 |
READING HALLTHE DOORS OF WISDOM |
 |
 |
 |
 |
A HISTORY OF SUMER AND AKKADCHAPTER VII EARLY RULERS OF SUMER AND KINGS OF KISH
THE
sack and destruction of Lagash, which has been described in the
preceding chapter, closes an
epoch, not only in the fortunes of that city, but also in the history of
the lands of Sumer and Akkad.
When following the struggles of the early city-states, we have
hitherto been able to arrange our material
in strict chronological order by the help of a nearly unbroken succession
of rulers, whose inscriptions have
been recovered during the French excavations at Tello. These have enabled
us to reconstruct the history of
Lagash herself in some detail, and from the references they furnish to other great
cities it has been possible to
estimate the influence she exerted from time to time among her neighbours. It is
true that the records, from which
our information is derived, were drawn up by the rulers of Lagash whose
deeds they chronicle, and are naturally
far from being impartial authorities. A victory may sometimes have been
claimed, when the facts may not
have fully justified it; and to this extent we have been forced to view the
history of Sumer and of Akkad from
the standpoint of a single city. Had the sites of other cities yielded as
rich a harvest as Tello, it is probable
that other states would be found to have played
no less important parts. But in any case it may be regarded as certain
that for a time at least Lagash
enjoyed the hegemony which it was the ambition
of every state of Sumer and Akkad to possess. This leading position had
been definitely secured to her by
the conquests of Eannatum, and, although under
his successors her influence may have diminished,
Lugal-zaggisi,
the conqueror of Lagash, is mentioned by
name in the document from which our knowledge of the catastrophe is
derived. The unknown writer of that
composition, as we have already seen, assigns to him the title "patesi
of Umma", and, had we no other information
concerning him, we might perhaps have concluded
that his success against the ancient rival of his own city was merely an
isolated achievement. In the
long-continued struggle between these neighbouring states Umma had finally
proved victorious, and the results
of this victory might have been regarded as of little more than local
importance. (It has indeed been suggested that, as Urukagina is termed "King of Fortunately,
Lugal-zaggisi prefaces his record of their
dedication with a long list of his own titles and achievements, which make up
the greater part of the inscription.
From this portion of the text we gather considerable
information with regard to the cities under his control, and the limits
of the empire to which he laid
claim at the time the record was drawn up. The text opens with an
enumeration of the royal titles, in which
Lugal-zaggisi is described as "King of Erech, king of the land, priest of
Ana, prophet of Nidaba; the
son of Ukush, patesi of Umma, the prophet of Nidaba; he who was
favourably regarded by Ana, the
king of the lands; the great patesi of Enlil; endowed with understanding
by Enki; whose name was
spoken by Babbar (the Sun-god); the chief minister of Enzu (the Moon-god); the
representative of Babbar; the
patron of Ninni; the son of Nidaba, who was nourished with holy milk by
Ninkharsag; the servant of the
god Mes, who is the priest of Erech; the pupil of Ninabukhadu, the mistress
of Erech; the great minister of the
gods." Lugal-zaggisi then goes on to state in general
terms the limits of his dominion. "When the god Enlil, the king of the
lands," he says, "had bestowed
upon Lugal-zaggisi the kingdom of the land, and had granted him success
in the eyes of the land, and when
his might had cast the lands down, and he had conquered them from the
rising of the sun unto the setting
of the same, at that time he made straight his path from the Lower Sea
(over) the Euphrates and the Tigris unto the Upper Sea. From the rising of the sun unto the setting of the
same has Enlil granted him dominion.
. . ." It is to Enlil, the chief of the gods, that,
in accordance with the practice of the period, he ascribes the dominion which
has been granted him to administer.
The
phrases in which Lugal-zaggisi defines the limits of his empire are
sufficiently striking, and it will be
necessary to enquire into their exact significance. But before doing so it will
be well to continue quoting from
the inscription, which proceeds to describe the benefits which the king has
conferred upon different cities
of his realm. Referring to the peace and prosperity
which characterized Lugal-zaggisi's reign, the record states that "he
caused the lands to dwell in security,
he watered the land with waters of joy. In the shrines of Sumer did
they set him up to be the patesi of the
lands, and in Erech (they appointed him) to be chief priest. At that time
he made Erech bright with joy;
like a bull he raised the head of Ur to heaven; Larsa, the beloved city of
the Sun-god, he watered with waters
of joy; Umma, the beloved city of the god . . ., he raised to exalted power;
as a ewe that . . . her lamb,
has he made Ninni-esh resplendent; the summit of Kianki has he raised to
heaven". Then follows the votive portion of the text
and the prayer of dedication, with
which for the moment we have no concern.
