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 slopes of the Elamite hills. In the north
a political division appears to have corresponded then, as in later
times, to the difference in geological structure. A line drawn from a
point a little below Samarra on the Tigris before its junction with the
Adhem to Hît on the Euphrates marks the division between the slightly
elevated and undulating plain and the dead level of the alluvium, and
this may be regarded as representing the true boundary of Akkad on the
north. The area thus occupied by the two countries was of no very great
extent, and it was even less than would appear from a modern map of the
Tigris and Euphrates valley. For not only was the head of the Persian
Gulf some hundred and twenty, or hundred and thirty, miles distant from
the present coast-line, but the ancient course of the Euphrates below
Babylon lay considerably to the east of its modern bed.
In general character the lands of Sumer and Akkad consist of a flat
alluvial plain, and form a contrast to the northern half of the Tigris
and Euphrates valley, known to the Greeks as Mesopotamia and Assyria.
These latter regions, both in elevation and geological structure,
resemble the Syro-Arabian desert, and it is only in the neighbourhood
of the two great streams and their tributaries that cultivation can
be carried out on any extensive scale. Here the country at a little
distance from the rivers becomes a stony plain, serving only as
pasture-land when covered with vegetation after the rains of winter
and the early spring. In Sumer and Akkad, on the other hand, the
rivers play a far more important part. The larger portion of the
country itself is directly due to their action, having been formed by
the deposit which they have carried down into the waters of the Gulf.
Through this alluvial plain of their own formation the rivers take a
winding course, constantly changing their direction 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 dykes which led to the formation of the swamps, the Tigris followed
the same eastern channel in which it flows at the present time; this
account is confirmed by Yâkût.
[5] See the 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.