CHAPTER XII

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

In the preceding pages we have followed the history of the Sumerian

race from the period of its earliest settlement in Babylonia until

the time when its political power was drawing to a close. The gradual

growth of the state has been described, from the first rude settlements

around a series of ancient cult-centres, through the phase of highly

developed but still independent city-states, to a united kingdom of

Sumer and Akkad, based on ideals inherited from the Semitic North. We

have traced the inter-relations of North and South, of Sumerians and

Semites, and have watched their varying fortunes in the racial conflict

which bulks so largely in the history of the two countries. Points have

also been noted at which contact with other lands can be historically

proved, and it has thus been found possible to estimate the limits of

the kingdoms which were established in Sumer or Akkad during the later

periods. Of foreign lands which came into direct relationship with

Babylonia, Elam plays by far the most conspicuous part. In the time of

the city-states she invades the land of Sumer, and later on is in her

turn conquered by Akkadian and Sumerian kings. The question naturally

arises, how far this close political contact affected the cultural

development of the two countries, and suggests the further query as to

what extent their civilizations were of common origin.

Another region which figures in the list of conquered countries is

Amurru, or the "Western Land," and an attempt must be made to trace

the paths of Babylonian influence beyond the limits of Syria, and to

ascertain its effects within the area of Aegean culture. The later

trade routes were doubtless already in existence, and archaeological

research can often detect evidence of cultural connection, at a

time when there is no question of any political contact. Moreover,

in spite of the absence of Neolithic settlements in Babylonia, and

the comparatively advanced state of culture which characterizes the

earliest of Sumerian sites, it is possible that contact with other and

distant races had already taken place in prehistoric times. One of the

most fascinating problems connected with the early history of Sumer

concerns the relationship which her culture bore to that of Egypt. On

this point recent excavations have thrown considerable light; and, as

the suggested connection, whether direct or indirect, must admittedly

have taken place in a remote age, it will be well to attack this

problem before discussing the relationship of Sumer to the other great

centres of ancient civilization.

Although no direct contact between Babylonia and Egypt has been

proved during the earlier historical periods, the opinion has been

very generally held that the Egyptian civilization was largely

influenced in its first stages by that of Babylonia. The use of the

stone cylinder-seal by the Egyptians certainly furnished a very cogent

argument in favour of the view that some early cultural connection

must have taken place; and, as the cylinder-seal was peculiarly

characteristic of Babylonia during all periods, whereas its use was

gradually discontinued in Egypt, the inference seemed obvious that it

was an original product of Babylonia, whence it had reached Egypt in

late predynastic or early dynastic times. This view appeared to find

support in other points of resemblance which were noted between the

early art and culture of the two countries. Mace-heads of bulbous or

"egg-shaped" form were employed by the early inhabitants of both lands.

The Egyptian slate carvings of the First Dynasty were compared with the

early bas-reliefs and engraved seals of the Sumerians, and resemblances

were pointed out both in subject-matter and in the symmetrical

arrangement of the designs. The employment of brick, in place of

stone, as a building material, was regarded as due to Babylonian

influence; and the crenelated walls of Early Egyptian buildings, the

existence of which was proved not only by pictured representations on

the slate carvings, but also by the remains of actual buildings such

as the mastaba-tomb of King Aha at Nakâda, and the ancient fortress of

Abydos, known as the Shunet ez-Zebîb, were treated as borrowed from

Sumerian originals. That irrigation was practised on the banks of the

Nile as well as in the Euphrates valley, and that wheat was grown in

both countries, were cited as additional proofs that Babylonia must

have exercised a marked influence on Egyptian culture during the early

stages of its development.

In order to explain such resemblances between the early cultures of

Sumer and Egypt, it was necessary to seek some channel by which the

influence of the former country could have reached the valley of the

Nile; and a solution of the problem was found in the theory of a

Semitic invasion of Upper Egypt towards the end of the predynastic

period. That a Semitic element existed in the composition of the

ancient Egyptian language is established beyond dispute; and this

fact was combined with the Egyptian legends of their origin on the

Red Sea coast, and with the situation of the predynastic and early

dynastic cemeteries in Upper Egypt, in support of the theory that

Semitic tribes, already imbued with Sumerian culture, had reached

the Nile from the shore of the Red Sea by way of the Wâdi Hammamât.

According to this view the Neolithic and predynastic population of

Egypt was of a different race to the early dynastic Egyptians. The

former were regarded as indigenous to the country, speaking a language

possibly akin to the Berber dialects of North Africa. With little or

no knowledge of metal, they were pictured as offering a stubborn but

unsuccessful resistance to their Semitic conquerors. The latter were

assumed to have brought with them a copper age culture, ultimately

derived from the Sumerians of Babylonia. Crossing from southern Arabia

by the Straits of Bab el-Mandeb, and making their way northward along

the western shore of the Red Sea, they would have reached the Nile in

the neighbourhood of Koptos. Here they would have formed their first

settlements, and, after subduing the older inhabitants of Upper Egypt,

they would have pushed their way northwards along the valley of the

Nile.[1]

There is no doubt that the union of Upper and Lower Egypt into a single

monarchy, traditionally ascribed to Mena, the legendary founder of the

first Egyptian dynasty, did result from a conquest of the North by the

South. Mena himself was regarded as sprung from a line of local rulers

established at This, or Thinis, in the neighbourhood of Abydos, and

also as the founder of Memphis at the head of the Delta, whither he

transferred his throne. Further traces of the conquest of the North by

the South have been preserved in the legends concerning the followers

of Horus, the patron deity of the first kings of Upper Egypt. The

advance of the Sky-god of Edfu with his Mesniu or "Smiths,"[2] who are

related to have won battle after battle as they pressed northwards,

is amply confirmed by the early dynastic monuments that have been

recovered by excavation. The slate carving of Narmer, on which is

portrayed the victory of Horus over the kingdom of the Harpoon near the

Canopic branch of the Nile, may well represent one of the last decisive

victories of the Horus-worshippers, as they extended their authority

northwards to the sea.[3] Of the historical character of this conquest

of Lower Egypt by the kings of the South, which resulted in the

union of the whole country under a single monarchy, there are now no

two opinions. The point, about which some uncertainty still exists,

concerns the racial character of the conquerors and the origin of their

higher culture, by virtue of which their victories were obtained.

On the hypothesis of a Semitic invasion, the higher elements in

the early culture of Egypt are, as we have seen, to be traced to

a non-Egyptian source. The Semitic immigrants are assumed to have

introduced, not only the use of metal, but also a knowledge of letters.

The Sumerian system of writing has been regarded as the parent of

the Egyptian hieroglyphic characters; and comparisons have been made

between the names of Sumerian and Egyptian gods.[4] The suggestion has

also been put forward that the fashion of extended burial, which in

Egypt gradually displaced the contracted position of the corpse, was

also to be traced to Babylonian influence.

It must be admitted that, until quite recently, this view furnished

a very plausible explanation of the various points of resemblance

noted between the civilizations of the two countries. Moreover, the

evidence obtained by excavation on early sites certainly appeared

to show a distinct break between the predynastic and early dynastic

cultures of Egypt. To account for what seemed so sudden a change in the

character of Egyptian civilization, the theory of a foreign invasion

seemed almost inevitable. But the publication of the results of Dr.

Reisner's excavations at Naga-ed-Dêr and other early cemeteries in

Upper Egypt,[5] has rendered it necessary to revise the theory; while

the still more recent diggings of M. Naville at Abydos prove that the

changes, in certain districts, were even more gradual than had been

supposed.

Put briefly, Dr. Reisner's conclusion is that there was no sudden

break of continuity between the Neolithic and early dynastic cultures

of Egypt. His extensive and laborious comparison of the predynastic

burials with those of the First and Second Dynasties, has shown that

no essential change took place in the Egyptian conception of the life

after death, or in the rites and practices which accompanied the

interment of the body. In early dynastic as in Neolithic times the body

of the dead man was placed in a contracted position on its left side

and with the head to the south, and the grave was still furnished with

food, arms, tools, and ornaments. Moreover, the changes observable

in the construction of the grave itself, and in the character of

the objects within it, were not due to the sudden influence of any

alien race, but may well have been the result of a gradual process of

improvement in the technical skill of the Egyptians themselves.

The three most striking points of difference beween the products of

the predynastic and dynastic periods centre round the character of

the pottery and vessels for household use, the material employed for

tools and weapons, and the invention of writing. It would now appear

that the various changes were all gradually introduced, and one period

fades into another without any strongly marked line of division between

them. A knowledge of copper has always been credited to the later

predynastic Egyptians, and it is now possible to trace the gradual

steps by which the invention of a practical method of working it was

attained. Copper ornaments and objects found in graves earlier than the

middle predynastic period are small and of little practical utility, as

compared with the beautifully flaked flint knives, daggers, and lances,

which still retained the importance they enjoyed in purely Neolithic

times. At a rather later stage in the predynastic period copper

dagger-blades and adzes were produced in imitation of flint and stone

forms, and these mark the transition to the heavy weapons and tools

of copper, which in the early dynastic period largely ousted flint and

stone implements for practical use.

The gradual attainment of skill in the working of copper ore on the

part of the early Egyptians had a marked effect on the whole status

of their culture. Their improved weapons enabled them by conquest

to draw their raw materials from a far more extended area; and the

adaptation of copper tools for quarrying blocks of stone undoubtedly

led to its increased employment as a stronger and more permanent

substitute for clay. The use of the copper chisel also explains the

elaborate carvings upon the early dynastic slates, and the invention

of the stone borer brought about the gradual displacement of pottery

in favour of stone vessels for household purposes. Thus, while

metal-casting and stone-working improved, they did so at the expense

of the older arts of flint-knapping and the manufacture of pottery

by hand, both of which tended to degenerate and die out. Dr. Reisner

had already inferred that for ceremonial purposes, as distinct from

the needs of everyday life, both flint implements and certain earlier

types of pottery continued to be employed. And M. Naville's diggings at

Abydos, during the season of 1909-10, seem to prove that the process

was even slower and less uniform than had been thought possible. In

fact, according to the excavators, it would appear that in certain

districts in Egypt a modified form of the predynastic culture, using

the characteristic red and black pottery, survived as late as the Sixth

Dynasty; while it is known that in Nubia a type of pottery, closely

akin to the same prehistoric ware, continued in use as late as the

Eighteenth Dynasty.[6] However such survivals are to be explained, the

beginning of the dynastic period in Egypt does not appear to present

a break in either racial or cultural continuity. Indeed, a precisely

parallel development may be traced between the early dynastic period,

and that represented by the Third and Fourth Dynasties, when there

is no question of any such break. As the stone vessels of the first

two dynasties had proved themselves superior to hand-made pottery

for practical purposes, so they in turn were displaced by wheel-made

pottery.[7] These changes may be traced to gradual improvements in

manufacture; arts such as mat-weaving and bead-making, which were

unaffected by the new inventions, continued to be practised without

change in the early dynastic as in the predynastic periods.

