



Produced by Madeleine Fournier & Marc D'Hooghe at
http://freeliterature.org (Images generously made available
by the Hathi Trust.)





A HISTORY

OF

SUMER AND AKKAD

AN ACCOUNT OF THE EARLY RACES
OF BABYLONIA FROM PREHISTORIC
TIMES TO THE FOUNDATION OF
THE BABYLONIAN MONARCHY

BY

LEONARD W. KING, M.A., F.S.A.

Assistant in the Department of Egyptian and Assyrian
Antiquities, British Museum

WITH MAP, PLANS, AND ILLUSTRATIONS

NEW YORK

FREDERICK A. STOKES COMPANY

PUBLISHERS

1910


[Illustration: Stele of Narâm-Sin, king of Agade, representing the king
and his allies in triumph over their enemies.--Photo, Mansell & Co.]


PREFACE


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 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 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
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 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 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 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.




CONTENTS


        CHAPTER I

        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

        CHAPTER II

        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
        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

        CHAPTER III

        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

        CHAPTER IV

        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 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

        CHAPTER V

        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

        CHAPTER VI

        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

        CHAPTER VII

        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

        CHAPTER VIII

        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

        CHAPTER IX

        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 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

        CHAPTER X

        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

        CHAPTER XI

        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

        CHAPTER XII

        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

        APPENDICES

        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

        INDEX



LIST OF PLATES

I. Stele of Narâm-Sin, representing the king and his allies in triumph
over their enemies Frontispiece

II. Doorway of a building at Tello erected by Gudea; on the left is a
later building of the Seleucid Era

III. Outer face of a foundation-wall at Tello, built by Ur-Bau

IV. Limestone figure of an early Sumerian patesi, or high official

V. Fragment of Sumerian sculpture representing scenes of worship

VI. The Blau monuments

VII. Diorite statue of Gudea, represented as the architect of the
temple of Gatumdug

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

IX. Impressions of early cylinder-seals, engraved with scenes
representing heroes and mythological beings in conflict with lions and
bulls

X. South-eastern facade of a building at Tello, erected by Ur-Ninâ

XI. Limestone figures of early Sumerian rulers

XII. Plaques of Ur-Ninâ and of Dudu

XIII. Portion of these "Stele of the Vultures" sculptured with scenes
representing Eannatum leading his troops in battle and on the march

XIV. The burial of the dead after battle

XV. Portion of a black basalt mortar bearing an inscription of Eannatum


XVI. Brick of Eannatum, recording his genealogy and conquests and
commemorating the sinking of a well in the temple of Ningirsu

XVII. Marble gate-socket, bearing an inscription of Entemena

XVIII. Silver vase dedicated to the god Ningirsu by Entemena

XIX. Mace-heads and part of a diorite statuette dedicated to various
deities

XX. Mace-head dedicated to the Sun-god by Shar-Gani-sharri, and other
votive objects

XXI. Cruciform stone object inscribed with a votive text of an early
Semitic king of Kish

XXII. Impressions of the cylinder-seals of Ubil-Ishtar, Khashkhamer,
and Kilulla

XXIII. Clay cones of Galu-Babbar and other rulers

XXIV. Brick pillar at Tello, of the time of Gudea

XXV. Seated figure of Gudea

XXVI. Votive cones and figures

XXVII. Gate-socket of Gudea, recording the restoration of the temple of
the goddess Ninâ

XXVIII. Brick of Ur-Engur, King of Ur, recording the rebuilding of the
temple of Ninni in Erech

XXIX. Votive tablets of Dungi, King of Ur, and other rulers

XXX. Clay tablets of temple-accounts, drawn up in Dungi's reign

XXXI. Circular tablets of the reign of Bûr-Sin, King of Ur

XXXII. Bricks of Bûr-Sin, King of Ur, and Ishme-Dagan, King of Isin

XXXIII. Specimens of clay cones bearing votive inscriptions

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


ILLUSTRATIONS IN THE TEXT

1-2. Figures of early Sumerians engraved upon fragments of shell.
Earliest period: from Tello

3-5. Later types of Sumerians, as exhibited by heads of male statuettes
from Tello

6-8. Examples of sculpture of the later period, representing different
racial types

9-11. Fragments of a circular bas-relief of the earliest period,
commemorating the meeting of two chieftains and their followers

12. Limestone panel representing Gudea being led by Ningishzida and
another deity into the presence of a seated god

13. Figure of the seated god on the cylinder-seal of Gudea

14-15. Examples of early Sumerian deities on votive tablets from Nippur

16. Fragment of an archaic relief from Tello, representing a god
smiting a bound captive with a heavy club or mace

17-19. Earlier and later forms of divine headdresses

20. Perforated plaque engraved with a scene representing the pouring
out of a libation before a goddess

21. Fragments of sculpture belonging to the best period of Sumerian art

22. Limestone head of a lion from the corner of a basin in Ningirsu's
temple

23. Upper part of a female statuette of diorite, of the period of Gudea
or a little later

24. Limestone head of a female statuette belonging to the best period
of Sumerian art

25. One of a series of copper female foundation-figures with supporting
rings

26-27. Heads of a bull and goat, cast in copper and inlaid with
mother-of-pearl, lapis-lazuli, etc.

28. Stamped terra-cotta figure of a bearded god, wearing a horned
headdress

29. Scheme of decoration from a libation-vase of Gudea, made of dark
green steatite and originally inlaid with shell

30. Convex panel of shell from the side of a cup, engraved with a scene
representing a lion attacking a bull

31-33. Fragments of shell engraved with animal forms, which illustrate
the growth of a naturalistic treatment in Sumerian design

34-37. Panels of mother-of-pearl engraved with Sumerian designs, which
were employed for inlaying the handles of daggers

38. Archaic plaque from Tello, engraved in low relief with a scene of
adoration

39. Figure of Lupad, a high official of the city of Umma

40. Statue of Esar, King of Adah

41. Emblems of Lagash and of the god Ningirsu

42. Mace-head dedicated to Ningirsu by Mesilim, King of Kish

43. Early Sumerian figure of a woman, showing the Sumerian dress and
the method of doing the hair

44. Plaque of Ur-Ninâ, King of Lagash

45. Portion of a plaque of Ur-Ninâ, sculptured with representations of
his sons and the high officials of his court

46. Part of the Stele of the Vultures representing Ningirsu clubbing
the enemies of Lagash in his net

47. Part of the Stele of the Vultures sculptured with a sacrificial
scene which took place at the burial of the dead after battle

48. Part of the Stele of the Vultures representing Eannatum deciding
the fate of prisoners taken in battle

49-51. Details from the engravings upon Entemena's silver vase

52-53. Seal-impression of Lugal-anda, patesi of Lagash, with
reconstruction of the cylinder-seal

54-55. A second seal-impression of Lugal-anda, with reconstruction of
the cylinder

56. White marble vase engraved with the name and title of Urumush, King
of Kish

57. Alabaster statue of Manishtusu, King of Kish

58. Copper head of a colossal votive lance engraved with the name and
title of an early king of Kish

59. Stele of Narâm-Sin, King of Akkad, from Pir Hussein

60. Portion of a Stele of Victory of a king of Akkad, sculptured in
relief with battle-scenes; from Tello

61. Other face of Fig. 60

62-63. Copper figures of bulls surmounting cones, which were employed
as votive offerings in the reigns of Gudea and Dungi

64-65. Tablets with architect's rule and stilus from the statues B and
F of Gudea

66. Figure of a god seated upon a throne, who may probably be
identified with Ningirsu

67. Mace-head of breccia from a mountain near the "Upper Sea" or
Mediterranean, dedicated to Ningirsu by Gudea

68. Designs on painted potsherds of the Neolithic period (Culture I.)
from the North Kurgan at Anau

69. Designs on painted potsherds of the Aeneolithic period (Culture
II.) from the North Kurgan at Anau


MAPS AND PLANS


I. Plan of Tello, after De Sarzec

II. Plan of Jôkha, after Andrae

III. Plan of Fâra, after Andrae and Noeldeke

IV. Plan of Abû Hatab, after Andrae and Noeldeke

V. Plan of Warka, after Loftus

VI. Plan of Muḳayyar, after Taylor

VII. Plan of Abû Shahrain, after Taylor

VIII. Early Babylonian plan of the temple of Enlil at Nippur and its
enclosure; cf. Fisher, "Excavations at Nippur" I., pl. 1

IX. Plan of the Inner City at Nippur, after Fisher, "Excavations at
Nippur," I., p. 10

X. Plan of the store-house of Ur-Ninâ, at Tello, after De Sarzec

XI. Plan of early building at Tello, after De Sarzec

XII. Map of Babylonia, showing the sites of early cities. Inset: Map of
Sumer and Akkad in the earliest historical period




A HISTORY OF SUMER AND AKKAD




CHAPTER I


INTRODUCTORY: THE LANDS OF SUMER AND AKKAD


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 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
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 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
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 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 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 <DW72>s 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 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 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 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 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. 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 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, 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, 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 <DW18>s 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 folding 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.

[6] See below, p. 38 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.

[8] See below, p. 21 f.

[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.

[17] Cyl. A, Col. XI., l. 16 f.; see below, Chap. IX., p. 266.

[18] Ibid., Col. XXI., l. 25.

[19] Cyl. B, Col. XXII., l. 19 f.

[20] See below, p. 14.

[21] For this reading of the name of the city usually transcribed as
Gishkhu or Gishukh, see below, p. 21, n. 3.

[22] See below, Chap. V., p. 127 f.

[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.




CHAPTER II


THE SITES OF EARLY CITIES AND THE RACIAL CHARACTER OF THEIR INHABITANTS


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 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 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 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]

[Illustration: TELLO after de Sarzec]

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.

[Illustration: 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 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 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.

[Illustration: JÔKHA after Andrae]

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 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 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, and
the position of walls which were uncovered within them is indicated by
fine lines.

[Illustration: FÂRA after Andrae and Noeldeke]

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 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.

[Illustration: 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 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.

[Illustration: ABÛ HATAB after Andrae and Noeldeke]

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 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 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 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 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.

[Illustration: WARKA after Loftus]

Some idea of the extent of the mounds of Warka may be gathered from
Loftus's plan. The irregular 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 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.

[Illustration: MUKAYYAR after Taylor]

The mounds of Mukayyar, which mark the site of Ur, 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, 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.

[Illustration: ABÛ SHAHRAIN after Taylor]

It will thus be seen that excavations conducted on the sites of the
more famous cities of Sumer have not, 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 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 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 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.