From
the extracts which have been quoted from Lugal-zaggisi's
inscription, it will have been seen that he claims a jurisdiction far
wider than might have been expected
to belong to a patesi of Umma. But the text itself explains the apparent
discrepancy, and shows that, while
Lugal-zaggisi's inheritance was a patesiate, he won by his own exertions
the empire over which he subsequently
ruled. It will be noticed that while he
claims for himself the titles "King of Erech" and "king of the
land", i.e. of Sumer, he ascribes to
his father
Ukush only the title "patesi of Umma". It is therefore clear that his
father's authority did not reach beyond
the limits of his native city, and we may conclude that such was the
extent of the patesiate of Umma
when Lugal-zaggisi himself came to the throne. The later titles, which he
assumes on the vases found at Nippur,
prove that at the time they were inscribed he had already established his
authority throughout Sumer and
had removed his seat of government from Umma to Erech. That the latter
city had become his capital is
clear from the precedence which he gives to the designation "King of
Erech" over his other titles of honour;
and, in accordance
with this change of residence, he details the new relations
into which he has entered
with the deities of that city. Thus he is the servant of Mes and the
pupil of Ninabukhadu, the divine
priest and the mistress of Erech; and in a special sense
he has become the patron of Ninni, the chief seat of whose worship was at
Erech, in her great temple E-anna.
Ana, too, the father of the gods, had his temple in Erech, and so
Lugal-zaggisi naturally became his
priest and enjoyed his special favour. It was probably in consequence of
Ana's
close connection with his new
capital that Lugal-zaggisi ascribes to him the title "king of the
lands", which by right belonged only to Enlil of Nippur; and we may
note that in the prayer of dedication
on the vases it is with Ana that Enlil is besought to intercede on
behalf of the king.
Although
Lugal-zaggisi had changed his capital and no longer continued to use
his father's title as patesi of Umma,
he naturally did not neglect his native city; moreover, he retained the
title "prophet of Nidaba", and
thereby continued to claim the protection of the city-goddess, who, before
his recent victories, had been his
patroness and that of his father before him. He even emphasized his
dependence upon her by styling himself
her son, and in another passage he boasts that he had raised the city of
Umma to power. High in his
favour also stood Ur, the city of the Moon-god, and Larsa, the city of the
Sun-god; and the less-known cities
of Ninni-esh and Kianki are also selected for mention as having been
specially favoured by him. At first
sight it is not clear on what principle the names of these cities are selected
from among all those in the land
of Sumer, which were presumably within the circle of his authority. That
Erech, Ur, and Larsa should be referred
to is natural enough, for they were close to one another, and would thus
form the centre and nucleus of his
dominion; and the king would naturally devote himself to improving their
canalization and beautifying them
by the erection of
new buildings. It is not improbable that we may explain the
mention of Ninni-esh and
Kianki on the same principle : they probably stood in the immediate
neighbourhood of the three greater cities,
or of Umma, and thus participated in the benefits which they enjoyed.
In any
case, the absence of a city's name from Lugal-zaggisi's
list is not necessarily to be taken as
A more
difficult problem is presented by what at first sight appears to be a
claim to a still wider empire, which
follows Lugal-zaggisi's titles at the end of the first and the beginning of
the second column of his inscription.
He here states that, after Enlil had bestowed on him the kingdom of the land
(that is, of Sumer),
and had granted him success in the eyes of the land, and when his might
had cast the lands down and he had
conquered them from East to West, at that time Enlil "made straight
his path from the Lower Sea (over)
the Euphrates and the Tigris unto the Upper Sea". The Lower Sea is clearly the Persian Gulf, and by the Upper Sea it is
probable that the Mediterranean is intended, rather than Lake Urmi or Lake Van. On the basis of this
passage Lugal-zaggisi has been
credited with having consolidated and ruled an empire extending from the
Persian Gulf to the shores of the
Mediterranean. In other words, he would have included
Akkad and Syria along with Sumer within the
limits of his rule.
