Predynastic Egyptians, 323 ff.
Prehistoric period, in Babylonia, 2 f., 84 ff, 322, 343;
in Elam, 2, 339 f., 342;
in Egypt, 1 f., 322 ff.
Pre-Sargonic, use of term, 216, 228
Presents, accompanying a sale of land, 95, 207
Price, Prof. Ira M., 266
Prices, regulation of, 182
Priesthood, power of the Sumerian, 167 f., 172 f.;
exactions of the, 180 f.
Proto-Elamite, system of writing, 338 f.
Ptolemaic Canon, 62
Pukhia, king of Khurshitu, 287
Pumpelly, Raphael, 2, 332, 341, 351 f., 357;
expeditions of, 351 ff.
Punt, 334
Pûr-Sagale, 62
Pûr-Sin; see Bûr-Sin
Purification, rites of, 266 f.
Racial types, 41 f., 44 f.
Radau, Hugo, 61, 109, 112, 115, 151, 310
Ranke, H., 313, 315
Rassam, H., 37
Rawlinson, Sir H. C., 4, 6, 217
Red Sea, 323 f.
Reed, of Enki, 108
Reeds, huts of, 84; roofs of, 94
Reisner, G. A., 14, 17, 324, 326 ff.
Reservoirs, 154 f., 168, 185
Revenue, farming of the, 181
Revolts, against Manishtusu, 224, 227, 231;
against Sargon, 227, 240
Rhodes, 344
Richthofen, Baron Ferdinand von, 353
Rîm-Sin, king of Larsa, 31, 314, 316 ff.
Rimush, probable reading of the name Urumush, 203
Ringed staff, as emblem, 77
Rîsh-Adad, king of Apirak, 241
Ritual, Sumerian, 265 f., 268, 348
Rogers, Prof. R. W., 17
Romans, 346
Rule, architect's, 265
Russian Turkestan, 332, 341, 351 f., 354
Sab-Dagan, 313
Sabu, in Elam, 290, 301 f.
Sacrifice, 140
Sagantug, 113, 116
Sa'îd Muhammad, 28
Sakjegeuzi, potsherds from, 341
Sakli, 226
Sale, deeds of, 95 f., 160, 170 f., 206 ff.
Samarra, 7, 39
Samâwa, 10
Samsu-iluna, 9, 31 f., 89, 162, 317
Samsun, 245
Sand-dunes, origin of, 353
Sandals, introduction of, 51
Sangu-priest, 163
Sarcophagus-burials, 3, 26 f., 34 f.
Sargon of Agade, 216 ff.;
historical character of, 216, 219, 224 ff.;
his identification with Shar-Gani-sharri, 216 ff, 220 ff, 227 f.;
age of, 60 ff.;
Legend of, 217, 226, 232;
Omens of, 217, 219 f., 224 f., 233 ff., 240;
Chronicle of, 220, 225;
"sons of the palace" of, 239
Sargonids, 337
Sassanian period, 8, 31
Satuni, king of Lulubu, 242 f.
Sayce, Prof. A. H., 4, 73, 291, 324 f., 341, 345
Schäfer, Heinrich, 334
Scheil, Père V., 21, 37, 206, 209, 211 ff, 220 ff, 228, 241,
244, 272, 290 f., 295, 297, 299, 305 ff, 310 f., 314, 319, 336, 338
Schmidt, Dr. Hubert, 341, 351 f., 355
Schnabel, P., 63
Schrader, Eberhard, 4, 109
Sculpture, Sumerian, 3, 28, 66 ff, 129 ff., 252, 269 f., 333, 348;
early Semitic, 66,213. 220 f., 228 f., 251 f.;
Elamite, 337;
Egyptian, Sea, of the West, 234
Sea-country, 32, 53, 62 f., 235
Seal-cutting, 175 f.
Seal-impressions, proto-Elamite, 339
Seal-stones, Cretan, 345 f.
Sealings, 3, 27, 170, 173 ff., 236 f., 344
Sebene Su, 245
Seistan, 357
Seleucia, 39
Semiramis, 38
Semites, racial characteristics of, 40 ff., 246 f.;
[Pg 377]immigrations of, 47 ff., 53, 55, 203, 214, 230 f., 238, 250 f., 336, 347;
cause of Semitic migrations, 358;
domination of, 203 ff., 216 ff, 247, 249, 263, 320;
influence of, 66 f., 214, 334;
sculpture of, 213, 220 f., 228 f., 243, 251, 253;
hypothetical Egyptian invasion of, 323 ff., 328
Semitisms, 52
Senkera, site of Larsa, 9;
excavations at, 34;
inscriptions from, 281, 311, 314
Sennacherib, 37, 217, 235
Ser-i-Pul-i-Zohab, 250
Serpents, in Sumerian art, 76
Shabara, 290
Shad-Bitkim, Field of, 206
Shagarakti-Buriash, 268
Shagpada, 190
Shagshag, wife of Urukagina, 170, 176, 273
Shakanshabar, 267 f.