[Illustration: LIMESTONE FIGURE OF AN EARLY SUMERIAN PATESI, OR HIGH
OFFICIAL.--Brit. Mus., No. 90929; photo. by Messrs. Mansell & Co.]

Another distinctive characteristic, almost equally 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.

[Illustration: 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 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 petticoat,
though both were doubtless made of wool and were probably dyed in
bright colours.

[Illustration: 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 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]

[Illustration: Fig. 6.--Fig. 7.--Fig. 8.--Examples of sculpture of the
later period, from Tello, representing different racial types--_Déc.,_
pl. 26, Figs. 10_b_ and 10_a_; 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 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.

[Illustration: 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
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.

[Illustration: 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 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]

[Illustration: Fig. 13. Figure of the seated god on the cylinder-seal
of Gudea.--_Déc.,_ p 293.]

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 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]

[Illustration: 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 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.

[Illustration: 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.

[Illustration: 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 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 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.

[Illustration: 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 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, 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.

[2] See above, p. 11.

[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.

[6] See the plate opposite p. 26.**

[7] From the nature of this building Amiaud christened the mound the
"Tell de la Maison des Fruits."

[8] A description of these buildings is given in Chap. IV., pp. 90 ff.**

[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.

[13] See below, p. 33 f.

[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.

[24] See below, Chap. IV., pp. 85 ff.

[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.)

[31] See above, p. 9.

[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.

[38] See below, p. 245, Fig. 59.

[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.

[40] See the plate facing p. 52, and cf. p. 68 f.

[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.).

[45] See below, p. 131, Fig. 46.

[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.

[47] See p. 50, Fig. 16.

[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.

[56] See below, p. 141, Fig. 48.

[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.




CHAPTER III


THE AGE AND PRINCIPAL ACHIEVEMENTS OF SUMERIAN CIVILIZATION


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 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 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 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 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 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., 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.

[Illustration: Brit. Mus., No. 86261.--Brit. Mus., No. 86260.--THE
BLAU MONUMENTS.]

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 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 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 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 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]

[Illustration: 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 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.

[Illustration: 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 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.

[Illustration: 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 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.

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.

[Illustration: 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 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 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.

[Illustration: 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 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]

[Illustration: 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
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 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.

[Illustration: 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.]

[Illustration: FRAGMENT OF LIMESTONE SCULPTURED IN RELIEF WITH VASES
FROM WHICH STREAMS OF WATER FLOW. _Brit. Mus., No._ 95477]

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]

[Illustration: 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.]

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. 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 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.

[Illustration: 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.]

[Illustration: 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.]

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.

[Illustration: 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.]

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, 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.

[Illustration: IMPRESSION OF A CYLINDER-SEAL ENGRAVED WITH SCENES
REPRESENTING AN EARLY BABYLONIAN HERO, PROBABLY GILGAMESH, IN CONFLICT
WITH A LION.--_Brit. Mus., No._ 89147.]

[Illustration: 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.]

[Illustration: 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 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.

[Illustration: 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
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.

[Illustration: 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 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 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.

[Illustration: 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 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.

[18] See below, pp. 176, n. 2, 209 f.

[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.

[22] See below, p. 267, Fig. 66.

[23] See the photographic reproduction in "Déc. en Chaldée," pl. 22,
Fig. 5.

[24] For the use of these perforated sculptures, see below, p. 110 f.

[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.

[26] See the plate opposite p. 52.

[27] Cf. Heuzey, "Déc. en Chaldée," p. 218; "Catalogue," p. 149.

[28] See "Déc. en Chaldée," pl. 24, Fig. 4, pp. 216 ff.

[29] See the plate opposite p. 268.

[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.

[37] See the blocks on p. 256.

[38] See the plate opposite p. 272.

[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.

[44] See the plate opposite p. 76, and see below, p. 174 f.

[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.

[46] For early examples, see above, p. 49.

[47] See further, Chap. XII.

[48] See below, p. 175.

[49] See the plate opposite p. 124.

[50] See Heuzey, "Catalogue," p. 387.

[51] See above, p. 79, Fig. 30.

[52] See above, p. 78, and below, p. 167 f.




CHAPTER IV


THE EARLIEST SETTLEMENTS IN SUMER; THE DAWN OF HISTORY AND THE RISE OF
LAGASH


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 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. 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.

[Illustration: 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 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 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.

[Illustration: NIPPUR: The inner city after Fischer]

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 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 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.

[Illustration: 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 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 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.

[Illustration: TELLO: Store-House of Ur-Ninâ.]

Around the outside of the building, at a distance 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
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.

[Illustration: TELLO: Building anterior to Ur-Ninâ after De Sarzec]

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 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.

[Illustration: 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 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 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.

[Illustration: 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.]

[Illustration: 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
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.

[Illustration: 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.

[Illustration: 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 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 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 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.

[Illustration: LIMESTONE FIGURES OF EARLY SUMERIAN RULERS.--_Brit.
Mus., Nos._ 22470 _and_ 90828.]

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
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 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 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 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 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 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
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. 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 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.

[Illustration: 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_).]

[Illustration: 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.

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, 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.

[Illustration: 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.]

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. 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 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.

[Illustration: 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.]

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, 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]

[Illustration: 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.]

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 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 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 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 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.

[3] See the plan of Tello on p. 19.

[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.

[7] See above, p. 45 f.

[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.

[10] See below, Chap. VII., p. 206 f.

[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.

[15] See the plate opposite p. 102. The king of Ma'er's figure is the
one on the right.

[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.

[20] See above, pp. 11, 21 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.

[25] See above, pp. 91 ff.

[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.

[33] See above, p. 90 f. Other divisions of Lagash were Ninâ,
Uru-azagga and Uru.

[34] See above, p. 107.

[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.

[36] See below, pp. 168 f., 177.

[37] For a description of his principal storehouse or magazine, the
remains of which have been found at Tello, see above, pp. 91 ff.

[38] See below, p. 169.

[39] See the opposite plate and the illustrations on p. 113 f.

[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.

[42] See the plate opposite p. 110.

[43] See above, p. 41 f.

[44] See the plate opposite p. 138.

[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.

[48] See the similar figure on a fragment of shell, illustrated on p.
41.

[49] Cf. Radau, "Early Bab. History," p. 71.

[50] Cf. Genouillac, "Tablettes sumériennes archaïques," pp. xxii. ff.

[51] See above, p. 105.

[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.

[56] See above, p. 106, n. 1.




CHAPTER V


WARS OF THE CITY-STATES; EANNATUM AND THE STELE OF THE VULTURES


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, 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 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
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.

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 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."

[Illustration: 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 record of his victory which Eannatum has left us is couched in
metaphor, and is doubtless  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 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 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 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 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 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. 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 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.

[Illustration: 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_.]


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 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 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 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 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 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 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.

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 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.

[Illustration: 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._]

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.

[Illustration: 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 the large vessels there appear to be
bundles of <DW19>s, 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 <DW19>s 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.

[Illustration: 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 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, 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.
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, 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 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.

[Illustration: 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 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 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 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
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 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. 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 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 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.

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 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.

[Illustration: 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._]

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 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.

[15] See above, p. 128 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.

[17] Fragment G; see above, p. 129, n 1.

[18] Fragments C and F; see above, p. 129, n. 1.

[19] "Déc. en Chaldée," p. xliii., Galet A, Col. V. f.

[20] These are numbered A, D (which is joined to E), and B; see above,
p 129, n. 1.

[21] See above, p. 125.

[22] See the plate facing p. 124.

[23] Fragment B, Reverse (see above, p. 129, n. 1).

[24] See the plate facing p. 124.

[25] See above, p. 43.

[26] See above, p. 42, n. 1.

[27] Fragment C, Reverse; see the plate facing p. 138.

[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.

[29] See above, p. 68, Fig. 20.

[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.

[43] For one of the inscribed bricks from the well, see the plate
opposite p. 154.




CHAPTER VI


THE CLOSE OF UR-NINÂ'S DYNASTY, THE REFORMS OF URUKAGINA, AND THE FALL
OF LAGASH


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 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 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 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 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 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.

[Illustration: 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 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 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 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 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 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.

[Illustration: 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 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.

[Illustration: 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 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 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 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; 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 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.

[Illustration: 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 Fu e, _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 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 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

[Illustration: Fig. 54. Fig. 55.--Impression of a seal of Lugal-anda,
patesi of Lagash (Shirpurla), engraved with figures of animals,
mythological beings, and a bearded hero. Below is a reconstruction of
the cylinder-seal, indicating its size.--See Allotte de la Fu e, _Rev.
d'Assyr._, Vol. VI., No. 4, pl. ii.]

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. 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 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 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 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 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 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. 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, 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 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 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
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 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
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 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.

[9] See above, p. 157, n. 1.

[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. [
F1] 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.

[15] See the plate opposite p. 110.

[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.

[18] See the plate opposite p. 168, and see above, p. 78.

[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 Fu e, "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 Fu e, "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 Fu e, "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 Fu e, "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 Fu e, "Rev. d'Assyr.,5' Vol. VI., p. 110 ff.

[34] See Allotte de la Fu e, _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.

[37] See above, p. 169 f.

[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.

[57] See above, p. 169 f.

[58] Tell K; see above, pp. 19 f., 90 ff.

[59] Cf. Genouillac, "Tabl. sum. arch.," pp. xv., n. 12, xli.




CHAPTER VII


EARLY RULERS OF SUMER AND KINGS OF KISH


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, 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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
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 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
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 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.

[Illustration: 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 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 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 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.

[Illustration: 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.]

[Illustration: 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 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
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 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 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 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 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 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.

[Illustration: 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 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.

[7] See below, p. 198.

[8] See above, p. 194.

[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.

[13] See below, Chap. IX., p. 268.

[14] "Old Bab. Inscr.," Pt. II., No. 86 _b_, pl. 37, p. 58.

[15] See above, pp. 99 ff., 144 ff.

[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).

[19] See above, Chap. II., p. 52 f.

[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.

[22] See further, pp. 251, 273 f., 288, 301 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."

[31] See below, Chap. VIII., pp. 238 ff.

[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.

[35] See above, pp. 99 ff.

[36] See above, p. 176 f.

[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).

[38] See further, Chap. VIII., pp. 228 ff.

[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.

[47] See above, p. 206 f.

[48] See Chap. VIII., p. 231.

[49] See Chap. X., p. 289.




