|  | READING HALLTHE DOORS OF WISDOM |  | 
|  |  | 
| 
 A HISTORYOFSUMER AND AKKAD
 an account of the early races of Babylonia from prehistoric times to the foundation of the babylonian monarchy 
 
 
 
 INTRODUCTORY: THE LANDS OF SUMER AND AKKAD 
 
 
 THE SITES OF EARLY CITIES AND THE RACIAL CHARACTER OF THEIR INHABITANTS 
 
 
 CHAPTER III THE AGE AND PRINCIPAL ACHIEVEMENTS OP SUMERIAN CIVILIZATION 
 
 
 THE EARLIEST SETTLEMENTS IN SUMER; THE DAWN OF HISTORY AND THE RISE OF LAGASH 
 
 
 WARS OF THE CITY-STATES; EANNATUM AND THE STELE OF THE VULTURES 
 
 
 
 
 
 THE CLOSE OF UR-NINA'S DYNASTY, THE REFORMS OF URUKAGINA, AND THE FALL OF LAGASH 
 
 
 
 EARLY RULERS OF SUMER AND KINGS OF KISH 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 THE EMPIRE OF AKKAD AND ITS RELATION TO KISH 
 
 
 
 
 THE DYNASTY OF UR AND THE KINGDOM OF SUMER AND AKKAD 
 THE EARLIER RULERS OF ELAM, THE DYNASTY OF ISIN, AND THE RISE OF BABYLON 
 