It is
true that Shar-Gani-sharri of Akkad, at a rather later period, did succeed
in establishing an empire of this
extent, but there are difficulties in the way of crediting Lugal-zaggisi
with a like achievement. For Erech,
the capital of his kingdom, was in Southern Babylonia, and, unlike the
city of Akkad, was not well adapted
to form the centre of an administrative area extending so far to the
north and west. Moreover, the
actual phrase employed by Lugal-zaggisi does not necessarily imply a claim
to dominion within these regions,
but may be taken as commemorating little more
than a victorious raid, during which he may have penetrated to the Syrian
coast. Such an expedition, so far
as we know, must have marked a new departure from the policy hitherto
followed by the rulers of Sumerian
city-states, and its successful prosecution would have fully justified
the language in which it is recorded.
In view of these considerations, it is preferable to regard Lugal-zaggisi's
kingdom, in the strict sense
of the word, as having been confined to Sumer. Of his relations to Akkad
and the northern cities we have
no evidence on which to form an opinion. We shall presently see reasons
for believing that at about this
period, or a little later, the state of Kish secured the hegemony in Northern
Babylonia, and, in view of the
absence of any reference to it in Lugal-zaggisi's inscription, we may perhaps
conclude that in his time the
city had already laid the foundations of its later power.
It was
probably after his successful return from the long expedition in the
north-west that Lugal-zaggisi deposited
his vases as votive offerings within Enlil's shrine at Nippur, and
engraved upon them the inscripÂtions from which we obtain our information
concerning his reign.
In the third column of his text he states that he has dedicated them
to Enlil, after having made due
offerings of loaves in Nippur and having poured out pure water as a libation.
He then adds a prayer of dedication,
in which he prays for life for himself, and peace for his land, and a
large army. "May Enlil, the king
of the lands", he says, "pronounce my prayer to Ana, his beloved father!
To my life may he add life!
May he cause the lands to dwell in security! Warriors as numerous as the
grass may he grant me in abundance!
Of the celestial folds may he take care! May he
look with kindness on the land (of Sumer)! May the gods not alter the
good destiny they have assigned
to me! May I always be the shepherd, who leads (his flock)!". We may regard it as typical of the great
conqueror that he should pray for a supply of warriors "as
numerous as the grass".
It is
fortunate for our knowledge of early Sumerian history that the shrine of
Enlil at Nippur should have been
the depository for votive offerings, brought thither by the rulers of
city-states to commemorate their victories.
Of the inscribed objects of this class that were recovered at Nippur
during the American excavations on that site, by far the most important are
the vase-fragments
of Lugal-zaggisi, which have already been
described. But others were found, which, though supplying less detailed
information, are of considerable value,
since they furnish the names of other rulers of Sumer, who may probably be
grouped with Lugal-zaggisi.
Two kings of this period are Lugal-kigub-nidudu and Lugal-kisalsi,
each of whom bore the title
"King of Erech" and "King of Ur", while the former, like Lugal-zaggisi,
styles himself in addition "king
of the land", i.e. of Sumer. Their inscriptions were found in the mound of
Nippur at about the same level
as the vase-fragments of Lugal-zaggisi, and a comparison of the
characters employed in each set of texts
suggests that they date from about the same period.
That
Lugal-kigub-nidudu and Lugal-kisalsi are in any case to be set before
the time of Shar-Gani-sharri of
Akkad is proved by the fact that one of the rough blocks of diorite, which
the former had dedicated to Enlil
after inscribing his name upon it, was afterwards used by Shar-Gani-sharri as
a door-socket in the temple he
erected at Nippur. Whether they lived still earlier than Lugal-zaggisi it is
difficult to decide. The longest inscription
of Lugal-kigub-nidudu which has been recovered
is engraved upon a vase which he deposited as a votive offering in
Enlil's temple, and from the
Too
much emphasis is not to be set on the fact that he describes his rule of
Erech as a lordship or a dominion,
while he styles that of Ur a kingdom; for the difference in these
phrases was not very marked in the
pre-Sargonic period, and it is to be noted that Erech is mentioned before Ur.