CHAPTER VIII


THE EMPIRE OF AKKAD AND ITS RELATION TO KISH


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
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 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]

[Illustration: MACK-HEAD DEDICATED TO SHAMASH, THE SUN-GOD, BY
SHAR-GANI-SHARRI, KING OF AGADE.--_Brit. Mus., No._ 91146_; photo, by
Messrs. Mansell & Co._]

[Illustration: 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 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 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 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 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 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.

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

[Illustration: 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.]

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 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 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 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]

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
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.

[Illustration: 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.]

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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 <DW72>s, 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 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]

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 <DW72>s
of the Taurus, and, after running 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

[Illustration: 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.]

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 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 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.

[Illustration: IMPRESSION OF THE CYLINDER-SEAL OF THE SCRIBE OF
UBIL-ISHTAR, BROTHER OF AN EARLY SEMITIC KING OF NORTHERN BABYLONIA.
--_Brit. Mus., No._ 89137.]

[Illustration: IMPRESSION OF THE CYLINDER-SEAL OF KHASHKHAMER, VASSAL
OF UR-ENGUR, KING OF UR.--_Brit. Mus., No._ 89126.]

[Illustration: 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 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

[Illustration: 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 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.

[Illustration: 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 the opposite page.]

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 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 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.

[20] See above, Chap. V., pp. 125, 130 ff.

[21] See above, p. 217, n. 1.

[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.

[24] See above, p. 203.

[25] See above, p. 203 f.

[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.

[34] See above, p. 205, and below, pp. 231, 243 f.

[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.

[39] See below, p. 241.

[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.

[44] See above, p. 210 f.

[45] See the frontispiece; and cf. p. 242 f.

[46] See Heuzey, "Rev. d'Assyr.," Vol. IV., p. 111.

[47] See above, p. 211 f.

[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.

[52] See above, p. 197 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.

[56] See above, p. 219.

[57] See above, p. 218.

[58] See above, p. 226.

[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.

[61] See above, pp. 206 ff.

[62] See "Chronicles," I., p. 40 f.; II., pp. 5, 32.

[63] See above, p. 205.

[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.

[70] See above, p. 231, n. 2

[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.

[73] See p. 245, Fig. 59.

[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.

[86] See the plate facing p. 206.

[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.

[89] See the panel on the cover of this volume; and cf. p. 217 f.




CHAPTER IX


THE LATER RULERS OF LAGASH


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, 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 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 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 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.

[Illustration: 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 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 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 building of temples
within the different quarters of his city.[16]

[Illustration: CLAY CONES BEARING VOTIVE INSCRIPTIONS OF THE PATESIS
GALU-BABBAR, GUDEA, AND UR-BAU.--_Brit. Mus., Nos._ 15782, 91046,
_and_ 91063.]

[Illustration: 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 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 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 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 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.

[Illustration: BRICK PILLAR AT TELLO, OF THE TIME OF GUDEA, PATESI OF
SHIRPURLA.--_Déc. en Chald._, pl. 53.]

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 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 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.

[Illustration: 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 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 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.

[Illustration: 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 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.

[Illustration: SEATED FIGURE OF GUDEA, PATESI OF SHIRPURLA. _In the
Louvre; photo. by Messrs. Mansell & Co._]

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 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 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.

[Illustration: 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
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!", 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.

[Illustration: 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.]

[Illustration: 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 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.

[Illustration: 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
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 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.


[1] See above, pp. 236 f., 241.

[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.

[17] See above, p. 18 f.

[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.

[24] Cf. Heuzey, "Comptes rendus," 1894, p. 34; and see above, p. 18 f.

[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.

[26] Cf. Cylinder A, col. XXIII., ll. 8 ff.; see above, p. 199 f.

[27] See the plate opposite p. 268; and cf. Heuzey, "Rev. d'Assyr.,"
Vol. VI., pp. 18 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.

[30] See above, p. 47, Fig. 12.

[31] See Heuzey, "Rev. d'Assyr.," V., p. 135; "Déc. en Chaldée," p. 293
f.

[32] See above, pp. 178 ff.

[33] See Statue B, col. I.

[34] Cf. Scheil, "Rec. de trav.," Vol. XVIII., p. 64.

[35] See above, p. 169.

[36] Cf. Genouillac, "Tabl. sum. arch.," p. lvi. f.

[37] See further, Chap. X., pp. 288, 298 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.

[40] See the plate opposite p. 206.

[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.




CHAPTER X


THE DYNASTY OF UR AND THE KINGDOM OF SUMER AND AKKAD


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 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 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, 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.

[Illustration: 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. 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 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 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. 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
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.

[Illustration: 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.]

[Illustration: 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 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 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 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 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.

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 ancient temples of his
country, which had been inaugurated by his father, Ur-Engur.

[Illustration: 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.]

[Illustration: 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.]

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 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 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
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. 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 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.

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 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]

[Illustration: 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._]

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 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 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 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.

[4] See the plate opposite p. 246.

[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.

[9] See the plate opposite p. 246.

[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.

[14] See below, Chap. XII., p. 338.

[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.

[19] See the plate opposite p. 292.

[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.

[33] See above, p. 261.

[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.




CHAPTER XI


THE EARLIER RULERS OF ELAM, THE DYNASTY OF ISIN, AND THE RISE OF BABYLON


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 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 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 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 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 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
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, 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]

[Illustration: 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 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 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 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 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.

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 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.

[Illustration: 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._]

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 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
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 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 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, 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.

[4] See above, p. 289.

[5] See above, p. 291.

[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 <DW37>.," 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.

[23] See above, pp. 220, 225 ff., 282 f.

[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.

[30] See above, p. 62.**

[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.

[48] See Hilprecht, "Math., Met., and Chron. Tablets," p. 49 f., n. 5.




CHAPTER XII


THE CULTURAL INFLUENCE OF SUMER IN EGYPT, ASIA AND THE WEST


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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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- 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 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
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 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
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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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
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 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 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, 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 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 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 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.

[11] See the plate facing p. 138.

[12] See above, pp. 26 ff.

[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.

[19] See above, pp. 197 f., 233 f.

[20] See Thureau-Dangin, "Recueil de travaux," XIX., p. 187.

[21] See above, p. 273 f.

[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.

[24] See above, p. 306 f.

[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  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.

[44] See below, p. 356.

[45] See above, p. 2 f.

[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.

[48] See above, p. 234 f.

[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.

[64] See above, p. 334 f.

[65] Cf. Hogarth, "Ionia and the East," p. 47 f.




APPENDICES

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.




APPENDIX I


RECENT EXPLORATIONS IN TURKESTAN IN THEIR RELATION TO THE SUMERIAN
PROBLEM.


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
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.

[Illustration: 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]

[Illustration: 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 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 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 <DW72>s 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.

[Illustration: 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 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.

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]

[Illustration: 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.]

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 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.


[1] See above, p. 53 f.

[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.




APPENDIX II


A CHRONOLOGICAL LIST OF THE KINGS AND RULERS OF SUMER AND AKKAD


I. THE EARLIEST RULERS OF SUMER AND AKKAD

+---------+-----------------------+--------------------+---------------------+
| Approx. | Kish, Opis, and Akkad.|      Lagash.       | Umma, Erech, and Ur.|
| Dates   |                       |                    |                     |
+---------+-----------------------+--------------------+---------------------+
|         |                       |                    |                     |
|  B.C.   |                       |                    |                     |
|         | (Utug p.)             |                    |                     |
|         |                       |                    |                     |
|         | Mesilim k. ...........| Lugal-shag-engur p.|                     |
|         |                       |                    |                     |
|         | (Urzage k.)           | (Badu k.)          |                     |
|         |                       |                    |                     |
|         | (Lugal-tarsi k.)      | (Enkhegal k.)      |                     |
|         |                       |                    |                     |
|  3000   |                       | Ur-Ninâ k.,        |                     |
|         |                       | Akurgal p.,        |                     |
|         |                       |                    |                     |
|         | Al[...] k. of Kish; } | Eannatum p. and k..| {Ush p.             |
|  2900   | and Zuzu k. of Opis.  |                    | {Enakalli p.,       |
|         |                       |                    |                     |
|         |                       | Enannatum I. p., ..| {Urlumma            |
|         |                       | Entemena p., ......| {Ili                |
|  2850   |                       | Enannatum II. p.   |                     |
|         |                       | Enetarzi p.        |                     |
|         |                       | Enlitarzi p.,      |                     |
|         |                       | Lugal-anda p.      | Ukush p.,           |
|  2800   |                       | Urukagina k. ......| Lugal-zaggisi k. of |
|         | (Enbi-Ishtar k.)      |                    |   Erech and Sumer   |
|         |                       |                    | (Lugal-kigub-nidudu |
|         |                       |                    |  k. of Erech and Ur)|
|         |                       |                    | (Lugal-kisalsi k.   |
|         |                       |                    |    of Erech and Ur) |
|         |  _Dynasty of Kish._   |                    | (Enshagkushanna     |
|         |                       |                    |    lord of Sumer)   |
|  2750   | Sharru-Gi k.          |                    |                     |
|  2700   | Manishtusu k. ........|                    |                     |
|         | Urumush [or Rimush] k.| Engilsa p. ........| Kur-shesh p. of Umma|
|  2650   |  _Dynasty of Akkad_   |                    |                     |
|         |    [see Table II.]    |                    |                     |
+---------+-----------------------+--------------------+---------------------+

II. THE DYNASTY OF AKKAD AND ITS SUCCESSORS


+---------+---------------------+-----------------------+--------------------+
| Approx. |     Akkad.          |   Lagash.             |  Umma and Ur.      |
| Dates   |                     |                       |                    |
+---------+---------------------+-----------------------+--------------------+
|         |                     |                       |                    |
|  B.C.   |                     |                       |                    |
|         | _Dynasty of Akkad._ | _Patesis of Lagash._  |                    |
|         |                     |                       |                    |
|  2650   | Shar-Gani-sharri,}  |                       |                    |
|         |                  }..| Lugal-ushumgal        |                    |
|  2600   | Narâm-Sin        }  | Ur-Babbar             |                    |
|         |                     | (Ur-E)                |                    |
|         |                     | (Lugal-bur)           |                    |
|         |                     |                       |                    |
|  2550   |                     | (Basha-mama)          |                    |
|         |                     | (Ur-mama)             |                    |
|         |                     | (Ug-me)               |                    |
|         |                     |                       |                    |
|         |                     | Ur-Bau                |                    |
|  2500   |                     | Nammakhui             |                    |
|         |                     | Ur-gar                |                    |
|         |                     | (Ka-azag)             |                    |
|         |                     | (Galu-Bau)            |                    |
|         |                     | (Galu-Gula)           |                    |
|         |                     | (Ur-Ninsun)           |(Galu-Babbar        |
|         |                     |                       |    p. of Umma)     |
|  2450   |                     | Gudea,                |                    |
|         |                     | Ur-Ningirsu           |                    |
|         |                     |   [probably survived  |                    |
|         |                     |   into Dungi's reign  |                    |
|         |                     |    see Table III.] ...|  _Dynasty of Ur_   |
+---------+---------------------+-----------------------+--------------------+

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.

