[25] Akkad, or Akkadû, was the Semitic pronunciation of Agade, the older name of the town; a similar sharpening of sound occurs in Makkan, the Semitic pronunciation of Magan (cf. Ungnad, "Orient. Lit.-Zeit.," 1908, col. 62, n. 4). The employment of the name of Akkad for the whole of the northern half of the country probably dates from a period subsequent to the increase of the city's power under Shar-Gani-sharri and Narâm-Sin (see Chap. VIII.); on the employment of the name for the Semitic speech of the north, see below, p. 52. The origin of the name Ki-uri, or Ki-urra, employed in Sumerian as the equivalent of the name of Akkad, is obscure.

[59] Cf. Langdon, "Babyloniaca," I., pp. 225 f., 230, 284 ff., II., p. 99 f. The grounds, upon which the suggestion has been put forward, consist of a comparison between the verb "to go" in Sumerian, Greek, and Latin, an apparent resemblance in a few other roots, the existence of compound verbs in Sumerian, and the like; but quite apart from questions of general probability, the "parallelisms" noted are scarcely numerous enough, or sufficiently close, to justify the inference drawn from them.

[52] See above, p. 78, and below, p. 167 f.

[56] See above, p. 106, n. 1.

[43] For one of the inscribed bricks from the well, see the plate opposite p. 154.

[59] Cf. Genouillac, "Tabl. sum. arch.," pp. xv., n. 12, xli.

[49] See Chap. X., p. 289.

[89] See the panel on the cover of this volume; and cf. p. 217 f.

[36] "The City of Gimil-Sin," i.e., a town named after the reigning king and probably founded by him.

[48] See Hilprecht, "Math., Met., and Chron. Tablets," p. 49 f., n. 5.

[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.

In the course of the systematic excavation of the site, it was clearly established that all the mounds at Fâra belong to a very early period. In many places the trenches cut through thick strata of ashes and charred remains, and it was seen that the whole settlement had been destroyed by fire, and that the greater part of it had never been reoccupied. All trace of buildings practically ceased at a depth of more than two metres beneath the present surface, and those that were excavated appear to belong to a single epoch. Their early period is attested by the fact that they are all built of plano-convex bricks,[17] both baked and unbaked, with thumb-marks or lines impressed by the finger on their upper surface. Many of them were clearly dwelling-houses, consisting of chambers grouped around a rectangular court; others are of circular form, measuring from two to five metres across, and their use has not been determined.[18] It has been suggested that the latter may have served as wells, and it is true that they generally descend to a depth of about four metres below the level of the plain. But they are scattered so thickly in the mound that this explanation of their use is scarcely adequate; moreover each was roofed in with an arch of overlapping bricks laid horizontally. They may have been cisterns, or designed for receiving refuse-water from the houses, but against this view is to be set the fact that they are not connected in any way with the numerous brick channels and clay drains that were discovered. Similar constructions were found at Surghul, and nothing in the débris which filled them, either there or at Fâra, has thrown light upon the purpose which they served.

The brief outline that has been given of our knowledge concerning the early cities of Sumer and Akkad, and of the results obtained by the partial excavation of their sites, will have served to show how much still remains to be done in this field of archaeological research. Not only do the majority of the sites still await systematic excavation, but a large part of the material already obtained has not yet been published. Up to the present time, for instance, only the briefest notes have been given of the important finds at Fâra and Abû Hatab. In contrast to this rather leisurely method of publication, the plan followed by M. de Morgan in making available without delay the results of his work in Persia is strongly to be commended. In this connection mention should in any case be made of the excavations at Susa, since they have brought to light some of the most remarkable monuments of the early Semitic kings of Akkad. It is true the majority of these had been carried as spoil from Babylonia to Elam, but they are none the less precious as examples of early Semitic art. Such monuments as the recently discovered stele of Sharru-Gi, the statues of Manishtusu, and Narâm-Sin's stele of victory afford valuable evidence concerning the racial characteristics of the early inhabitants of Northern Babylonia, and enable us to trace some of the stages in their artistic development. But in Akkad itself the excavations have not thrown much light upon these subjects, nor have they contributed to the solution of the problems as to the period at which Sumerians and Semites first came in contact, or which race was first in possession of the land. For the study of these questions our material is mainly furnished from the Sumerian side, more particularly by the sculptures and inscriptions discovered during the French excavations at Tello.

Thus, important differences are observable in the form of the earlier Sumerian gods and their dress and insignia, which it is difficult to reconcile with Professor Meyer's theory of their origin. Moreover, the principal example which he selected to illustrate his thesis, the god of the central shrine of Nippur, has since been proved never to have borne the Semitic name of Bêl, but to have been known under his Sumerian title of Enlil from the beginning.[49] It is true that Professor Meyer claims that this point does not affect his main argument;[50] but at least it proves that Nippur was always a Sumerian religious centre, and its recognition as the central and most important shrine in the country by Semites and Sumerians alike, tells against any theory requiring a comparatively late date for its foundation.

The improbably high estimate of Nabonidus for the date of Narâm-Sin has long been the subject of criticism.[6] It is an entirely isolated statement, unsupported by any other reference in early or late texts; and the scribes who were responsible for it were clearly not anxious to diminish the antiquity of the foundation-record, which had been found at such a depth below the later temple's foundations, and after so prolonged a search. To accept it as accurate entailed the leaving of enormous gaps in the chronological schemes, even when postulating the highest possible dates for the dynasties of Ur and Babylon. An alternative device of partially filling the gaps by the invention of kings and even dynasties[7] was not a success, as their existence has since been definitely disproved. Moreover, the recent reduction in the date of the First Dynasty of Babylon, necessitated by the proof that the first three dynasties of the Kings' List were partly contemporaneous, made its discrepancy with Nabonidus's figures still more glaring, while at the same time it furnished a possible explanation of so high a figure resulting from his calculations. For his scribes in all good faith may have reckoned as consecutive a number of early dynasties which had been contemporaneous.[8] The final disproof of the figure is furnished by evidence of an archaeological and epigraphic character. No such long interval as twelve or thirteen hundred years can have separated the art of Gudea's period from that of Narâm-Sin; and the clay tablets of the two epochs differ so little in shape, and in the forms of the characters with which they are inscribed, that we must regard the two ages as immediately following one another without any considerable break.

It must be confessed that this is a reduction in the date usually assigned to the earliest relics that have been recovered of the Sumerian civilization, but its achievements are by no means belittled by the compression of its period of development. It is not suggested that this date marks the beginning of Sumerian culture, for, as we have noted, it is probable that the race was already possessed of a high standard of civilization on their arrival in Babylonia. The invention of cuneiform writing, which was one of their most noteworthy achievements, had already taken place, for the characters in the earliest inscriptions recovered have lost their pictorial form. Assuming the genuineness of the "Blau Monuments," it must be admitted that even on them the characters are in a comparatively advanced stage of development.[20] We may thus put back into a more remote age the origin and early growth of Sumerian culture, which took place at a time when it was not Sumerian.

For smaller figures and statuettes a softer stone, such as white limestone, alabaster, or onyx, was usually employed, but a few in the harder stone have been recovered. The most remarkable of these is a diorite statuette of a woman, the upper part of which has been preserved. The head and the torso were found separately, but thanks to their hard material they join without leaving a trace of any break. Here, as usual, the hands are crossed upon the breast, and the folds of the garment are only indicated under the arms by a few plain grooves as in the statues of Gudea. But the woman's form is visible beneath the stuff of her garment, and the curves of the back are wonderfully true. Her hair, undulating on the temples, is bound in a head-cloth and falls in the form of a chignon on the neck, the whole being secured by a stiff band, or fillet, around which the cloth is folded with its fringe tucked in.

In the period of Gudea, the mould was definitely used as a stamp, thus returning to the original use from which its later employment was developed. Interesting examples of such later stamped figures include representations of a god wearing a horned headdress, to which are added the ears of a bull, and of a hero, often identified with Gilgamesh, who holds a vase from which two streams of water flow.[42] The clay employed for the votive figures is extremely fine in quality, and most of them are baked to a degree of hardness resembling stone or metal.

The excavations on the site of Nippur and its temple have illustrated the gradual increase in the size of a Sumerian city, and the manner in which the temple of the city-god retained its position as the central and most important building. The diggings, however, have thrown little light upon the form the temple assumed during periods anterior to the Dynasty of Ur. In fact, we do not yet know the form or arrangement of an early Sumerian temple; for on early sites such as Fâra, Surghul, and Bismâya, the remains of no important building were uncovered, while the scanty remains of Ningirsu's temple at Tello date from the comparatively late period of Ur-Bau and Gudea. On the latter site, however, a number of earlier constructions have been discovered, and, although they are not of a purely religious character, they may well have been employed in connection with the temple service. Apart from private dwellings, they are the only buildings of the early Sumerians that have as yet been recovered, and they forcibly illustrate the primitive character of the cities of this time.

The form in which the record of the treaty is cast is of peculiar interest, for it forcibly illustrates the theocratic feeling of these early peoples. It is in accordance with their point of view that the actual patesis of Lagash and Umma are not named, and the dispute is regarded as having been adjusted by the gods. The deity who presided over the conference, and at whose invitation the treaty is stated to have been made, was Enlil, "the king of the lands." Owing to his unique position among the local gods of Babylonia, his divine authority was recognized by the lesser city-gods. Thus it was at his command that Ningirsu, the god of Lagash, and the city-god of Umma fixed the boundary. It is true that Mesilim, the King of Kish, is referred to by name, but he only acted at the word of his own goddess Kadi, and his duties were confined to making a record of the treaty which the gods themselves had drawn up. We could not have a more striking instance of the manner in which the early inhabitants of Babylonia regarded the city-gods as the actual kings and rulers of their cities. The human kings and patesis were nothing more than ministers, or agents, appointed to carry out their will. Thus, when one city made war upon another, it was because their gods were at feud; the territory of the city was the property of the city-god, and, when a treaty of delimitation was proposed, it was naturally the gods themselves who arranged it and drew up its provisions.

We are not dependent solely on what we can gather from the inscriptions themselves for a knowledge of Ur-Ninâ. For he has left us sculptured representations, not only of himself, but also of his sons and principal officers, from which we may form a very clear picture of the primitive conditions of life obtaining in Sumer at the time of this early ruler. The sculptures take the form of limestone plaques, roughly carved in low relief with figures of Ur-Ninâ surrounded by his family and his court.[39] The plaques are oblong in shape, with the corners slightly rounded, and in the centre of each is bored a circular hole. Though they are obviously of a votive character, the exact object for which they are intended is not clear at first sight. It has been, and indeed is still, conjectured that the plaques were fixed vertically to the walls of shrines,[40] but this explanation has been discredited by the discovery of the plaque, or rather block, of Dudu, the priest of Ningirsu during the reign of Entemena. From the shape of the latter, the reverse of which is not flat but pyramidal, and also from the inscription upon it, we gather that the object of these perforated bas-reliefs was to form horizontal supports for ceremonial mace-heads or sacred emblems, which were dedicated as votive offerings in the temples of the gods.[41] The great value of those of Ur-Ninâ consists in the vivid pictures they give us of royal personages and high officials at this early period.

It is not directly stated in the text as preserved upon the stele that it was within E-ninnû Eannatum sought Ningirsu's counsel and instructions; but we may assume that such was the case, since the god dwelt within his temple, and it was there the patesi would naturally seek him out. The answer of the god to Eannatum's prayer was conveyed to him in a vision; Ningirsu himself appeared to the patesi, as he appeared in a later age to Gudea, when he gave the latter ruler detailed instructions for the rebuilding of E-ninnû, and granted him a sign by which he should know that he was chosen for the work. Like Gudea, Eannatum made his supplication lying flat upon his face; and, while he was stretched out upon the ground, he had a dream. In his dream he beheld the god Ningirsu, who appeared to him in visible form and came near him and stood by his head. And the god encouraged his patesi and promised him victory over his enemies. He was to go forth to battle and Babbar, the Sun-god who makes the city bright, would advance at his right hand to assist him. Thus encouraged by Ningirsu, and with the knowledge that he was carrying out the orders of his city-god, Eannatum marshalled his army and set out from Lagash to attack the men of Umma within their own territory.

Both Eannatum and his soldiers wear a conical helmet, covering the brow and carried down low at the back so as to protect the neck, the royal helmet being distinguished by the addition at the sides of moulded pieces to protect the ears. Both the shields and the helmets were probably of leather, though the nine circular bosses on the face of each of the former may possibly have been of metal. Their use was clearly to strengthen the shields, and they were probably attached to a wooden framework on the other side. They would also tend to protect the surface of the shields by deflecting blows aimed at them. The royal weapons consisted of a long lance or spear, wielded in the left hand, and a curved mace or throwing-stick, formed of three strands bound together at intervals with thongs of leather or bands of metal. When in his chariot on the march, the king was furnished with additional weapons, consisting of a flat-headed axe like those of his soldiers, and a number of light darts, some fitted with double points. These last he carried in a huge quiver attached to the fore part of his chariot, and with them we may note a double-thonged whip, doubtless intended for driving the ass or asses that drew the vehicle. It is probable that the soldiers following Eannatum in both scenes were picked men, who formed the royal body-guard, for those in the battle-scene are distinguished by the long hair or, rather, wig, that falls upon their shoulders from beneath their helmets,[25] and those on the march are seen to be clothed from the waist downwards in the rough woollen garment similar to that worn by the king. They may well have been recruited among the members of the royal house and the chief families of Lagash. The king's apparel is distinguished from theirs by the addition of a cloak, possibly of skin,[26] worn over the left shoulder in such a way that it leaves the right arm and shoulder entirely free.

With Eannatum's victory over Kish we must probably connect the success which he achieved over another northern city, Opis. For towards the end of the text upon the foundation-stone referred to above, these achievements appear to be described as a single event, or, at least, as two events of which the second closely follows and supplements the first. In the course of the formulæ celebrating the principal conquests of his reign, Eannatum exclaims: "By Eannatum was Elam broken in the head, Elam was driven back to his own land; Kish was broken in the head, and the king of Opis was driven back to his own land."[32] When referring to the victory over Opis in an earlier passage of the same inscription, Eannatum names the king who attacked him, and, although he does not give many details of the war, it may be inferred that Opis was defeated only after a severe struggle. "When the king of Opis rose up," the text runs, "Eannatum, whose name was spoken by Ningirsu, pursued Zuzu, king of Opis, from the Antasurra of Ningirsu up to the city of Opis, and there he smote him and destroyed him."[33] We have already seen reasons for believing that the king of Kish took an active part in Umma's war with Lagash, and shared her defeat; and we may conjecture that it was to help and avenge his ally that Zuzu, king of Opis, marched south and attacked Eannatum. That he met with some success at first is perhaps indicated by the point from which Eannatum records that he drove him back to his own land. For the Antasurra was a shrine or temple dedicated to Ningirsu, and stood within the territory of Lagash, though possibly upon or near the frontier. Here Eannatum met the invaders in force, and not only dislodged them, but followed up his victory by pursuing them back to their own city, where he claims that he administered a still more crushing defeat. It is possible that the conquest of Ma'er, or Mari, took place at this time, and in connection with the war with Opis and Kish, for in one passage Eannatum refers to the defeat of these three states at the Antasurra of Ningirsu. Ma'er may well have been allied with Kish and Opis, and may have contributed a contingent to the army led by Zuzu in his attack on Lagash.