Recent archaeological research thus leaves small room for the theory

that Egyptian culture was subjected to any strong foreign influence in

early dynastic times, and its conclusions on this point are confirmed

by anatomical evidence. The systematic measurement and comparison

of skulls from predynastic and dynastic burials, which have been

conducted by Dr. Elliot Smith of the Khedivial School of Medicine in

collaboration with the Hearst Expedition, has demonstrated the lineal

descent of the dynastic from the predynastic Egyptians. The two groups

to all intents and purposes represent the same people, and in the

later period there is no trace of any new racial element, or of the

admixture of any foreign strain. Thus the theory of an invasion of

Egypt by Semitic tribes towards the close of the predynastic period

must be given up, and, although this does not in itself negative the

possibility of Sumerian influence having reached Egypt through channels

of commercial intercourse, it necessitates a more careful scrutiny of

the different points of resemblance between the cultures of the two

countries on which the original theory was founded.

One of the subjects on which the extreme upholders of the theory have

insisted concerns the invention of the Egyptian system of writing,

which is alleged by them to have been borrowed from Babylonia. But

it must be noted that those signs which correspond to one another

in the two systems are such as would naturally be identical in any

two systems of pictorial writing, developed independently but under

similar conditions. The sun all the world over would be represented

by a circle, a mountain by a rough outline of a mountain peak, an ox

by a horned head, and so on. To prove any connection between the

two systems a resemblance should be established between the more

conventionalized signs, and here the comparison breaks down completely.

It should further be noted that the Egyptian system has reached us in a

far more primitive state than that of Babylonia. While the hieroglyphic

signs are actual pictures of the objects represented, even the earliest

line-characters of Sumer are so conventionalized that their original

form would scarcely have been recognized, had not their meaning been

already known. In fact, no example of Sumerian writing has yet been

recovered which could have furnished a pattern for the Egyptian scribe.

Moreover, the appearance of writing in Egypt was not so sudden an

event as it is often represented. The buff-coloured pottery of

predynastic times, with its red line decoration, proves that the

Eygptian had a natural faculty for drawing men, animals, plants, boats

and conventional designs. In these picture-drawings of the predynastic

period we may see the basis of the hieroglyphic system of writing,

for in them the use of symbolism is already developed. The employment

of fetish emblems, or symbols, to represent the different gods,[8] is

in itself a rough form of ideographic expression, and, if developed

along its own lines, would naturally lead to the invention of a regular

ideographic form of writing. There is little doubt that this process is

what actually took place. The first impetus may have been given by the

necessity for marks of private ownership, and by the need for conveying

authority from the chief to his subordinates at a distance. Symbols for

the names of rulers and of places would thus soon be added to those

for the gods, and when a need was felt to commemorate some victory or

great achievement of the king, such symbols would naturally be used in

combination. This process may be traced on the earlier monuments of the

First Dynasty, the records on which are still practically ideographic

in character. A very similar process doubtless led to the invention of

the cuneiform system, and there is no need to assume that either Egypt

or Babylonia was indebted to the other country for her knowledge of

writing.

We obtain a very similar result in the case of other points of

resemblance which have been cited to prove a close connection between

the early cultures of the two countries. Considerable stress has been

laid on a certain similarity, which the Egyptian slate carvings of

the dynastic period bear to examples of early Sumerian sculpture and

engraving. It is true that composite creatures are characteristic of

the art of both countries, and that their arrangement on the stone

is often "heraldic" and symmetrical. But the human-headed bull, the

favourite monster of Sumerian art, is never found upon the Egyptian

monuments, on which not only the natural beasts but also the composite

creatures are invariably of an Egyptian or African character. The

general resemblance in style has also been exaggerated. To take a

single instance, a comparison has frequently been made between the

Stele of the Vultures and the broken slate carving in the British

Museum, No. 20791.[9] On the former vultures are depicted carrying off

the limbs of the slain, and on the latter captives are represented as

cast out into the desert to be devoured by birds and beasts of prey.

But the style of the two monuments is very different, and the Egyptian

is far more varied in character. In addition to a single vulture, we

see a number of ravens, a hawk, an eagle, and a lion, all attracted by

the dead; and the arrangement of the composition and the technique

itself are quite unlike Sumerian work. There is also no need to trace

the symmetrical arrangement of other of the Egyptian compositions to

Babylonian influence, for, given an oval plaque to decorate while

leaving a circular space in the centre, a symmetrical arrangement would

naturally arise.[10]

Another Egyptian characteristic, also ascribed to Babylonian influence,

is the custom of extended burial with mummification, which only begins

to be met with during the Third and Fourth Dynasties. Since the dead

are portrayed on the Stele of the Vultures as arranged in the extended

position beneath the burial-mound,[11] it was formerly assumed that

this was the regular Sumerian practice; and the contracted forms of

burial, which had been found at Warka, Mukayyar, Surghul, Niffer and

other Babylonian sites, were usually assigned to very late periods.

The excavations at Fâra and Abû Hatab have corrected this assumption,

and have proved that the Sumerian corpse was regularly arranged for

burial in the contracted position, lying on its side.[12] The apparent

exception to this rule upon the Stele of the Vultures may probably be

regarded as characteristic only of burial upon the field of battle.

There it must often have been impossible to furnish each corpse with

a grave to itself, or to procure the regular offerings and furniture

which accompanied individual interment. The bodies were therefore

arranged side by side in a common grave, and covered with a tumulus

of earth to ensure their entrance into the under world. But this

was clearly a makeshift form of burial, necessitated by exceptional

circumstances, and was not the regular Sumerian practice of the

period.[13] Whatever may have given rise to the Egyptian change in

burial customs, the cause is not to be sought in Babylonian influence.

A further point, which has been cleared up by recent excavation on

early Babylonian sites, concerns the crenelated form of building,

which was formerly regarded as peculiarly characteristic of Sumerian

architecture of the early period and as having influenced that of

Egypt. It is now known that this form of external decoration is

not met with in Babylonia before the period of Gudea and the kings

of Ur. Thus, if any borrowing took place, it must have been on the

Babylonian side. The employment of brick as a building material may

also have been evolved in Egypt without any prompting from Babylonia,

for the forms of brick employed are quite distinct in both countries.

The peculiar plano-convex brick, which is characteristic of early

Sumerian buildings, is never found in Egypt, where the rectangular

oblong form was employed from the earliest period.[14] Thus many

points of resemblance, which were formerly regarded as indicating a

close cultural connection between the two countries, now appear to

be far less striking than was formerly the case.[15] Others, again,

may be explained as due to Egyptian influence on Babylonian culture

rather than as the result of the reverse process. For example, the

resemblance that has been pointed out between Gudea's sculpture in the

round and that of the Fourth Dynasty in Egypt may not be fortuitous.

For Gudea maintained close commercial relations with the Syrian coast,

where Egyptian influence at that time had long been effective.

There remains to be considered the use of the bulbous mace-head and of

the stone cylindrical seal, both of which are striking characteristics

of the early Egyptian and Sumerian cultures. It is difficult to regard

these classes of objects, and particularly the latter, as having been

evolved independently in Egypt and by the Sumerians. In Babylonia the

cylinder-seal is already highly developed when found on the earliest

Sumerian sites, and it would appear that the Sumerian immigrants

brought it with them into the country, along with their system of

writing and the other elements of their comparatively advanced state

of civilization. Whether they themselves had evolved it in their

original home, or had obtained it from some other race with whom they

came into contact before reaching the valley of the Euphrates, it is

still impossible to say. The evidence from Susa has not yet thrown much

light upon this point. While some stone seals and clay sealings have

been found in the lowest stratum of the mound, they are not cylindrical

but in the form of flat stamps. The cylindrical seal appears, however,

to have been introduced at Susa at a comparatively early period,

for examples are said to have been found in the group of strata

representing the "Second Period," at a depth of from fifteen to twenty

metres below the surface. The published material does not yet admit

of any certain pronouncement with regard to the earliest history of

the cylinder-seal and its migrations. In favour of the view that would

regard it as an independent product of the early Egyptians, it may be

noted that wood and not stone was the commonest material for cylinders

in the earliest period.[16] But if the predynastic cylinder of Egypt

is to be regarded as ultimately derived from Asia, the connection is to

be set at a period anterior to the earliest Sumerian settlements that

have yet been identified.

Thus the results of recent excavation and research, both in Egypt

and Babylonia, have tended to diminish rather than to increase the

evidence of any close connection between the early cultures of the two

countries. Apart from any Babylonian influence, there is, however,

ample proof of a Semitic element, not only in the language, but also in

the religion of ancient Egypt. The Egyptian sun-worship, which forms

so striking a contrast to the indigenous animal-cults and worship of

the dead, was probably of Semitic origin, and may either have reached

Upper Egypt from Southern Arabia,[17] or have entered Lower Egypt by

the eastern Delta. The latter region has always formed an open door to

Egypt, and the invasion of the Hyksos may well have had its prototype

in predynastic times. The enemies, whose conquest is commemorated on

several of the early dynastic slate-carvings, are of non-Egyptian type;

they may possibly have been descendants of such Semitic immigrants,

unless they were Libyan settlers from the west. In the historic period

we have evidence of direct contact between Syria and Egypt at the time

of the Third Dynasty, for the Palermo Stele records the arrival in

Egypt of forty ships laden with cedar-wood in Sneferu's reign. These

evidently formed an expedition sent by sea to the Lebanon, and we may

assume that Sneferu's predecessors had already extended their influence

along the Syrian coast.[18] It is in Syria that we may also set the

first contact between the civilizations of Egypt and Babylonia in

historic times. The early Sumerian ruler Lugal-zaggisi boasts that he

reached the Mediterranean coast, and his expedition merely formed the

prelude to the conquest of Syria by Shar-Gani-sharri of Akkad.[19]

It has indeed been suggested that evidence of Egyptian influence,

following on the latter's Syrian campaign, is to be seen in the

deification of early Babylonian kings.[20] And although this practice

may now be traced with greater probability to a Sumerian source,[21]

there can be little doubt that from Shar-Gani-sharri's reign onwards

Syria formed a connecting-link between the two great civilizations on

the Euphrates and the Nile.