Moreover, Lugal-kisalsi assigns the
title "King of Erech" as well as "King of Ur" to his predecessor as to
himself, and, since he places the former
title first, it is probable that Erech and not Ur was their capital. But
even on this assumption it does
not follow that Erech was Lugal-kigub-nidudu's native city, for we have
seen that when Lugal-zaggisi conquered
Sumer he transferred his capital to Erech, and Lugal-kigub-nidudu may
have done the same. The
fact that at a later period Gudea, when rebuilding the temple E-ninnu, came
across a stele of Lugal-kisalsi suggests that he exercised authority over Lagash; and we may
probably conclude that both he and
Lugal-kigub-nidudu included the principal cities of Southern Babylonia under
their sway. That Lugal- kisalsi
followed and did not precede Lugal-kigub-nidudu upon the dual throne of
Erech and Ur is certain from one of his
votive inscriptions, which contains a reference to the
earlier king. The beginning of the text is wanting, so that it is not clear whether
he mentions him as his
father or in some other connection. In any case we may assume that he
followed him at no long interval;
but it is not yet certain whether we are to set their reigns in Sumer
before or after that of Lugal- zaggisi.
The
same uncertainty applies to another ruler of this period, who bore the
name of Enshagkushanna and
assumed the titles "lord of Sumer" and "king of the land". Two of his
inscriptions have been recovered upon
fragments of vases, which were found at Nippur at the same level as those
already described, and one of these
is of considerable interest, for it gives us the name of an enemy of Sumer who
has already bulked largely in the
earlier history of Lagash. The inscription in question
consists of only a few words, and reads: "Enshagkushanna has vowed to Enlil the booty of Kish, the wicked". It is clear from the epithet applied to
Kish that at this period, as in the time of Eannatum, the northern city was a
terror to the Sumerian states in the
south, and we may assume that war between them was not of infrequent
occurrence. It was after some successful
raid or battle in the north that EnshagÂkushanna dedicated a portion of the
spoil to Enlil in his
temple of E-kur. Similar fragments of vases have been found at Nippur, the
inscriptions upon which testify
to other successes against Kish, achieved by a king of Sumer, who probably
reigned at a period rather earlier
than Enshagkushanna, Lugal-kigub-nidudu, and even Lugal-zaggisi.
Although
fragments of no less than four of his vase-inscriptions have been
discovered, the name of this Sumerian
king unfortunately does not occur on any one of
them. In the longest of the texts he takes the title of "king",
and in the gap that follows we may probably
restore the phrase "of the land", that is, of Sumer; on two of them,
like the other Sumerian kings we
have referred to, he ascribes his installation in the government of the country
to Enlil, the god of Nippur. All
four inscriptions were drawn up on the same occasion, and commemorate a
striking victory this unknown
Sumerian ruler had achieved over the northern cities of Kish and Opis. Of
the two conquered cities Kish
was clearly the more important, for its devastation is recorded in each of the
texts, whereas Opis is only mentioned
in one of them. Each city was ruled by a
separate king, whose overthrow is recorded on the vases, but, since they were
defeated in the same battle, we may
conjecture that they formed the centre of a single confederation or
dominion, of which Kish was the
head. In two of the texts the king of Kish is referred to, not only by
his title, but by name, and, since
he bore the Semitic name of Enbi-Ishtar, we may conclude that at this
period Kish, and probably Opis and
other northern cities, were already under Semitic domination. In the war
these cities were waging with the
south, the vases record what appears to have been a serious check to the
increase of Semitic influence and power.
For not only was Enbi-Ishtar defeated, but both Kish and Opis were
sacked, and the Sumerian king
returned southward laden with booty, including statues, precious metals,
and rare stones. The vases on
which he recorded his victory formed part of the spoil captured in the
north. They were fashioned of white
calcite stalagmite, dark brown sandstone, and dark brown tufa or igneous
rock. In the land of Sumer,
where stone was a rare commodity, these were highly prized objects, and
they formed a fitting thank-offering
for presentation at Enlil's shrine.
We have already referred to the question as to the nationality of the
still earlier kings of Kish, Mesilim and his successors, some of whom we know
to have been contemporary with the earlier rulers of Lagash. At that period the
northern city had already succeeded in imposing its authority upon some of the
city-states of Sumer, and later on both Kish and Opis are proved to have been
engaged in active warfare in the south. Too little evidence is available for
determining definitely whether these earlier kings and patesis were of Sumerian
or Semitic stock, but there is much to be said in favour of regarding the later
conflicts between the north and south as merely a continuation of the earlier
struggle. With Enbi-Ishtar we meet at any rate with a name that is genuinely Semitic, and we shall presently see reasons
for believing that other Semitic kings of Kish, whose inscriptions and monuments have
been recovered, should be
placed in the same period. According to this
view, as we have already pointed out, the first Semitic immigration into Northern
Babylonia, or Akkad, is not
to be synchronized with the empire of Akkad,
which was founded by Shar-Gani-sharri (Sargon) and consolidated by Naram-Sin. In spite of
the absence of Semitic
idiom from the few short votive inscriptions of the earlier kings of Kish that have as
yet been found, the possibility
must not be disregarded that they too date
from a period of Semitic and not of Sumerian domination in the north. At Sippar also
we have evidence of
very early Semitic occupation.