 
 THE CULTURAL INFLUENCE OF SUMER IN EGYPT, ASIA AND THE WEST 
 
 
 PREFACE THE
        excavations carried out in Babylonia and Assyria during the last few 
        years have added immensely to our knowledge of the early history of 
        those countries, and have revolutionized many of the ideas current with 
        regard to the age and character of Babylonian civilization. In the 
        present volume, which deals with the history of Sumer and Akkad, an 
        attempt is made to present this new material in a connected form, and to
        furnish the reader with the results obtained by recent discovery and 
        research, so far as they affect the earliest historical periods. An 
        account is here given of the dawn of civilization in Mesopotamia, and of
        the early city-states which were formed from time to time in the lands 
        of Sumer and Akkad, the two great divisions into which Babylonia was at 
        that period divided. The primitive sculpture and other archaeological 
        remains, discovered upon early Babylonian sites, enable us to form a 
        fairly complete picture of the races which in those remote ages 
        inhabited the country. By their help it is possible to realize how the 
        primitive conditions of life were gradually modified, and how from rude 
        beginnings there was developed the comparatively advanced civilization, 
        which was inherited by the later Babylonians and Assyrians and exerted a
        remarkable influence upon other races of the ancient world. In
        the course of this history points are noted at which early contact with
        other lands took place, and it has been found possible in the historic 
        period to trace the paths by which Sumerian culture was carried beyond 
        the limits of Babylonia. Even in prehistoric times it is probable that 
        the great trade routes of the later epoch were already open to traffic, 
        and cultural connections may well have taken place at a time when 
        political contact cannot be historically proved. This fact must be borne
        in mind in any treatment of the early relations of Babylonia with 
        Egypt. As a result of recent excavation and research it has been found 
        necessary to modify the view that Egyptian culture in its earlier stages
        was strongly influenced by that of Babylonia. But certain parallels are
        too striking to be the result of coincidence, and, although the 
        southern Sumerian sites have yielded traces of no prehistoric culture as
        early as that of the Neolithic and predynastic Egyptians, yet the 
        Egyptian evidence suggests that some contact may have taken place 
        between the prehistoric peoples of North Africa and Western Asia. Far
        closer were the ties which connected Sumer with Elam, the great centre 
        of civilization which lay upon her eastern border, and recent 
        excavations in Persia have disclosed the extent to which each 
        civilization was of independent development. It was only after the 
        Semitic conquest that Sumerian culture had a marked effect on that of 
        Elam, and Semitic influence persisted in the country even under Sumerian
        domination. It was also through the Semitic inhabitants of northern 
        Babylonia that cultural elements from both Sumer and Elam passed beyond 
        the Taurus, and, after being assimilated by the Hittites, reached the 
        western and south-western coasts of Asia Minor. An attempt has therefore
        been made to estimate, in the light of recent discoveries, the manner 
        in which Babylonian culture affected the early civilizations of Egypt, 
        Asia, and the West. Whether through direct or indirect channels, the 
        cultural influence of Sumer and Akkad was felt in varying degrees 
        throughout an area extending from Elam to the Aegean. In
        view of the after effects of this early civilization, it is of 
        importance to determine the region of the world from which the Sumerian 
        race reached the Euphrates. Until recently it was only possible to form a
        theory on the subject from evidence furnished by the Sumerians 
        themselves. But explorations in Turkestan, the results of which have now
        been fully published, enable us to conclude with some confidence that 
        the original home of the Sumerian race is to be sought beyond the 
        mountains to the east of the Babylonian plain. The excavations conducted
        at Anau near Askhabad by the second Pumpelly Expedition have revealed 
        traces of prehistoric cultures in that region, which present some 
        striking parallels to other early cultures west of the Iranian plateau. 
        Moreover, the physiographical evidence collected by the first Pumpelly 
        Expedition affords an adequate explanation of the racial unrest in 
        Central Asia, which probably gave rise to the Sumerian immigration and 
        to other subsequent migrations from the East. It
        has long been suspected that a marked change in natural conditions must
        have taken place during historic times throughout considerable areas in
        Central Asia. The present comparatively arid condition of Mongolia, for
        example, is in striking contrast to what it must have been in the era 
        preceding the Mongolian invasion of Western Asia in the thirteenth 
        century, and travellers who have followed the route of Alexander's army,
        on its return from India through Afghanistan and Persia, have noted the
        difference in the character of the country at the present day. Evidence
        of a similar change in natural conditions has now been collected in 
        Russian Turkestan, and the process is also illustrated as a result of 
        the explorations conducted by Dr. Stein, on behalf of the Indian 
        Government, on the borders of the Taklamakan Desert and in the oases of 
        Khotan. It is clear that all these districts, at different periods, were
        far better watered and more densely populated than they are today, and 
        that changes in climatic conditions have reacted on the character of the
        country in such a way as to cause racial migrations. Moreover, there 
        are indications that the general trend to aridity has not been uniform, 
        and that cycles of greater aridity have been followed by periods when 
        the country was capable of supporting a considerable population. These 
        recent observations have an important bearing on the Sumerian problem, 
        and they have therefore been treated in some detail in Appendix I. The
        physical effects of such climatic changes would naturally be more 
        marked in mid-continental regions than in districts nearer the coast, 