Far closer than her relations with Egypt were the ties which connected

Babylonia with the great centre of civilization which lay upon

her eastern frontier. In the course of this history reference has

frequently been made to the contact which was continually taking place

from the earliest historical period between Elam and the Sumerian and

Semitic rulers of Sumer and Akkad. Such political relationships were

naturally accompanied by close commercial intercourse, and the effects

of Sumerian influence upon the native culture of Elam have been fully

illustrated by the excavations conducted at Susa by the "Délégation en

Perse."[22] Situated on the river Kerkha, Susa occupied an important

strategic position at the head of the caravan routes which connected

the Iranian plateau with the lower valley of the Tigris and Euphrates

and the shores of the Persian Gulf. The river washed the foot of the

low hills on which the town was built, and formed a natural defence

against attack from the west. The situation of the city on the left

bank of the stream is an indication that even in the earliest period

its founders sought to protect themselves from the danger of sudden

raids from the direction of Sumer and Akkad. The earliest Sumerian

records also reflect the feelings of hostility to Elam which animated

their writers. But from these scattered references it would appear

that the Elamites at this time were generally the aggressors, and

that they succeeded in keeping their country free from any political

interference on the part of the more powerful among the Sumerian

city-states. It was not until the period of Semitic expansion, under

the later kingdom of Kish and the empire of Akkad, that the country

became dominated by Babylonian influence.

We could not have more striking evidence of the extent to which Elam

at this time became subject to Semitic culture than in the adoption

of the Babylonian character and language by the native rulers of the

country. We are met with the strange picture of native patesis of Susa

and governors of Elam recording their votive offerings in a foreign

script and language, and making invocations to purely Babylonian

deities.[23] The Babylonian script was also adopted for writing

inscriptions in the native Elamite tongue, and had we no other evidence

available, it might be urged that the use of the Semitic language for

the votive texts was dictated by purely temporary considerations of

a political character. There is no doubt, however, that the Semitic

conquest of Elam was accompanied, and probably preceded, by extensive

Semitic immigration. Even at the time of the Dynasty of Ur, when Elam

was subject to direct Sumerian control, the Semitic influence of

Akkad had become too firmly rooted to be displaced, and it received a

fresh impetus under the later rulers of the First Dynasty of Babylon.

The clay tablets of a commercial and agricultural character, dating

from the period of Adda-Pakshu,[24] are written in the Babylonian

character and language,[25] like those found at Mal-Amîr to the east of

Susa.[26] The latter do not date from a period earlier than about 1000

B.C., and they throw an interesting light on the permanent character

of Babylonian influence in the country. The modified forms of the

Babylonian characters, which were employed by the Achaemenian kings

for the Elamite column of their trilingual inscriptions, are to be

traced to a comparatively late origin. The development of the writing

exhibited by the Neo-Anzanite texts may be connected with the national

revival which characterized the later Elamite monarchy.

The evidence furnished by the inscriptions found at Susa and other

sites in Elam is supported by the archaeological discoveries in

proving that, from the time of the Semitic kings of Kish and Akkad,

the cultural development of Elam was to a great extent moulded by

Babylonia. But the later products of native Elamite workmanship that

have been recovered are no slavish copies of Babylonian originals, and

the earlier examples of sculpture and engraving are of a character

quite distinct from anything found on Babylonian soil.[27] Moreover, in

the casting of metal and in the jewellers' art Elam certainly in time

excelled her neighbour,[28] and, even in the later periods, her art

presents itself as of vigorous growth, influenced it is true by that of

Babylonia, but deriving its impetus and inspiration from purely native

sources. It is also significant that the earlier the remains that have

been recovered the less do they betray any trace of foreign influence.

A very striking proof of the independent development of Elamite culture

prior to the Semitic conquest is now furnished by the texts inscribed

in the so-called "proto-Elamite" system of writing.[29] The majority

consist of small roughly-formed tablets of clay, and the signs upon

them are either figures or ideographs for various objects. Though they

have not been fully deciphered, it is clear that they are tablets of

accounts and inventories. A very few of the signs, such as those for

"tablet" and "total," resemble the corresponding Babylonian characters,

but the great majority are entirely different and have been evolved on

a system of their own. Lapidary forms of the characters have been found

in inscriptions accompanying Semitic texts of Basha-Shushinak;[30] and,

from the position of each upon the stone, it was inferred that the

Semitic text was engraved first and the proto-Elamite section added to

it. That they were contemporary additions seemed probable, and this

has now been put beyond a doubt by the discovery at Susa of a stone

statuette seated upon a throne, which was dedicated to a goddess by

Basha-Shushinak.[31] On the front of the throne at each side of the

seated figure is an inscription; that on the left side is in Semitic,

and that on the right in proto-Elamite characters. The one is obviously

a translation of the other, and their symmetrical arrangement leaves no

doubt that they were inscribed at the same time.

It is therefore clear that at the time of Basha-Shushinak the two

languages and scripts were sometimes employed side by side for votive

inscriptions, while the clay tablets prove that the native script

had not yet been superseded for the purposes of everyday life. The

"proto-Elamite" characters present very few parallelisms to Babylonian

signs, and those that do occur are clearly later accretions. Thus it

would be natural enough to borrow the Babylonian sign for "tablet," at

a time when the clay tablet itself found its way across the border;

and, though the signs for "total" correspond, the Elamite figures

differ and are based on a decimal, not on a sexigesimal system of

numeration. It may therefore be inferred that the writing had no

connection in its origin with that of the Sumerians, and was invented

independently of the system employed during the earliest periods in

Babylonia. It may have been merely a local form of writing and not

in general use throughout the whole of Elam, but its existence makes

it probable that the district in which Susa was situated was not

subject to any strong influence from Babylonia in the age preceding

the Semitic expansion. This inference is strengthened by a study of

the seal-impressions upon many of the tablets;[32] the designs consist

of figured representations of animals and composite monsters, and

their treatment is totally different to that found on early Sumerian

cylinders. In the total disappearance of its local script Cappadocia

offers an interesting parallel to Elam. The Hittite hieroglyphs were

obviously of purely native origin, but they did not survive the

introduction of the clay tablet and of cuneiform characters.

The earlier strata of the mounds at Susa, which date from the

prehistoric periods in the city's history, have proved to be in some

confusion as revealed by the French excavations; but an explanation has

recently been forthcoming of many of the discrepancies in level that

have previously been noted.[33] It would seem that the northern and

southern extremities of the Citadel Tell were the most ancient sites of

habitation, and that from this cause two small hills were formed which

persisted during the earlier periods of the city's history. In course

of time the ground between them was occupied and was gradually filled

in so that the earlier contour of the mound was lost. It thus happens

that while remains of the Kassite period are found in the centre of the

tell at a depth of from fifteen to twenty metres, they occur at the two

extremities in strata not more than ten metres below the surface. Even

so, the later of the two prehistoric strata at the extremities of the

mound, representing an epoch anterior to that of the "proto-Elamite"

inscriptions, contains only scattered objects, and it is still

difficult to trace the gradual evolution of culture which took place in

this and in the still earlier period. It should also be noted that the

presence of a single stratum, enclosing remains of a purely Neolithic

period, has not yet been established at Susa. There is little doubt,

however, that such a stratum at one time existed, for stone axes,

arrow-heads, knives and scrapers, representing a period of Neolithic

culture, are found scattered at every level in the mound. It is thus

possible that, in spite of the presence of metal in the same stratum,

much of the earlier remains discovered at Susa, and particularly the

earlier forms of painted pottery,[34] are to be assigned to a Neolithic

settlement upon the site.

Fortunately for the study of the early ceramics of Elam, we have not

to depend solely on the rather inconclusive data which the excavations

at Susa have as yet furnished. Digging has also been carried out at a

group of mounds, situated about ninety-three miles to the west of Susa,

which form a striking feature on the caravan route to Kermanshah. The

central and most important of the mounds is known as the Tepe Mussian,

and its name is often employed as a general designation for the group.

The excavations conducted there in the winter of 1902-3 have brought

to light a series of painted wares, ranging in date from a purely

Neolithic period to an age in which metal was already beginning to

appear.[35] This wealth of material is valuable for comparison with

the very similar pottery from Susa, and has furnished additional data

for determining the cultural connections of the earlier inhabitants of

the country. The designs upon the finer classes of painted ware, both

at Susa and Mussian, are not only geometric in character, but include

vegetable and animal forms. Some of the latter have been held to bear

a certain likeness to designs which occur upon the later pottery of

the predynastic age in Egypt, and it is mainly on the strength of

such points of resemblance that M. de Morgan would trace a connection

between the early cultures of the two countries.[36]

But quite apart from objections based on the great difference of

technique, the absence of any pottery similar to the Egyptian in

Babylonia and Northern Syria renders it difficult to accept the

suggestion; and it is in other quarters that we may possibly recognize

traces of a similar culture to that of the earlier age in Elam. The

resemblance between the more geometric designs upon the Elamite pottery

and that discovered at Kara-Uyuk in Cappadocia has been pointed out by

Professor Sayce;[37] and Mr. Hall has recently compared them in detail

with very similar potsherds discovered by the Pumpelly Expedition

at Anau in Russian Turkestan,[38] and by Professor Garstang[39] at

Sakjegeuzi in Syria.[40] It should be noted that, so far as Elam is

concerned, the resemblance applies only to one class of the designs

upon the early painted pottery, and does not include the animal and

a majority of the vegetable motives. It is sufficiently striking,

however, to point the direction in which we may look for further light

upon the problem. Future excavations at Susa itself and on sites in

Asia Minor will doubtless show how far we may press the suggested

theory of an early cultural connection.