Another canal, which we know was cut by Eannatum, was that separating the plain of Gu-edin from the territory of Umma, but this was undertaken, not for purposes of irrigation, but rather as a frontier-ditch to mark the limits of the territory of Lagash in that direction. There is little doubt, however, that at least a part of its stream was used for supplying water to those portions of Gu-edin which lay along its banks. Like the canal Lummadimdug, this frontier-ditch was also dedicated to Ningirsu, and in the inscription upon a small column which records this fact, the name of the canal is given as Lummagirnuntashagazaggipadda. But this exceedingly long title was only employed upon state occasions, such as the ceremony of dedication; in common parlance the name was abbreviated to Lummagirnunta, as we learn from the reference to it upon Entemena's Cone. It is of interest to note that in the title of the stone of delimitation, which occurs upon the Stele of the Vultures, reference is made to a canal named Ug-edin, the title of the stone being given as "O Ningirsu, lord of the crown ..., give life unto the canal Ug-edin!" In the following lines the monument itself is described as "the Stele of Gu-edin, the territory beloved of Ningirsu, which I, Eannatum, have restored to Ningirsu"; so that it is clear that the canal, whose name is incorporated in that of the stele, must have had some connection with the frontier-ditch. Perhaps the canal Ug-edin is to be identified with Lummagirnunta, unless one of the two was a subsidiary canal.

One of the first duties Entemena was called upon to perform, after ascending the throne, was the defence of his territory against further encroachments by Urlumma. It is evident that this ruler closely watched the progress of events in Lagash, and such an occasion as the death of the reigning patesi in that city might well have appeared to him a suitable time for the renewal of hostilities. The death of the great conqueror Eannatum had already encouraged him to raid and occupy a portion of the territory held up to that time by Lagash, and, although Eannatum had succeeded in holding him to some extent in check, he only awaited a favourable opportunity to extend the area of territory under his control. Such an opportunity he would naturally see in the disappearance of his old rival, for there was always the chance that the new ruler would prove a still less successful leader than his father, or his accession might give rise to dissension among the members of the royal house, which would materially weaken the city's power of resistance. His attack appears to have been carefully organized, for there is evidence that he strengthened his own resources by seeking assistance from at least one other neighbouring state. His anticipation of securing a decided victory by this means was, however, far from being realized. Entemena lost no time in summoning his forces, and, having led them out into the plain of Lagash, he met the army of Urlumma at the frontier-ditch of Lummagirnunta, which his uncle Eannatum had constructed for the defence and irrigation of Gu-edin, the fertile territory of Ningirsu. Here he inflicted a signal defeat upon the men of Umma, who, when routed and put to flight, left sixty of their fellows lying dead upon the banks of the canal.[10] Urlumma himself fled from the battle, and sought safety in his own city. But Entemena did not rest content with the defeat he had inflicted upon the enemy in the field. He pursued the men of Umma into their own territory, and succeeded in capturing the city itself before its demoralized inhabitants had had time to organize or strengthen its defence. Urlumma he captured and slew, and he thus put an end to an ambitious ruler, who for years had undoubtedly caused much trouble and annoyance to Lagash. Entemena's victory was complete, but it was not won without some loss among his own forces, for he heaped up burial-mounds in five separate places, which no doubt covered the bodies of his own slain. The bones of the enemy, he records, were left to bleach in the open plain.

The high-priest, Dudu, whose portrait is included in the designs upon the plaque already referred to, appears to have been an important personage during the reign of Entemena, and two inscriptions that have been recovered are dated by reference to his period of office. One of these occurs upon the famous silver vase of Entemena, the finest example of Sumerian metal work that has yet been recovered. The vase, engraved in outline with variant forms of the emblem of Lagash,[18] bears an inscription around the neck, stating that Entemena, patesi of Lagash, "the great patesi of Ningirsu," had fashioned it of pure silver and had dedicated it to Ningirsu in E-ninnû to ensure the preservation of his life. It was deposited as a votive object in Ningirsu's temple, and a note is added to the dedication to the effect that "at this time Dudu was priest of Ningirsu." A similar reference to Dudu's priesthood occurs upon a foundation-inscription of Entemena recording the construction of a reservoir for the supply of the Lummadimdug Canal, its capacity being little more than half that of the earlier reservoir constructed by Eannatum. Since the canal was dedicated to Ningirsu, the reference to Dudu was also here appropriate. But such a method of indicating the date of any object or construction, even though closely connected with the worship or property of the city-god, was somewhat unusual, and its occurrence in these texts may perhaps be taken as an indication of the powerful position which Dudu enjoyed.[19] Indeed, Enlitarzi, another priest of Ningirsu during Entemena's reign, subsequently secured the throne of Lagash. Entemena's building-inscriptions afford further evidence of his devotion to Ningirsu, whose temple and storehouses he rebuilt and added to. Next in order of importance were his constructions in honour of the goddess Ninâ, while he also erected or repaired temples and other buildings dedicated to Lugal-uru, and the goddesses Ninkharsag, Gatumdug, and Ninmakh. Such records suggest that Entemena's reign, like that of Eannatum, was a period of some prosperity for Lagash, although it is probable that her influence was felt within a more restricted area.[20] By his conquest and annexation of Umma, he more than made up for any want of success on the part of his father, Enannatum I., and, through this victory alone, he may well have freed Lagash from her most persistent enemy throughout the reign of his immediate successors.

It is fully in accordance with this view that Urumush should have controlled the central sanctuary at Nippur, and his vases found upon that site, which bear dedications to Enlil, prove that this was so. From one of them we learn too that the power of Kish was felt beyond the limits of Sumer and Akkad. The text in question states that the vase upon which it is inscribed formed part of certain spoil from Elam, and was dedicated to Enlil by Urumush, "when he had conquered Elam and Barakhsu."[24] It is possible that the conquest of Elam and the neighbouring district of Barakhsu, to which Urumush here lays claim, was not more than a successful raid into those countries, from which he returned laden with spoil. But even so, the fact that a king of Kish was strong enough to assume the offensive against Elam, and to lead an expedition across the border, is sufficiently noteworthy. The references to Elam which we have hitherto noted in the inscriptions from Tello would seem to suggest that up to this time the Elamites had been the aggressors, and had succeeded in penetrating into Sumerian territory from which they were with difficulty dislodged. Under Urumush the conditions were reversed, and we shall shortly see reason for believing that his success was not a solitary achievement, but may be connected with other facts in the history of Kish under the Semitic rulers of this period. Meanwhile we may note the testimony to the power and extent of the kingdom of Kish, which is furnished by the short inscriptions of his reign. Later tradition relates that Urumush met his end in a palace revolution;[25] but the survival of his name in the omen-literature of the later Babylonians and Assyrians is further evidence of the important part he played in the early history of their country.

Up to this time no original text of Shar-Gani-sharri's reign was known. The first to be published was the beautiful cylinder-seal of Ibni-sharru, a high official in Shar-Gani-sharri's service, of which Ménant gave a description in 1877,[7] and again in 1883.[8] Ménant read the king's name as "Shegani-shar-lukh," and he did not identify him with Sargon the elder (whom he put in the nineteenth century B.C.), but suggested that he was a still earlier king of Akkad. In 1882 an account was published of the Abû Habba cylinder of Nabonidus, which records his restoration of E-babbar and contains the passage concerning the date of Narâm-Sin, "the son of Sargon."[9] In the following year the British Museum acquired the famous mace-head of Shar-Gani-sharri, which had been dedicated by him to Shamash in his great temple at Sippar; this was the first actual inscription of Shar-Gani-sharri to be found. In place of Ménant's reading "Shegani-shar-lukh," the name was read as "Shargani," the two final syllables being cut off from it and treated as a title, and, in spite of some dissentients, the identity of Shargani of Agade with Sargon the elder was assumed as certain.[10] Unlike Sargon, the historical character of Narâm-Sin presented no difficulties. His name had been read upon the vase discovered by M. Fresnel at Babylon and afterwards lost in the Tigris;[11] and, although he was there called simply "king of the four quarters," his identification with the Narâm-Sin mentioned by Nabonidus on his cylinder from Ur was unquestioned. Further proof of the correctness of the identification was seen in the occurrence of the name of Magan upon the vase, when it was discovered that the second section of his Omens recorded his conquest of that country.[12]

Although the king's name is wanting, it is possible to estimate the amount of text that is missing at the head of the first column, and it is now clear that the name of Sharru-Gi does not occur at the beginning of the inscription, but some lines down the column; in other words, its position suggests a name in a genealogy rather than that of the writer of the text. Moreover, in a broken passage in the second column the name Sharru-GI occurs again, and the context proves definitely that he was not the writer of the text, who speaks in the first person, though he may not improbably have been his father. But, although the monument can no longer be ascribed to Sharru-GI, the titles "the mighty king, the king of Kish," which occur in the first column of the text, are still to be taken as applying to him, while the occurrence of the name in the second column confirms its suggested restoration in the genealogy. It may therefore be regarded as certain that Sharru-GI was an early king of Kish, and, it would seem, the father of the king who had the cruciform monument inscribed and deposited as a votive offering in the temple of Shamash at Sippar. In the last chapter reference has been made to Manishtusu's activity in Sippar and his devotion to the great temple of the Sun-god in that city.[28] For various epigraphical reasons, based on a careful study of its text, I would provisionally assign the cruciform monument to Manishtusu. According to this theory, Sharru-GI would be Manishtusu's father, and the earliest king of Kish of this period whose name has yet been recovered.

Of Narâm-Sin's successors upon the throne of Akkad we know little. The name of Bin-Gani-sharri, one of his sons, has been recovered upon a seal,[78] and on a seal-impression from Tello,[79] but his name has not been found with the royal title, so that we do not know whether he succeeded his father upon the throne. Another son of Narâm-Sin, the reading of whose name is uncertain, held the post of patesi of Tutu, for his name and title have been preserved on a perforated plaque from Tello, engraved by Lipush-Iau, who describes herself as his daughter and lyre-player to the Moon-god, Sin.[80] The famous seal of Kalki, the scribe, who was in the service of Ubil-Ishtar, "the king's brother," is also to be assigned to this period, but to which reign we cannot tell. The scene engraved upon the seal[81] gives an interesting picture of one of these early Semitic princes attended by his suite. The central figure, who carries an axe over his left shoulder, is probably Ubil-Ishtar, and he is followed by a Sumerian servant, whom we may identify with the scribe Kalki, the holder of the seal. The other attendants, consisting of the prince's huntsman, his steward with his staff of office, and a soldier, are all bearded Semites. The shaven head and fringed garment of the Sumerians are here retained by the scribe, suggesting that, though the Sumerians were employed by their conquerors, little racial amalgamation had taken place.

With the exception of Gudea, the only ruler of this period who has left us any considerable records or remains is Ur-Bau, the predecessor of Nammakhni and Ur-gar upon the throne of Lagash. We possess a small diorite statue of this ruler, which, like most of those found at Tello, is without its head.[15] It is a standing figure, and its squat and conventional proportions suffice to show that it must date from a rather earlier period than the larger and finer statues of Gudea, which are fashioned from the same hard material. Gudea definitely states that he fetched the diorite for his series of large statues from Magan, but Ur-Bau makes no such boast; and, although it is clear that his stone must have come from the same quarries, we may probably conclude that the small block he employed for his figure had not been procured as the result of a special expedition. In fact, such records as he has left us portray him as devoting all his energies to the building of temples within the different quarters of his city.[16]

The enumeration of these distant countries, and Gudea's boastful reference to the Upper and the Lower Sea, might, perhaps, at first sight be regarded as constituting a claim to an empire as extensive as that of Shar-Gani-sharri and Narâm-Sin. But it is a remarkable fact that, with the exception of Lagash and her constituent townships, Gudea's texts make no allusion to cities or districts situated within the limits of Sumer and Akkad. Even the names of neighbouring great towns, such as Ur, Erech, and Larsa, are not once cited, and it can only be inferred that they enjoyed with Lagash an equal measure of independence. But if Gudea's authority did not extend over neighbouring cities and districts within his own country, we can hardly conclude that he exercised an effective control over more distant regions. In fact, we must treat his references to foreign lands as evidence of commercial, not of political, expansion.

We are not here concerned with Gudea's elaborate description of the new temple, and of the sumptuous furniture, the sacred emblems, and the votive objects with which he enriched its numerous courts and shrines. A large part of the first cylinder is devoted to this subject, and the second cylinder gives an equally elaborate account of the removal of the god Ningirsu from his old shrine and his installation in the new one that had been prepared for him. This event took place on a duly appointed day in the new year, after the city and its inhabitants had undergone a second course of purification. Upon his transfer to his new abode Ningirsu was accompanied by his wife Bau, his sons, and his seven virgin daughters, and the numerous attendant deities who formed the members of his household. These included Galalim, his son, whose special duty it was to guard the throne and place the sceptre in the hands of the reigning patesi; Dunshagga, Ningirsu's water-bearer; Lugal-kurdub, his leader in battle; Lugal-sisa, his counsellor and chamberlain; Shakanshabar, his grand vizir; Uri-zi, the keeper of his harîm; Ensignun, who tended his asses and drove his chariot; and Enlulim, the shepherd of his kids. Other deities who accompanied Ningirsu were his musician and flute-player, his singer, the cultivator of his lands, who looked after the machines for irrigation, the guardian of the sacred fish-ponds, the inspector of his birds and cattle, and the god who superintended the construction of houses within the city and fortresses upon the city-wall. All these deities were installed in special shrines within E-ninnû, that they might be near Ningirsu and ready at any moment to carry out his orders.

It was the custom of the Sumerian patesis to give long and symbolical names to statues, stelæ and other sacred objects which they dedicated to the gods, and Gudea's statues do not form an exception to this rule. Thus, before he introduced the statue with the offerings into E-ninnû, he solemnly named it "For-my-king-have-I-built-this-temple-may-life-be -my-reward!" A smaller statue for E-ninnû was named "[The-Shepherd]-who -loveth-his-king-am-I-may-my-life-be-prolonged!", while to the colossal statue for the same temple he gave the title "Ningirsu-the-king-whose -weighty-strength-the-lands-cannot-support-hath -assigned-a-favourable -lot-unto-Gudea-the-builder-of-the-temple." The small standing statue for the temple of Ninkharsag bore the equally long name "May-Nintud (i.e. Ninkharsag)-the-mother-of-the-gods-the-arbiter-of-destinies -in-heaven-and-upon-earth-prolong-the-life-of-Gudea-who-hath-built -the-temple!", and another small statue for the temple of Bau was named "The-lady-the-beloved-daughter-of-the-pure-heaven-the-mother-goddess -Bau-in-Esilsirsir-hath-given-Gudea-life." The statue for the temple of Ningishzida was named "To-Gudea-the-builder-of-the-temple-hath-life -been-given," and that for E-anna bore the title "Of-Gudea-the-man-who -hath-constructed-the-temple-may-the-life-be-prolonged!" It will be seen that these names either assert that life and happiness have been granted to Gudea, or they invoke the deity addressed to prolong his life. In fact, they prove that the statues were originally placed in the temples like other votive objects, either in gratitude for past help, or to ensure a continuance of the divine favour.

This custom may have prepared the way for the practice of deification, but it did not originate in it. Indeed, the later development is first found among the Semitic kings of Akkad, and probably of Kish, but it did not travel southward until after the Dynasty of Ur had been established for more than a generation. Ur-Engur, like Gudea, was not deified in his own lifetime, and the innovation was only introduced by Dungi. During the reigns of the last kings of that dynasty the practice had been regularly adopted, and it was in this period that Gudea was deified and his cult established in Lagash along with those of Dungi and his contemporary Ur-Lama I.[37] By decreeing that offerings should be made to one of his statues, Gudea no doubt prepared the way for his posthumous deification, but he does not appear to have advanced the claim himself. That he should have been accorded this honour after death may be regarded as an indication that the splendour of his reign had not been forgotten.