        and the immigration of Semitic nomads into Syria and Northern Babylonia 
        may possibly have been caused by similar periods of aridity in Central 
        Arabia. However this may be, it is certain that the early Semites 
        reached the Euphrates by way of the Syrian coast, and founded their 
        first Babylonian settlements in Akkad. It is still undecided whether 
        they or the Sumerians were in earliest occupation of Babylonia. The 
        racial character of the Sumerian gods can best be explained on the 
        supposition that the earliest cult-centres in the country were Semitic; 
        but the absence of Semitic idiom from the earliest Sumerian inscriptions
        is equally valid evidence against the theory. The point will probably 
        not be settled until excavations have been undertaken at such North 
        Babylonian sites as El-Ohemir and Tell Ibrahim. That
        the Sumerians played the more important part in originating and 
        moulding Babylonian culture is certain. In government, law, literature 
        and art the Semites merely borrowed from their Sumerian teachers, and, 
        although in some respects they improved upon their models, in each case 
        the original impulse came from the Sumerian race. Hammurabi's Code of 
        Laws, for example, which had so marked an influence on the Mosaic 
        legislation, is now proved to have been of Sumerian origin; and recent 
        research has shown that the later religious and mythological literature 
        of Babylonia and Assyria, by which that of the Hebrews was also so 
        strongly affected, was largely derived from Sumerian sources. The
        early history of Sumer and Akkad is dominated by the racial conflict 
        between Semites and Sumerians, in the course of which the latter were 
        gradually worsted. The foundation of the Babylonian monarchy marks the 
        close of the political career of the Sumerians as a race, although, as 
        we have seen, their cultural achievements long survived them in the 
        later civilizations of Western Asia. The designs upon the cover of this 
        volume may be taken as symbolizing the dual character of the early 
        population of the country. The panel on the face of the cover represents
        two Semitic heroes, or mythological beings, watering the humped oxen or
        buffaloes of the Babylonian plain, and is taken from the seal of 
        Ibni-Sharru, a scribe in the service of the early Akkadian king 
        Shar-Gani-sharri. The panel on the back of the binding is from the Stele
        of the Vultures and portrays the army of Eannatum trampling on the dead
        bodies of its foes. The shaven faces of the Sumerian warriors are in 
        striking contrast to the heavily bearded Semitic type upon the seal. A
        word should, perhaps, be said on two further subjects—the early 
        chronology and the rendering of Sumerian proper names. The general 
        effect of recent research has been to reduce the very early dates, which
        were formerly in vogue. But there is a distinct danger of the reaction 
        going too far, and it is necessary to mark clearly the points at which 
        evidence gives place to conjecture. It must be admitted that all dates 
        anterior to the foundation of the Babylonian monarchy are necessarily 
        approximate, and while we are without definite points of contact between
        the earlier and later chronology of Babylonia, it is advisable, as far 
        as possible, to think in periods. In the Chronological Table of early 
        kings and rulers, which is printed as Appendix II, a scheme of 
        chronology has been attempted; and the grounds upon which it is based 
        are summarized in the third chapter, in which the age of the Sumerian 
        civilization is discussed. The
        transliteration of many of the Sumerian proper names is also 
        provisional. This is largely due to the polyphonous character of the 
        Sumerian signs; but there is also no doubt that the Sumerians themselves
        frequently employed an ideographic system of expression. The ancient 
        name of the city, the site of which is marked by the mounds of Tello, is
        an instance in point. The name is written in Sumerian as Shirpurla, 
        with the addition of the determinative for place, and it was formerly 
        assumed that the name was pronounced as Shirpurla by the Sumerians. But 
        there is little doubt that, though written in that way, it was actually 
        pronounced as Lagash, even in the Sumerian period. Similarly the name of
        its near neighbour and ancient rival, now marked by the mounds of 
        Jokha, was until recently rendered as it is written, Gishkhu or Gishukh;
        but we now know from a bilingual list that the name was actually 
        pronounced as Umma. The
        reader will readily understand that in the case of less famous cities, 
        whose names have not yet been found in the later syllabaries and 
        billingual texts, the phonetic readings may eventually have to be 
        discarded. When the renderings adopted are definitely provisional, a 
        note has been added to that effect. I
        take this opportunity of thanking Dr. E. A. Wallis Budge for permission
        to publish photographs of objects illustrating the early history of 
        Sumer and Akkad, which are preserved in the British Museum. My thanks 
        are also due to Monsieur Ernest Leroux, of Paris, for kindly allowing me
        to make use of illustrations from works published by him, which have a 
        bearing on the excavations at Tello and the development of Sumerian art;
        to Mr. Raphael Pumpelly and the Carnegie Institution of Washington, for
        permission to reproduce illustrations from the official records of the 
        second Pumpelly Expedition; and to the editor of Nature for kindly 
        allowing me to have cliches made from blocks originally prepared for an 
        article on "Transcaspian Archaeology", which I contributed to that 
        journal. With my colleague, Mr. H. R. Hall, I have discussed more than 
        one of the problems connected with the early relations of Egypt and 
        Babylonia; and Monsieur F. Thureau-Dangin, Conservateur-adjoint of the 
        Museums of the Louvre, has readily furnished me with information 
        concerning doubtful readings upon historical monuments, both in the 
        Louvre itself, and in the Imperial Ottoman Museum during his recent 
        visit to Constantinople. I should add that the plans and drawings in the
        volume are the work of Mr. P. C. Carr, who has spared no pains in his 
        attempt to reproduce with accuracy the character of the originals. L. W. KING 
 
 | 
|  |  |