Shakh, conquest of, 150
Shakh, royal steward, 170
Shakh-Bau, 171
Shamash, 212, 218, 223, 231, 244, 289
Shar-Gani-sharri, king of Akkad, reign of, 216 ff.;
his identification with Saigon, 216 ff., 220 ff., 227 f.;
conquests of, 225 ff., 233, 240, 335, 343;
in relation to Cyprus, 234 f., 343 f.;
administrative system of, 236 ff.;
empire of, 197 f., 203, 215, 252;
buildings of, 199, 219, 226, 235 f.;
mace-head of, 218;
stele of victory possibly his, 248 f.;
name of, 218, 228;
deification of, 251;
date of, 65;
in chronological table, 361
Sharlak. king of Kutû, 232
Sharru-Gi, king of Kish, 221 ff., 248;
Stele of, 132, 220 f., 228 ff.;
name of, 221 f., 224, 227 f.;
son of, 223;
date of, 53, 65, 222;
in chronological table, 360
Sharru-Gi-ili, 222
Sharru-uktn, 217, 221, 228
Shashru, 288, 299
Shatra, 112
Shatt 'Ateshân, 10
Shatt el-'Arab, 18
Shatt el-Farakhna, 11
Shatt el-Hai, 8, 11, 21, 31, 101
Shatt el-Kâr, 8 f., 11, 21, 23 f., 28, 31
Shatt en-Nîl, 8 f., 86, 89
Shaving, Sumerian practice of, 40 ff., 97
Shêkh Bedr, 11
Shell, Sumerian use of, 41, 76, 78 ff., 332
Shemsu-Hor, 324
Shid-tab, 206
Shields, Sumerian, 137 f., 286
Shilkhak-In-Shushinak, 336
Shilkhakha, sukkal of Elam, 306
Shimash, 290
Shimbi-ishkhuk, 289
Ships, 262, 334
Shirpurla, Lagash, 17; see Lagash
Shirukdu', Shirukdukh, sukkal of Elam, 306 f.
Shrines, local, 84 f.
Shumerû, 14
Shumu-abi, 307
Shunet ez-Zebîb, 323
Shurippak, 9
Shuruppak, site of, 9 f.;
excavations at, 24 ff.;
destruction of, 31 f.;
god of, 84;
inscriptions from, 95, 283;
see also Fâra
Shushinak, 290, 337
Shutruk-Nakhkhunte, 212, 243, 337
Sigbirra, 155
Sigiresh, 290
Silver, engraving upon, 78, 167;
as standard of exchange, 207;
from the mountains, 262
Simanu, 299
Simash, 306, 308
Simashgi, 290
Simebalar-khuppak, sukkal of Elam, 306
Simuru, 287 f., 299
Sin, 244, 289; see also Nannar
Sin-idinnam, 9
Sin-ikisha, king of Isin, 309, 312 f., 319;
in chronological table, 362
Sin-magir, king of Isin, 309, 319;
in chronological table, 362
Sin-muballit, 63 f., 314, 316 ff.
Sinai, 40
Sinaitic peninsula, 242
Sippar, site of, 8 f., 13;
excavations at, 37;
history of, 85, 203, 205, 212, 218, 223, 244, 250, 310, 319;
see also Abû Habba Siri, 290
Siu, 290
Skins, clothing of, 42, 138
Skulls, measurement of, 328
Slate-carvings, Egyptian, 322, 324, 330, 334
Slavery, 184
Slaves, public, 300;
sacred, 184;
foreign, 238;
recruiting of, 291 f.
Smith, Dr. Elliot, 328
Smith, George, 39, 217 f.