That Ur-Engur was the founder of his dynasty we know definitely from the dynastic chronicle, which was recovered during the American excavations at Nippur.[1] In this document he is given as the first king of the Dynasty of Ur, the text merely stating that he became king and ruled for eighteen years. Unfortunately the preceding columns of the text are wanting, and we do not know what dynasty was set down in the list as preceding that of Ur, nor is any indication afforded of the circumstances which led to Ur-Engur's accession. From his building-inscriptions that have been recovered on different sites in Southern Babylonia[2] it is possible, however, to gather some idea of his achievements and the extent of his authority. After securing the throne he appears to have directed his attention to putting the affairs of Ur in order. In two of his brick-inscriptions from Mukayyar, Ur-Engur bears the single title "king of Ur," and these may therefore be assigned to the beginning of his reign, when his kingdom did not extend beyond the limits of his native city. These texts record the rebuilding of the temple of Nannar, the Moon-god, and the repair and extension of the city-wall of Ur.[3] His work on the temple of the city-god no doubt won for him the support of the priesthood, and so strengthened his hold upon the throne; while, by rebuilding and adding to the fortifications of Ur, he secured his city against attack before he embarked upon a policy of expansion.

Of these campaigns we know that the first conquest of Gankhar took place in Dungi's thirty-fourth year, and that of Simuru in the year that followed. The latter district does not appear to have submitted tamely to annexation, for in his thirty-sixth year Dungi found it necessary to send a fresh expedition for its reconquest. In the following year he followed up these successes by the conquest of Kharshi and Khumurti. Gankhar and Simuru were probably situated in the mountainous districts to the east of the Tigris, around the upper course of the Diyala, in the neighbourhood of Lulubu; for the four countries Urbillu, Simuru, Lulubu, and Gankhar formed the object of a single expedition undertaken by Dungi in his fifty-fifth year.[12] Kharshi, or Kharishi, appears to have also lain in the region to the east of the Tigris.[13] These victories doubtless led to the submission of other districts, for in his fortieth year Dungi married one of his daughters to the patesi of Anshan, among the most important of Elamite states. The warlike character of the Elamites is attested by the difficulty Dungi experienced in retaining control over these districts, after they had been incorporated in his empire. For in the forty-first year of his reign he was obliged to undertake the reconquest of Gankhar, and to send a third expedition there two years later; in the forty-third year he subdued Simuru for the third time, while in the forty-fourth year Anshan itself revolted and had to be regained by force of arms.

Among the higher officials whose stay in Lagash is recorded, or whose representatives passed through the city on business, a prefect, a local governor, and even a patesi are sometimes mentioned, and from this source of information we learn the names of some of the patesis who ruled in Susa under the suzerainty of Dungi and his successors on the throne of Ur. Thus several of the tablets record the supply of rations for Urkium, patesi of Susa, on his way back to that city during Dungi's reign. Another tablet mentions a servant of Zarik, patesi of Susa, who had come from Nippur, while a third patesi of Susa, who owed allegiance to one of the later kings of Ur, was Beli-arik.[18] It is noteworthy that these names, like that of Lipum, patesi of Anshan, who is also mentioned, are not Elamite but Semitic Babylonian, while Ur-gigir and Nagidda, who were patesis of Adamdun during this period, are Sumerian. It is therefore clear that, on his conquest of Elam, Dungi deposed the native rulers and replaced them by officials from Babylonia, a practice continued by his successors on the throne. In this we may see conclusive evidence of the permanent and detailed control over the administration of the country, which was secured by the later kings of Ur. Such a policy no doubt resulted in a very effective system of government, but its success depended on the maintenance of a sufficient force to overawe any signs of opposition. That the Elamites themselves resented the foreign domination is clear from the number of military expeditions, which were required to stamp out rebellions and reconquer provinces in revolt. The harsh methods adopted by the conquerors were not calculated to secure any loyal acceptance of their rule on the part of the subject race, and to this cause we may probably trace the events which led not only to the Elamite revival but to the downfall of the Dynasty of Ur itself.

The peculiar honour paid to Enlil does not appear to have affected the cult of the Moon-god, the patron deity of Ur, for both Bûr-Sin and Gimil-Sin rebuilt and added to the great temple of Sin, or Nannar, in their capital.[27] They also followed Dungi in his care for the shrine of Enki at Eridu; and there is evidence that Bûr-Sin rebuilt the temple of Ninni at Erech, while the last year of Gimil-Sin's reign was signalized by the rebuilding of the city-temple at Umma. It is thus clear that the later members of Ur-Engur's dynasty continued the rebuilding of the temples of Babylonia, which characterized his reign and that of Dungi. Another practice which they inherited was the deification of the reigning king. Not only did they assume the divine determinative before their names, but Bûr-Sin styles himself "the righteous god of his land," or "the righteous god, the sun of his land." He also set up a statue of himself, which he named "Bûr-Sin, the beloved of Ur," and placed it in the temple of the Moon-god under the protection of Nannar and Ningal. It would seem that it became the custom at this time for the reigning king to erect statues of himself in the great temples of the land, where regular offerings were made to them as to the statues of the gods themselves. Thus a tablet from Tello mentions certain offerings made at the Feast of the New Moon to statues of Gimil-Sin, which stood in the two principal temples of Lagash, those of Ningirsu and the goddess Bau.[28] It should be added that the tablet is dated in the fifth year of Gimil-Sin's reign. In view of Nannar's rank as god of the suzerain city, the Feasts of the New Moon were naturally regarded, even in the provincial cities, as of peculiar importance in the sacred calendar.

The late tradition of Ishbi-Ura's successful reign is supported by the fact that he ruled for thirty-two years and firmly established his own family upon the throne of Isin. He was succeeded by his son Gimil-ilishu, who reigned for ten years. A very fragmentary inscription of Idin-Dagan, the son of Gimil-ilishu, who reigned for twenty-one years, has been found at Abû Habba,[17] proving that Sippar acknowledged his authority. Indeed, it is probable that already in Ishbi-Ura's reign Akkad as well as Sumer formed part of the kingdom of Isin, and evidence that this was the normal state of affairs may be seen in the fact that each king of Isin, of whom we possess a building-inscription or a votive text, lays claim to the title of King of Sumer and Akkad. The earliest record of this character is an inscription upon bricks found at Mukayyar and dating from the reign of Ishme-Dagan, the son and successor of Idin-Dagan. In addition to his titles of King of Isin and King of Sumer and Akkad, he styles himself Lord of Erech and records in various phrases the favour he has shown to the cities of Nippur, Ur, and Eridu; while his building activity at Nippur is attested by numerous bricks bearing his name and titles, which have been found on that site. The same cities are also mentioned in the titles borne by Libit-Ishtar, Ishme-Dagan's son, who succeeded to the throne after his father had reigned for twenty years. Both these rulers appear to have devoted themselves to the cult of Ninni, the great goddess of Erech, and Ishme-Dagan even styles himself her "beloved spouse." His claim to be the consort of the goddess was doubtless based on his assumption of divine rank, a practice which the kings of Isin inherited from the Dynasty of Ur.[18]

During this period of confusion it is probable that the internal troubles of Isin reacted upon her political influence in Babylonia. It is also possible that the quick changes in the succession may have, in part, been brought about by events which were happening in other cities of Sumer and Akkad.[28] It has, indeed, been suggested that the Dynasty of Isin and the First Dynasty of Babylon overlapped each other,[29] as is proved to have been the case with the first three dynasties of the Babylonian List of Kings. If that were so, not only the earlier kings of Babylon, but also the kings of Larsa and the less powerful kings of Erech, would all have been reigning contemporaneously with the later kings of Isin. In fact, we should picture the kingdom of Sumer and Akkad as divided into a number of smaller principalities, each vying with the other in a contest for the hegemony, and maintaining a comparatively independent rule within their own borders. Such a condition of affairs would amply account for the confusion in the succession at Isin, and our scanty knowledge of the period could be supplemented from our sources of information concerning the history of the earlier kings of Babylon.

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.

Another distinctive characteristic, almost equally striking, may be seen in the features of the face as represented in the outline engraving and in the sculpture of the earlier periods. It is true that the Sumerian had a prominent nose, which forms, indeed, his most striking feature, but both nose and lips are never full and fleshy as with the Semites. It is sometimes claimed that such primitive representations as occur upon Ur-Ninâ's bas-reliefs, or in Fig. 1 in the accompanying block, are too rude to be regarded as representing accurately an ethnological type. But it will be noted that the same general characteristics are also found in the later and more finished sculptures of Gudea's period. This fact is illustrated by the two black diorite heads of statuettes figured on the following page. In both examples certain archaic conventions are retained, such as the exaggerated line of the eyebrows, and the unfinished ear; but nose and lips are obviously not Semitic, and they accurately reproduce the same racial type which is found upon the earlier reliefs.

A third characteristic consists of the different forms of dress worn by Sumerians and Semites, as represented on the monuments. The earliest Sumerians wore only a thick woollen garment, in the form of a petticoat, fastened round the waist by a band or girdle. The garment is sometimes represented as quite plain, in other cases it has a scolloped fringe or border, while in its most elaborate form it consists of three, four, or five horizontal flounces, each lined vertically and scolloped at the edge to represent thick locks of wool.[36] With the later Sumerian patesis this rough garment has been given up in favour of a great shawl or mantle, decorated with a border, which was worn over the left shoulder, and, falling in straight folds, draped the body with its opening in front.[37] Both these Sumerian forms of garment are of quite different types from the Semitic loin-cloth worn by Narâm-Sin on his stele of victory, and the Semitic plaid in which he is represented on his stele from Pir Hussein.[38] The latter garment is a long, narrow plaid which is wrapped round the body in parallel bands, with the end thrown over the left shoulder. It has no slit, or opening, in front like the later Sumerian mantle, and, on the other hand, was not a shaped garment like the earlier Sumerian flounced petticoat, though both were doubtless made of wool and were probably dyed in bright colours.

It is natural that upon monuments of the later period from Tello both racial types should be represented. The fragments of sculpture illustrated in Figs. 6 and 7 may possibly belong to the same monument, and, if so, we must assign it to a Semitic king.[39] That on the left represents a file of nude captives with shaven heads and faces, bound neck to neck with the same cord, and their arms tied behind them. On the other fragment both captive and conqueror are bearded. The latter's nose is anything but Semitic, though in figures of such small proportions carved in relief it would perhaps be rash to regard its shape as significant. The treatment of the hair, however, in itself constitutes a sufficiently marked difference in racial custom. Fig. 8 represents a circular support of steatite, around which are seated seven little figures holding tablets on their knees; it is here reproduced on a far smaller scale than the other fragments. The little figure that is best preserved is of unmistakably Semitic type, and wears a curled beard trimmed to a point, and hair that falls on the shoulders in two great twisted tresses; the face of the figure on his left is broken, but the head is clearly shaved. A similar mixture of types upon a single monument occurs on a large fragment of sculpture representing scenes of worship,[40] and also on Sharru-Gi's monument which has been found at Susa.[41]

At the period from which these sculptures date it is not questioned that the Semites were in occupation of Akkad, and that during certain periods they had already extended their authority over Sumer. It is not surprising, therefore, that at this time both Sumerians and Semites should be represented side by side upon the monuments. When, however, we examine what is undoubtedly one of the earliest sculptured reliefs from Tello the same mixture of racial types is met with.

By a similar examination of the gods of the Sumerians, as they are represented on the monuments, Professor Meyer has sought to show that the Semites were not only in Babylonia at the date of the earliest Sumerian sculptures that have been recovered, but also that they were in occupation of the country before the Sumerians. The type of the Sumerian gods at the later period is well illustrated by a limestone panel of Gudea, which is preserved in the Berlin Museum. The sculptured scene is one that is often met with on cylinder-seals of the period, representing a suppliant being led by lesser deities into the presence of a greater god. In this instance Gudea is being led by his patron deity Ningishzida and another god into the presence of a deity who was seated on a throne and held a vase from which two streams of water flow. The right half of the panel is broken, but the figure of the seated god may be in part restored from the similar scene upon Gudea's cylinder-seal. There, however, the symbol of the spouting vase is multiplied, for not only does the god hold one in each hand, but three others are below his feet, and into them the water falls and spouts again. Professor Meyer would identify the god of the waters with Anu, though there is more to be said for M. Heuzey's view that he is Enki, the god of the deep. We are not here concerned, however, with the identity of the deities, but with the racial type they represent. It will be seen that they all have hair and beards and wear the Semitic plaid, and form a striking contrast to Gudea with his shaven head and face, and his fringed Sumerian mantle.[44]

A very similar contrast is represented by the Sumerian and his gods in the earlier historical periods. Upon the Stele of the Vultures, for instance, the god Ningirsu is represented with abundant hair, and although his lips and cheeks are shaved a long beard falls from below his chin.[45] He is girt around the waist with a plain garment, which is not of the later Semitic type, but the treatment of the hair and beard is obviously not Sumerian. The same bearded type of god is found upon early votive tablets from Nippur,[46] and also on a fragment of an archaic Sumerian relief from Tello, which, from the rudimentary character of the work and the style of the composition, has been regarded as the most ancient example of Sumerian sculpture known. The contours of the figures are vaguely indicated in low relief upon a flat plaque, and the interior details are indicated only by the point. The scene is evidently of a mythological character, for the seated figure may be recognized as a goddess by the horned crown she wears. Beside her stands a god who turns to smite a bound captive with a heavy club or mace. While the captive has the shaven head and face of a Sumerian, the god has abundant hair and a long beard.[47]

Man forms his god in his own image, and it is surprising that the gods of the Sumerians should not be of the Sumerian type. If the Sumerian shaved his own head and face, why should he have figured his gods with long beards and abundant hair and have clothed them with the garments of another race? Professor Meyer's answer to the question is that the Semites and their gods were already in occupation of Sumer and Akkad before the Sumerians came upon the scene. He would regard the Semites at this early period as settled throughout the whole country, a primitive and uncultured people with only sufficient knowledge of art to embody the figures of their gods in rude images of stone or clay. There is no doubt that the Sumerians were a warrior folk, and he would picture them as invading the country at a later date, and overwhelming Semitic opposition by their superior weapons and method of attack. The Sumerian method of fighting he would compare to that of the Dorians with their closed phalanx of lance-bearing warriors, though the comparison is not quite complete, since no knowledge of iron is postulated on the part of the Sumerians. He would regard the invaders as settling mainly in the south, driving many of the Semites northward, and taking over from them the ancient centres of Semitic cult. They would naturally have brought their own gods with them, and these they would identify with the deities they found in possession of the shrines, combining their attributes, but retaining the cult-images, whose sacred character would ensure the permanent retention of their outward form. The Sumerians in turn would have influenced their Semitic subjects and neighbours, who would gradually have acquired from them their higher culture, including a knowledge of writing and the arts.

