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.