While such suggestions are still in a nebulous state, it would be

rash to dogmatize on the relation of these prehistoric peoples to

the Elamites of history. A study of the designs upon the Elamite

potsherds makes it clear, however, that there was no sudden break

between the cultures of the two periods. For many of the animal

motives of a more conventionalized character are obviously derived

from the peculiarly Elamite forms of composite monsters, which are

reproduced in the seal-impressions upon "proto-Elamite" tablets.[41]

Moreover, it is stated that among the decorative motives on pot-sherds

recently discovered in the lowest stratum at Susa are a number of

representations of a purely religious character.[42] It is possible

that these will prove to be the ancestors of some of the sacred emblems

which, after being developed on Elamite soil, reached Babylonia

during the Kassite period.[43] How far Babylonia participated in the

prehistoric culture of Elam it is difficult to say, since no Neolithic

settlement has yet been identified in Sumer or Akkad. Moreover, the

early Sumerian pottery discovered at Tello, which dates from an age

when a knowledge of metal was already well advanced, does not appear

to have resembled the prehistoric wares of Elam, either in composition

or in design. It should be noted, however, that terra-cotta female

figurines, of the well-known Babylonian type, occur in Elam and at

Anau[44]; and it is possible that in Babylonia they were relics of a

prehistoric culture. On sites in the alluvial portion of the country

it is probable that few Neolithic remains have been preserved.[45]

But it should be noted that fragments of painted pottery have been

found at Kuyunjik, which bear a striking resemblance to the early

Syro-Cappadocian ware;[46] and these may well belong to a Neolithic

settlement upon the site of Nineveh.[47] It is thus possible that the

prehistoric culture, which had its seat in Elam, will be found to have

extended to Southern Assyria also, and to non-alluvial sites on the

borders of the Babylonian plain.

It would seem that the influence of Sumerian culture during the

historic period first began to be felt beyond the limits of Babylonia

at the time of the Semitic expansion. The conquest of Syria by

Shar-Gani-sharri undoubtedly had important results upon the spread of

Babylonian culture. The record, which has been interpreted to mean

that he went still further westward and crossed the Mediterranean to

Cyprus, is now proved to have been due to the misunderstanding of a

later scribe.[48] It is true that some seals have been found in Cyprus,

which furnish evidence of Babylonian influence in the island, but they

belong to a period considerably later than that of the Akkadian empire.

Of these, the one said to have been found in the treasury of the temple

at Curium by General di Cesnola refers to the deified Narâm-Sin,[49]

but the style of its composition and its technique definitely prove

that it is of Syro-Cappadocian workmanship, and does not date from a

much earlier period than that of the First Dynasty of Babylon. The most

cursory comparison of the seal with the clay-sealings of Narâm-Sin's

period, which have been found at Tello,[50] will convince any one of

this fact. The other, which was found in an early bronze age deposit at

Agia Paraskevi with its original gold mounting, may be definitely dated

in the period of the First Babylonian Dynasty,[51] and Nudubtum, its

original owner, who styles himself a servant of the god Martu (Amurru),

may well have been of Syrian or West Semitic origin. Beyond such

isolated cylinders, there is, however, no trace of early Babylonian

influence in Cyprus.[52] This is hardly compatible with the suggested

Semitic occupation during Shar-Gani-sharri's reign; there may well

have been a comparatively early trade connection with the island, but

nothing more.

Yet the supposed conquest of Cyprus by Shar-Gani-sharri has led to the

wildest comparisons between Aegean and Babylonian art. Not content with

leaving him in Cyprus, Professor Winckler has dreamed of still further

maritime expeditions on his part to Rhodes, Crete, and even to the

mainland of Greece itself.[53] There is no warrant for such imaginings,

and the archaeologist must be content to follow and not outrun his

evidence. Babylonian influence would naturally be stronger in Cyprus

than in Crete, but with neither have we evidence of strong or direct

contact. There are, however, certain features of Aegean culture which

may be traced to a Babylonian source, though some of the suggested

comparisons are hardly convincing. The houses at Fâra, for instance,

are supplied with a very elaborate system of drainage, and drains and

culverts have been found in the pre-Sargonic stratum at Nippur, at

Surghul, and at most early Sumerian sites where excavations have been

carried out. These have been compared with the system of drainage and

sanitation at Knossos.[54] It is true that no other parallel to the

Cretan system can be cited in antiquity, but, as a matter of fact, the

two systems are not very like, and in any case it would be difficult

to trace a path by which so early a connection could have taken place.

It has indeed been suggested that both Babylonia and Crete may have

inherited elements of some prehistoric culture common to the eastern

world, and that what looks like an instance of influence may really

be one of common origin.[55] But, as in the case of a few parallels

between early Egyptian and Elamite culture, it is far more probable

that such isolated points of resemblance are merely due to coincidence.

A far more probable suggestion is that the clay tablet and stilus

reached Crete from Babylonia.[56] Previous to its introduction the

Minoan hieroglyphs, or pictographs, had been merely engraved on

seal-stones, but with the adoption of the new material for writing they

were employed for lists, inventories and the like, and these forms

became more linear.[57] The fact that the cuneiform system of writing

was not introduced along with the tablet, as happened in Anatolia, is

sufficient proof that the connection between Babylonia and Crete was

indirect. It was doubtless by way of Anatolia that the clay tablet

travelled to Crete,[58] for the discoveries at Kara-Uyuk prove that,

before the age of Hammurabi, both tablet and cuneiform writing had

penetrated westward beyond the Taurus.[59] Through its introduction

into Crete the Babylonian tablet may probably be regarded as the direct

ancestor of the wax tablet and stilus of the Greeks and Romans.[60]

Unlike the clay tablet, the cylinder-seal never became a characteristic

of the Aegean cultural area, where the seal continued to be of the

stamp or button-form. A cylinder-seal has indeed been found in a

larnax-burial at Palaikastro, on the east coast of Crete; and it is

a true cylinder, perforated from end to end, and was intended to be

rolled and not stamped upon the clay.[61] The designs upon it are

purely Minoan, but the arrangement of the figures, which is quite

un-Egyptian in character, is similar to that of the Mesopotamian

cylinder.[62] In spite of the rarity of the type among Cretan seals,

this single example from Palaikastro is suggestive of Babylonian

influence, through the Syro-Cappadocian channel by which doubtless the

clay tablet reached Crete.

Anatolia thus formed a subsidiary centre for the further spread of

Babylonian culture, which had reached it by way of Northern Syria

before crossing the Taurus. The importance of the latter district in

this connection has been already emphasized by Mr. Hogarth.[63] Every

traveller from the coast to the region of the Khâbûr will endorse

his description of the vast group of mounds, the deserted sites of

ancient cities, which mark the surface of the country. With one or two

exceptions these still await the spade of the excavator, and, when

their lowest strata shall have yielded their secrets, we shall know far

more of the early stages in the spread of Babylonian culture westwards.

We have already noted the rôle of Syria as a connecting-link between

the civilizations of the Euphrates and the Nile,[64] and it plays an

equally important part in linking both of them with the centre of early

Hittite culture in Asia Minor. It was by the coastal regions of Syria

that the first Semitic immigrants from the south reached the Euphrates,

and it was to Syria that the stream of Semitic influence, now

impregnated with Sumerian culture, returned. The sea formed a barrier

to any further advance in that direction, and so the current parted,

and passed southwards into the Syro-Palestinian region and northwards

through the Cilician Gates, whence by Hittite channels it penetrated to

the western districts of Asia Minor. Here, again, the sea was a barrier

to further progress westwards, and the Asiatic coast of the Aegean

forms the western limit of Asiatic influence. Until the passing of the

Hittite power, no attempts were made by Aegean sea-rovers or immigrants

from the mainland of Greece to settle on the western coast of Asia

Minor,[65] and it is not therefore surprising that Aegean culture

should show such scanty traces of Babylonian influence.

Of the part which the Sumerians took in originating and moulding the

civilization of Babylonia, it is unnecessary to treat at greater

length. Perhaps their most important achievement was the invention of

cuneiform writing, for this in time was adopted as a common script

throughout the east, and became the parent of other systems of the same

character. But scarcely less important were their legacies in other

spheres of activity. In the arts of sculpture and seal-engraving their

own achievements were notable enough, and they inspired the Semitic

work of later times. The great code of Hammurabi's laws, which is

claimed to have influenced western codes besides having moulded much

of the Mosaic legislation, is now definitely known to be of Sumerian

origin, and Urukagina's legislative effort was the direct forerunner of

Hammurabi's more successful appeal to past tradition. The literature of

Babylon and Assyria is based almost throughout on Sumerian originals,

and the ancient ritual of the Sumerian cults survived in the later

temples of both countries. Already we see Gudea consulting the omens

before proceeding to lay the foundations of E-ninnû, and the practice

of hepatoscopy may probably be set back into the period of the

earliest Sumerian patesis. Sumer, in fact, was the principal source of

Babylonian civilization, and a study of its culture supplies a key to

many subsequent developments in Western Asia. The inscriptions have

already yielded a fairly complete picture of the political evolution

of the people, from the village community and city-state to an empire

which included the effective control of foreign provinces. The

archaeological record is not so complete, but in this direction we may

confidently look for further light from future excavation and research.

[1] For discussions of the merits of the theory, in view of the

admitted resemblance of certain features in the civilizations of

Babylonia and Egypt, see King and Hall, "Egypt and Western Asia," pp.

32 ff., and Sayce, "The Archaeology of the Cuneiform Inscriptions;"

cf. also De Morgan, "Les premières civilisations," pp. 170 ff. The

publication of the results obtained by Dr. Reisner's prolonged

diggings, supplemented by the more recent work of M. Naville at Abydos,

has considerably increased the material on which a more definite

decision can be based. I may add that Mr. Hall agrees with me as to the

necessity of modifying many points in the theory, in consequence of the

additional information that has recently become available for use. It

should be noted that in his "Oldest Civilization of Greece," p. 179, n.

1, he had already emphasized the indigenous origin of much of Egyptian

culture; cf. also "Egypt and Western Asia," p. 45 f.

[2] As a subsidiary meaning, the word possibly conveys the idea of

soldiers armed with dagger and lance; see Maspero, "Bibliothèque

Egyptologique," II., pp. 313 ff. On the walls of the temple of Edfu

the Mesniu are represented as holding in the left hand a kind of

dagger, and in the right a light dart tipped with metal. The important

part played by metal in their armament is emphasized by these late

representations, as by the name assigned them in the Legend of Edfu.

They bore the same relation to their patron deity as the Shemsu-Hor,

or "Followers of Horus," bore to him in his other aspect as the son of

Isis.