In neither instance can it be said that the sculptor has completely succeeded in portraying a natural attitude, for the head in each case should be only in three-quarter profile, but such attempts at an unconventional treatment afford striking evidence of the originality which characterized the work of the Sumerians. Both the sculptures referred to date from the later Sumerian period, and, if they were the only instances recovered, it might be urged that the innovation should be traced to the influence of North Babylonian art under the patronage of the kings of Akkad. Fortunately, however, we possess an interesting example of the same class of treatment, which undoubtedly dates from a period anterior to the Semitic domination. This is afforded by a perforated plaque, somewhat similar to the more primitive ones of Ur-Ninâ,[24] engraved in shallow relief with a libation-scene. The figure of a man, completely nude and with shaven head and face, raises a libation-vase with a long spout, from which he is about to pour water into a vase holding two palm leaves and a flowering branch.[25] The goddess in whose honour the rite is being performed is seated in the mountains, represented as in later times by a number of small lozenges or half circles. While her feet and knees are in profile, the head is represented full-face, and the sculptor's want of skill in this novel treatment has led him to assign the head a size out of all proportion to the rest of the body. The effect is almost grotesque, but the work is of considerable interest as one of the earliest attempts on the part of the Sumerian sculptors to break away from the stiff and formal traditions of the archaic period. From the general style of the work the relief may probably be dated about the period of Eannatum's reign.

The Sumerians did not attain the decorative effect of the Assyrian bas-reliefs with which the later kings lined the walls of their palaces. In fact, the small size of the figures rendered them suitable for the enrichment of stelæ, plaques, basins and stone vases, rather than for elaborate wall sculptures, for which in any case they had not the material. The largest fragment of an early bas-relief that has been recovered appears to have formed the angle of a stone pedestal, and is decorated with figures in several registers representing ceremonies of Sumerian worship.[26] In the upper register on the side that is best preserved is a priest leading worshippers into the presence of a god, while below is a crouching figure, probably that of a woman who plays on a great lyre or harp of eleven cords, furnished with two uprights and decorated with a horned head and the figure of a bull. On the side in the upper row is a heavily bearded figure on a larger scale than the rest, and the mixture of Sumerian and Semitic types in the figures preceding him suggests that the monument is to be assigned to the period of Semitic domination, under the rule of the kings of Kish or Akkad. But it is obviously Sumerian in character, resembling the work of Gudea's period rather than that of Narâm-Sin.

The perfection of detail which characterized the best work of the Sumerian sculptors is well illustrated by two fragments of reliefs, parts of which are drawn in outline in the accompanying blocks. The one on the left is from a bas-relief representing a line of humped cattle and horned sheep defiling past the spectator. It is badly broken, but enough is preserved to show the surprising fidelity with which the sculptor has reproduced the animal's form and attitude. Though the subject recalls the lines of domestic animals upon the Assyrian bas-reliefs, the Sumerian treatment is infinitely superior. The same high qualities of design and workmanship are visible in the little fragment on the right. Of the main sculpture only a human foot remains; but it is beautifully modelled. The decorative border below the foot represents the spouting vase with its two streams of water and two fish swimming against the stream. A plant rises from the vase between the streams, the symbol of vegetation nourished by the waters.[27] The extreme delicacy of the original shows to what degree of perfection Sumerian work attained during the best period.

The most famous examples of Sumerian sculpture are the statues of Gudea, and the rather earlier one of Ur-Bau, which, however, lose much of their character by the absence of their heads. It is true that a head has been fitted to a smaller and more recently found figure of Gudea;[29] but this proves to be out of all proportion to the body—a defect that was probably absent from the larger statues. The traditional attitude of devotion, symbolized by the clasping of the hands over the breast, gives them a certain monotony; but their modelling is superior to anything achieved by the Babylonians and Assyrians of a later time.[30] Thus there is a complete absence of exaggeration in the rendering of the muscles; the sculptor has not attempted by such crude and conventional methods to ascribe to his model a supernatural strength and vigour, but has worked direct from nature. They are carved in diorite, varying in colour from dark green to black, and that so hard a material should have been worked in the large masses required, is in itself an achievement of no small importance, and argues great technical skill on the part of the sculptors of the later period.

The art of casting in metal was also practised by the Sumerians, and even in the earliest period, anterior to the reign of Ur-Ninâ, small foundation-figures have been discovered, which were cast solid in copper. In fact, copper was the metal most commonly employed by the Sumerians, and their stage of culture throughout the long period of their history may be described as a copper age, rather than an age of bronze. It is true that the claim is sometimes put forward, based on very unsatisfactory evidence, that the Sumerian metal-founders used not only tin but also antimony in order to harden copper, and at the same time render it more fusible;[33] and it is difficult to explain the employment of two ideograms for the metal, even in the earlier periods, unless one signified bronze and the other copper.[34] But a careful analysis by M. Berthelot of the numerous metal objects found at Tello, the dates of which can be definitely ascertained, has shown that, even under the later rulers of Lagash and the kings of Ur, not only votive figures, but also tools and weapons of copper, contain no trace of tin employed as an alloy.[35] As at Tello, so at Tell Sifr, the vessels and weapons found by Loftus are of copper, not bronze.[36] The presence of an exceedingly small proportion of elements other than copper in the objects submitted to analysis was probably not intentional, but was due to the necessarily imperfect method of smelting that was employed.

From the earliest period at Lagash fragments of shell were employed in place of ivory, and the effect produced by it is nearly the same. Certain species of great univalves or conch-shells, which are found in the Indian Ocean, have a thick core or centre, and these furnished the material for a large number of the earliest cylinder-seals. Small plaques or lozenges could also be obtained from the core by sectional cutting, while the curved part of the shell was sometimes employed for objects to which its convex form could be adapted. The numerous flat lozenges that have been found are shaped for inlaying furniture, caskets, and the like, and curved pieces were probably fitted to others of a like shape in order to form small cups and vases. Each piece is decorated with fine engraving, and in nearly every instance the outline is accentuated by the employment of a very slight relief. The designs are often spirited, and they prove that even in the earliest periods the Sumerian draughtsman had attained to a high standard of proficiency.

For in the space on the right of the fragment behind the lion's mane are engraved two weapons. The upper one is a hilted dagger with its point towards the lion; this may be compared with the short daggers held by the mythological beings resembling Ea-bani upon one of Lugal-anda's seals, with which they are represented as stabbing lions in the neck.[48] Below is a hand holding a curved mace or throwing stick, formed of three strands bound with leather thongs or bands of metal, like that held by Eannatum upon the Stele of the Vultures.[49] It is, therefore, clear that on the panel to the right of the lion and bull a king, or patesi, was represented in the act of attacking the lion, and we may infer that the whole of the cup was decorated with a continuous band of engraving, though some of the groups in the design may have been arranged symmetrically, with repetitions such as are found upon the earlier cylinder-seals.

The Sumerians do not appear to have used complete shells for engraving, like those found on Assyrian and Aegean sites. A complete shell has indeed been recovered, but it is in an unworked state and bears a dedicatory formula of Ur-Ningirsu, the son and successor of Gudea. Since it is not a fine specimen of its class, we may suppose that it was selected for dedication merely as representing the finer shells employed by the workmen in the decoration of the temple-furniture. The Sumerians at a later period engraved designs upon mother-of-pearl. When used in plain pieces for inlaying it certainly gave a more brilliant effect than shell, but to the engraver it offered greater difficulties in consequence of its brittle and scaly surface. Pieces have been found, however, on which designs have been cut, and these were most frequently employed for enriching the handles of knives and daggers. The panels in the accompanying blocks will serve to show that the same traditional motives are reproduced which meet us in the earlier designs upon fragments of shell and cylinder-seals. They include a bearded hero, the eagle attacking the bull, a hero in conflict with a lion, the lion-headed eagle of Lagash, a winged lion, a lion attacking an ibex, and a stag. Even when allowance is made for the difficulties presented by the material, it will be seen that the designs themselves rank far below those found upon shell. The employment of mother-of-pearl for engraving may thus be assigned to a period of decadence in Sumerian art when it had lost much of its earlier freshness and vigour.

A still earlier building was discovered at a depth of five metres below that of Ur-Ninâ, but it is more difficult to determine the purpose to which it was put. It was built upon a solid platform (C), which has the same orientation as Ur-Ninâ's storehouse and rises above the ground level marked by the remains of a brick pavement (D). It is strange that the building itself is not in the centre of the platform and for some unknown reason was set at a slight angle to it. It consists of two chambers, each with a doorway, the smaller chamber (A) on a level with the platform, the larger one (B) considerably below it, from which it must have been reached by a ladder. At intervals along the surface of the walls were cavities lined with bitumen, which may have supported the wooden columns of a superstructure, or possibly the supports of an arched roof of reeds. It is possible that we here have a form of religious edifice, but the depth of the larger chamber suggests that, like Ur-Ninâ's building, it was employed as a sort of store-house or treasure-chamber.

From the Shuruppak tablets we also learn the names of a number of early rulers or officials of that city, in whose reigns or periods of office the documents were drawn up. Among the names recovered are those of Ur-Ninpa, Kanizi and Mash-Shuruppak, but they are given no titles on the tablets, and it is impossible to say whether their office preceded that of the patesi, or whether they were magistrates of the city who were subordinate to a ruler of higher rank. Another of these early deeds of sale is inscribed, not upon a tablet, but on the body of a black stone statuette that has been found at Tello.[11] From the text we learn that the buyer of the property was a certain Lupad, and the figure is evidently intended to represent him. Although it was found on the site of Lagash, and the text records a purchase of land in that city, it is remarkable that Lupad is described as a high official of the neighbouring city of Umma, which was the principal rival of Lagash during the greater part of its history. The archaic character of the sculpture, and the early form of writing upon it, suggest a date not much later than that of Ur-Ninâ, so that we must suppose the transaction took place at a period when one of the two rival cities acknowledged the suzerainty of the other. Unlike other Sumerian figures that have been recovered, Lupad's head has a slight ridge over the brow and below the cheek-bones. This has been explained by Heuzey as representing short hair and beard, but it more probably indicates the limits of those portions of the head and face that were shaved.[12] Thus Lupad presents no exception to the general Sumerian method of treating the hair.

From the Shuruppak tablets we also learn the names of a number of early rulers or officials of that city, in whose reigns or periods of office the documents were drawn up. Among the names recovered are those of Ur-Ninpa, Kanizi and Mash-Shuruppak, but they are given no titles on the tablets, and it is impossible to say whether their office preceded that of the patesi, or whether they were magistrates of the city who were subordinate to a ruler of higher rank. Another of these early deeds of sale is inscribed, not upon a tablet, but on the body of a black stone statuette that has been found at Tello.[11] From the text we learn that the buyer of the property was a certain Lupad, and the figure is evidently intended to represent him. Although it was found on the site of Lagash, and the text records a purchase of land in that city, it is remarkable that Lupad is described as a high official of the neighbouring city of Umma, which was the principal rival of Lagash during the greater part of its history. The archaic character of the sculpture, and the early form of writing upon it, suggest a date not much later than that of Ur-Ninâ, so that we must suppose the transaction took place at a period when one of the two rival cities acknowledged the suzerainty of the other. Unlike other Sumerian figures that have been recovered, Lupad's head has a slight ridge over the brow and below the cheek-bones. This has been explained by Heuzey as representing short hair and beard, but it more probably indicates the limits of those portions of the head and face that were shaved.[12] Thus Lupad presents no exception to the general Sumerian method of treating the hair.

In order to assign a date to such figures as that of Lupad, it is necessary, in the absence of other evidence, to be guided entirely by the style of the sculpture and the character of the writing. Several such figures of archaic Sumerian type have been recovered, and three of them represent kings who ruled in different cities at this early period. The finest of these is a standing figure of Esar, King of Adab, which was found in the course of the American excavations at Bismâya, and is now preserved in the Imperial Ottoman Museum at Constantinople. Its discoverers claimed that it was the earliest example of Sumerian sculpture known,[13] but it may be roughly placed at about the time of Ur-Ninâ's dynasty. A second king is represented by two fragments of a statuette from Tello, inscribed in archaic characters with a dedicatory text of E-abzu, King of Umma,[14] while the third is a seated figure of a king of the northern city or district of Ma'er, or Mari, and is preserved in the British Museum.[15] The same uncertainty applies to the date of Ur-Enlil, a patesi of Nippur, whose name is mentioned on one of the fragments of votive vases from that city which were found together on the south-east side of the temple-tower.[16] As in the case of Esar, King of Adab, we can only assign these rulers approximately to the period of the earlier rulers of Lagash.

Behind the king is a little figure intended for the royal cup-bearer, Anita, and facing him are five of his children. It is usually held that the first of these figures, who bears the name of Lidda and is clothed in a more elaborate dress than the other four, is intended for the king's eldest son.[45] But in addition to the distinctive dress, this figure is further differentiated from the others by wearing long hair in place of having the head shaved. In this respect it bears some resemblance to an archaic statuette, which appears to be that of a woman;[46] and the sign attached to Lidda's name, engraved upon the stone, is possibly that for "daughter," not "son." It is thus not unlikely that we should identify the figure with a daughter of Ur-Ninâ. The other figures in the row are four of the king's sons, named Akurgal, Lugal-ezen, Anikurra and Muninnikurta. A curious point that may be noted is that the height of these figures increases as they recede from the king. Thus the first of the small figures, that of Akurgal, who succeeded Ur-Ninâ upon the throne, is represented as smaller than his brothers, and it has been suggested in consequence that he was not the king's eldest son,[47] a point to which we will return later. In the scene sculptured upon the lower half of the plaque the king is represented as seated upon a throne and raising in his right hand a cup from which he appears to be pouring a libation. We may probably see in this group a picture of the king dedicating the temple after the task of building was finished. The inscription records the fact that he had brought wood from the mountains, doubtless employed in the construction of the temples, a detail which emphasises the difficulties he had overcome. The cup-bearer who stands behind the throne is in this scene, not Anita, but Sagantug, while the figure facing the king is a high official named Dudu, and to the left of Dudu are three more of the king's sons named Anunpad, Menudgid, and Addatur.

Here the king carries no basket, but is represented as standing with hands clasped upon the breast, an attitude of humility and submission in the presence of his god. In other respects both the king and the smaller figures of his sons and ministers are conceived as on the larger plaque. A small figure immediately behind the king is Anita, the cup-bearer, and to the left of Anita are the king's son Akurgal and a personage bearing the name Barsagannudu. In the upper row are two other small figures named Lugal-ezen and Gula. Now from the largest plaque we know that Lugal-ezen was a son of Ur-Ninâ; thus the absence of such a description from Gula and Barsagannudu is not significant, and it is a fair assumption that both these, like Lugal-ezen, were sons of the king. But it is noteworthy that of the four figures the only one that is specifically described as a "son" of Ur-Ninâ is Akurgal.

Upon the largest portion of the stele that has been recovered, formed of two fragments joined together,[13] we have the scene which illustrates Eannatum's metaphor of the net. Almost the whole of this portion of the monument is occupied with the figure of a god, which appears of colossal size if it is compared with those of the patesi and his soldiers upon the reverse of the stele. The god has flowing hair, bound with a double fillet, and, while cheeks and lips are shaved, a long beard falls in five undulating curls from the chin upon the breast. He is nude to the waist, around which he wears a close-fitting garment with two folds in front indicated by double lines. It was at first suggested that we should see in this figure a representation of some early hero, such as Gilgamesh, but there is no doubt that we should identify him with Ningirsu, the city-god of Lagash. For in his right hand the god holds the emblem of Lagash, the eagle with outspread wings, clawing the heads of two lions; and the stele itself, while indirectly perpetuating Eannatum's fame, was essentially intended to commemorate victories achieved by Ningirsu over his city's enemies. This fact will also explain the rest of the scene sculptured upon the lower fragment.