III. THE KINGDOM OF SUMER AND AKKAD

+---------+--------------------------------+-------------------+--------------------+
| Approx. |       Summer and Akkad         |      Lagash.      | Umma, Larsa, etc.  |
| Dates   |                                |                   |                    |
+---------+--------------------------------+-------------------+--------------------+
|         |                                |                   |                    |
|         | Dynasty of Ur (117 or 119 yrs. | Patesis of Lagash.|                    |
|         |                                |                   |                    |
|         |                YEARS.          |                   |                    |
|         | Ur-Engur,      (18) ...........| {Ur-Ningirsu      |                    |
|  2400   |                                | {Ur-abba          |                    |
|         |                                |                   |                    |
|         |                                |  {Galu-kazal      |                    |
|         |                                |  {Galu-andul      |                    |
|         | Dungi,         (58) ...........|  {Ur-Lama I. .....| Ur-nesu p. of Umma |
|  2350   |                                |  {Alla            |                    |
|         | Bûr-Sin I.,     (9)}.......... | {{Ur-Lama II.     |                    |
|         | Gimil-Sin, (7 or 9)}           | {[......]-kam     |                    |
|         | Ibi-Sin        (25)}...........|  Arad-Nannar      |                    |
|         |                                |                   |                    |
|         | Dynasty of Isin (225 1/2 yrs.) |                   |                    |
|         |                                |                   |                    |
|  2300   | Ishbi-Ura,     (32)            |                   |                    |
|         | Gimil-ilishu,  (10)            |                   |                    |
|  2250   | Idin-Dagan,    (21)            |                   |                    |
|         | Ishme-Dagan,   (20)            |                   |                    |
|         | Libit-Ishtar   (11)            |                   |                    |
|  2200   | Ur-Ninib,      (28)            |                   | Gungunu k. of Larsa|
|         | Bûr-Sin II.,   (21)            |                   |                    |
|         | Itêr-kasha      (5)            |                   |                    |
|  2150   | Ura-imitti      (7)            |                   |                    |
|         | Sin-ikisha     (1/2)           |                   |                    |
|         | Enlil-bani     (24)            |                   |                    |
|         | Zambia          (3)            |                   |                    |
|         | [...........]   (5)            |                   | (Sumu-ilu k. of Ur)|
|         | Ea-[.....]      (4)            |                   |                    |
|  2100   | Sin-magir,     (11)            |                   |                    |
|         | Damik-ilishu   (23)            |                   |                    |
+---------+--------------------------------+-------------------+--------------------+




    INDEX

    Aa, gifts to
    Abba-dugga
    Abi-ishar, seal of
    Abû Habba, site of Sippar
    excavations at
    objects and inscriptions from
    Abû Hatab, site of Kisurra
    excavations at
    plan of
    inscribed brick from
    contracted burials at
    Abû Khuwâsîj
    Abû Shahrain, site of Eridu
    excavations at; plan of
    Abydos
    recent diggings at
    Abyssinia
    Abzu-banda
    Abzu-ega
    Accounts, tablets of
    Achaemenian kings
    Adab, site of
    excavations at
    in relation to Euphrates
    its commercial relations with Lagash
    destruction of
    _see also_ Bismâya
    Adamdun, situation of
    patesis of
    Adda-Pakshu, sukkal of Elam
    tablets from period of
    Addatur
    Adhem
    Aegean, sites
    Asiatic coast of
    sea-rovers of
    Aegean culture, stages of
    its early connection with Egypt
    traces of Babylonian influence in
    wild comparisons between Aegean and Babylonian art
    Aenragin
    'Afej marshes
    Agade, older name of Akkad
    site of
    Sargon of
    _see_ Akkad
    Agathias
    Agia Paraskevi
    Aha, mastaba-tomb of
    'Akarkûf
    Akhush
    Akkad, city, site of
    early centre of Semitic settlement
    in relation to Kish
    in relation to Elam
    "sons," or citizens, of
    siege of
    Dynasty of
    in relation to the Dynasty of Ur
    kings of Sumer and
    Akkad, land, limits of
    name of
    inhabitants of
    Semitic immigration into
    system of land tenure in
    influence of art of
    early relations with Elam
    cultural connections with Elam
    Akkadian, the Semitic speech of Babylonia
    Akkadians, the Semitic inhabitants of Northern Babylonia
    former use of the term
    Akkadû
    Akki
    Akurgal, patesi of Lagash
    sculptured figures of
    in chronological table
    Al[...], king of Kish
    in chronological table
    Al-Batîha
    Al-Gimil-Sin, "the City of Gimil-Sin"
    Aliakhu
    Alla, patesi of Lagash
    in chronological table
    Alla, resident in Lagash
    Alloys, evidence as to use of
    Alluvium, limit of Babylonian
    Alu-usharshid, a former reading of the name Urumush or Rimush
    Amageshtin, temple of
    Amal, temple of
    Amananu, governor of Sippar
    Amanus
    Amat-Bati
    Amattar-sirsirra
    Ambar Su
    Amiaud, Arthur
    Ammi-zaduga
    Amorite invasion, disproved in reign of Libit-Ishtar
    Amurru (Martu), a West Semitic god
    Amurru, the Western Semites
    origin of
    Amurru, the Western Land
    Sargon's conquest of
    its king deported
    slaves from
    relation of kings of Isin to
    Babylonian influence in and beyond
    Ana; _see also_ Anu
    Anatolia
    Anau, excavations at
    potsherds from
    terra-cotta figurines from
    wheat and barley found in earliest stratum at
    Andrae, W.
    Anikurra
    Animal cults, Egyptian
    Animal forms, Sumerian treatment of
    Animal motives, on Elamite painted pottery
    on proto-Elamite seal-impressions
    Anita
    Anshan, its conquest by Manishtusu
    its conquest by Gudea
    alliance of Dungi's daughter with the patesi of
    its conquest by Dungi
    officials for
    a patesi of
    captivity of Ibi-Sin in
    its success against Ur
    its defeat by Anu-mutabil
    Antasurra
    Antimony
    Anu
    _see also_ Ana
    Anu-banini, king of Lulubu
    Anu-mutabil, governor of Dêr
    Anunitu
    Anunpad
    Anzanite inscriptions
    Apirak
    Apil-Sin, contracts of reign of
    Arabesque pattern, on Sumerian sealing
    Arabia
    Arabian desert
    Arad-Nannar, patesi of Lagash
    in chronological table
    Archers, in the army of Ur
    Architect, Gudea as
    Archive-chambers, at Tello
    Ark, of bulrushes
    Armanu
    Art, comparison of early Sumerian
    and Akkadian
    of Kish and Akkad
    Arua
    Asar, Osiris
    Asari, Sumerian god
    Ashnunnak, or Tupliash
    under Manishtusu
    patesis of
    Ashukhu-wood
    Ashur
    Ashur-bani-pal
    tablets from Library of
    Asia Minor
    Central
    Askhabad
    Asphalt; _see also_ Bitumen
    Asses, for chariots
    House of the
    Assyria
    Assyrian kings, their policy of deportation
    Assyrians, sculpture of
    omen-literature of
    Astrological texts
    Asukhur Canal
    Axe, Sumerian form of
    Az
    Azupirânu

    Bab el-Mandeb, Straits of
    Babbar
    Babishue
    Babylon
    excavations at
    pot-burials and early remains at
    Sargon's buildings at
    Dungi's sack of
    in relation to the Dynasty of Isin
    rise of
    in relation to the Dynasty of the Sea-country
    her struggle with Larsa
    her position in later history
    Babylonia, in the Neolithic period
    relics of prehistoric culture in
    her early cultural influence
    in relation to Egypt
    in relation to Elam
    in the West
    Babylonian Chronicle
    Babylonian Monarchy, foundation of
    Bad-mada
    Badu, king of Lagash
    in chronological table
    Baga
    Baghdad
    Bahr Nejef
    Banar
    Banks, E. J.
    Barakhsu
    Baraz-sîrim, Field of
    Barges, for grain
    Barkiba
    Barley
    in earliest stratum at Anau
    Barnamtarra, wife of Lugal-anda
    Barsagannudu
    Barshib
    Basalla
    Basar
    Basha-mama, patesi of Lagash
    in chronological table
    Basha-Shushinak, patesi of Susa
    period of
    proto-Elamite inscriptions of
    Basime
    Bas-reliefs, Sumerian
    early Semitic
    Assyrian
    Battle-axe, Sumerian use of the
    of Narâm-Sin
    Battle-mace
    Battle-scenes
    Bau
    temples of
    bowls dedicated to
    representation of
    Bau-ninam, official of Ur-Ningirsu
    Bavian
    Baz, Field of
    Bazuzu, father of Utug
    Bead-making, Egyptian art of
    Bedouin custom
    Bêl, name of
    the god Marduk
    Belaku, patesi of Ashnunnak
    Beleous
    Beletaras
    Beli-arik, patesi of Susa
    Berber dialects
    Berossus
    Dynasties of
    Berthelot, M. P. E.
    Bezold, Prof. C.
    Bi-Gani-sharri
    Bilâdhuri
    Bilingual compositions
    Bin-Gani-sharri, son of Narâm-Sin
    Bint el-Mderre
    Birs, site of Borsippa
    Bismâya, site of Adab
    excavations at
    character of buildings uncovered at
    Bitumen
    "Black-headed ones"
    Blau monuments
    Boat-inspectors
    Boats, for transport
    Body-paint
    Boeotia, Neolithic potsherds from
    Boissier, A.
    Borsippa; excavations at
    Bosanquet, Prof. R. C.
    Boundary-ditch, between Lagash and Umma
    of Ur-Engur
    _see also_ Frontier
    Boundary-stones
    Bow, introduced by the Semites
    of Narâm-Sin
    adopted by Dungi
    Breasted, Prof. J. H.
    Breccia
    Bricks, of Sumer
    character of Babylonian
    plano-convex
    change in size of
    manufacture of
    stamped with figure of Imgig
    origin of the Egyptian brick
    Brick-stamps
    Bronze, evidence with regard to
    later Elamite work in
    Budge, Dr. E. A. Wallis
    Bull-monsters, proto-Elamite
    Bulls, as offerings
    copper figures of
    human-headed
    Bûr-Sin I., king of Ur, reign of
    expeditions of
    buildings of
    in relation to Enlil
    statue of
    his deification and cult
    his survival as a deity in the Moon-god's suite
    in chronological table
    Bûr-Sin II., king of Isin
    in chronological table
    Burial, of the dead
    different forms of
    after battle
    Egyptian and Babylonian fashions of
    earliest Susian form of
    Burial fees
    Burial-mounds, after battle
    Burrows, Prof. R. M.
    Buwârîya