[3] Cf. Newberry, "Annals of Archaeology," pp. 17 ff.

[4] The most striking of these comparisons is that of _Asari_, a

Sumerian god who was afterwards identified with Marduk, and _Asar_,

the Egyptian god Osiris. For not only is there identity of name-sound,

but there is also a resemblance between the Egyptian and Sumerian

sign-groups for the names (cf. Sayce, "The Archaeology of the Cuneiform

Inscriptions," p. 119). The resemblance, however, is not quite so close

as it is sometimes represented, for the Sumerian sign _eri_ or _uru_

is invariably employed for "city," a meaning which never attaches to

_as_, the character in the corresponding half of the Egyptian group.

To regard the resemblance as other than a coincidence, it is necessary

to assume a very close relationship between the early religious ideas

of Sumer and Egypt, an assumption that would only be justified by the

strongest proofs of connection from the archaeological side.

[5] See Reisner, "The Early Dynastic Cemeteries of Naga-ed-Dêr,"

Part I., published as Vol. II. of the "University of California

Publications," 1908.

[6] Cf. Maciver and Woolley, "Areika," pp. 14 ff. Mr. Maciver also

cites the occurrence of a similar black-topped red-ware on sites in

Egypt, dated between the Twelfth and Eighteenth Dynasties (_op. cit._,

p. 16).

[7] See Reisner, "Naga-ed-Dêr," I., p. 133 f.

[8] For discussions of the identity of the predynastic emblems with

gods of the dynastic period, see Budge, "The Gods of the Egyptians,"

I., p. 30 f., Foucart, "Comptes rendus," 1905, pp. 262 ff., and

Reisner, "Naga-ed-Dêr," p. 125; cf. also Legge, "Proc. Soc. Bibl.

Arch.," XXXI., pp. 205 ff.

[9] For a reproduction and description of the slate carving, see Legge,

"Proc. Soc. Bibl. Arch.," Vol. XXII., pl. vi; cf. also Vol. XXXI., p.

204 f. Whatever view be taken of the ceremonial purpose for which these

slates were intended, it is clear that the carving of slate was no new

departure in Egypt at this period. Many of the practical slate palettes

from Nakâda, on some of which traces have been found of the grinding

of malachite and haematite for face-paint (cf. Petrie, "Naqadaand

Balias," p. 43), are carved in animal forms. It may be added that the

colour-dishes for face or body-paint, which have been found at Fâra,

are quite distinct both in form and material from the Egyptian slate

palettes. They are of alabaster, with divisions for separate paints,

and usually stand on four feet (cf. Andræ, "Mitteil. der Deutsch.

Orient-Gesellschaft," No. 17, p. 6); they thus form a closer parallel

to the small conical vases of clay or stone, still enclosing paint,

which have been found in the lowest stratum of the mound of Susa and

belong to the period of its first settlement (cf. De Morgan, "Rev.

d'Assyr.," VI., p. 5).

[10] Cf. Meyer, "Geschichte des Altertums," Bd. I., Hft. II., p. 107 f.

[11] See the plate facing p. 138.

[12] See above, pp. 26 ff.

[13] It is also possible that to represent the contracted position of

his corpses was beyond the power of Eannatum's sculptor. Moreover,

the employment of a common grave beneath a tumulus upon the field

of battle may possibly have been a modified survival of an earlier

practice, its retention having been dictated by convenience. Although

no instance of its occurrence has been noted during excavations in

Babylonia, we find a very similar form of burial employed at Susa

during the period of its first settlement. It would appear that the

dead were there buried outside the earthern rampart which marked the

city-wall, without any special order or direction, and not enclosed by

matting, pot, or sarcophagus. The bodies were placed in a common ditch

and covered with earth, others being added from time to time beside

or above them, so that sometimes four or five layers of skeletons are

found super-imposed. That the corpses here were separately interred

would seem to follow from the fact that each is accompanied by its own

funerary offerings and furniture placed around the head; see De Morgan,

"Rev. d'Assyr." Vol. VII., No. 1 (1909), p. 4 f. It may be added that

the Sumerians, like the predynastic and early dynastic Egyptians,

did not embalm their dead. The use of oil and honey for this purpose

(see King, "Babylonian Religion," p. 49 f.), the latter of which is

ascribed to the Babylonians by Herodotus (I., 198), would seem to have

been of comparatively late introduction, and suggested by the Egyptian

processes of mummification. It is interesting to note that, according

to the evidence obtained by M. Naville at Abydos during the season of

1909-10, the contracted form of burial survived in Egypt at least as

late as the Sixth Dynasty.

[14] The use of a sun-dried brick made of Nile mud and chopped straw

may well have been evolved by the Egyptians themselves. As to the

original home of wheat there is little evidence, though it may be noted

that traces of cultivated wheat and barley were found in the earliest

stratum at Anau in Russian Turkestan; see Pumpelly, "Explorations in

Turkestan," p. 39 f.

[15] Negative evidence also points in the same direction. For instance,

the extensive use of ivory by the predynastic and dynastic Egyptians is

in striking contrast to the fact that not a single object of ivory was

found by M. de Sarzec at Tello. With the Sumerians its place was taken

by shell; see above, p. 78.

[16] Against the view may be cited the gradual discontinuance of the

cylinder in Egypt, suggestive of a foreign origin. Comparatively few

wooden cylinder-seals have been recovered. The fact that wood and

not stone was the favourite material has, however, been deduced from

many of the seal-impressions, in which a raised line runs from top to

bottom across the signs. This can only have been produced by a split

in the wood of which the cylinder was composed; cf. Petrie, "Royal

Tombs," I., p. 27, and Newberry, "Scarabs," p. 48. The earliest form of

cylinder-seal may well have been a piece of notched reed.

[17] If the land of Punt may be set in Abyssinia and Somaliland, it is

possible that it formed a secondary centre of Semitic influence in this

region; cf. King and Hall, "Egypt and Western Asia," p. 40.

[18] See Meyer, "Geschichte," Bd. I., Hft. II., pp. 155, 162, 393 f.;

and cf. Breasted, "Ancient Records," I., p. 66. According to Schäfer's

translation, the forty ships were made of cedar-wood, not loaded with

it (see "Ein Bruchstück altägyptischer Annalen," p. 30). But this does

not affect the inference drawn from the passage, for the cedar must

have been obtained in Lebanon, and the record in any case proves a

connection between Egypt and Syria in Sneferu's reign.

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

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

[21] See above, p. 273 f.

[22] See De Morgan, "Recherches archéologiques," published as the

first, seventh, and eighth volumes of the "Mémoires de la Délégation en

Perse."

[23] The manner in which the Semitic culture of Babylonia persisted in

influencing that of Elam in the religious sphere is well illustrated

by the bronze votive plaque of Shilkhak-In-Shushinak, recently found

at Susa; cf. Gautier, "Rec. de trav.," XXXI., pp. 41 ff. It is termed

a "Sit-Shamshi," and probably represented a rite of purification which

was performed at sunrise. As its title would seem to imply, the rite

had been bodily taken over by the Elamites and incorporated along with

its Semitic name into the native ritual.

[24] See above, p. 306 f.

[25] Cf. Scheil, "Textes Élam.-Sémit.," IV., pp. 14 ff.

[26] "Textes Élam.-Sémit.," II., pp. 169 ff.

[27] A good example of Elamite sculpture of the earlier period is

furnished by the fragment of a bas-relief, published by De Morgan,

"Recherches archéologiques," II., pl. i., A; in the treatment of the

mythological being, half-man and half-beast, who is holding a sacred

tree, it is quite unlike the early work of Sumer or Akkad. That, in

spite of Babylonian and Assyrian influence, the Elamite sculptor

continued to retain his individuality is clear from such a work as the

well-known "bas-relief of a spinning woman," which probably dates from

the time of the Sargonids (_op. cit._, I., pl. ix., p. 159 f.).

[28] The decorated table and bas-relief published in "Recherches,"

I., pl. xii and xiii are fine examples of casting in bronze. They

date from the period of Shutruk-Nakhkhunte, and both in design and

technique surpass any bronze casting yet found in Babylonia. The

varied ornaments, jewellery, and figurines, fashioned of gold, silver,

copper, and precious stones, published in "Rech. arch.," II., pp. 65

ff., pl. xii ff. as "foundation offerings" from the temple of Shushinak

at Susa, are beautiful specimens of the finer class of Elamite

metalwork; it is difficult to determine their date accurately, but the

disorder in which they were found tells against the theory of a single

foundation-deposit, and different groups may well belong to different

periods.

[29] See Scheil, "Textes Élam.-Sémit.," III., pp. 57 ff.

[30] See above, p. 289. The lapidary forms of the characters are more

linear and less ornate than those upon the tablets. But the differences

are such as would naturally arise from the use of the harder material,

and we may probably assign both classes to about the same period.

[31] See Scheil, "Rev. d'Assyr.," Vol. VI., p. 48.

[32] Cf. Jéquier, in "Recherches archéologiques," III., pp. 7 ff.

[33] See De Morgan, "Rev. d'Assyr.," VI., p. 8.

[34] For coloured reproductions of Susian wares, see De Morgan,

"Recherches archéologiques," I., pl xvii-xxii; cf. also pp. 183 ff.

[35] See Gautier and Lampre, "Fouilles de Moussian," in "Recherches

archéologiques," III., pp. 59 ff.

[36] See De Morgan, "Revue de l'École d'Anthropologie," 1907, p. 410 f.

Still less convincing parallels are drawn between the early cultures of

Crete and Elam by Lagrange in "La Crète ancienne," pp. 80 ff.

[37] See "The Archaeology of the Cuneiform Inscriptions," p. 47.

[38] See Pumpelly, "Explorations in Turkestan," Vol. II., Schmidt's

section on "The Archaeological Excavations," pp. 127 ff.; see further,

p. 355.

[39] Cf. "The Annals of Archaeology," I., pp. 97 ff.