The continuation of the scene upon the other two fragments,[28] proves that the burial of the dead was attended with elaborate funeral rites, and the offering of sacrifices. To the right of the workers engaged in piling up the burial-mound may be seen a bull lying on his back upon the ground, and bound securely with ropes to two stout stakes driven into the soil close to its head and tail. He is evidently the victim, duly prepared for sacrifice, that will be offered when the burial-mound has been completed. In the field above the bull are sculptured other victims and offerings, which were set out beside the bull. We see a row of six lambs or kids, decapitated, and arranged symmetrically, neck to tail, and tail to neck. Two large water-pots, with wide mouths, and tapering towards the base, stand on the right of the bull; palm-branches, placed in them, droop down over their rims, and a youth, completely nude, is pouring water into one of them from a smaller vessel. He is evidently pouring out a libation, as we may infer from a similar scene on another early Sumerian relief that has been recovered.[29] Beyond the large vessels there appear to be bundles of faggots, and in the field above them are sculptured a row of growing plants. These probably do not rise from the large vessels, as they appear to do in the sculpture, but form a separate row beyond the faggots and the vessels. At the head of the bull may be seen the foot and part of the robe of a man who directs the sacrifice. As in all the other registers upon the reverse of the stele Eannatum occupies a prominent position, we may conclude that this is part of the figure of Eannatum himself. He occupies the centre of the field in this register, and presides at the funeral rites of the warriors who have fallen in his service.

That a chief priest of Ninmar should lead an army against the enemies of Lagash and should send a report of his success to the chief priest of Ningirsu, in which he refers to the share of the spoil to be assigned to the patesi, may be regarded as an indication that the central government of Lagash was not so stable as it once had been under the more powerful members of Ur-Ninâ's dynasty. The reference to Enetarzi suggests that the incursion of the Elamites took place during the reign of Enannatum II. We may thus conclude that the last member of Ur-Ninâ's dynasty did not possess his father's ability to direct the affairs of Lagash and allowed the priests of the great temples in the city to usurp many of the privileges which had hitherto been held by the patesi. It is probably to this fact that the close of Ur-Ninâ's dynasty may be traced. The subsequent struggle for the patesiate appears to have taken place among the more important members of the priesthood. Of those who secured the throne, Enlitarzi, at any rate, was succeeded by his son, by whom, however, he may have been deposed,[31] and no strong administration appears to have been established, until Urukagina, abandoning the traditions of both the priesthood and the patesiate, based his government on the support he secured from the people themselves. Such appears to have been the course of events at this time, although the paucity of our historical materials renders it impossible to do more than hazard a conjecture.

In addition to the tablets of accounts concerning the household expenditure of the patesis, and the letter to Enetarzi from Lu-enna, the principal relics of this period that have come down to us are numbers of clay sealings, some of which bear impressions of the seals of the patesi Lugal-anda, his wife Barnamtarra, and his steward Eniggal. They afford us no new historical information, but are extremely valuable for the study of the artistic achievements and religious beliefs of the Sumerians.[32] From the traces upon their lower sides, it is clear that they were employed for sealing reed-baskets or bundles tied up in sacking formed of palm-leaves and secured with cords. In consequence of the rough character of the lumps of clay, no single one presents a perfect impression, but, as several examples of each have been found, it is possible in some cases to reconstruct the complete design and to estimate the size of the original seal. In the accompanying blocks reproductions are given of the designs upon the cylinder-seals of Lugal-anda which can be most completely restored. The principal group of figures in the larger of the two consists of two rampant lions in conflict with a human-headed bull and a mythical and composite being, half-bull and half-man, whose form recalls the description of Ea-bani in the legend of Gilgamesh. To the left of the inscription is the emblem of Lagash, and below is a row of smaller figures consisting of two human-headed bulls, two heroes and a stag. The figures on the smaller cylinder represent the same types, but here the emblem of Lagash is reduced to the eagle without the lions, which was peculiarly the emblem of Ningirsu. The mythological being who resembles Ea-bani is repeated heraldically on each side of the text in conflict with a lion.

One of this later group of kings of Kish, whose inscriptions prove them to have been Semites, is Urumush, or Rimush,[20] and, although in all probability the latest of them, he may be referred to first, since we have definite evidence that he is to be assigned to the epoch preceding Shar-Gani-sharri and Narâm-Sin. In an unpublished tablet from Tello, preserved in the Museum at Constantinople, there occurs the proper name Ili-Urumush, "My god is Urumush."[21] The deification of some of the early kings of Babylonia has long been recognized as having taken place, at any rate from the time of Shar-Gani-sharri; and we have evidence that the honour was not only paid to them after death, but was assumed by the kings themselves during their own lifetime.[22] The occurrence of a proper name such as Ili-Urumush can only be explained on the supposition that a king bearing the name of Urumush had already reigned, or was reigning at the time the former name was employed. Now, the tablet in Constantinople, which mentions the name of Ili-Urumush, is undated, but from its form, writing, and contents it may clearly be assigned to the same epoch as certain dated tablets of Shar-Gani-sharri and Narâm-Sin with which it was found. From this it follows that Urumush was anterior to Shar-Gani-sharri and Narâm-Sin, though his reign may not have been separated from theirs by any long interval.

Other monuments of Manishtusu's reign that have come down to us consist of a number of figures and statues of the king which have been discovered at Susa during the French excavations on that site. There is no doubt that the majority of these were carried to Susa as spoil of war, and were not set up in that city by Manishtusu himself, for they bear Anzanite inscriptions to that effect. Thus one statue is stated to have been brought from Akkad to Susa by Shutruk-nakhkhunte,[41] and another[42] by the same king from "Ishnunuk," incidentally proving that the state of Ashnunnak, which lay to the east of the Tigris, formed part of Manishtusu's dominions.[43] But a more recently discovered statue of the king bears no later Anzanite record, and is inscribed with its original dedication to the god Naruti by a high official in Manishtusu's service.[44] It is a remarkable monument, for while the figure itself is of alabaster, the eyes are formed of white limestone let into sockets and held in place by bitumen; the black pupils are now wanting.[45] Though the staring effect of the inlaid eyes is scarcely pleasing, the statue is undoubtedly the most interesting example of early Semitic sculpture in the round that has yet been recovered. Both in this statue and in the more famous obelisk, Père Scheil would see evidence of Manishtusu's permanent subjugation of Elam, in support of his view that Elam and Babylonia practically formed a single country at this early period.[46] But the text inscribed upon the obelisk, as we have already seen,[47] is of a purely local interest, and no object would have been gained by storing such a record at Susa, even on the hypothesis that Manishtusu had transferred his capital thither. It is safer therefore to draw no historical conclusions from the provenance of the statue and the obelisk, but to class them with the other statues which we know to have been carried off as spoil to Elam at a later period. There is evidence that Manishtusu, like Urumush, carried on a successful war with Elam,[48] but it is probable that the successes of both kings were of the nature of victorious raids and were followed up by no permanent occupation of the country. The early existence of Semitic influence in Elam is amply attested by the employment of the Semitic Babylonian language for their own inscriptions by native Elamite rulers such as Basha-Shushinak.[49] But it does not necessarily follow that the inscriptions of native kings of Babylonia, which have been found at Susa, were deposited there by these kings themselves during a period of Semitic rule in Elam. In fact, it was probably not until the period of the Dynasty of Ur that Elam was held for any length of time as a subject state by kings of either Sumer or Akkad.

We have already seen reason to believe that the kings of Kish were separated by no long interval from the empire of Akkad,[44] and this view is supported, not only by a study of their inscriptions, but also by the close connection that may be traced between the artistic achievements of the two periods. Epigraphic evidence has been strikingly reinforced by the discovery of Sharru-Gi's monolith; for the sculptures upon it share to some extent the high artistic qualities which have hitherto been regarded as the exclusive possession of the Dynasty of Akkad. The modelling of the figures on Narâm-Sin's stele of victory,[45] their natural pose and spirited attitudes, have long been recognized as belonging to a totally different category from the squat and conventional representations upon the Stele of the Vultures. The cylinder-seals of the period are marked by the same degree of excellence, but between the sculptures of Eannatum and those of Narâm-Sin there has hitherto been a gap in the orderly stages of development. A single example of engraved metal-work had indeed been recovered, but the date of this was, and still is, to some extent uncertain. The object consists of the copper head of a colossal votive lance, some thirty-one and a half inches long. On one of its faces is engraved in spirited outline the figure of a lion rampant, and on the neck of the blade is the name of a king of Kish beginning with the sign "Sharru." A slight indication of date is afforded by the fact that it was found at Tello, near the eastern corner of Ur-Ninâ's building, but at a rather higher level.[46] If the second line of the inscription, which is illegible through oxidization, contained a title and not part of the name, it is probable that we may restore the name in the first line as that of Sharru-Gi himself. Otherwise we must assign the lance to some other king of Kish, but whether we should place him before or after Sharru-Gi it is difficult to say.

The fact that the stele was found at Susa has been employed as an argument in favour of regarding Elam as a dependency of Akkad during his reign. But, in addition to Narâm-Sin's own text, the stele bears a later inscription of the Elamite king Shutruk-Nakhkhunte, from which we may infer that it was captured in Northern Babylonia and carried off to Susa as a trophy of war. But it is not unlikely that Narâm-Sin, like Shar-Gani-sharri and the kings of Kish, achieved successes against Elam. Apirak, his conquest of which tradition records, was a country within the Elamite region, and its capture may well have taken place during a successful raid. Mention has been made of two early Elamite patesis, whose names have been recovered upon a tablet from Tello and an archaic text from Susa.[70] The patesi of Susa, whose name may be read as Ilishma, belongs to a period when that city acknowledged the suzerainty of Akkad. But this single name does not prove that Elam, however closely connected with Akkad by commercial ties, formed a regular province of the Akkadian empire. Ilishma may have been appointed to the throne of Susa by the king of Akkad during an invasion of that country, which reached its culmination in the deportation of the native king, as Shar-Gani-sharri deported the kings of Kutû and Amurru, and Manishtusu the king of Anshan. The available evidence suggests that, during the Dynasty of Akkad, Susa and Elam generally enjoyed their independence, subject to occasional periods of interruption.

A comparison of the monument with Narâm-Sin's Stele of Victory will show that, though the attitudes of the figures are natural and vigorous, the sculptor does not display quite the same high qualities of composition and artistic arrangement. This fact might conceivably be employed in favour of assigning the stele to a period of decadence when the dynasty of Shar-Gani-sharri may have fallen before the onset of some fresh wave of Semitic hordes. But the impression given by the monument is that of a vigorous art struggling towards perfection rather than the rude imitation of a more perfect style, and it is probable that we must date it in an early, rather than in a late, period during this epoch of Semitic domination.[83]

that still earlier Semitic kings reigned in that city before the rise of Kish. But in view of the total absence of other evidence in support of such a conclusion, it is preferable to assign the Tello stele provisionally to Shar-Gani-sharri himself. It will have been noted that the foes sculptured upon the monument are Semites, not Sumerians, and, if our assumption is correct, we may see in them the men of Kish, on whose defeat by Shar-Gani-sharri the whole of Sumer, including the city of Lagash, would have fallen under the rule of Akkad.[84] In that case the stele may well have commemorated the decisive victory by which Shar-Gani-sharri put an end to the domination of Kish and founded his own empire.

One of the documents of this period is dated during the patesiate of Ur-Bau himself, in the year in which he undertook certain extensive works of irrigation, while others are dated in the year of Ur-gar's accession, and in that which followed the accession of Nammakhni.[6] From other evidence we know that Nammakhni was Ur-Bau's son-in-law, since he espoused Ningandu, Ur-Bau's daughter, and secured through her his title to the throne.[7] Ur-gar, too, must belong to the generation following Ur-Bau, since a female statue has been found at Tello, which was dedicated to some deity by a daughter of Ur-Bau on behalf of her own life and that of Ur-gar, the patesi.[8] Tablets are also dated in the accession-years of Ka-azag, Galu-Bau, and Galu-Gula,[9] and their contents furnish indications that they date from about the same time.[10] Ur-Ninsun, whose name and title occur on the fragment of a bowl very similar to that employed by Nammakhni's wife,[11] is not mentioned on the tablets, but several are dated in the reigns of Gudea and of his son Ur-Ningirsu.[12] Now, in the reign of Dungi, the son of Ur-Engur, there lived a high priest of the goddess Ninâ named Ur-Ningirsu; and, if we may identify this priestly official with the patesi of that name, as is very probable,[13] we obtain a definite point of contact between the later history of Lagash and that of Ur. But even if the synchronism between Ur-Ningirsu and Dungi be regarded as non-proven, there is no doubt that no long interval separated Gudea's reign from the Dynasty of Ur. The character of the art and the style of writing which we find in Lagash at this time are so similar to those of Ur, that the one period must have followed the other without a break. A striking example of the resemblance which existed in the artistic productions of the two cities at this time is afforded by the votive copper cones, or nails, of Gudea and Dungi, surmounted by the figures of a bull couchant. A glance will show the slight changes in the form and treatment of the subject which have been introduced by the metal-workers of Dungi's reign.

In addition to E-ninnû, the great temple of the city-god Ningirsu, Gudea records that he rebuilt the shrines dedicated to Bau and Ninkharsag, and E-anna, the temple of the goddess Ninni, and he erected temples to Galalim and Dunshagga, two of Ningirsu's sons. In Uru-azagga he rebuilt Gatumdug's temple, and in Girsu three temples to Nindub, Meslamtaea, and Nindar, the last of whom was associated with the goddess Ninâ, in whose honour he made a sumptuous throne. In Girsu, too, he built a temple to Ningishzida, his patron god, whom he appears to have introduced at this time into the pantheon of Lagash. One of the most novel of his reconstructions was the E-pa, the temple of the seven zones, which he erected for Ningirsu. Gudea's building probably took the form of a tower in seven stages, a true ziggurat, which may be compared with those of Ur-Engur. But the work on which he most prided himself was the rebuilding of E-ninnû, and to this he devoted all the resources of his city. From a study of the remains of this temple that were uncovered at Tello by M. de Sarzec, it would appear that Gudea surrounded the site of Ur-Bau's earlier building with an enclosure, of which a gateway and a tower, decorated with pilasters in relief, are all that remains.[24] These were incorporated in the structure of the late palace at Tello, a great part of which was built with bricks from the ancient temple. It is difficult to determine the relation of these slight remains at Tello, either to the building described by Gudea himself, or to the plan of a fortified enclosure which one of the statues of Gudea, as an architect, holds upon his knees. That the plan was intended, at any rate, for a portion of the temple is clear from the inscription, to the effect that Gudea prepared the statue for E-ninnû, which he had just completed.

With the exception of the period of drought, in consequence of which Gudea decided to rebuild Ningirsu's temple, it is probable that during the greater part of his reign the state of Lagash enjoyed unparalleled abundance, such as is said to have followed the completion of that work. The date-formula for one of his years of rule takes its title from the cutting of a new canal which he named Ningirsu-ushumgal, and there is no doubt that he kept the elaborate system of irrigation, by which Lagash and her territories were supplied with water, in a perfect state of repair. Evidence of the plentiful supplies which the temple-lands produced may be seen in the increase of the regular offerings decreed by Gudea. On New Year's day, for instance, at the feast of Bau, after he had rebuilt her temple, he added to the marriage-gifts which were her due, consisting of oxen, sheep, lambs, baskets of dates, pots of butter, figs, cakes, birds, fish, and precious woods, etc. He also records special offerings of clothing and wool which he made to her, and of sacrificial beasts to Ningirsu and the goddess Ninâ. For the new temple of Gatumdug he mentions the gift of herds of cattle and flocks of sheep, together with their herdsmen and shepherds, and of irrigation-oxen and their keepers for the sacred lands of E-ninnû. Such references point to an increase in the revenues of the state, and we may infer that the people of Lagash shared the prosperity of their patesi and his priesthood.