One of this later group of kings of Kish, whose inscriptions prove them to have been Semites, is Uru-mush, or llimush, and, although in all probability the latest of them, he may be referred to first, since we have definite evidence that he is to be assigned to the epoch preceding Sargon and Naram-Sin. In an unpublished tablet from Tello, preserved in the Museum at Constantinople, there occurs the proper name Ili-Urumush, "My god is Urumush". The deification of some of the early kings of Babylonia has long been recognized as having taken place, at any rate from the time of Shar-kalli-sharri (Sargon); and we have evidence that the honour was not only paid to them after death, but was assumed by the kings themselves during their own lifetime. The occurrence of a proper name such as Ili-Urumush can only be explained on the supposition that a king bearing the name of Urumush had already reigned, or was reigning at the time the former name was employed. Now, the tablet in Constantinople, which mentions the name of Ili-Urumush, is undated, but from its form, writing, and contents it may clearly be assigned to the same epoch as certain dated tablets of Shar-Gani-sharri and Naram-Sin with which it was found. From this it follows that Urumush was anterior to Shar-Gani-sharri and Naram-Sin, though his reign may not have been separated from theirs by any long interval. We have but a few short
inscriptions of Urumush, and those of a votive
character, but they enable us to form some estimate of the
extent and condition of his empire. The only designation he assumes in
those of his inscriptions that have been recovered is " King of Kish,"
so that we are without the information which might have been derived
from a study of his subsidiary titles. Such titles would no doubt have
been added in any lengthy text, and their absence from his known
inscriptions is simply due to their
brevity. On the other hand, the fact that these short
inscriptions have been found on sites so widely scattered as Abu Habba,
Niffer, and Tello, is probably significant. The inscriptions from Abu
Habba and Tello consist
simply of his name and title engraved on fragments of stone
vases, and, since they bear no dedication to a local deity, they might
possibly
have been carried
there as spoil from Kish. But fragments of precisely similar
vases, bearing the same inscription, have been found at Niffer, and, as
the texts upon
two other vases
from the latter place prove that they weredeposited there by Urumush himself, it is a fair
assumption that their presence on the other two sites is to be explained in the same way. We may therefore conclude that both Sippar and Lagash were under the control of Urumush. In other words, it is not improbable
that the limits of his authority in Babylonia extended from the extreme north of Akkad to the south of Sumer.
It is fully in accordance with this view that Urumush should have controlled the central sanctuary at Nippur, and his vases found upon that site, which bear dedications to Enlil, prove that this was so. From one of them we learn too that the power of Kish was felt beyond the limits of Sumer and Akkad. The text in question states that the vase upon which it is inscribed formed part of certain spoil from Elam, and was dedicated to Enlil by Urumush, "when he had conquered Elam and Barakhsu". It is possible that the conquest of Elam and the neighbouring district of Barakhsu, to which Urumush here lays claim, was not more than a successful raid into those countries, from which he returned laden with spoil. But even so, the fact that a king of Kish was strong enough to assume the offensive against Elam, and to lead an expedition across the border, is sufficiently noteworthy. The references to Elam which we have hitherto noted in the inscriptions from Tello would seem to suggest that up to this time the Elamites had been the aggressors, and had succeeded in penetrating into Sumerian territory from which they were with difficulty dislodged. Under Urumush the conditions were reversed, and we shall shortly see reason for believing that his success was not a solitary achievement, but may be connected with other facts in the history of Kish under the Semitic rulers of this period. Meanwhile we may note the testimony to the power and extent of the kingdom of Kish, which is furnished by the short inscriptions of his reign. Later tradition relates that Urumush met his end in a palace revolution; but the survival of his name in the omen-literature of the later Babylonians and Assyrians is further evidence of the important part he played in the early history of their country.