Sneferu, 334
Somaliland, 334
Sorcerers, 267
[Pg 378]Southern Arabia, 323, 334
Spear, or lance, Sumerian use of, 286
Spouting vase, symbol of the, 48
Stamps, for reliefs, 166
Standards, carried in battle, 243;
of a goddess, 133
Statues, Sumerian, 71 f.;
early Semitic, 212 f.;
of Manishtusu, 212 f.;
of Ur-Bau, 70;
of Gudea, 70 f., 260 ff., 269;
symbolical names for, 272 f.;
offerings to, 272 f.;
significance of, 273
Stein, M. Aurel, 351 ff., 357
Stelæ, of delimitation, 122, 126 ff., 164;
of victory, 143, 228, 243, 247 ff., 251
Stewards, 170, 246
Stilus, 265, 345
Stone, rare in Sumer, 202;
Egyptian vessels of, 327
Storehouses, 91 ff., 185, 297
Storm-god, West Semitic, 344
Strong drink, fees of, 181
Su-people, 301
Subartu, 227
Sûk el-'Afej, 9, 85
Sukkal-makh, title, 301
Sukkallu, significance of title, 306 ff.
Sumer, limits of, 6 f., 12 f.;
names for, 13 ff.;
inhabitants of, 40 ff.;
system of land tenure in, 95
Sumerian civilization, age of, 56 ff.;
achievements of, 66 ff.;
influence of, 321 ff.;
Sumerian reaction, under the kings of Ur, 48, 253, 283 f.;
"Sumerian controversy," 4 ff.
Sumerians, racial characteristics of, 40 ff.;
racial affinity of, 54 f.;
female types of, 71 f.;
position of women among, 116, 286;
original home of, 53 f., 351, 357 f.;
earliest settlements of, 3, 84 ff., 90 ff.;
their weapons and method of fighting, 50, 136 f., 286 f.;
close of political career of, 320
Sumu-abu, 307, 319
Sumu-ilu, king of Ur, 313;
in chronological table, 362
Sun-god, temples of, 37, 186, 189, 311;
laws of, 184, 282;
see also Babbar, Shamash
Sun-worship, Babylonian centres of, 84 f.;
Egyptian, 334
Sunanam, 150
Surghul, 89, 331, 345;
excavations at, 20 f.
Susa, excavations at, 2, 39 f., 206, 305, 335, 339 f., 356;
first settlement at, 330 f.;
earliest form of burial at, 331 f.;
"second period" at, 333;
objects from, 211 ff., 216, 220, 241, 243, 330, 333;
early patesis of, 231, 243;
native Elamite rulers of, 305 ff.;
history of, 243, 261 f., 284, 290 f., 299, 304
Symbolism, in writing, 329 f.
Synchronisms, 57, 62 ff, 255 f., 276, 307
Syria, 55, 225, 234, 261 f., 270, 300, 322, 334 f., 341, 343, 347;
coast of, 198, 233, 258, 333, 358;
Northern, 347
Syro-Arabian desert, 7
Syro-Cappadocian cylinder-seals, 343 f.;
pottery, 343
Tablets, 3, 28, 37, 309;
from Tello, 20, 171, 219, 254, 256 f., 293
Taklamakan Desert, 351 f.
Tarim basin, 351
Taurus, 11, 86, 244, 347
Tax-gatherers, 180
Taylor, Col. J. E., 5, 17, 30, 34 ff, 217
Tell, of the Tablets, 20;
"de la Maison des Fruits," 20
Tell Ibrâhîm, site of Cutha, 8 f., 37 f.
Tell 'Îd, 23
Tell Lahm, 36
Tell Manjûr, 39
Tell Medîna, 34
Tell Sifr, 34, 73, 314, 317 f.
Tello, site of Lagash, 17;
excavations at, 17 ff.;
plan of, 19;
remains of buildings at, 89 ff.;
objects from, 20, 41 f., 44 f., 47 ff., 73, 171, 204, 219, 254,
256 f., 293, 299, 342, 344
Temple-accounts, 293
Temple-towers, 53 f.
Temples, early Sumerian, 89;
buildings attached to, 90 ff., 268;
enclosure of a, 265
Temti-agun, sukkal of Susa, 307
Temti-khalki, sukkal of Elam, 306 f.
Tepe Mussian; see Mussian
Terra-cotta, stamped figures of, 75 f.
Testing-house, for weights, 294 f.