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.

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 group of mounds and hillocks which mark the site of the ancient city and its suburbs form a rough oval, running north and south, and measuring about two and a half miles long and one and a quarter broad. During the early spring the limits of the city are clearly visible, for its ruins stand out as a yellow spot in the midst of the light green vegetation which covers the surrounding plain. The grouping of the principal mounds may be seen in the accompanying plan, in which each contour-line represents an increase of one metre in height above the desert level. The three principal mounds in the centre of the oval, marked on the plan by the letters A, K, and V,[4] are those in which the most important discoveries have been made. The mound A, which rises steeply towards the north-west end of the oval, is known as the Palace Tell, since here was uncovered a great Parthian palace, erected immediately over a building of Gudea, whose bricks were partly reused and partly imitated. In consequence of this it was at first believed to be a palace of Gudea himself, an error that was corrected on the discovery that some of the later bricks bore the name of Hadadnadinakhe in Aramean and Greek characters, proving that the building belonged to the Seleucid era, and was probably not earlier than about 130 B.C. Coins were also found in the palace with Greek inscriptions of kings of the little independent province or kingdom of Kharakene, which was founded about 160 B.C. at the mouth of the Shatt el-'Arab. But worked into the structure of this late palace were the remains of Gudea's building, which formed part of E-ninnû, the temple of the city-god of Lagash. Of Gudea's structure a gateway and part of a tower are the portions that are best preserved,[5] while under the south-east corner of the palace was a wall of the rather earlier ruler Ur-Bau.[6]

During the course of her early history the most persistent rival of Lagash was the neighbouring city of Umma,[11] now identified with the mound of Jôkha, lying some distance to the north-west in the region between the Shatt el-Hai and the Shatt el-Kâr. Its neighbourhood and part of the mound itself are covered with sand-dunes, which give the spot a very desolate appearance, but they are of recent formation, since between them can still be seen traces of former cultivation. The principal mound is in the form of a ridge over half a mile long, running W.S.W. to E.N.E. and rising at its highest point about fifteen metres above the plain. Two lower extensions of the principal mound stretch out to the east and south-east.

Of the early sites in the region of the Shatt el-Kâr the mounds at Fâra have been the most productive of remains dating from the prehistoric period of Sumerian culture. Systematic excavations were begun here by Dr. Koldewey in 1902,[14] and were continued in the following year by Drs. Andrae and Noeldeke.[15] The accompanying plan will give some idea of the extensive area occupied by the mounds, and of the method adopted for ascertaining their contents without too great an expenditure of time. The Arabic numerals against the contour lines indicate their height in metres above the level of the plain. Roman figures are set at each end of the trenches in the order in which they were cut. Thus the first two trenches (I. and II.), running from north to south and from east to west respectively, were cut across the mounds by Dr. Koldewey to gain some idea of their general character. The subsequent trenches were all cut parallel to the second through the higher portions of the site, a few of them being extended so as to cover the lower detached mounds to the east. In the plan the trenches are marked as continuous, but actually each consists of a series of short sections, divided by bands of soil left uncut. These hold up the sides of the trench and leave passages for crossing from one side to the other.[16] Whenever a trench discloses the remains of a building it can be completely uncovered and the trench afterwards continued until another building is disclosed. In the plan the principal cleared areas are outlined, and the position of walls which were uncovered within them is indicated by fine lines.

A less exhaustive examination of the neighbouring mounds of Abû Hatab was also undertaken by Drs. Andrae and Noeldeke. This site lies to the north of Fâra, and, like it, is close to the Shatt el-Kâr.[20] The southern part of the tell could not be examined because of the modern Arab graves which here lie thick around the tomb of the Imâm Sa'îd Muhammad. But the trenches cut in the higher parts of the mound, to the north and along its eastern edge, sufficed to indicate its general character.[21] Earlier remains, such as were found at Fâra, are here completely wanting, and it would appear to be not earlier than the period of the kings of Sumer and Akkad. This is indicated by bricks of Bûr-Sin I., King of Ur, which were discovered scattered in débris in the north-west part of the mound, and by the finding of case-tablets in the houses belonging to the period of the dynasties of Ur and Isin.[22] The graves also differed from those at Fâra, generally consisting of pot-burials. Here, in place of a shallow trough with a lid, the sarcophagus was formed of two great pots, deeply ribbed on the outside; these were set, one over the other, with their edges meeting, and after burial they were fixed together by means of pitch or bitumen. The skeleton is usually found within lying on its back or side in a crouching position with bent legs. The general arrangement of drinking-cups, offerings, and ornaments resembles that in the Fâra burials, so that the difference in the form of the sarcophagus is merely due to a later custom and not to any racial change. Very similar burials were found by Taylor at Mukayyar, and others have also been unearthed in the earlier strata of the mounds at Babylon.

Some idea of the extent of the mounds of Warka may be gathered from Loftus's plan. The irregular circle of the mounds, marking the later walls of the city, covers an area nearly six miles in circumference, and in view of this fact and of the short time and limited means at his disposal, it is surprising that he should have achieved such good results. His work at Buwârîya, the principal mound of the group (marked A on the plan), resulted in its identification with E-anna, the great temple of the goddess Ninni, or Ishtar, which was enormously added to in the reign of Ur-Engur. Loftus's careful notes and drawings of the facade of another important building, covered by the mound known as Wuswas (B), have been of great value from the architectural point of view, while no less interesting is his description of the "Cone Wall" (at E on the plan), consisting in great part of terra-cotta cones, dipped in red or black colour, and arranged to form various patterns on the surface of a wall composed of mud and chopped straw.[25] But the date of both these constructions is uncertain. The sarcophagus-graves and pot-burials which he came across when cutting his tunnels and trenches are clearly contemporaneous with those at Abû Hatab, and the mound may well contain still earlier remains. The finds made in the neighbouring mounds of Senkera (Larsa), and Tell Sifr, were also promising,[26] and, in spite of his want of success at Tell Medîna, it is possible that a longer examination would have yielded better results.

Some idea of the extent of the mounds of Warka may be gathered from Loftus's plan. The irregular circle of the mounds, marking the later walls of the city, covers an area nearly six miles in circumference, and in view of this fact and of the short time and limited means at his disposal, it is surprising that he should have achieved such good results. His work at Buwârîya, the principal mound of the group (marked A on the plan), resulted in its identification with E-anna, the great temple of the goddess Ninni, or Ishtar, which was enormously added to in the reign of Ur-Engur. Loftus's careful notes and drawings of the facade of another important building, covered by the mound known as Wuswas (B), have been of great value from the architectural point of view, while no less interesting is his description of the "Cone Wall" (at E on the plan), consisting in great part of terra-cotta cones, dipped in red or black colour, and arranged to form various patterns on the surface of a wall composed of mud and chopped straw.[25] But the date of both these constructions is uncertain. The sarcophagus-graves and pot-burials which he came across when cutting his tunnels and trenches are clearly contemporaneous with those at Abû Hatab, and the mound may well contain still earlier remains. The finds made in the neighbouring mounds of Senkera (Larsa), and Tell Sifr, were also promising,[26] and, in spite of his want of success at Tell Medîna, it is possible that a longer examination would have yielded better results.

At Abû Shahrain indeed we should expect to find traces of one of the earliest and most sacred shrines of the Sumerians, for here dwelt Enki, the mysterious god of the deep. The remains of his later temple now dominates the group, the great temple-tower still rising in two stages (A and B) at the northern end of the mound. Unlike the other cities of Sumer, Eridu was not built on the alluvium. Its situation is in a valley on the edge of the Arabian desert, cut off from Ur and the Euphrates by a low pebbly and sandstone ridge. In fact, its ruins appear to rise abruptly from the bed of an inland sea, which no doubt at one time was connected directly with the Persian Gulf; hence the description of Eridu in cuneiform literature as standing "on the shore of the sea." Another characteristic which distinguishes Eridu from other cities in Babylonia is the extensive use of stone as a building material. The raised platform, on which the city and its temple stood, was faced with a massive retaining wall of sandstone, no doubt obtained from quarries in the neighbourhood, while the stairway (marked D on the plan) leading to the first stage of the temple-tower had been formed of polished marble slabs which were now scattered on the surface of the mound. The marble stairs and the numerous fragments of gold-leaf and gold-headed and copper nails, which Taylor found at the base of the second stage of the temple-tower, attest its magnificence during the latest stage of its history. The name and period of the city now covered by the neighbouring mound of Tell Lahm, which was also examined by Taylor, have not yet been ascertained.

It is difficult to trace through all its stages the early growth of the city, but it would seem that the shrine in the centre of the town was soon raised upon an artificial mound to protect it during periods of inundation. Moreover, as at Fâra, the original settlement must have expanded quickly, for even below the mounds to the south-west of the Shatt en-Nîl, strata have been found similar in character to those under the temple-mound, as well as bricks and wells of the pre-Sargonic period. In reconstructing the plan of the later areas occupied by the temple and its enclosure, considerable assistance has been obtained from an ancient plan of the temple, drawn upon a clay tablet that was found at Nippur. From the form of the characters inscribed upon it, it does not appear to date from an earlier period than the first half of the second millennium B.C., but it may well be a copy of an older original since the form of its temple-enclose appears to agree with that in the time of Narâm-Sin as revealed by the excavations. In it the position of E-kur is marked at one end of a great enclosure surrounded by an irregular wall. The enclosure is cut by a canal or sluice, on the other side of which stood temple-storehouses.

It is difficult to trace through all its stages the early growth of the city, but it would seem that the shrine in the centre of the town was soon raised upon an artificial mound to protect it during periods of inundation. Moreover, as at Fâra, the original settlement must have expanded quickly, for even below the mounds to the south-west of the Shatt en-Nîl, strata have been found similar in character to those under the temple-mound, as well as bricks and wells of the pre-Sargonic period. In reconstructing the plan of the later areas occupied by the temple and its enclosure, considerable assistance has been obtained from an ancient plan of the temple, drawn upon a clay tablet that was found at Nippur. From the form of the characters inscribed upon it, it does not appear to date from an earlier period than the first half of the second millennium B.C., but it may well be a copy of an older original since the form of its temple-enclose appears to agree with that in the time of Narâm-Sin as revealed by the excavations. In it the position of E-kur is marked at one end of a great enclosure surrounded by an irregular wall. The enclosure is cut by a canal or sluice, on the other side of which stood temple-storehouses.

Built upon a platform composed of three layers of bricks set in bitumen, the walls of the building were still preserved to the height of a few feet. It is to be noted that on none of the sides is there a trace of any doorway or entrance, and it is probable that access was obtained from the outside by ladders of wood, or stairways of unburnt brick, reaching to the upper story. At D and E on the plan are traces of what may have been either steps or buttresses, but these do not belong to the original building and were added at a later time. The absence of any entrance certainly proves that the building was employed as a storehouse.[5] Within the building are two chambers, the one square (A), the other of a more oblong shape (B). They were separated by a transverse passage or corridor (C), which also ran round inside the outer walls, thus giving the interior chamber additional security. The double walls were well calculated to protect the interior from damp or heat, and would render it more difficult for pillagers to effect an entrance. Both in the chambers and the passages a coating of bitumen was spread upon the floor and walls. Here grain, oil, and fermented drink could have been stored in quantity, and the building may also have served as a magazine for arms and tools, and for the more precious kinds of building material.

Around the outside of the building, at a distance of about four metres from it, are a series of eight brick bases, two on each side, in a direct line with the walls.[6] On these stood pillars of cedar-wood, of which the charred remains were still visible. They probably supported a great wooden portico or gallery, which ran round the walls of the building and was doubtless used for the temporary storage of goods and agricultural implements. On the north-east side of the building a brick pavement (F) extended for some distance beyond the gallery, and at the southern angle, within the row of pillars and beneath the roof of the portico, was a small double basin (G) carefully lined with bitumen. At a greater distance from the house were two larger basins or tanks (I and K), with platforms built beside them of brick and bitumen (J and L); with one of them was connected a channel or water-course (M). At a later time Eannatum sunk a well not far to the west of Ur-Ninâ's storehouse, and from it a similar water-course ran to a circular basin; a large oval basin and others of rectangular shape were found rather more to the north. These, like Ur-Ninâ's tanks, were probably employed for the washing of vessels and for the cleansing processes which accompanied the preparation and storage of date-wine, the pressing of oil, and the numerous other occupations of a large agricultural community.

BABYLONIA Showing the Sites of Ancient Cities. [enlarge]

[1] For a discussion of the conflicting evidence with regard to the occurrence of bronze at this period, see below, pp. 72 ff.

[2] The controversy has now an historical rather than a practical importance. Its earlier history is admirably summarized by Weissbach in "Die sumerische Frage," Leipzig, 1898; cf. also Fossey, "Manuel d'Assyriologie," tome I, (1904), pp. 269 ff. M. Halévy himself continues courageously to defend his position in the pages of the "Revue Sémitique," but his followers have deserted him.

[3] The origin of the Great Swamp, or Swamps, called by Arab geographers al-Baṭiḥa, or in the plural al-Baṭâyiḥ, is traced by Bilâdhuri to the reign of the Persian king Kubâdh I., towards the end of the fifth century B.C. Ibn Serapion applies the name in the singular to four great stretches of water (Hawrs), connected by channels through the reeds, which began at El-Kaṭr, near the junction of the Shatt el-Hai with the present bed of the Euphrates. But from this point as far northwards as Niffer and Kûfa the waters of the Euphrates lost themselves in reed-beds and marshes; cf. G. le Strange, "Journ. Roy. Asiat. Soc.," 1905, p. 297 f., and "Lands of the Eastern Caliphate," p. 26 f.

[4] According to Ibn Rusta (quoted by Le Strange, "Journ. Roy. Asiat. Soc.," 1905, p. 301), in Sassanian times, and before the bursting of the dykes which led to the formation of the swamps, the Tigris followed the same eastern channel in which it flows at the present time; this account is confirmed by Yâkût.

[5] See the map at the end of the volume. The original courses of the rivers in the small inset map of Babylonia during the earliest historical periods agree in the main with Fisher's reconstruction published in "Excavations at Nippur," Pt. I., p. 3, Fig. 2. For points on which uncertainty still exists, see below, p. 10 f.

[6] See below, p. 38 f.

[7] See the plan of Warka by Loftus, reproduced on p. 33. It will be noted that he marks the ancient bed of the Shatt en-Nîl as skirting the city on the east.

[8] See below, p. 21 f.

[9] Cf. Thureau-Dangin, "Orient. Lit.-Zeit.," 1909, col. 205 f.

[10] See Clay and Hilprecht, "Murashû Sons" (Artaxerxes I.), p. 76, and Clay, "Murashû Sons" (Darius II.), p. 70; cf. also Hommel, "Grundriss der Geographie und Geschichte des alten Orients," p. 264.

[11] Cf. King, "Letters of Hammurabi," III., p. 18 f.

[12] The Yusufiya Canal, running from Dîwânîya to the Shatt el-Kâr, was probably the result of a later effort to divert some of the water back to the old bed.

[13] Andrae visited and surveyed the districts around Fâra and Abû Hatab in December, 1902. In his map he marks traces of a channel, the Shatt el-Farakhna, which, leaving the main channel at Shêkh Bedr, heads in the direction of Bismâya (see "Mitteilungen der Deutschen Orient-Gesellschaft," No. 16, pp. 16 ff.).

[14] Cf. King and Hall, "Egypt and Western Asia," pp. 292 ff.