Another king of Kish, whose name has been recovered in short votive inscriptions from Abu Habba and Niffer is Manishtusu. But fortunately for our knowledge of his reign, we possess a monument, which, though giving little information of an historical nature, is of the greatest value for the light it throws upon the Semitic character of the population and the economical conditions which prevailed in Northern Babylonia at the time it was drawn up. This monument is the famous Obelisk of Manishtusu, which was discovered by M. de Morgan at Susa, during his first season's work on that site in the winter of 1897-8. On the obelisk is engraved a text in some sixty-nine columns, written in Semitic Babylonian, and recording the purchase by Manishtusu of large tracts of cultivated land situated in the neighbourhood of Kish and of three other cities in Northern Babylonia. Each of the four sides of the stone is devoted to a separate area or tract of land, near one of the four great cities. Thus the first side records the purchase of certain land made up of three estates and known as the Field of Baz, which lay near the city of Dur-Sin; the second side records the purchase of the Field of Baraz-sirim, near the city of Kish, Manishtusu's capital; the third side, like the first, deals with three estates, and these together were known as the Meadow (or, strictly, the Marsh) of Ninkharsag, near the city of Marad; while the fourth side is concerned with the purchase of the Field of Shad-Bitkim and Zimanak, near a city the name of which may be provisionally rendered as Shid-tab. The great length of the inscription is due to the fact that, in addition to giving details with regard to the size, value, and position of each estate, the text enumerates by name the various proprietors from whom the land was purchased, the former overseers or managers who were dispossessed, and the new overseers who were installed in their place. The names of the latter are repeated on all four sides of the obelisk before the purchase-formula.
We may note the fact that Manishtusu did not confiscate the land, but
acquired it legally by purchase, as though he were merely a private
citizen or large land-owner. The exact area of each estate was first accurately
ascertained by measurement, and its value was then reckoned in grain and
afterwards in silver, one bur of land being regarded as worth sixty gur of grain, or one mana of silver. An additional sum, consisting of one-tenth or
three-twentieths of the purchase-price, was also paid to the owners of each
estate, who received besides from the king presents of animals, garments,
vessels, etc., which varied in value according to the recipient's rank or his
former share in the property. Not only are the owners' names and parentage duly
recorded on the stone, but also those of certain associates who had an interest
in the land; most of these appear to have been relatives of the owners, who had
contributed capital for the cultivation or improvement of the estates. Their
names were doubtless included in order to prevent any subsequent claim being
raised by them against the king. The same reason appears to have dictated the
enumeration by name of the former managers or overseers of each estate, who by
its purchase were deprived of their occupation. The cultivation of the large
tracts of land, which passed into the king's possession, had given employment
to no less than fifteen hundred and sixty-four labourers, who had been in the
charge of eighty-seven overseers. It is worthy of note that Manishtusu
undertook to find fresh occupation and means of support for both these classes
in other places, which were probably situated at no great distance from their
homes.
The reason for this extensive purchase of landed property by Manishtusu
may possibly have been given
At the head of the inhabitants from Akkad, to whom the king handed over
his new estates, stands Aliakhu, his nephew, and among them we also find sons
and dependants of the rulers of important cities, who appear
But the recognition of Urukagina's true place in the line of the rulers
of Lagash has rendered the theory untenable; and the suggested identification
of Mesalim, the son of Manishtusu, with Mesilim, the early king of Kish, so far
from giving support to the other proposal, is quite incompatible with it. In
fact, both the proposed identifications cannot be right, and it remains to be seen whether either of them can be
accepted. Of the two, the
proposal to identify Mesalim with Lugal-shag-engur's
contemporary may be dismissed at once, since
both the internal and the external evidence furnished by the obelisk are against
assigning Manishtusu's reign to
so early a period. Although these objections
do not apply so strongly to the other proposal, its acceptance is negatived on
other grounds. From
Urukagina's own inscriptions we have seen reason to believe that he did not obtain the
throne by right of succession,
but by force; he never refers to his own father,
and the antagonism to the patesiate, which characterizes his texts, suggests that
his reign marks a complete
break in the succession. We may therefore conclude that Urukagina of the obelisk is
a different personage to
Urukagina, the king, and the former's father,
Engilsa, would in that case have ruled as a patesi of Lagash at a period subsequent
to the sack of that city by
Lugal-zaggisi.