[40] See Hall, "Proc. Soc. Bibl. Arch.," XXXI., pp. 311 ff. He also

cites a general resemblance, which these three classes of pottery bear

to the geometric designs on wares of the Neolithic period from Boeotia

and Thessaly. On the strength of this resemblance Mr. Hall suggests

that in Iran and in Northern Greece there may have been two closely

related stone-using cultures, of which the former reached the age of

metal at a much earlier period than the latter. He would, however,

regard it as possible that the Neolithic art of Northern Greece

went back to 3000 B.C. or even earlier. According to this view, the

geometric and often polychrome ceramics found on prehistoric sites as

widely separated as Elam, Transcaspia, Syria, Cappadocia, Cyprus, and

Northern Greece would represent a development quite independent from

that of the Aegean area, with which the early art of Egypt may possibly

be connected. For a description of the pottery of Northern Greece,

with figured examples and references to the recent literature, see the

Reports of Wace, Droop, and Thompson in "Annals of Archaeology," I.,

pp. 118 ff. It must be admitted that the suggested resemblance between

the early ceramics of Northern Greece and Western Asia is not so

striking as that between the separate members of the latter group.

[41] Compare, for example, the animal motives from Mussian pottery,

figured in "Recherches archéologiques," III., p. 134 f., Figs. 262-264,

with the half-human bull-monsters from "proto-Elamite" seal-impressions

in Figs. 22-26, p. 11 f.

[42] See De Morgan, "Rev. d'Assyr.," VI., p. 5.

[43] It is noteworthy that the "Greek cross," which is a very

characteristic emblem on Kassite cylinder-seals from Babylonia, and

also occurs on the "proto-Elamite" seal-impressions, is already met

with as a decorative symbol on the early painted pottery of Susa and

Mussian. It is also possible that the spear-headed emblem of the god

Marduk was ultimately of Elamite origin; it might well have been

transferred to Marduk at the time of the Kassite kings of Babylon.

[44] See below, p. 356.

[45] See above, p. 2 f.

[46] See Myres, "The Early Pot-Fabrics of Asia Minor" in "The Journal

of the Anthropological Institute," Vol. XXXIII., p. 379. Prof.

Myres would regard them as of Sargonid date, and it is true that

some fragments of painted pottery of that period have been found

at Kuyunjik. But the latter may be distinguished, both by subject

and technique, from those which reproduce characteristics of the

Cappadocian ware and are probably very much earlier (cf. Hall, "Proc.

Soc. Bibl. Arch.," XXXI., p. 313 f., n. 137).

[47] In the course of excavations at Kuyunjik, when sinking shafts into

the lowest stratum just above the level of the plain, I came across

obsidian implements and beds of ashes, indicating the existence of a

Neolithic settlement.

[48] See above, p. 234 f.

[49] For a reproduction of the seal, see Sayce, "Trans. Soc. Bibl.

Arch.," Vol. V., p. 442.

[50] For the sealings, see Heuzey, "Rev. d'Assyr.," IV., pp. 3 ff. The

points of contrast presented by the Cyprus seal may be summarized:

(1)The signs employed in the inscription are not of Narâm-Sin's period,

but of the time of the First Dynasty. (2)The presence of the Storm-god,

the number and nature of the religious emblems, the arrangement of

the design dictated by the horror vacui, and the engraving of the

seal itself with its undisguised employment of the drill, are all

Syro-Cappadocian in character; they are in striking contrast to the

beauty of proportion and restrained design of the figures arranged on

a plain field by the early Semitic seal-engravers of Akkad. (3)The

deification of Narâm-Sin is of course no proof that he was dead (see

above, p. 251). But it should be noted that on seals of Narâm-Sin's

period, which mention the reigning king or a member of his family,

the royal name is included in order to indicate a delegation of

authority. The text is always couched in the second person, in the form

of an address, and the royal name is invariably mentioned first. Had

Mâr-Ishtar, the owner of the seal, been a contemporary of Narâm-Sin,

the inscription on the seal would have run: "O Narâm-Sin, God of Akkad

(_or_ King of Akkad), Mâr-Ishtar, the (_here would follow the title of

his office_), is thy servant." As a matter of fact, the inscription

runs: "Mâr-Ishtar, son of Ilu-bani, servant of the god Narâm-Sin." Here

Mâr-Ishtar's name comes first, then that of his father, and lastly that

of his patron deity. Narâm-Sin is no longer the living God of Akkad,

but is just an ordinary deity, and occupies an ordinary deity's place

upon the seal. The survival of his name as that of a god in the period

of the Western Semites is paralleled by the occurrence of the name of

Bûr-Sin I., King of Ur, as that of a deity in the Moon-god's suite, on

a god-list of the seventh century B.C.; see above, p. 299.

[51] For a reproduction of the seal, see Bezold, "Zeits. für

Keilschrift.," II., pp. 191 ff.; cf. also Myres and Ohnefalsch-Richter,

"Catalogue of the Cyprus Museum," pp. 15, 134.

[52] Of the Enkomi cylinder-seals, for example, only two are

purely Babylonian (of the First Dynasty), and the others, with the

exception of a few rude specimens of native Cypriote workmanship, are

Syro-Cappadocian and Hittite importations.

[53] See Winckler, "Die Euphratländer und das Mittelmeer," in "Der Alte

Orient," VII., 2 (1905), p. 10.

[54] See Burrows, "The Discoveries in Crete," p. 9.

[55] _Op. cit._, p. 134.

[56] See Sayce, "Archaeology of the Cuneiform Inscriptions," p. 181,

Burrows, "The Discoveries in Crete," p. 139, and Hall, "Proc. Soc.

Bibl. Arch.," XXXI., p. 225.

[57] For the evolution of Minoan writing, see Evans, "Scripta Minoa,"

I., pp. 19 ff., 28 ff.

[58] The clay disk stamped with hieroglyphic characters, which has

been discovered by Prof. Halbherr at Phaestos, may be cited in support

of this view. From a scrutiny of the characters upon it, Dr. Evans

concludes that the original home of its peculiar non-Cretan form of

writing is to be sought in the South-West coast-lands of Asia Minor, or

in an island in close contact with the mainland. The disk belongs to a

period when the linear form of script had succeeded the hieroglyphic in

Crete itself (see "Scripta Minoa," I., pp. 22 ff., 273 ff.).

[59] It is also through a Hittite medium that we may possibly trace

a connection between the composite monsters of Babylonian and Minoan

art; see Sayce, _op. cit._, p. 180. It should be noted, however, that,

although the idea underlying the designs upon the Zakro sealings may

be of foreign origin, the development of the variant types of many of

the monster forms was purely local and confined to a single period (cf.

Hogarth, "Journal of Hellenic Studies," Vol. XXII., p. 91). Moreover,

the bull-monsters, or "Minotaurs," of Aegean art were obviously derived

from the local cult of Knossos; in the winged and bird-like types

Cappadocian influence is more probable.

[60] See Burrows, "Discoveries in Crete," p. 149.

[61] In this respect it forms a striking contrast to the clay cylinder

from the sepulchral deposit of Hagios Onuphrios near Phaestos. The

latter is unperforated and the designs are cut at each end of the seal;

it is thus no true cylinder, but merely a double-button seal (see

Evans, "Cretan Pictographs," pp. 105, 107).

[62] The figures engraved upon the seal consist of a lion-headed demon

and two female figures, possibly with the heads of animals; they are

arranged across the field of the cylinder from edge to edge. The seal

is of soft, black stone, much worn (see Bosanquet, "The Annual of the

British School at Athens," No. VIII., p. 302).

[63] See "Ionia and the East," p. 96 f.

[64] See above, p. 334 f.

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

APPENDICES

I.--Recent Explorations in Turkestan in their Relation to the Sumerian

Problem.

II.--A Chronological List of the Kings and Rulers of Sumer and Akkad.

APPENDIX I

RECENT EXPLORATIONS IN TURKESTAN IN THEIR RELATION TO THE SUMERIAN

PROBLEM.

In the second chapter of this volume the opinion was expressed that,

in spite of the unsoundness of certain arguments in favour of the

theory, the original home of the Sumerians was to be sought beyond the

mountains to the east of the Babylonian plain.[1] The arrival of the

Sumerians on the banks of the Euphrates would thus have been a single

episode in a series of similar migrations from the east, which, during

the historical period, are known to have made their appearance in that

quarter of Western Asia. Until recently it was only possible to suggest

that such migratory movements were to be traced to racial unrest in

more distant regions, and few data were available for supporting any

detailed theory as to the causes of this occasional pressure westwards.

Important evidence, which has both a direct and an indirect bearing

on the problem, has, however, been obtained as a result of recent

explorations in Russian and Chinese Turkestan.

The two expeditions conducted by Mr. Raphael Pumpelly, on behalf

of the Carnegie Institution of Washington, in 1903 and 1904, the

results of which have now been fully published, were occupied mainly

with work in the Transcaspian province of Russian Turkestan. The

physiographical observations collected by the first Pumpelly Expedition

were supplemented during the second of them by archaeological evidence,

obtained by excavations at Anau near Askhabad, and in the Merv Oasis,

under the direction of Dr. Hubert Schmidt, of Berlin, who joined the

staff of the expedition for that purpose. Both classes of evidence have

a direct bearing upon the problem under discussion.

Of more remote interest, in the present connection, are the

explorations and excavations carried out by Dr. Stein in Chinese

Turkestan, on behalf of the Indian Government, during his journeys of

1900-1 and 1906-8. Lying in the Tarim basin to the east of the Pamirs,

the principal scene of his labours is far removed from those regions of

Western and Central Asia from which direct light may be expected upon

the Sumerian problem. But the Khotan oases and the Taklamakan Desert

present in many respects an interesting parallel to the conditions

prevailing in the southern districts of the Russian province; and

they illustrate, during more recent historical periods, a climatic

and geological process of which far earlier traces have been noted in

the latter region. The investigation of the archaeological remains,

till lately buried in Khotan, has also demonstrated the comparatively

short period of time required for extensive physical changes to have

taken place. Finally, the physiographical researches of Mr. Ellsworth

Huntington, who accompanied the first Pumpelly expedition, have been

extended during 1905-7 into the region of Dr. Stein's travels, along

the southern and eastern borders of the Taklamakan Desert, and have

resulted in obtaining corroborative evidence of theories already

deduced from observations in Russian Turkestan.

It has already been remarked that the work of the Pumpelly Expeditions

was of a twofold character. On the one hand, the majority of the

members devoted themselves to the collection of material bearing on the

physiography of the Central Asian deserts and oases; and, as a result

of their labours, they have produced a valuable series of monographs,

illustrating climatic and physical changes which have taken place in

that region of the world. On the other hand, the excavations conducted

at Anau by Dr. Schmidt have been followed by a careful presentment of

the archaeological material, including a very complete ceramic record.