[15] Cf. Delitzsch, "Wo lag das Paradies?" p. 200.

[16] Cf. Thureau-Dangin, "Journal asiatique," 1908, p. 131, n. 2.

[17] Cyl. A, Col. XI., l. 16 f.; see below, Chap. IX., p. 266.

[18] Ibid., Col. XXI., l. 25.

[19] Cyl. B, Col. XXII., l. 19 f.

[20] See below, p. 14.

[21] For this reading of the name of the city usually transcribed as Gishkhu or Gishukh, see below, p. 21, n. 3.

[22] See below, Chap. V., p. 127 f.

[23] The word kalam, "the Land," is first found in a royal title upon fragments of early vases from Nippur which a certain "king of the land" dedicated to Enlil in gratitude for his victories over Kish (see below, Chap. VII.). The word kur-kur, "countries" in such a phrase as lugal kur-kur-ge, "king of the countries," when applied to the god Enlil, designated the whole of the habitable world; in a more restricted sense it was used for foreign countries, especially in the inscriptions of Gudea, in contradistinction to the Land of Sumer (cf. Thureau-Dangin, "Zeits. für Assyr.," XVI., p. 354, n. 3).

[24] The ideogram Ki-en-gi, by which the name of Sumer, or more correctly Shumer, was expressed, already occurs in the texts of Eannatum, Lugal-zaggisi and Enshagkushanna (see Chaps. V. and VII.). It has generally been treated as an earlier proper name for the country, and read as Kengi or Kingi. But the occurrence of the word ki-en-gi-ra in a Sumerian hymn, where it is rendered in Semitic by mâtu, "land" (see Reisner, "Sum.-Bab. Hymnen," pl. 130 ff.), would seem to show that, like kalam, it was employed as a general designation for "the Land" (cf. Thureau-Dangin, "Die sumerischen und akkadischen Königsinschriften," p. 152, n.f.). The form ki-en-gi-ra is also met with in the inscriptions of Gudea (see Hommel, "Grundriss," p. 242, n. 4, and Thureau-Dangin, op. cit., pp. 100, 112, 140), and it has been suggested that the final syllable should be treated as a phonetic complement and the word rendered as shumer-ra (cf. Hrozný, "Ninib und Sumer," in the "Rev. Sémit.," July, 1908, Extrait, p. 15). According to this view the word shumer, with the original meaning of "land," was afterwards employed as a proper name for the country. The earliest occurrence of Shumerû, the Semitic form of the name, is in an early Semitic legend in the British Museum, which refers to "the spoil of the Sumerians" (see King, "Cun. Texts," Pt. V., pl. 1 f., and cf. Winckler, "Orient. Lit.-Zeit.," 1907, col. 346, Ungnad, op. cit., 1908, col. 67, and Hrozný, "Rev. Sémit.," 1908, p. 350).

[25] Akkad, or Akkadû, was the Semitic pronunciation of Agade, the older name of the town; a similar sharpening of sound occurs in Makkan, the Semitic pronunciation of Magan (cf. Ungnad, "Orient. Lit.-Zeit.," 1908, col. 62, n. 4). The employment of the name of Akkad for the whole of the northern half of the country probably dates from a period subsequent to the increase of the city's power under Shar-Gani-sharri and Narâm-Sin (see Chap. VIII.); on the employment of the name for the Semitic speech of the north, see below, p. 52. The origin of the name Ki-uri, or Ki-urra, employed in Sumerian as the equivalent of the name of Akkad, is obscure.

In this respect the climate and soil of Babylonia present a striking contrast to those of ancient Egypt. In the latter country the shallow graves of Neolithic man, covered by but a few inches of soil, have remained intact and undisturbed at the foot of the desert hills; while in the upper plateaus along the Nile valley the flints of Palaeolithic man have lain upon the surface of the sand from Palaeolithic times until the present day. But what has happened in so rainless a country as Egypt could never have taken place in Mesopotamia. It is true that a few palaeoliths have been found on the surface of the Syrian desert, but in the alluvial plains of Southern Chaldaea, as in the Egyptian Delta itself, few certain traces of prehistoric man have been forthcoming. Even in the early mat-burials and sarcophagi at Fâra numerous copper objects[1] and some cylinder-seals have been found, while other cylinders, sealings, and even inscribed tablets, discovered in the same and neighbouring strata, prove that their owners were of the same race as the Sumerians of history, though probably of a rather earlier date.

M. Halévy's theory appeared still less probable when applied to such of the early Sumerian texts as had been recovered at that time by Loftus and Taylor in Southern Babylonia. For these were shown to be short building-inscriptions, votive texts, and foundation-records, and, as they were obviously intended to record and commemorate for future ages the events to which they referred, it was unlikely that they should have been drawn up in a cryptographic style of writing which would have been undecipherable without a key. Yet the fact that very few Sumerian documents of the early period had been found, while the great majority of the texts recovered were known only from tablets of the seventh century B.C., rendered it possible for the upholders of the pan-Semitic theory to make out a case. In fact, it was not until the renewal of excavations in Babylonia that fresh evidence was obtained which put an end to the Sumerian controversy, and settled the problem once for all in accordance with the view of Sir Henry Rawlinson and of the more conservative writers.[2]

Of the two rivers the Tigris, owing to its higher and stronger banks, has undergone less change than the Euphrates. It is true that during the Middle Ages its present channel below Kût el-'Amâra was entirely disused, its waters flowing by the Shatt el-Hai into the Great Swamp which extended from Kûfa on the Euphrates to the neighbourhood of Kurna, covering an area fifty miles across and nearly two hundred miles in length.[3] But in the Sassanian period the Great Swamp, the formation of which was due to neglect of the system of irrigation under the early caliphs, did not exist, and the river followed its present channel.[4] It is thus probable that during the earlier periods of Babylonian history the main body of water passed this way into the Gulf, but the Shatt el-Hai may have represented a second and less important branch of the stream.[5]

Of the two rivers the Tigris, owing to its higher and stronger banks, has undergone less change than the Euphrates. It is true that during the Middle Ages its present channel below Kût el-'Amâra was entirely disused, its waters flowing by the Shatt el-Hai into the Great Swamp which extended from Kûfa on the Euphrates to the neighbourhood of Kurna, covering an area fifty miles across and nearly two hundred miles in length.[3] But in the Sassanian period the Great Swamp, the formation of which was due to neglect of the system of irrigation under the early caliphs, did not exist, and the river followed its present channel.[4] It is thus probable that during the earlier periods of Babylonian history the main body of water passed this way into the Gulf, but the Shatt el-Hai may have represented a second and less important branch of the stream.[5]

Of the two rivers the Tigris, owing to its higher and stronger banks, has undergone less change than the Euphrates. It is true that during the Middle Ages its present channel below Kût el-'Amâra was entirely disused, its waters flowing by the Shatt el-Hai into the Great Swamp which extended from Kûfa on the Euphrates to the neighbourhood of Kurna, covering an area fifty miles across and nearly two hundred miles in length.[3] But in the Sassanian period the Great Swamp, the formation of which was due to neglect of the system of irrigation under the early caliphs, did not exist, and the river followed its present channel.[4] It is thus probable that during the earlier periods of Babylonian history the main body of water passed this way into the Gulf, but the Shatt el-Hai may have represented a second and less important branch of the stream.[5]

The change in the course of the Euphrates has been far more marked, the position of its original bed being indicated by the mounds covering the sites of early cities, which extend through the country along the practically dry beds of the Shatt en-Nîl and the Shatt el-Kâr, considerably to the east of its present channel. The mounds of Abû Habba, Tell Ibrâhîm, El-Ohêmir and Niffer, marking the sites of the important cities of Sippar, Cutha, Kish[6] and Nippur, all lie to the east of the river, the last two on the ancient bed of the Shatt en-Nîl. Similarly, the course of the Shatt el-Kâr, which formed an extension of the Shatt en-Nîl below Sûk el-'Afej passes the mounds of Abû Hatab (Kisurra), Fâra (Shuruppak) and Hammâm. Warka (Erech) stands on a further continuation of the Shatt en-Nîl,[7] while still more to the eastward are the mounds of Bismâya and Jôkha, representing the cities of Adab and Umma.[8] Senkera, the site of Larsa, also lies considerably to the east of the present stream, and the only city besides Babylon which now stands comparatively near the present bed of the Euphrates is Ur. The positions of the ancient cities would alone be sufficient proof that, since the early periods of Babylonian history, the Euphrates has considerably changed its course.

The change in the course of the Euphrates has been far more marked, the position of its original bed being indicated by the mounds covering the sites of early cities, which extend through the country along the practically dry beds of the Shatt en-Nîl and the Shatt el-Kâr, considerably to the east of its present channel. The mounds of Abû Habba, Tell Ibrâhîm, El-Ohêmir and Niffer, marking the sites of the important cities of Sippar, Cutha, Kish[6] and Nippur, all lie to the east of the river, the last two on the ancient bed of the Shatt en-Nîl. Similarly, the course of the Shatt el-Kâr, which formed an extension of the Shatt en-Nîl below Sûk el-'Afej passes the mounds of Abû Hatab (Kisurra), Fâra (Shuruppak) and Hammâm. Warka (Erech) stands on a further continuation of the Shatt en-Nîl,[7] while still more to the eastward are the mounds of Bismâya and Jôkha, representing the cities of Adab and Umma.[8] Senkera, the site of Larsa, also lies considerably to the east of the present stream, and the only city besides Babylon which now stands comparatively near the present bed of the Euphrates is Ur. The positions of the ancient cities would alone be sufficient proof that, since the early periods of Babylonian history, the Euphrates has considerably changed its course.

The change in the course of the Euphrates has been far more marked, the position of its original bed being indicated by the mounds covering the sites of early cities, which extend through the country along the practically dry beds of the Shatt en-Nîl and the Shatt el-Kâr, considerably to the east of its present channel. The mounds of Abû Habba, Tell Ibrâhîm, El-Ohêmir and Niffer, marking the sites of the important cities of Sippar, Cutha, Kish[6] and Nippur, all lie to the east of the river, the last two on the ancient bed of the Shatt en-Nîl. Similarly, the course of the Shatt el-Kâr, which formed an extension of the Shatt en-Nîl below Sûk el-'Afej passes the mounds of Abû Hatab (Kisurra), Fâra (Shuruppak) and Hammâm. Warka (Erech) stands on a further continuation of the Shatt en-Nîl,[7] while still more to the eastward are the mounds of Bismâya and Jôkha, representing the cities of Adab and Umma.[8] Senkera, the site of Larsa, also lies considerably to the east of the present stream, and the only city besides Babylon which now stands comparatively near the present bed of the Euphrates is Ur. The positions of the ancient cities would alone be sufficient proof that, since the early periods of Babylonian history, the Euphrates has considerably changed its course.

Abundant evidence that this was the case is furnished by the contemporary inscriptions that have been recovered. The very name of the Euphrates was expressed by an ideogram signifying "the River of Sippar," from which we may infer that Sippar originally stood upon its banks. A Babylonian contract of the period of the First Dynasty is dated in the year in which Samsu-iluna constructed the wall of Kish "on the bank of the Euphrates,"[9] proving that either the main stream from Sippar, or a branch from Babylon, flowed by El-Ohêmir. Still further south the river at Nippur, marked as at El-Ohêmir by the dry bed of the Shatt en-Nîl, is termed "the Euphrates of Nippur," or simply "the Euphrates" on contract-tablets found upon the site.[10] Moreover, the city of Shurippak or Shuruppak, the native town of Ut-napishtim, is described by him in the Gilgamesh epic as lying "on the bank of the Euphrates"; and Hammurabi, in one of his letters to Sin-idinnam, bids him clear out the stream of the Euphrates "from Larsa as far as Ur."[11] These references in the early texts cover practically the whole course of the ancient bed of the Euphrates, and leave but a few points open to conjecture.

Abundant evidence that this was the case is furnished by the contemporary inscriptions that have been recovered. The very name of the Euphrates was expressed by an ideogram signifying "the River of Sippar," from which we may infer that Sippar originally stood upon its banks. A Babylonian contract of the period of the First Dynasty is dated in the year in which Samsu-iluna constructed the wall of Kish "on the bank of the Euphrates,"[9] proving that either the main stream from Sippar, or a branch from Babylon, flowed by El-Ohêmir. Still further south the river at Nippur, marked as at El-Ohêmir by the dry bed of the Shatt en-Nîl, is termed "the Euphrates of Nippur," or simply "the Euphrates" on contract-tablets found upon the site.[10] Moreover, the city of Shurippak or Shuruppak, the native town of Ut-napishtim, is described by him in the Gilgamesh epic as lying "on the bank of the Euphrates"; and Hammurabi, in one of his letters to Sin-idinnam, bids him clear out the stream of the Euphrates "from Larsa as far as Ur."[11] These references in the early texts cover practically the whole course of the ancient bed of the Euphrates, and leave but a few points open to conjecture.

Abundant evidence that this was the case is furnished by the contemporary inscriptions that have been recovered. The very name of the Euphrates was expressed by an ideogram signifying "the River of Sippar," from which we may infer that Sippar originally stood upon its banks. A Babylonian contract of the period of the First Dynasty is dated in the year in which Samsu-iluna constructed the wall of Kish "on the bank of the Euphrates,"[9] proving that either the main stream from Sippar, or a branch from Babylon, flowed by El-Ohêmir. Still further south the river at Nippur, marked as at El-Ohêmir by the dry bed of the Shatt en-Nîl, is termed "the Euphrates of Nippur," or simply "the Euphrates" on contract-tablets found upon the site.[10] Moreover, the city of Shurippak or Shuruppak, the native town of Ut-napishtim, is described by him in the Gilgamesh epic as lying "on the bank of the Euphrates"; and Hammurabi, in one of his letters to Sin-idinnam, bids him clear out the stream of the Euphrates "from Larsa as far as Ur."[11] These references in the early texts cover practically the whole course of the ancient bed of the Euphrates, and leave but a few points open to conjecture.

In the north it is clear that at an early period a second branch broke away from the Euphrates at a point about half-way between Sippar and the modern town of Falûja, and, after flowing along the present bed of the river as far as Babylon, rejoined the main stream of the Euphrates either at, or more probably below, the city of Kish. It was the extension of these western channels which afterwards drained the earlier bed, and we may conjecture that its waters were diverted back to the Euphrates at this early period by artificial means.[12] The tendency of the river was always to break away westward, and the latest branch of the stream, still further to the west, left the river above Babylon at Musayyib. The fact that Birs, the site of Borsippa, stands upon its upper course, suggests an early date for its origin, but it is quite possible that the first city on this site, in view of its proximity to Babylon, obtained its water-supply by means of a system of canals. However this may be, the present course of this most western branch is marked by the Nahr Hindîya, the Bahr Nejef, and the Shatt 'Ateshân, which rejoins the Euphrates after passing Samâwa. In the Middle Ages the Great Swamps started at Kûfa, and it is possible that even in earlier times, during periods of inundation, some of the surplus water from the river may have emptied itself into swamps or marshy land below Borsippa.