We are therefore reduced to more
general considerations in attempting
to fix the date of Manishtusu. That his reign is to be assigned
to about the
same period as that of Urumush there can be little doubt, for,
in contrast to
those of the earlier kings of Kish, the inscriptions of both are
written in
Semitic Babylonian, and the forms of the characters they employ
are very
similar. Evidence has already been cited which proves that
Urumush was anterior
to Shar-Gani-sharri and Naram-Sin. In Manishtusu, therefore, we
have another
Semitic king under whom the city of Kish enjoyed the hegemony in
Babylonia,
which afterwards passed to Akkad. That the kingdom of Kish,
under these two
rulers, was not separated by a long interval from the empire of
Akkad would
seem to follow from the references to the latter city on
Manishtusu's obelisk. We have already noted that the forty-nine
overseers, who were entrusted with
the administration of the lands purchased by the king, are
described in the
text as
The extent of Manishtusu's authority within the limits of Babylonia is indicated by the reference to Southern Babylonian cities in his obelisk-inscription; for, since the patesis of Lagash and Umma sent their relatives or dependants to Manishtusu's court, it may be inferred that his dominions included at least a portion of Sumer as well as Akkad. Like Urumush, he also appears to have undertaken military expeditions, by means of which he added to the territory under his control. In the British Museum are fragments of two monoliths, engraved with duplicate inscriptions, which record his defeat of a confederation of thirty-two kings "on this side (?) of the sea", and the capture of the cities over which they ruled. It is difficult to determine with certainty the region in which these cities lay, but, since "the sea" is mentioned without any qualifying phrase, we may probably take it as referring to the Persian Gulf. In that case the text may have recorded the subjugation of the southern portion of Sumer, or perhaps the conquest of cities within the Elamite border. Though Manishtusu's name does not occur in the few lines of the main inscription preserved upon the fragments, there is no doubt that the text is his, for upon one of them is engraved a dedication in rather larger characters, stating that the stele of which it formed a part was dedicated to Shamash by Manishtusu, King of Kish. Since both the fragments were found at Abu Habba, we may conclude that the stelae were set up in the great temple at Sippar, and were dedicated by Manishtusu to the Sun-god in commemoration of his victory.
Other monuments of Manishtusu's reign that have come down to us consist
of a number of figures and statues of the king which have been discovered at
Susa during the French excavations on that site. There is no doubt that the
majority of these were carried to Susa as spoil of war, and were not set up in
that city by Manishtusu himself, for they bear Anzanite inscriptions to that
effect. Thus one statue is stated to have been brought from Akkad to Susa by
Shutruk-nakhkhunte, and another by the same king from "Ishnunuk," incidentally proving that the state
of Ashnunnak, which lay to the east of the Tigris, formed part of Manishtusu's
dominions. But a more recently discovered statue of the king bears no later Anzanite
record, and is inscribed with its original dedication. to the god Naruti by a
high official in Manishtusu's service. It
is a remarkable monument, for while the figure itself is of alabaster, the eyes
are formed of white limestone let into sockets and held in place by bitumen;
the black pupils are now wanting. Though the staring effect of the inlaid eyes is scarcely pleasing, the
statue is undoubtedly the most interesting example of early Semitic sculpture in the round that has
yet been recovered. Both
in this statue and in the more famous
obelisk, Pere Scheil would see evidence of Manishtusu's permanent subjugation of
Elam, in support of his view that Elam and Babylonia practically
Until recently Manishtusu and Urumush were the only kings of Kish of this period whose names had been recovered. But a find has been made at Susa, which, while furnishing the name of another king of Kish, raises important questions with regard to the connection between the empires of Kish and Akkad. In the present chapter we have been dealing with a period of transition in the history of the lands of Sumer and Akkad. The fall of Lagash had been followed by a confederation of Sumerian cities with Erech as its capital, and the conquests of Lugal-zaggisi had sufficed to preserve for a time the integrity of the southern kingdom he had founded. But events were already taking place which were to result in the definite transference of power from Sumer to the north. The votive inscriptions from Nippur have thrown some light upon the struggles by which the Semitic immigrants into Northern Babylonia sought to extend their influence southward. The subsequent increase in the power of Kish was not followed by any fresh access of Sumerian power, but directly paved the way for the Semitic empire founded by Shar-Kalli-sharri with the city of Akkad as his capital. The evidence of the close connection between the rise of Kish and Akkad suggests that both cities were borne up upon the same wave of Semitic domination, which by this time had succeeded in imposing itself on Babylonia from the north. In the following chapter we shall see that Shar-Gani-sharri was not the leader of this racial movement, and that his empire rested upon foundations which other rulers had laid.
THE EMPIRE OF AKKAD AND ITS RELATION WITH KISH
|
|
|