The general discussion of the results was undertaken by Mr. Raphael

Pumpelly, the leader of the expeditions, who has given an able and

suggestive summary of what he conceives to be their general bearing,

not only from the geological side, but also in their relation to the

early history of Western Asiatic, and even of North African culture.[2]

At the outset it should be mentioned that, on the archaeological

side, several of Mr. Pumpelly's generalizations appear to be too far

reaching, and he seems to push some of his conclusions beyond the limit

of his evidence. But this does not detract in any way from the value of

the new data, which he has been largely instrumental in acquiring.

[Illustration: I.--THE NORTH KURGAN AT ANAU AND THE CAMP OF THE

PUMPELLY EXPEDITION. II.--THE SOUTH KURGAN AT ANAU, SHOWING EXCAVATIONS

IN PROGRESS.--_From Pumpelly, Expl. in Turk._ 1, p. 17, Figs. 5 and 6]

[Illustration: TERRA-COTTA FIGURINES FROM THE SOUTH KURGAN AT ANAU.

--_From Pumpelly, Expl. in Turk._, 1, pl. 46, Figs. 9--17]

We are not here concerned with details of the earlier geological

evidence, except in so far as they illustrate or explain the physical

changes in the character of the country during more recent times. It

has long been recognized that the deserts of Central Asia owe their

existence to a process of desiccation that has taken place since

the Glacial epoch,[3] and recent investigations have shown that the

contrast to present conditions was even more marked than was previously

supposed. The members of the first Pumpelly Expedition have noted that

glaciers existed on a greatly extended scale throughout the mountains

bordering the great basins of Central Asia on the south and east, and

they have proved the existence of several great glacial expansions,

each of which naturally reacted on the climate of the central region.

During the sub-glacial period there was a general trend towards

desolation, and the dried silts of seas and rivers were carried by

the wind across the surface of the ground. The lightest material was

carried farthest, and, wherever the scanty vegetation could hold it,

it was deposited in beds of "loess," the extraordinarily fine and

fertile soil which covers a great part of Northern China and Turkestan,

and extends in a continuous zone from North of the Caspian to Central

Europe.[4] The heavier silts in the shape of sands moved more slowly

under the pressure of the wind, and they formed great deserts of

sand-dunes, heaped in places more than a hundred feet high. It is to

the shifting or formation of such sand-deserts in historic times that

we owe the burial of the cities in the Khotan region, which have been

so successfully excavated by Dr. Stein for the Indian Government.[5]

Although it is clear that since Glacial times there has been a general

trend towards the present arid condition of Central Asia, there is

reason to believe that, as in the Glacial epoch, the subsequent

climatic changes have not been uniform. Periods of extreme aridity have

occurred in which the condition of certain regions may have been more

desolate than it is to-day. But these appear to have alternated with

more humid periods, when the tracts which were deserted may again have

been rendered capable of sustaining life. Already in the prehistoric

period, however, the sea of sand-dunes had encroached upon the fertile

plains of loess, and it is mainly in the delta-oases, formed by streams

emerging from the mountains, or at points where large rivers lose

themselves in the plain, as at Merv, that traces of man's handiwork

have been discovered.

Throughout the region of the oases in Southern Turkestan, to the north

of the Kopet Dagh, the Pumpelly Expedition constantly noted the sites

of former habitations in regions which are now desolate. Not only are

there traces of occupation where villages exist to-day, but there are

also large areas which must once have been densely peopled, although

they are now deserted. The present supply of water in the region could

support but a small proportion of its former inhabitants, and it is

necessary to suppose either that there was a greater rainfall, or

that evaporation was less rapid owing to a lower temperature. Similar

evidence has been collected with regard to the former condition of

Chinese Turkestan,[6] and it is clear that extensive tracts in Central

Asia, which are now abandoned to the desert, at one time supported a

considerable population. The evidence points to a change in climatic

conditions, which has reacted on the character of the country in such a

way as to cause racial migrations.[7]

In the hope of throwing light on the character of the former dwellers

in the deserted regions of Russian Turkestan, the second Pumpelly

Expedition undertook excavations at selected sites. At Ghiaur Kala

in the Merv Oasis it was ascertained that the earliest period of

occupation was not older than a few centuries B.C., though it is

probable that among the great number of mounds in the oasis some are

of a considerably earlier date. Far more important were the results

obtained by excavations in the region below the northern slopes of the

Kopet Dagh. It was at one of the delta-oases, at Anau, near Askhabad,

some three hundred miles east of the Caspian, that the Pumpelly

Expedition found traces of prehistoric cultures, and obtained its

principal material for archaeological study.

Near the middle of the Anau oasis, and about a mile apart, are two

hills with rounded contours, rising some forty and fifty feet above the

plain, and marking the sites of long-forgotten cities. The structure

of the North Kurgan, or tumulus, had already been exposed by a trench

cut in it some twenty-five years ago by General Komorof, which showed

stratified remains, including bones of animals and potsherds of

plain and painted wares. It was this trench that first directed Mr.

Pumpelly's attention to the mound during his first expedition, and his

subsequent excavations, both here and in the South Kurgan, exposed the

same stratified structure.

[Illustration: Fig. 68. Designs on painted potsherds of the Neolithic

period (Culture I.) from the North Kurgan at Anau.--From Pumpelly,

_Expl. in Turk._, I., p. 128, Nos. 67-73.]

The strata represented successive occupations of the site, and, as

its inhabitants lived in houses built of sun-dried bricks, the hills

gradually rose in height. Of the two hills, the North Kurgan was of

earliest formation, its earlier strata containing the remains of a

stone-age culture, and its upper culture representing an aeneolithic

stage of civilization. The third culture, that of the lowest strata in

the South Kurgan, dates from a copper age. The archaeological part of

the work was directed by Dr. Schmidt, and to his admirable method of

noting the precise spot and level of every object recovered we owe the

possibility of tracing the gradual development of culture during the

successive periods of settlement. Moreover, the Transcaspian railway

passes little more than half a mile to the north of the northern mound,

or Kurgan. Hence there was no difficulty and little risk involved in

the conveyance to Europe of all the archaeological material obtained.

The collection of animal bones from the North Kurgan weighed nearly

half a ton, but they were despatched without difficulty to Dr. Duerst

of Zurich, who contributed a report on them to the record of the second

expedition.

The cultural progress of the three periods is, however, most clearly

revealed by the pottery, which exhibits a gradual evolution in form,

technique, and decoration. Although the vessels of the first two

cultures are hand-made, and the wheel was not introduced until Culture

III., yet the vessels of both earlier epochs are excellent ceramic

productions. It has already been noted that many of the geometric

designs occurring on pottery of the earlier periods from the North

Kurgan bear a certain resemblance to similar pottery found by MM.

Gautier and Lampre at Mussian, and by M. de Morgan at Susa. This may

well point to some connection between the stone and early metal-using

cultures of Transcaspia and Elam; while the baked clay figurines from

the copper culture of the South Kurgan may be held to prove some early

cultural contact with the Sumerians.[8]

[Illustration: Fig. 69. Designs on painted potsherds of the Aeneolithic

period (Culture II.) from the North Kurgan at Anau.--From Pumpelly,

_Expl. in Turk._, I., p. 133, Nos. 106-113.]

Mr. Pumpelly himself would regard the Central Asian oases as the

fountain-head of Western Asiatic culture. According to his theory, they

were isolated from Europe and Africa from the Glacial period onwards,

and their cultural requirements were evolved in complete independence.

Changes in climatic conditions, however, took place, under which the

early civilizations in these regions tended to disappear, and these

gave rise to extensive migrations, which reacted in turn on the outside

world. In support of his theory he would trace the early appearance

of wheat and barley both in Egypt and Babylonia, and the presence of

certain breeds of domestic animals, to their first establishment in the

Transcaspian oases. But, in addition to differences in their ceramics,

the total absence of any form of writing in the mounds at Anau tells

against any theory necessitating a very close racial connection between

the early inhabitants of the oases and the Sumerians of Babylonia.

The evidence, in fact, does not justify us in placing the original home

of the Sumerians at Anau, nor indeed in any particular spot in Central

Asia or Iran that has yet been examined. But it serves to indicate the

region of the world in which we may expect that future excavations will

reveal data of a more conclusive character. It may be that the ruined

sites of Seistan and the Kirman province will exhibit closer parallels

with the civilizations of Elam and Sumer. Meanwhile it is clear that

some contact must have taken place between the early peoples of the

latter countries and the settlements to the north of the Kopet Dagh.

We may thus picture the Sumerians before their arrival in Babylonia as

inhabitants of some district to the east of the Euphrates valley, where

they evolved the elements of their culture, which is already found in

a comparatively advanced stage of development on the earliest of South

Babylonian sites.

A further result of the recent explorations in Turkestan is that

an adequate explanation is afforded of the unrest in Central Asia,

which gave rise to the Sumerian immigration and to similar racial

movements westward. It may now be regarded as established that periods

of desiccation and extreme aridity have led to the abandonment of

extensive tracts of country, with the result that their former

inhabitants have, from time to time, been forced to seek sanctuary in

more favoured districts. While nomad tribes in their search for fresh

pasturage might drift over the broad steppes to the north and west of

Turkestan, the agricultural peoples on its southern border would be

forced to turn south of the Caspian. The bleak uplands of the Iranian

plateau offer small attractions for permanent settlement, and the

routes of the migrant tribes would naturally lead in the direction

of Asia Minor and the Mesopotamian plain. Such a condition of unrest

in Central Asia would naturally react on peoples at a considerable

distance, and this fact explains the periodical invasions to which

Babylonia has been subjected from the east. It may be added that

the immigration of Semitic tribes into Syria and Northern Babylonia

should possibly be traced to physical causes of a like nature. Periods

of aridity may have occurred in the central portions of the Arabian

continent, and may have given rise to the Semitic invasions of

prehistoric and historic times.

Thus it is possible that the two races, which we find in possession of

Sumer and Akkad during the earliest historical periods, though they

arrived from opposite quarters, were forced into the region of the

Euphrates by causes of a precisely similar character. As the Semites,

on their way northwards from Arabia, colonized the Syrian coast-lands

through which they passed, so the Sumerian race may well have left

permanent traces of its presence in the valleys and more fertile

oases of Iran. There are already indications that work on Syrian and

West Mesopotamian sites will throw a flood of light upon the problems

of early Semitic history, and it may perhaps fall to the lot of a

fortunate excavator, in some region east of the Euphrates valley, to

recover the cult-images of primitive Sumerian gods, and to bring to

light examples of the picture-writing from which the early cuneiform

characters were derived.