    Canals
    Canopic branch, of the Nile
    Cappadocia
    prehistoric pottery from
    Caravan-routes, from the Iranian plateau
    Carnegie Institution, of Washington

    Caspian
    Casting, in metal
    Cattle, transport of
    Cedar, remains of pillars of
    Cedar-groves, sacred
    Cemeteries, in Upper Egypt
    Central Arabia
    Central Asia
    Cesnola, General di
    Chamberlain, royal
    Chariots, of war
    representation of a
    Chialy Effendi
    China
    Chinese
    Chinese Turkestan
    Chronicle, the Babylonian
    of Sargon and Narâm-Sin
    concerning early Babylonian kings
    Dynastic, from Nippur
    Chronicles, Hebrew Books of
    Chronological table, of kings and rulers of Sumer and Akkad
    Chronology, classes of data for determining
    Babylonian
    of the later Sumerian period
    Chicago, Exploration Fund of the University of
    Chieftains, meeting of
    Chipiez, Charles
    Cilician Gates
    Citadel Tell, at Susa
    Cities, in Babylonia
    origin of
    communication between
    City-gods, origin and development of
    description of a
    position of
    in relation to the patesi
    disputes between
    City-states, development of
    wars of the
    weakening and decay of the
    Clay, Prof. A. T.
    Clay tablet, borrowed by Elam
    introduced into Cappadocia
    reached Crete
    Climatic changes, a cause of racial migrations
    Clothing, Sumerian and Semitic
    Code, of Hammurabi
    Sumerian origin of
    of Gudea
    _see also_ Laws
    Codes, legal
    Colour-dishes, for face or body-paint
    Commercial intercourse, in Babylonia
    with foreign countries
    Conch-shells, cylinders and plaques from
    Cones, votive
    of copper
    
    historical
    Confiscation, Sumerian laws against
    Constantinople
    Contract tablets
    Contracted burial, Sumerian practice of
    Convoys, early service of
    Copper, Babylonian evidence with regard to
    objects from Fâra
    from Kimash
    lance of
    known to predynastic Egyptians
    its displacement of flint in Egypt
    effect of Egyptian skill in working
    Copper-mines, in Elam
    Corn, tribute of
    fees of
    _see also_ Grain
    _Corvée_
    Couriers
    Court, expenses of the
    Crenelated buildings, Egyptian and Sumerian
    Crenelation, in walls of early Egyptian buildings
    Crete, traces of Babylonian culture in
    parallels between cultures of Elam and
    Cros, Commandant Gaston
    Cruciform monument, from Sippar
    Cult-centres
    Cult-images
    Cults, survival of Sumerian
    Cuneiform writing, invention of
    the Sumerian form the parent of other systems
    Cupbearers
    Cuq, Prof. Edouard
    Curium
    Cutha
    centre of Nergal's cult
    Cylinders, of Gudea
    Cylinder-seal, early migrations of the
    introduced into Babylonia by Sumerians
    possible Egyptian evolution of the
    earliest form of
    Cylinder-seals, engraving of
    composite monsters on
    official use of
    Sumerian
    early Semitic or Akkadian
    Egyptian
    Cypriote
    Cyro-Cappadocian and Hittite
    Cretan
    Cyprus, prehistoric pottery of
    its alleged conquest by Sargon of Agade
    inadequate evidence for the theory
    extent of Babylonian influence in

    Dada, patesi of Shuruppak
    Dada, magician
    Dagan
    Daggers, Sumerian
    engraved panels from handles of
    Damgalnunna, temple of
    Damik-ilishu, king of Isin
    in chronological table
    Date-formulæ
    Date-lists
    Dates, trade in
    Dâti-Enlil, father of Shar-Gani-sharri
    Dating, methods of
    De Clercq Collection
    De la Fuÿe, Col. Allotte
    De Lancy, Barré
    De Morgan, J.
    De Sarzec, E.
    Dead, treatment of the
    Egyptian worship of the
    Decadence, in Sumerian art
    Deification, of early Babylonian kings
    effect of
    origin of
    Deir
    Deke
    Delitzsch, Prof. Friedrich
    Delta, Egyptian
    Demonology
    Deportation, policy of
    Dêr
    Dhorme, Père Paul
    Diarbekr
    Dilbat
    Dilmun
    Diorite
    from Magan
    Disk, from Phaestos
    Divination, by oil
    Diviners, professional
    Divorce, fees for
    abuse of
    Dîwânîya
    Diyala
    Door-sockets
    Dorians
    Doves, as offerings
    Dragons, in Sumerian art
    Drainage, systems of
    Dreams, of Eannatum; of Gudea
    Dress
    Drill, in engraving
    Droop, J. P.
    Dubâ'i
    Dudu, official at Ur-Ninâ's court
    Dudu, chief priest of Ningirsu under Entemena
    perforated block of
    Duerst, Dr. J. Ulrich
    Dugru, of Ningirsu
    Dumuzi-abzu
    Dun-..., patron deity of Ur-Ninâ's dynasty
    Dungi, king of Ur, policy of
    empire of
    his adoption of the bow
    Elamite campaigns of
    provincial administration of
    buildings of
    copper cone of
    deification of
    cult of
    in chronological table

    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
    E-anna, in Erech
    in Lagash
    E-babbar, in Sippar
    in Larsa
    in Lagash
    E-ditar-kalama
    E-engur
    E-khalbi
    E-kharsag
    E-kur
    E-meslam
    E-meteursagga
    E-ninnû
    earliest mention of
    remains of
    E-pa
    E-patutila
    E-sagila
    E-salgilsa
    E-silsirsir
    E-ulmash
    Ea; see Enki
    Ea-[...], king of Isin
    in chronological table
    Ea-bani, figures identified with
    Eagle, as emblem
    lion-headed
    Eannatum, patesi of Lagash
    reign of
    conquests of
    character of
    titles of
    buildings and canals of
    well of
    representations of
    in chronological table
    Ebarti, Elamite dynasty of
    Eclipse
    Edfu
    legend of
    Egypt, Palaeolithic and Neolithic remains in
    recent excavations on early sites in
    early cultural connections with Babylonia
    suggested relations with Elam
    early influence in Syria
    connection with Hittite culture
    with the Aegean
    hypothetical Semitic invasion of Upper
    granaries of
    Egyptian culture
    legends
    language
    religion, Semitic element in
    writing, origin of
    Egyptians, Neolithic and predynastic
    early dynastic
    Ekikala
    El-Hibba, excavations at
    inscriptions from
    El-Katr
    El-Ohêmir, site of Kish
    Elam, prehistoric peoples of
    prehistoric pottery of
    early cultural relations with Babylonia
    suggested cultural parallels with Egypt
    with Crete
    frontier of
    defeated by Eannatum
    defeated by Lu-enna
    relations of Manishtusu with
    conquered by Urumush
    relations of Sargon and Narâm-Sin with
    commercial intercourse with
    early Semitic immigration into
    Gudea's campaign in
    Dungi's conquest and administration of
    under the later kings of Ur
    defeated by Anu-mutabil
    Elamite invasions
    copper mines in
    craftsmen from
    patesis of
    governors of
    sukkals of
    sculpture and metal-work of
    Elamite titles
    Elamites
    Embalming, of the dead
    Emblems, sacred
    of Ningirsu
    of a goddess
    of Lagash
    of a city
    Elamite origin of certain Babylonian
    Enakalli, patesi of Umma
    successor of
    in chronological table
    Enannatum I., patesi of Lagash
    titles of
    in chronological table
    Enannatum II., patesi of Lagash
    raid of Elamites in reign of
    in chronological table
    Enannatum, chief priest of the Moon-god at Ur
    Enbi-Ishtar, king of Kish
    racial character of, 53; in chronological table
    Enbu-ilum
    Enetarzi, patesi of Lagash
    letter to
    in chronological table
    Engilsa, patesi of Lagash
    in chronological table
    Engraving, of stone, shell, etc.
    of metal
    Eniggal, royal steward; sealings of
    Enkhegal, king of Lagash
    in chronological table
    Enki
    his temple in Eridu
    his temple in Girsu
    Enkigal
    Enkomi
    Enlil
    his temple at Nippur
    his temple in Lagash
    frontier shrine to
    canal dedicated to
    name of
    Enlil-bani, king of Isin
    in chronological table
    Enlitarzi, patesi of Lagash
    in chronological table
    Enlulim
    Enshagkushanna, lord of Sumer
    in chronological table
    Ensignun
    Entemena, patesi of Lagash
    reign of
    silver vase of
    cone of
    in chronological table
    Enzu
    Eponym Lists
    Erech
    excavations at
    _see also_ Warka
    Eridu
    excavations at
    see also Abû Shahrain Erinda
    Erythraean Sea
    Esar, king of Adab
    Estates, purchase of
    Euphrates, names of
    changes in course of
    contrasted with Tigris
    period of high water in
    at Nippur
    Evans, Dr. Arthur
    Excavations, in Sumer and Akkad
    in Egypt
    in Persia
    in Turkestan
    Eyes, of statues

    Face-paint
    Falûja
    Fâra, site of Shuruppak
    excavations at
    plan of
    discoveries at
    objects from
    Fees, priestly
    of diviners
    of the grand vizir and patesi
    for divorce
    Fetish emblems
    Figurines, of terra-cotta
    in precious metals
    Fire-necropoles, so-called
    Fish, as offerings
    Fisher, C. S.
    Fishery inspectors
    Fish-men
    Fish-ponds
    sacred
    Flint-knapping
    Flints, Egyptian
    Flute-player, to Ningirsu
    Forced labour
    _see also_ Slaves
    Fossey, Prof. Charles
    Foucart, G.
    Foundation-figures
    Foundation-offerings
    Fresnel, F.
    Frontier-ditches
    Frontier-shrines
    Funeral rites