Theft, laws against, 182
Thessaly, 341
Thinis, 324
This, 324
Thompson, R. Campbell, 38
Thompson, M. S., 341
Throwing-stick, 79
Thumb-marks, on bricks, 26, 91, 94
Thureau-Dangin, F., researches of, 54, 57, 266;
referred to, 9, 12, 14, 18, 39, 52, 58, 61, 63, 65, 95 f., 98,
101, 103 ff., 109, 120, 158, 162 f., 165, 169 ff., 178, 188,
193, 203 f., 219, 222, 225, 232, 237, 240 f., 246 f., 254 f.,
[Pg 379]259, 274 ff., 280, 285, 287, 290, 298, 300 f., 306, 317 ff., 335
Tidanu, 261, 300
Tidnu, 300
Tig-abba, 291
Tigris, 6;
changes in channel of, 8;
contrasted with Euphrates, 11 f.;
period of high water in, 11;
upper reaches of, 246
Timat-Enlil, 301
Time-reckoning, 295;
see also Dating
Tin, as an alloy, 73
Tirash, 109, 185, 189
Tithes, 180
Toscanne, P., 266
Trade-routes, 322
Transcaspia, 341, 356
Treaties, 101, 126
Tribute, in grain, 127
Tukîn-khatti-migrisha, 299
Tupliash; see Ashnunnak
Turkestan, 1, 332, 341, 351 ff.
Tutu, 246
Tuz-Khurmati, 287
Ubara, 296
Ubil-Ishtar, an Akkadian prince, 246
Ug-edin Canal, 154
Ug-me, patesi of Lagash, 254;
in chronological table, 361
Ugigga, battle of, 159
Ukush, patesi of Umma, 188, 194 f.;
in chronological table, 360
Ullu, 290
Umanu, 261
Umma, site of, 9,11, 13, 21 f., reading of name of, 21;
history of, 96 f., 100 f., 120 ff., 144 f., 152, 158 ff.,
186 ff., 195, 238, 258, 298;
destruction of, 31 f.;
see also Jôkha
Underworld, 149
Ungnad, Prof. A., 14, 52 f., 63, 162, 306 f., 313, 317
Upper Egypt, 323 ff.
Upper Sea, the Mediterranean, 194, 197, 262
Ur, site of, 9 f., 13, 34;
excavations at, 34 f.;
as cult-centre, 35, 84 f.;
earlier history of, 147, 152, 195 f., 199 f., 238, 263;
Dynasty of, 64, 253, 256, 276 f., 278 ff.;
Sumerian reaction under kings of, 48, 238, 283 f.;
deification of kings of, 251, 274, 288, 298 f.;
downfall of the Dynasty of, 300 ff.;
later history of, 309 ff., 313, 317 f.;
see also Mukayyar
Ur-abba, patesi of Lagash, 275 ff., 281;
in chronological table, 362
Ur-Babbar, patesi of Lagash, 254;
in chronological table, 361
Ur-baga, 284
Ur-Bau, patesi of Lagash, 19,70, 90 f., 254 f., 258 f., 351;
in chronological table, 361
Ur-Bau, son of Bûr-Sin I., 297
Ur-Dunpae, 301
Ur-E, patesi of Lagash, 254 f.;
in chronological table, 361
Ur-Engur, king of Ur, 64, 253, 276;
reign of, 278 ff.;
buildings of, 219, 280 f.;
architectural development under, 263 f.;
deification of, 274;
in chronological table, 362
Ur-Enlil, patesi of Nippur, 98
Ur-gar, patesi of Lagash, 255, 258;
in chronological table, 361
Ur-gigir, patesi of Adamdun, 292
Ur-ilim, patesi of Susa, 231
Ur-Khumma, possible reading of the name Urlumma, 158
Ur-Lama I., patesi of Lagash, 296;
cult of, 274, 299;
in chronological table, 362
Ur-Lama II., patesi of Lagash, 296, 301;
in chronological table, 362
Ur-mama, patesi of Lagash, 254;
in chronological table, 361
Ur-nabbad, patesi of Nippur, 294
Ur-nesu, patesi of Umma, 295;
in chronological table, 362
Ur-Ninâ, king of Lagash, reign of, 106 ff.;
date of, 65;
store-house of, 20, 90 ff.;
bas-reliefs of, 41, 98, 110 ff.;
close of dynasty of, 168 f.;
offerings to statue of, 169, 273;
in chronological table, 360
Ur-Ningirsu, patesi of Lagash, reign of, 274 ff.;
his relations to the Dynasty of Ur, 64, 255;
engraved shell of, 81;
in chronological table, 361
Ur-Ningirsu, priest of Ninâ, probably to be identified
with the patesi, 255, 274 ff.