[1] See above, p. 53 f.

[2] Accounts of the first expedition were published under the title

"Explorations in Turkestan," as Publication No. 26 of the Carnegie

Institution of Washington (1905). The various monographs on the results

of the second expedition are published in two volumes, entitled

"Explorations in Turkestan; Expedition of 1904," as Publication No. 73

(1908) of the same institution. Both works were edited by Mr. Raphael

Pumpelly, who in 1906 had already summarized his conclusions in his

Presidential Address before the Geological Society of America (see

"Bulletin of the Geol. Soc. of Amer.," Vol. 17, pp. 637 ff.). In a

separate volume, entitled "The Pulse of Asia," Mr. Huntington has given

an account of his more recent journey.

[3] Cf. Geikie, "The Great Ice Age and its Relation to the Antiquity

of Man," 3rd ed., pp. 694, 698. In 1894, Prof. James Geikie had noted

the probability that glacial phenomena were more extensively developed

in the mountains and tablelands of Asia than he felt justified in

representing in his Glacial Map of Asia. In it he incorporated only

the results of previous observations, at the same time emphasizing its

"necessarily unsatisfactory character" (_op. cit._, p. 831, PI. xiii.).

This lack of evidence has now in great measure been remedied.

[4] Loess was formerly regarded as simply a deposit of glacial

or fluvial origin, but Richthofen's theory that its subsequent

distribution was largely due to wind-transport (cf. "China," Bd. I.,

pp. 56 ff.) is now generally accepted. The fact that it is found

heaped up against the sides of mountains and contains land, and not

water, shells, is unanswerable evidence. For its general character and

distribution, see Sir Archibald Geikie's "Text-book of Geology," 4th

ed., I., pp. 439 f.; II., p. 1351. It may be noted that the formation

of loess-beds and sand-deserts is a continuous process at the present

day, under the strong winds which prevail in certain seasons in Central

Asia; and even when there is little wind the air is often thick with

fine dust. The reverse of the process is visible in the effects of

wind-erosion, very striking instances of which have been described

by Dr. Stein; cp. _e.g._ "Ruins of Khotan," p. 189 f., and "Ancient

Khotan." I., p. 107.

[5] It should be noted that the substance of the dunes around Khotan

is to be distinguished from the true drifting sand of other Central

Asian deserts. For Prof. de Lóczy has shown by analysis that there is

almost complete uniformity in composition between the recently formed

fertile loess of Yotkan (the site of the ancient capital of Khotan)

and the moving "sand" now surrounding and covering the ancient sites

in the desert; cf. "Ancient Khotan," I., pp. 127 f., 199, 242. The

thickness of pure loess above the culture stratum at Yotkan was no less

than from nine to eleven feet, a fact which had led earlier European

visitors to suppose that some catastrophe, such as a great flood, had

overwhelmed the old town. It is merely a striking example of the manner

in which vegetation, under irrigation, catches and retains the floating

loess-dust.

[6] After his recent journey Dr. Stein writes of the Khotan region that

it appears to him certain that "the water-supply at present available

in the Yurung-kash could under no system whatever be made to suffice

for the irrigation of the whole of the large tracts now abandoned to

the desert, and for this broad fact desiccation alone supplies an

adequate explanation"; see the "Geographical Journal," vol. xxxiv.

(1909), p. 17.

[7] For a discussion of the modern theories as to the laws governing

climatic changes and the possibility of their cyclical recurrence, see

Huntington, "The Pulse of Asia," pp. 365 ff. It seems most probable

that the changes are of solar origin, the variations being caused by

varying forms of heat and other energy received from the sun. Such

changes would be more intensely felt in mid-continental areas, where

high mountains tend to intercept moisture from the sea, which is

precipitated without hindrance in the peripheral or coastal regions.

[8] See above, pp. 340 ff. For photographic reproductions of clay

figurines from the South Kurgan, see the plate facing p. 352. It

will be noted that the figurines are clearly of the Babylonian type.

The resemblance may be emphasized by contrast with the terra-cotta

figurines of a very much later date discovered by Dr. Stein at Yotkan;

see "Ruins of Khotan," p. 261. Moreover, lapis-lazuli is already found

in the second culture of the North Kurgan. This points to commercial

intercourse with regions still further east on the part of the Anau

settlements; but the employment of lapis-lazuli by the Sumerians may be

cited as further evidence in favour of some early cultural connection

on their part with Anau.

APPENDIX II

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

I. THE EARLIEST RULERS OF SUMER AND AKKAD

+---------+-----------------------+--------------------+---------------------+

| Approx. | Kish, Opis, and Akkad.| Lagash. | Umma, Erech, and Ur.|

| Dates | | | |

+---------+-----------------------+--------------------+---------------------+

| | | | |

| B.C. | | | |

| | (Utug p.) | | |

| | | | |

| | Mesilim k. ...........| Lugal-shag-engur p.| |

| | | | |

| | (Urzage k.) | (Badu k.) | |

| | | | |

| | (Lugal-tarsi k.) | (Enkhegal k.) | |

| | | | |

| 3000 | | Ur-Ninâ k., | |

| | | Akurgal p., | |

| | | | |

| | Al[...] k. of Kish; } | Eannatum p. and k..| {Ush p. |

| 2900 | and Zuzu k. of Opis. | | {Enakalli p., |

| | | | |

| | | Enannatum I. p., ..| {Urlumma |

| | | Entemena p., ......| {Ili |

| 2850 | | Enannatum II. p. | |

| | | Enetarzi p. | |

| | | Enlitarzi p., | |

| | | Lugal-anda p. | Ukush p., |

| 2800 | | Urukagina k. ......| Lugal-zaggisi k. of |

| | (Enbi-Ishtar k.) | | Erech and Sumer |

| | | | (Lugal-kigub-nidudu |

| | | | k. of Erech and Ur)|

| | | | (Lugal-kisalsi k. |

| | | | of Erech and Ur) |

| | _Dynasty of Kish._ | | (Enshagkushanna |

| | | | lord of Sumer) |

| 2750 | Sharru-Gi k. | | |

| 2700 | Manishtusu k. ........| | |

| | Urumush [or Rimush] k.| Engilsa p. ........| Kur-shesh p. of Umma|

| 2650 | _Dynasty of Akkad_ | | |

| | [see Table II.] | | |

+---------+-----------------------+--------------------+---------------------+

II. THE DYNASTY OF AKKAD AND ITS SUCCESSORS

+---------+---------------------+-----------------------+--------------------+

| Approx. | Akkad. | Lagash. | Umma and Ur. |

| Dates | | | |

+---------+---------------------+-----------------------+--------------------+

| | | | |

| B.C. | | | |

| | _Dynasty of Akkad._ | _Patesis of Lagash._ | |

| | | | |

| 2650 | Shar-Gani-sharri,} | | |

| | }..| Lugal-ushumgal | |

| 2600 | Narâm-Sin } | Ur-Babbar | |

| | | (Ur-E) | |

| | | (Lugal-bur) | |

| | | | |

| 2550 | | (Basha-mama) | |

| | | (Ur-mama) | |

| | | (Ug-me) | |

| | | | |

| | | Ur-Bau | |

| 2500 | | Nammakhui | |

| | | Ur-gar | |

| | | (Ka-azag) | |

| | | (Galu-Bau) | |

| | | (Galu-Gula) | |

| | | (Ur-Ninsun) |(Galu-Babbar |

| | | | p. of Umma) |

| 2450 | | Gudea, | |

| | | Ur-Ningirsu | |

| | | [probably survived | |

| | | into Dungi's reign | |

| | | see Table III.] ...| _Dynasty of Ur_ |

+---------+---------------------+-----------------------+--------------------+

EXPLANATORY NOTE.--p. = patesi; k. = king; a comma after a ruler's name

indicates that he was succeeded by his son. A dotted line (......)

joins the names of rulers who are proved to have been contemporaries;

the position of names within parentheses is conjectural. In Table I.,

Col. II. the rulers belong to Kish, and in Col. IV. to Umma, unless

otherwise stated. In Table III. (see p. 362) the figures which follow

the name of a king represent the number of years he ruled.

III. THE KINGDOM OF SUMER AND AKKAD

+---------+--------------------------------+-------------------+--------------------+

| Approx. | Summer and Akkad | Lagash. | Umma, Larsa, etc. |

| Dates | | | |

+---------+--------------------------------+-------------------+--------------------+

| | | | |

| | Dynasty of Ur (117 or 119 yrs. | Patesis of Lagash.| |

| | | | |

| | YEARS. | | |

| | Ur-Engur, (18) ...........| {Ur-Ningirsu | |

| 2400 | | {Ur-abba | |

| | | | |

| | | {Galu-kazal | |

| | | {Galu-andul | |

| | Dungi, (58) ...........| {Ur-Lama I. .....| Ur-nesu p. of Umma |

| 2350 | | {Alla | |

| | Bûr-Sin I., (9)}.......... | {{Ur-Lama II. | |

| | Gimil-Sin, (7 or 9)} | {[......]-kam | |

| | Ibi-Sin (25)}...........| Arad-Nannar | |

| | | | |

| | Dynasty of Isin (225 1/2 yrs.) | | |

| | | | |

| 2300 | Ishbi-Ura, (32) | | |

| | Gimil-ilishu, (10) | | |

| 2250 | Idin-Dagan, (21) | | |

| | Ishme-Dagan, (20) | | |

| | Libit-Ishtar (11) | | |

| 2200 | Ur-Ninib, (28) | | Gungunu k. of Larsa|

| | Bûr-Sin II., (21) | | |

| | Itêr-kasha (5) | | |

| 2150 | Ura-imitti (7) | | |

| | Sin-ikisha (1/2) | | |

| | Enlil-bani (24) | | |

| | Zambia (3) | | |

| | [...........] (5) | | (Sumu-ilu k. of Ur)|

| | Ea-[.....] (4) | | |

| 2100 | Sin-magir, (11) | | |

| | Damik-ilishu (23) | | |

+---------+--------------------------------+-------------------+--------------------+

INDEX