    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
    in chronological table
    Galu-kazal, patesi of Lagash
    in chronological table
    Gankhar
    Garments, Sumerian and Semitic
    as fees
    trade in
    Garstang, Prof. J.
    Gatumdug
    Gautier, J.-E.
    Geikie, Sir Archibald
    Geikie, Prof. James
    Genouillac, H. de
    Geometric designs, on pottery
    Geshtin-anna
    Ghiaur Kala
    Gifts, accompanying the sale of land
    Gigunû
    Gikana, of Ninmakh
    Gilding, of carved stone objects
    Gilgamesh, figures identified with
    epic of
    Gimdunpae, wife of Gudea
    Gimil-ilishu, king of Isin
    in chronological table
    Gimil-Sin, king of Ur
    reign of
    cult of
    in chronological table
    Ginarbaniru
    Girnun
    Girsu, a division of Lagash
    temples in
    House of
    wall of
    canal of
    Gisha
    Gishkhu, Gishukh, former readings of the name of Umma
    Gladstone, Dr. J. H.
    Gods, racial character of Sumerian
    earliest Babylonian
    Sumerian and Egyptian
    symbols for Egyptian
    Gold, despatch of
    Gold-dust
    Grain, as tribute
    fees of
    trade in
    value of land reckoned in
    Grain-barges
    Granary-inspectors
    Grand vizir, seal of
    Graves, at Fâra
    at Surgliul and El-Hibba
    at Abû Hatab
    at Mukayyar
    at Warka
    at Babylon
    at Susa
    at Mussian
    in Egypt
    _see also_ Burial
    Greece
    Greek civilization
    Greek cross
    Greeks
    Grove, sacred
    Gu-edin, sacred land of Ningirsu
    its freedom from taxation
    divisions of
    Stele of
    Gubi
    Gubin
    Gudea, patesi of Lagash
    reign of
    date of
    buildings of
    monuments of
    statutes of
    seal of
    cylinders of
    sculpture of the period of
    character of
    deification of
    cult of
    in chronological table
    Gula
    Gungunu, king of Ur
    in chronological table
    Gunidu, father of Ur-Ninâ
    Gursar, grandfather of Ur-Ninâ
    Gutebu
    Gutiu
    slaves from

    Hadadnadinakhe, palace of
    Haematite, for face-paint
    Hagios Onuphrios
    Hair, treatment of the
    Halbherr, Prof.
    Halévy, J.
    Hall, H. R.
    Hammâm
    Hammurabi
    Harp, Sumerian form of
    Harpoon, Egyptian kingdom of the
    Harran
    Head-dresses, forms of divine
    Hearst Expedition
    Hebrews
    Helm, Otto
    Helmets, Sumerian
    of Narâm-Sin
    Hepatoscopy, Sumerian origin of
    Herodotus
    Hêtime
    Heuzey, Léon
    Hieroglyphs, Egyptian
    Hittite
    Minoan
    on Phaestos disk
    Hilla
    Hilprecht, Prof. H. V.
    Hît
    Hittite culture
    cylinder-seals
    script
    power
    Hogarth, D. G.
    Hommel, Prof. Fritz
    Honey, for embalming
    Horse, introduction of the
    Horus
    Hoschander, J.
    Hrozný, F.
    Huber, E.
    Hulvan
    Human-headed bulls
    Hunger, J.
    Huntington, Ellsworth
    Huntsman, in suite of Semitic prince
    Hyksos

    Iamutbal
    Ibalpel, patesi of Ashnunnak
    Ibalum
    Ibi-Sin, king of Ur
    in chronological table
    Ibla
    Ibn Rusta
    Ibn Serapion
    Ibni-sharru, seal of
    Idin-Dagan, king of Isin
    in chronological table
    Idin-ilu, patesi of Kisurra
    Ikhi
    Ili, patesi of Umma
    in chronological table
    Ili-Urumush
    Ilishma
    Ilsu-rabi, patesi of Basime
    Ilu-bani
    Iluma-ilu
    Imagery, in Sumerian art
    Imgig, the lion-headed eagle of Ningirsu
    Impae
    Imprecations
    Indian Ocean
    Indo-Europeans
    Inlaying
    Inspectors, Sumerian
    Invocations
    Iran
    Iranian plateau
    Iron
    Irrigation, in Babylonia and Egypt
    methods of
    oxen for
    Ishbi-Ura, king of Isin
    in chronological table
    Ishkun-Sin
    Ishme-Dagan, king of Isin
    in chronological table
    Ishnunuk, Anzanite form of the name Ashnunnak
    Ishtar
    Isin, in Sumer
    the Dynasty of
    racial character of the kings of
    relation of its dynasty to that of Babylon
    Isis
    Itaddu I., patesi of Susa
    Itaddu II,, patesi of Susa
    Iter-kasha, king of Isin
    in chronological table
    Itûr-Shamash
    Ivory
    Izinum, seal of

    Jastrow, Prof. Morris
    Jensen, Prof. P.
    Jéquier, G.
    Jewellery, Elamite
    Jidr
    Jôkha, site of Umma
    plan of
    cones from
    tablets from

    Ka-azag, patesi of Lagash
    in chronological table
    Ka-azag, father of Ninkagina
    Kadi, 101; temple of
    Kagalad
    Kal-Rukhuratir, patesi of Susa
    Kal-Uli, ancestor of Kuk-Nashur
    Kalki, seal of
    Kanizi, early official of Shuruppak
    Kara-Uyuk, pottery from
    tablets from
    Kardaka
    Karkar
    Kashtubila, of Kazallu
    Kassite Dynasty, of Babylon
    period
    Kassites
    Kazallu
    Kengi
    Ker Porter, Sir R.
    Kerkha
    Kermanshah
    Kesh
    Khâbûr
    Khakhu
    Khala-Lama, daughter of Galu-khazal
    Khaladda, patesi of Shuruppak
    Khamasi
    Khamazi
    Kharakene, kingdom of
    Kharshi, Kharishi
    Khashkhamer, patesi of Ishkun-Sin
    Khegir
    Khenda
    Khotan
    Khukhnuri, Khukhunuri
    Khuluppu-trees
    Khummatur, possible reading of the name Lummadur
    Khumurti
    Khunnini, patesi of Kimash
    Khurshitu, site of
    Khutran-tepti, Elamite dynasty of
    Ki-babbar
    Ki-uri
    Ki-urra
    Kiab
    Kianki
    Kids, fees of
    Kilulla, seal of
    Kimash
    King, early signification of the title
    Kingi
    Kings, deification of
    Babylonian list of
    Kinunir
    Kirman
    Kisâri, king of Gankhar
    Kish, site of
    earliest kings of
    Sumerian victories over
    later kingdom of
    deification of kings of
    purchase of land at
    commercial relations with Lagash
    under Sumu-abu
    Kisurra, site of
    excavations at
    destruction of
    brick from
    _see also_ Abû Hatab
    Knives, panels from handles of
    Knossos
    Koldewey, Dr. Robert
    Komorof, Gen.
    Kopet Dagh
    Koptos
    Kubâdh I.
    Kudur-Nankhundi, king of Elam
    Kudurru-inscriptions
    Kûfa
    Kugler, F. X.
    Kuk-Kirmesh, sukkal of Elam
    Kuk-Nashur, or Kukka-Nasher, sukkal of Elam
    Kur-shesh, patesi of Umma
    in chronological table
    Kurdistan
    Kurgans, at Anau
    Kurna
    Kût el-'Amâra
    Kutir-Nakhkhunte
    Kutû
    Kuyunjik
    painted pottery from
    Neolithic settlement at

    Lagash
    name and site of
    excavations at
    destruction of
    early history of
    under Eannatum and his successors
    sack of
    under Erech and Ur
    under Semitic domination
    later rulers of
    in the kingdom of Sumer and Akkad
    under the Dynasty of Ur
    emblem of
    _see also_ Tello
    Lagrange, Père M. J.
    Lament on the fall of Lagash
    Lampre, G.
    Lance, votive
    Lance-bearers, Sumerian
    Land, system of tenure
    purchase of
    Langdon, S.
    Lankuku
    Lapis-lazuli
    Larsa, site of
    excavations at
    as cult-centre
    history of
    see also Senkera Lasirab, king of Gutiu
    Laws, Sumerian
    of Urukagina
    of Hammurabi
    of Ninâ and Ningirsu
    of the Sun-god
    _see also_ Code
    Le Strange, G.
    Lebanon
    Legends, Sumerian
    Semitic
    Egyptian
    of Sargon
    Legge, F.
    Lehmann-Haupt, Prof. C. F.
    Letters, royal
    earliest example of a
    Libations
    Libation-vase
    Libation-water
    Libit-Ishtar, king of Isin
    in chronological table
    Libit-Ishtar, governor of Sippar
    Libyan settlers, in Egypt
    Lidda, child of Ur-Ninâ
    sex of
    Likhatcheff, M.
    Limestone, inlaying with
    Line-characters
    Lion, in decoration
    Lion-headed eagle, of Ningirsu
    Lipum, patesi of Anshan
    Lipush-Iau
    Literature, influence of Sumerian
    Liver-omens
    Loan-words
    Loaves, fees of
    as offerins
    Lóczy, Prof. de
    Loess
    Loftus, W. K.
    Loin-cloth, Semitic
    Lower Egypt
    Lower Sea, the Persian Gulf
    Lower World; see also Underworld
    Lu-enna, priest of Ninmar, letter from
    Lugunutur, wife of Enlitarzi
    Lugal-anda, patesi of Lagash
    sealings of
    full name of
    in chronological table
    Lugal-andanushuga; _see_ Lugal-anda
    Lugal-bur, patesi of Lagash
    in chronological table
    Lugal-ezen
    Lugal-ezendug, patesi of Nippur
    Lugal-kigub-nidudu, king of Erech and Ur
    in chronological table
    Lugal-kisalsi, king of Erech and Ur
    in chronological table
    Lugal-kurdub
    Lugal-magurri, patesi of Ur and commander of the fortress
    Lugal-me
    Lugal-shag-engur, patesi of Lagash
    in chronological table
    Lugal-sisa
    Lugal-tarsi, king of Kish
    in chronological table
    Lugal-uru
    temple of
    Lugal-ushumgal, patesi of Lagash
    in chronological table
    Lugal-zaggisi, king of Erech
    his sack of Lagash
    reign of
    his western expedition
    in chronological table
    Lulubu
    Luminadimdug Canal
    Lummagirnunta Canal
    Lupad
    Lyre-player, to the Moon-god