Ur-Ningislizida, patesi of Ashnunnak, 306
Ur-Ninib, king of Isin, 309 ff.,
in chronological table, 362
Ur-Ninpa, 95
Ur-Ninsun, patesi of Lagash, 255;
in chronological table, 361
Ur-Pasag, patesi of Dungi-Babbar, 295
Ura-imitti, king of Isin, 312;
in chronological table, 362
Urbillu, 287 f., 299, 301 f.
Uri-zi, 109, 255, 268
Urkarinnu-wood, 261
Urkium, patesi of Susa, 291, 305
Urlumma, patesi of Umma, 158 ff., 160 ff.;
in chronological table, 360
Urmi, Lake, 197
Urnuntaea, 185
Urri, 290
Ursu, 261
Ur tar, 170
Uru, a division of Lagash, 108, 259
Uru-azagga, a division of Lagash, 108;
temples in, 259, 264; fortification of, 153
Urukagina, king of Lagash, reign of, 176 ff.;
date of, 65, 209 f.;
reforms of, 177 ff., 348;
buildings of, 185 ff.;
family of, 170 f., 176, 184;
fate of, 193;
predecessors of, 169 ff.;
records from inscribed plaque of, 158 f., 178, 186;
in chronological table, 360
Urukagina, son of Engilsa, 176, 209 f.
Urukagina, father of Abba-dugga, 313
Urumush, or Rimush, king of Kish, reign of, 203 ff.;
fate of, 205 f., 240;
period of, 53, 210 f.;
in chronological table, 360
Urzage, king of Kish, 103 f.;
in chronological table, 360
Ush, patesi of Umma, 122, 124, 126, 158 f.;
in chronological table, 360
Ushu-wood, 261
Ut-napishtim, 9
Utug, patesi of Kish, 102 f.;
in chronological table, 360
Uzargarshana, 301
Van, Lake, 197
Vases, votive, 193, 199 ff., 204;
for libations, 76 f.;
for body-paint, 330
Vegetable motives, on Elamite painted pottery, 341
Visions; see Dreams
Vultures, Stele of the, description of, 129 ff.;
referred to, 42 f., 48, 105, 117 f., 120 ff, 127, 136, 142,
220, 228 f., 330 ff.;
origin of popular name of, 125
Wage, A. J. B., 341
Wâdi Hammamât, 323
Ward, W. Hayes, 65, 78
Warka, site of Erech, 9;
excavations at, 32 ff.;
plan of, 33;
bricks from, 280;
contracted burials at, 331
Water, for libation, 198
Wax writing-tablet, origin of, 346
Weapons, 73;
Sumerian, 50, 136 f., 286 f.;
Semitic, 247, 286
Weights, 294 f.
Weissbach, Prof. F. H., 6, 38, 319
Well, of Eannatum, 93, 155
West, Sea of the, 234;
Wall of the, 300;
extent of Babylonian influence in the, 234 f., 343 ff.
Western Asia, 3; early ceramics of, 341
Western Semites, origin of the, 55;
their destruction of Sumerian towns, 32;
invasions of, 315 f.
Wheat, cultivation of, 323, 357;
original home of, 332;
in earliest stratum at Anau, 332
Wigs, Sumerian, 43, 46, 138
Wine, fees of, 181 f.
Winckler, Prof. Hugo, 14, 61, 103, 219, 235, 275, 317, 344 f.
Wind-erosion, effects of, 353
Wizards, 267
Women, position and rights of, 116, 184, 286;
clothing of, 42;
Sumerian statuettes of, 71 f.
Woolley, C. L., 327
Worship, scenes of, 44
Writing, invention of cuneiform, 3, 329 f., 347;
Elamite forms of, 337 ff.;
origin of Egyptian system of, 325, 328 f.;
Hittite, 339; Minoan, 345
Wuswas, 33
Yâkût, 8
Yotkan, 353, 357
Yurung-kash, 354
Zâb, Lower, 232
Zabalu-wood, 261
Zabshali, 299
Zagros mountains, 55, 302;
pass, 250
Zakhara, 225 f.
Zakro, sealings from, 346
Zamama, 103;
temple of, 39
Zambia, king of Isin, 313;
in chronological table, 362
Zarik, patesi of Susa, 291, 305
Zarzari, 185
Zaula, 290
Ziggurat, institution of the, 53 f.;
at Nippur, 89;
of Gudea, 264 f.
Zimanak, Field of, 206
Zimmern, Prof. Heinrich, 54 f.
Zuzu, king of Opis, 146;
in chronological table, 360
BABYLONIA Showing the Sites of Ancient Cities. [enlarge]