    Mace-heads, in Babylonia and Egypt
    of Mesilim
    of Shar-Gani-sharri
    of Lasirab
    of Gudea
    supports for ceremonial
    Maciver, Prof. D. Randall
    Madga
    Madka
    Magan
    Ma'er, Mari
    Magician, royal
    Makhar
    Makkan
    Mal-Amîr
    Malachite, for face-paint
    Managers, of estates
    Manishdussu, Manishduzzu, Anzanite forms of the name Manishtusu
    Manishtusu, king of Kish
    campaigns of
    obelisk of
    statues of
    cruciform monument probably to be assigned to
    date of
    in chronological table
    Mannu-dannu, prince of Magan
    Mantle, Sumerian
    Map, Babylonian, of the world
    Mâr-Ishtar, seal of
    Marad
    Mardin
    Marduk
    origin of emblem of
    Mari; _see_ Ma'er
    Markharshi
    Marsh, of Ninkharsag
    Martu (Amurru), a West Semitic god
    Masiam-Ishtar
    Maspero, Prof. G.
    Mash-Shuruppak, early official of Shuruppak
    Mastaba-tomb, of Aha
    Mat-burials
    Mat-weaving, Egyptian
    Median Wall
    Mediterranean, culture
    Lugal-zaggisi's expedition to
    Sargon and the
    Gudea's supplies from
    Gimil-Sin and the
    Meissner, Prof. B.
    Melukhkha
    Memphis
    Mena
    Ménant, J.
    Menêdir
    Menua
    Menudgid
    Minoan hieroglyphs
    Merv
    oasis of
    Mes
    Mesalim, son of Manishtusu
    Mesandu, slaves dedicated to
    Mesilim, king of Kish
    in chronological table
    Meslamtaea
    temple to
    Mesniu
    Mesopotamia
    Messengers, royal
    Messerschmidt, L.
    Metal-casting, Sumerian
    Egyptian
    Elamite
    Metal-work, engraved
    Meyer, Prof. Edouard
    Migrations, causes of
    Minotaurs
    Mishime
    Mjelli
    Mongols
    Monsters, in Sumerian art
    Moon-god
    dress of the
    _see also_ Enzu, Nannar, Sin
    Moon-cult
    Mosaic legislation
    Mother-of-pearl
    Moulds, for casting
    for bricks
    Mukayyar, site of Ur
    excavations at
    plan of
    contracted burials at
    inscriptions from
    Mummification
    Muninnikurta
    Murîk-Tidnim, the Wall of the West
    Musayyib
    Mussian, excavations at
    painted pottery from
    Mycenaean epoch
    Myres, Prof. J. L.
    Mythological beings

    Nabataeans
    Nabonidus
    Naga-ed-Dêr
    Nagidda, patesi of Adamdun
    Nahr Hindîya
    Nakâda
    Naksu
    Nalua-stone
    Namazua
    Names, symbolical
    Nammakhni, patesi of Lagash
    in chronological table
    Nanâ
    Nannar, Moon-god of Ur
    Nannar-gugal Canal
    Narâm-Sin, king of Akkad, reign of
    buildings of
    date of
    successors of
    dress of
    his Stele of Victory
    the Pir Hussein Stele
    Omens of
    titles of
    deification of
    in chronological table
    Narmer
    Naruti
    Natik Effendi
    Naturalistic treatment, in Sumerian design
    in early Semitic sculpture
    Naville, Prof. E.
    Nebuchadnezzar II.
    Nekhune
    Neo-Anzanite texts
    Neolithic period, in Babylonia
    remains of, at Nineveh
    at Susa
    at Mussian
    at Anau
    in Egypt
    in Aegean and Mediterranean areas
    in Northern Greece
    wares of the
    Nergal
    Nets, of the gods
    New Moon, Feast of the
    Newberry, P. E.
    Nidaba
    Niebuhr, Carl
    Niffer, site of Nippur
    excavations at
    votive inscriptions from
    dated tablets from
    contracted burials at
    _see also_ Nippur
    Nin-azag-nun
    Nin-Isin
    Ninâ, goddess
    Ninâ, division of Lagash
    Ninab, possible reading of the name Ninni-esh
    Ninabukhadu
    Ninagal
    Nindar
    Nindub
    Nineveh
    Neolithic settlement at
    Ningal
    Ningandu, wife of Nammakhni
    Ningirsu
    temple of
    laws of
    emblem of
    representations of
    Ningirsu-ushumgal Canal
    Ningishzida, Gudea's patron deity
    monsters of
    temple of
    representation of
    Ninib
    Ninkagina
    Ninkharsag
    temple of
    Marsh of
    Ninki
    Ninlil
    Ninmakh
    Ninmar
    Ninni
    her temple at Erech
    her temples at Lagash
    her temple at Ninni-esh
    representations of
    Ninni-esh
    Ninsar
    Ninshakh, Urukagina's patron deity
    Nintud
    Niphates
    Nippur, site of
    excavations at
    early Babylonian plan of
    plan of the inner city at
    character and history of
    buildings at
    objects and inscriptions from
    _see also_ Niffer
    Noeldeke, A.
    North Africa
    Northern Babylonia, Semitic immigration into
    _see also_ Akkad
    Northern China
    Northern Greece, prehistoric pottery from
    Northern Syria
    Nubia
    Nudubtum, seal of
    Nuffar; _see_ Niffer
    Numeration, systems of
    Nusku
    Nutugmushda

    Oannes
    Oaths, ratification of
    Obelisk, of Manishtusu
    description of
    names from
    Obsidian implements, from Kuyunjik
    Offerings, votive
    funerary
    Officials
    orders for supplies for
    Ohnefalsch-Richter, M. H.
    Oil, divination by
    for embalming
    Omen-texts, historical traditions in
    Omens, of Sargon and Narâm-Sin
    consultation of the
    Opis, site of
    history of
    Oppert, Jules
    Overseers, of landed property

    Painting, of the body
    Palace-chamberlain
    Palace Tell, at Tello
    Palaeoliths
    Palaikastro
    Palermo Stele
    Palettes, early Egyptian
    Pamirs
    Parthian fortress
    palace
    Patesi, signification of the title
    in relation to the city-god
    decrease in influence of
    Patron deities
    on cylinder-seals
    Perforated plaques
    Perquisites, of the priesthood
    Perrot, G.
    Persia
    Persian Gulf
    Petrie, Prof. W. M. Flinders
    Petticoat, Sumerian
    Phaestos
    disk from
    Pictographs, Minoan
    Pictorial writing, systems of
    Picture characters
    Pilasters
    Pinches, T. G.
    Pir Hussein
    Plaid, Semitic
    Plans, Babylonian
    Plane-trees
    Plano-convex bricks
    Plaster
    Plating, with copper
    Poebel, A.
    Population, transference of.
    Post-Sargonic, use of term
    Pot-burials
    Pottery, Sumerian
    Elamite
    Cappadocian
    Egyptian
    Prayer, of dedication
    Predynastic Egyptians
    Prehistoric period, in Babylonia
    in Elam
    in Egypt
    Pre-Sargonic, use of term
    Presents, accompanying a sale of land
    Price, Prof. Ira M.
    Prices, regulation of
    Priesthood, power of the Sumerian
    exactions of the
    Proto-Elamite, system of writing
    Ptolemaic Canon
    Pukhia, king of Khurshitu
    Pumpelly, Raphael
    expeditions of
    Punt
    Pûr-Sagale
    Pûr-Sin; _see_ Bûr-Sin
    Purification, rites of

    Racial types
    Radau, Hugo
    Ranke, H.
    Rassam, H.
    Rawlinson, Sir H. C.
    Red Sea
    Reed, of Enki
    Reeds, huts of; roofs of
    Reisner, G. A.
    Reservoirs
    Revenue, farming of the
    Revolts, against Manishtusu
    against Sargon
    Rhodes
    Richthofen, Baron Ferdinand von
    Rîm-Sin, king of Larsa
    Rimush, probable reading of the name Urumush
    Ringed staff, as emblem
    Rîsh-Adad, king of Apirak
    Ritual, Sumerian
    Rogers, Prof. R. W.
    Romans
    Rule, architect's
    Russian Turkestan

    Sab-Dagan
    Sabu, in Elam
    Sacrifice
    Sagantug
    Sa'îd Muhammad
    Sakjegeuzi, potsherds from
    Sakli
    Sale, deeds of
    Samarra
    Samâwa
    Samsu-iluna
    Samsun
    Sand-dunes, origin of
    Sandals, introduction of
    Sangu-priest
    Sarcophagus-burials
    Sargon of Agade
    historical character of
    his identification with Shar-Gani-sharri
    age of
    Legend of
    Omens of
    Chronicle of
    "sons of the palace" of
    Sargonids
    Sassanian period
    Satuni, king of Lulubu
    Sayce, Prof. A. H.
    Schäfer, Heinrich
    Scheil, Père V.
    Schmidt, Dr. Hubert
    Schnabel, P.
    Schrader, Eberhard
    Sculpture, Sumerian
    early Semitic
    Elamite
    Egyptian, Sea, of the West
    Sea-country
    Seal-cutting
    Seal-impressions, proto-Elamite
    Seal-stones, Cretan
    Sealings
    Sebene Su
    Seistan
    Seleucia
    Semiramis
    Semites, racial characteristics of
    immigrations of
    cause of Semitic migrations
    domination of
    influence of
    sculpture of
    hypothetical Egyptian invasion of
    Semitisms
    Senkera, site of Larsa
    excavations at
    inscriptions from
    Sennacherib
    Ser-i-Pul-i-Zohab
    Serpents, in Sumerian art
    Shabara
    Shad-Bitkim, Field of
    Shagarakti-Buriash
    Shagpada
    Shagshag, wife of Urukagina
    Shakanshabar
    Shakh, conquest of
    Shakh, royal steward
    Shakh-Bau
    Shamash
    Shar-Gani-sharri, king of Akkad, reign of
    his identification with Saigon
    conquests of
    in relation to Cyprus
    administrative system of
    empire of
    buildings of
    mace-head of
    stele of victory possibly his
    name of
    deification of
    date of
    in chronological table
    Sharlak. king of Kutû
    Sharru-Gi, king of Kish
    Stele of
    name of
    son of
    date of
    in chronological table
    Sharru-Gi-ili
    Sharru-uktn
    Shashru
    Shatra
    Shatt 'Ateshân
    Shatt el-'Arab
    Shatt el-Farakhna
    Shatt el-Hai
    Shatt el-Kâr
    Shatt en-Nîl
    Shaving, Sumerian practice of
    Shêkh Bedr
    Shell, Sumerian use of
    Shemsu-Hor
    Shid-tab
    Shields, Sumerian
    Shilkhak-In-Shushinak
    Shilkhakha, sukkal of Elam
    Shimash
    Shimbi-ishkhuk
    Ships
    Shirpurla, Lagash; see Lagash
    Shirukdu', Shirukdukh, sukkal of Elam
    Shrines, local
    Shumerû
    Shumu-abi
    Shunet ez-Zebîb
    Shurippak
    Shuruppak, site of
    excavations at
    destruction of
    god of
    inscriptions from
    _see also_ Fâra
    Shushinak
    Shutruk-Nakhkhunte
    Sigbirra
    Sigiresh
    Silver, engraving upon
    as standard of exchange
    from the mountains
    Simanu
    Simash
    Simashgi
    Simebalar-khuppak, sukkal of Elam
    Simuru
    Sin; _see also_ Nannar
    Sin-idinnam
    Sin-ikisha, king of Isin
    in chronological table
    Sin-magir, king of Isin
    in chronological table
    Sin-muballit
    Sinai
    Sinaitic peninsula
    Sippar, site of
    excavations at
    history of
    _see also_ Abû Habba Siri
    Siu
    Skins, clothing of
    Skulls, measurement of
    Slate-carvings, Egyptian
    Slavery
    Slaves, public
    sacred
    foreign
    recruiting of
    Smith, Dr. Elliot
    Smith, George
    Sneferu
    Somaliland
    Sorcerers
    Southern Arabia
    Spear, or lance, Sumerian use of
    Spouting vase, symbol of the
    Stamps, for reliefs
    Standards, carried in battle
    of a goddess
    Statues, Sumerian
    early Semitic
    of Manishtusu
    of Ur-Bau
    of Gudea
    symbolical names for
    offerings to
    significance of
    Stein, M. Aurel
    Stelæ, of delimitation
    of victory
    Stewards
    Stilus
    Stone, rare in Sumer
    Egyptian vessels of
    Storehouses
    Storm-god, West Semitic
    Strong drink, fees of
    Su-people
    Subartu
    Sûk el-'Afej
    Sukkal-makh, title
    Sukkallu, significance of title
    Sumer, limits of
    names for
    inhabitants of
    system of land tenure in
    Sumerian civilization, age of
    achievements of
    influence of
    Sumerian reaction, under the kings of Ur
    "Sumerian controversy"
    Sumerians, racial characteristics of
    racial affinity of
    female types of
    position of women among
    original home of
    earliest settlements of
    their weapons and method of fighting
    close of political career of
    Sumu-abu
    Sumu-ilu, king of Ur
    in chronological table
    Sun-god, temples of
    laws of
    _see also_ Babbar, Shamash
    Sun-worship, Babylonian centres of
    Egyptian
    Sunanam
    Surghul
    excavations at
    Susa, excavations at
    first settlement at
    earliest form of burial at
    "second period" at
    objects from
    early patesis of
    native Elamite rulers of
    history of
    Symbolism, in writing
    Synchronisms
    Syria
    coast of
    Northern
    Syro-Arabian desert
    Syro-Cappadocian cylinder-seals
    pottery

    Tablets
    from Tello
    Taklamakan Desert
    Tarim basin
    Taurus
    Tax-gatherers
    Taylor, Col. J. E.
    Tell, of the Tablets
    "de la Maison des Fruits"
    Tell Ibrâhîm, site of Cutha
    Tell 'Îd
    Tell Lahm
    Tell Manjûr
    Tell Sifr
    Tello, site of Lagash
    excavations at
    plan of
    remains of buildings at
    objects from
    Temple-accounts
    Temple-towers
    Temples, early Sumerian
    buildings attached to
    enclosure of a
    Temti-agun, sukkal of Susa
    Temti-khalki, sukkal of Elam
    Tepe Mussian; _see_ Mussian
    Terra-cotta, stamped figures of
    Testing-house, for weights
    Theft, laws against
    Thessaly
    Thinis
    This
    Thompson, R. Campbell
    Thompson, M. S.
    Throwing-stick
    Thumb-marks, on bricks
    Thureau-Dangin, F., researches of
    referred to
    Tidanu
    Tidnu
    Tig-abba
    Tigris
    changes in channel of
    contrasted with Euphrates
    period of high water in
    upper reaches of
    Timat-Enlil
    Time-reckoning
    _see also_ Dating
    Tin, as an alloy
    Tirash
    Tithes
    Toscanne, P.
    Trade-routes
    Transcaspia
    Treaties
    Tribute, in grain
    Tukîn-khatti-migrisha
    Tupliash; _see_ Ashnunnak
    Turkestan
    Tutu
    Tuz-Khurmati

    Ubara
    Ubil-Ishtar, an Akkadian prince
    Ug-edin Canal
    Ug-me, patesi of Lagash
    in chronological table
    Ugigga, battle of
    Ukush, patesi of Umma
    in chronological table
    Ullu
    Umanu
    Umma, site of, reading of name of,
    history of
    destruction of
    _see also_ Jôkha
    Underworld, 149
    Ungnad, Prof. A.
    Upper Egypt
    Upper Sea, the Mediterranean
    Ur, site of
    excavations at
    as cult-centre
    earlier history of
    Dynasty of
    Sumerian reaction under kings of
    deification of kings of
    downfall of the Dynasty of
    later history of
    _see also_ Mukayyar
    Ur-abba, patesi of Lagash
    in chronological table
    Ur-Babbar, patesi of Lagash
    in chronological table
    Ur-baga
    Ur-Bau, patesi of Lagash
    in chronological table
    Ur-Bau, son of Bûr-Sin I.
    Ur-Dunpae
    Ur-E, patesi of Lagash
    in chronological table
    Ur-Engur, king of Ur
    reign of
    buildings of
    architectural development under
    deification of
    in chronological table
    Ur-Enlil, patesi of Nippur
    Ur-gar, patesi of Lagash
    in chronological table
    Ur-gigir, patesi of Adamdun
    Ur-ilim, patesi of Susa
    Ur-Khumma, possible reading of the name Urlumma
    Ur-Lama I., patesi of Lagash
    cult of
    in chronological table
    Ur-Lama II., patesi of Lagash
    in chronological table
    Ur-mama, patesi of Lagash
    in chronological table
    Ur-nabbad, patesi of Nippur
    Ur-nesu, patesi of Umma
    in chronological table
    Ur-Ninâ, king of Lagash, reign of
    date of
    store-house of
    bas-reliefs of
    close of dynasty of
    offerings to statue of
    in chronological table
    Ur-Ningirsu, patesi of Lagash, reign of
    his relations to the Dynasty of Ur
    engraved shell of
    in chronological table
    Ur-Ningirsu, priest of Ninâ, probably to be identified
      with the patesi
    Ur-Ningislizida, patesi of Ashnunnak
    Ur-Ninib, king of Isin
    in chronological table
    Ur-Ninpa
    Ur-Ninsun, patesi of Lagash
    in chronological table
    Ur-Pasag, patesi of Dungi-Babbar
    Ura-imitti, king of Isin
    in chronological table
    Urbillu
    Uri-zi
    Urkarinnu-wood
    Urkium, patesi of Susa
    Urlumma, patesi of Umma
    in chronological table
    Urmi, Lake
    Urnuntaea
    Urri
    Ursu
    Ur tar
    Uru, a division of Lagash
    Uru-azagga, a division of Lagash
    temples in, 259, 264; fortification of
    Urukagina, king of Lagash, reign of
    date of
    reforms of
    buildings of
    family of
    fate of
    predecessors of
    records from inscribed plaque of
    in chronological table
    Urukagina, son of Engilsa
    Urukagina, father of Abba-dugga
    Urumush, or Rimush, king of Kish, reign of
    fate of
    period of
    in chronological table
    Urzage, king of Kish
    in chronological table
    Ush, patesi of Umma
    in chronological table
    Ushu-wood
    Ut-napishtim
    Utug, patesi of Kish
    in chronological table
    Uzargarshana

    Van, Lake
    Vases, votive
    for libations
    for body-paint
    Vegetable motives, on Elamite painted pottery
    Visions; _see_ Dreams
    Vultures, Stele of the, description of
    referred to
    origin of popular name of

    Wage, A. J. B.
    Wâdi Hammamât
    Ward, W. Hayes
    Warka, site of Erech
    excavations at
    plan of
    bricks from
    contracted burials at
    Water, for libation
    Wax writing-tablet, origin of
    Weapons
    Sumerian
    Semitic
    Weights
    Weissbach, Prof. F. H.
    Well, of Eannatum
    West, Sea of the
    Wall of the
    extent of Babylonian influence in the
    Western Asia, 3; early ceramics of
    Western Semites, origin of the
    their destruction of Sumerian towns
    invasions of
    Wheat, cultivation of
    original home of
    in earliest stratum at Anau
    Wigs, Sumerian
    Wine, fees of
    Winckler, Prof. Hugo
    Wind-erosion, effects of
    Wizards
    Women, position and rights of
    clothing of
    Sumerian statuettes of
    Woolley, C. L.
    Worship, scenes of
    Writing, invention of cuneiform
    Elamite forms of
    origin of Egyptian system of
    Hittite; Minoan
    Wuswas

    Yâkût
    Yotkan
    Yurung-kash

    Zâb, Lower
    Zabalu-wood
    Zabshali
    Zagros mountains
    pass
    Zakhara
    Zakro, sealings from
    Zamama
    temple of
    Zambia, king of Isin
    in chronological table
    Zarik, patesi of Susa
    Zarzari
    Zaula
    Ziggurat, institution of the
    at Nippur
    of Gudea
    Zimanak, Field of
    Zimmern, Prof. Heinrich
    Zuzu, king of Opis
    in chronological table

[Illustration: BABYLONIA Showing the Sites of Ancient Cities.]





End of the Project Gutenberg EBook of A History of Sumer and Akkad, by 
Leonard William King

*** 