The exact course of the Euphrates south of Nippur during the earliest periods is still a matter for conjecture, and it is quite possible that its waters reached the Persian Gulf through two, if not three, mouths. It is certain that the main stream passed the cities of Kisurra, Shuruppak, and Erech, and eventually reached the Gulf below Ur. Whether after leaving Erech it turned eastward to Larsa, and so southward to Ur, or whether it flowed from Erech direct to Ur, and Larsa lay upon another branch, is not yet settled, though the reference in Hammurabi's letter may be cited in favour of the former view. Another point of uncertainty concerns the relation of Adab and Umma to the stream. The mounds of Bismâya and Jôkha, which mark their sites, lie to the east, off the line of the Shatt el-Kâr, and it is quite possible that they were built upon an eastern branch of the river which may have joined the Shatt el-Hai above Lagash, and so have mingled with the waters of the Tigris before reaching the Gulf.[13]

In spite of these points of uncertainty, it will be noted that every city of Sumer and Akkad, the site of which has been referred to, was situated on the Euphrates or one of its branches, not upon the Tigris, and the only exception to this rule appears to have been Opis, the most northern city of Akkad. The preference for the Euphrates may be explained by the fact that the Tigris is swift and its banks are high, and it thus offers far less facilities for irrigation. The Euphrates with its lower banks tends during the time of high water to spread itself over the surrounding country, which doubtless suggested to the earliest inhabitants the project of regulating and utilizing the supply of water by means of reservoirs and canals. Another reason for the preference may be traced to the slower fall of the water in the Euphrates during the summer months. With the melting of the snow in the mountain ranges of the Taurus and Niphates during the early spring, the first flood-water is carried down by the swift stream of the Tigris, which generally begins to rise in March, and, after reaching its highest level in the early part of May, falls swiftly and returns to its summer level by the middle of June. The Euphrates, on the other hand, rises about a fortnight later, and continues at a high level for a much longer period. Even in the middle of July there is a considerable body of water in the river, and it is not until September that its lowest level is reached. On both streams irrigation-machines were doubtless employed, as they are at the present day,[14] but in the Euphrates they were only necessary when the water in the river had fallen below the level of the canals.

Between the lands of Sumer and Akkad there was no natural division such as marks them off from the regions of Assyria and Mesopotamia in the north. While the north-eastern half of the country bore the name of Akkad, and the south-eastern portion at the head of the Persian Gulf was known as Sumer, the same alluvial plain stretches southward from one to the other without any change in its general character. Thus some difference of opinion has previously existed, as to the precise boundary which separated the two lands, and additional confusion has been introduced by the rather vague use of the name Akkad during the later Assyrian and Neo-Babylonian periods. Thus Ashur-bani-pal, when referring to the capture of Nanâ's statue by the Elamites, puts E-anna, the temple of Nanâ in Erech, among the temples of the land of Akkad, a statement which has led to the view that Akkad extended as far south as Erech.[15] But it has been pointed out that on similar evidence furnished by an Assyrian letter, it would be possible to regard Eridu, the most southern Sumerian city as in Akkad, not in Sumer.[16] The explanation is to be found in the fact that by the Assyrians, whose southern border marched with Akkad, the latter name was often used loosely for the whole of Babylonia. Such references should not therefore be employed for determining the original limits of the two countries, and it is necessary to rely only upon information supplied by texts of a period earlier than that in which the original distinction between the two names had become blurred.

Between the lands of Sumer and Akkad there was no natural division such as marks them off from the regions of Assyria and Mesopotamia in the north. While the north-eastern half of the country bore the name of Akkad, and the south-eastern portion at the head of the Persian Gulf was known as Sumer, the same alluvial plain stretches southward from one to the other without any change in its general character. Thus some difference of opinion has previously existed, as to the precise boundary which separated the two lands, and additional confusion has been introduced by the rather vague use of the name Akkad during the later Assyrian and Neo-Babylonian periods. Thus Ashur-bani-pal, when referring to the capture of Nanâ's statue by the Elamites, puts E-anna, the temple of Nanâ in Erech, among the temples of the land of Akkad, a statement which has led to the view that Akkad extended as far south as Erech.[15] But it has been pointed out that on similar evidence furnished by an Assyrian letter, it would be possible to regard Eridu, the most southern Sumerian city as in Akkad, not in Sumer.[16] The explanation is to be found in the fact that by the Assyrians, whose southern border marched with Akkad, the latter name was often used loosely for the whole of Babylonia. Such references should not therefore be employed for determining the original limits of the two countries, and it is necessary to rely only upon information supplied by texts of a period earlier than that in which the original distinction between the two names had become blurred.

From references to different cities in the early texts, it is possible to form from their context, a very fair idea of what the Sumerians themselves regarded as the limits of their own land. For instance, from the Tello inscriptions there is no doubt that Lagash was in Sumer. Thus the god Ningirsu, when informing Gudea, patesi of Lagash, that prosperity shall follow the building of E-ninnû, promises that oil and wool shall be abundant in Sumer;[17] the temple itself, which was in Lagash, is recorded to have been built of bricks of Sumer;[18] and, after the building of the temple was finished, Gudea prays that the land may rest in security, and that Sumer may be at the head of the countries.[19] Again, Lugal-zaggisi, who styles himself King of the Land, i.e. the land of Sumer,[20] mentions among cities subject to him, Erech, Ur, Larsa, and Umma,[21] proving that they were regarded as Sumerian towns. The city of Kesh, whose goddess Ninkharsag is mentioned on the Stele of the Vultures, with the gods of Sumerian towns as guaranteeing a treaty between Lagash and Umma,[22] was probably in Sumer, and so, too, must have been Isin, which gave a line of rulers to Sumer and Akkad in succession to Ur; about Eridu in the extreme south there could be no two opinions. On the other hand, in addition to the city of Agade or Akkad, Sippar, Kish, Opis, Cutha, Babylon and Borsippa are certainly situated beyond the limits of Sumer and belong to the land of Akkad in the north. Between the two groups lay Nippur, rather nearer to the southern than to the northern cities, and occupying the unique position of a central shrine. There is little doubt that the town was originally regarded as within the limits of Sumer, but from its close association with any claimant to the hegemony, whether in Sumer or in Akkad, it acquired in course of time a certain intermediate position, on the boundary line, as it were, between the two countries.

From references to different cities in the early texts, it is possible to form from their context, a very fair idea of what the Sumerians themselves regarded as the limits of their own land. For instance, from the Tello inscriptions there is no doubt that Lagash was in Sumer. Thus the god Ningirsu, when informing Gudea, patesi of Lagash, that prosperity shall follow the building of E-ninnû, promises that oil and wool shall be abundant in Sumer;[17] the temple itself, which was in Lagash, is recorded to have been built of bricks of Sumer;[18] and, after the building of the temple was finished, Gudea prays that the land may rest in security, and that Sumer may be at the head of the countries.[19] Again, Lugal-zaggisi, who styles himself King of the Land, i.e. the land of Sumer,[20] mentions among cities subject to him, Erech, Ur, Larsa, and Umma,[21] proving that they were regarded as Sumerian towns. The city of Kesh, whose goddess Ninkharsag is mentioned on the Stele of the Vultures, with the gods of Sumerian towns as guaranteeing a treaty between Lagash and Umma,[22] was probably in Sumer, and so, too, must have been Isin, which gave a line of rulers to Sumer and Akkad in succession to Ur; about Eridu in the extreme south there could be no two opinions. On the other hand, in addition to the city of Agade or Akkad, Sippar, Kish, Opis, Cutha, Babylon and Borsippa are certainly situated beyond the limits of Sumer and belong to the land of Akkad in the north. Between the two groups lay Nippur, rather nearer to the southern than to the northern cities, and occupying the unique position of a central shrine. There is little doubt that the town was originally regarded as within the limits of Sumer, but from its close association with any claimant to the hegemony, whether in Sumer or in Akkad, it acquired in course of time a certain intermediate position, on the boundary line, as it were, between the two countries.

From references to different cities in the early texts, it is possible to form from their context, a very fair idea of what the Sumerians themselves regarded as the limits of their own land. For instance, from the Tello inscriptions there is no doubt that Lagash was in Sumer. Thus the god Ningirsu, when informing Gudea, patesi of Lagash, that prosperity shall follow the building of E-ninnû, promises that oil and wool shall be abundant in Sumer;[17] the temple itself, which was in Lagash, is recorded to have been built of bricks of Sumer;[18] and, after the building of the temple was finished, Gudea prays that the land may rest in security, and that Sumer may be at the head of the countries.[19] Again, Lugal-zaggisi, who styles himself King of the Land, i.e. the land of Sumer,[20] mentions among cities subject to him, Erech, Ur, Larsa, and Umma,[21] proving that they were regarded as Sumerian towns. The city of Kesh, whose goddess Ninkharsag is mentioned on the Stele of the Vultures, with the gods of Sumerian towns as guaranteeing a treaty between Lagash and Umma,[22] was probably in Sumer, and so, too, must have been Isin, which gave a line of rulers to Sumer and Akkad in succession to Ur; about Eridu in the extreme south there could be no two opinions. On the other hand, in addition to the city of Agade or Akkad, Sippar, Kish, Opis, Cutha, Babylon and Borsippa are certainly situated beyond the limits of Sumer and belong to the land of Akkad in the north. Between the two groups lay Nippur, rather nearer to the southern than to the northern cities, and occupying the unique position of a central shrine. There is little doubt that the town was originally regarded as within the limits of Sumer, but from its close association with any claimant to the hegemony, whether in Sumer or in Akkad, it acquired in course of time a certain intermediate position, on the boundary line, as it were, between the two countries.

From references to different cities in the early texts, it is possible to form from their context, a very fair idea of what the Sumerians themselves regarded as the limits of their own land. For instance, from the Tello inscriptions there is no doubt that Lagash was in Sumer. Thus the god Ningirsu, when informing Gudea, patesi of Lagash, that prosperity shall follow the building of E-ninnû, promises that oil and wool shall be abundant in Sumer;[17] the temple itself, which was in Lagash, is recorded to have been built of bricks of Sumer;[18] and, after the building of the temple was finished, Gudea prays that the land may rest in security, and that Sumer may be at the head of the countries.[19] Again, Lugal-zaggisi, who styles himself King of the Land, i.e. the land of Sumer,[20] mentions among cities subject to him, Erech, Ur, Larsa, and Umma,[21] proving that they were regarded as Sumerian towns. The city of Kesh, whose goddess Ninkharsag is mentioned on the Stele of the Vultures, with the gods of Sumerian towns as guaranteeing a treaty between Lagash and Umma,[22] was probably in Sumer, and so, too, must have been Isin, which gave a line of rulers to Sumer and Akkad in succession to Ur; about Eridu in the extreme south there could be no two opinions. On the other hand, in addition to the city of Agade or Akkad, Sippar, Kish, Opis, Cutha, Babylon and Borsippa are certainly situated beyond the limits of Sumer and belong to the land of Akkad in the north. Between the two groups lay Nippur, rather nearer to the southern than to the northern cities, and occupying the unique position of a central shrine. There is little doubt that the town was originally regarded as within the limits of Sumer, but from its close association with any claimant to the hegemony, whether in Sumer or in Akkad, it acquired in course of time a certain intermediate position, on the boundary line, as it were, between the two countries.

From references to different cities in the early texts, it is possible to form from their context, a very fair idea of what the Sumerians themselves regarded as the limits of their own land. For instance, from the Tello inscriptions there is no doubt that Lagash was in Sumer. Thus the god Ningirsu, when informing Gudea, patesi of Lagash, that prosperity shall follow the building of E-ninnû, promises that oil and wool shall be abundant in Sumer;[17] the temple itself, which was in Lagash, is recorded to have been built of bricks of Sumer;[18] and, after the building of the temple was finished, Gudea prays that the land may rest in security, and that Sumer may be at the head of the countries.[19] Again, Lugal-zaggisi, who styles himself King of the Land, i.e. the land of Sumer,[20] mentions among cities subject to him, Erech, Ur, Larsa, and Umma,[21] proving that they were regarded as Sumerian towns. The city of Kesh, whose goddess Ninkharsag is mentioned on the Stele of the Vultures, with the gods of Sumerian towns as guaranteeing a treaty between Lagash and Umma,[22] was probably in Sumer, and so, too, must have been Isin, which gave a line of rulers to Sumer and Akkad in succession to Ur; about Eridu in the extreme south there could be no two opinions. On the other hand, in addition to the city of Agade or Akkad, Sippar, Kish, Opis, Cutha, Babylon and Borsippa are certainly situated beyond the limits of Sumer and belong to the land of Akkad in the north. Between the two groups lay Nippur, rather nearer to the southern than to the northern cities, and occupying the unique position of a central shrine. There is little doubt that the town was originally regarded as within the limits of Sumer, but from its close association with any claimant to the hegemony, whether in Sumer or in Akkad, it acquired in course of time a certain intermediate position, on the boundary line, as it were, between the two countries.

From references to different cities in the early texts, it is possible to form from their context, a very fair idea of what the Sumerians themselves regarded as the limits of their own land. For instance, from the Tello inscriptions there is no doubt that Lagash was in Sumer. Thus the god Ningirsu, when informing Gudea, patesi of Lagash, that prosperity shall follow the building of E-ninnû, promises that oil and wool shall be abundant in Sumer;[17] the temple itself, which was in Lagash, is recorded to have been built of bricks of Sumer;[18] and, after the building of the temple was finished, Gudea prays that the land may rest in security, and that Sumer may be at the head of the countries.[19] Again, Lugal-zaggisi, who styles himself King of the Land, i.e. the land of Sumer,[20] mentions among cities subject to him, Erech, Ur, Larsa, and Umma,[21] proving that they were regarded as Sumerian towns. The city of Kesh, whose goddess Ninkharsag is mentioned on the Stele of the Vultures, with the gods of Sumerian towns as guaranteeing a treaty between Lagash and Umma,[22] was probably in Sumer, and so, too, must have been Isin, which gave a line of rulers to Sumer and Akkad in succession to Ur; about Eridu in the extreme south there could be no two opinions. On the other hand, in addition to the city of Agade or Akkad, Sippar, Kish, Opis, Cutha, Babylon and Borsippa are certainly situated beyond the limits of Sumer and belong to the land of Akkad in the north. Between the two groups lay Nippur, rather nearer to the southern than to the northern cities, and occupying the unique position of a central shrine. There is little doubt that the town was originally regarded as within the limits of Sumer, but from its close association with any claimant to the hegemony, whether in Sumer or in Akkad, it acquired in course of time a certain intermediate position, on the boundary line, as it were, between the two countries.

Of the names Sumer and Akkad, it would seem that neither was in use in the earliest historical periods, though the former was probably the older of the two. At a comparatively early date the southern district as a whole was referred to simply as "the Land,"[23] par excellence, and it is probable that the ideogram by which the name of Sumer was expressed, was originally used with a similar meaning.[24] The twin title, Sumer and Akkad, was first regularly employed as a designation for the whole country by the kings of Ur, who united the two halves of the land into a single empire, and called themselves kings of Sumer and Akkad. The earlier Semitic kings of Agade or Akkad[25] expressed the extent of their empire by claiming to rule "the four quarters (of the world)," while the still earlier king Lugal-zaggisi, in virtue of his authority in Sumer, adopted the title "King of the Land." In the time of the early city-states, before the period of Eannatum, no general title for the whole of Sumer or of Akkad is met with in the inscriptions that have been recovered. Each city with its surrounding territory formed a compact state in itself, and fought with its neighbours for local power and precedence. At this time the names of the cities occur by themselves in the titles of their rulers, and it was only after several of them had been welded into a single state that the need was felt for a more general name or designation. Thus, to speak of Akkad, and even perhaps of Sumer, in the earliest period, is to be guilty of an anachronism, but it is a pardonable one. The names may be employed as convenient geographical terms, as, for instance, when referring to the country as a whole, we speak of Babylonia during all periods of its history.

Of the names Sumer and Akkad, it would seem that neither was in use in the earliest historical periods, though the former was probably the older of the two. At a comparatively early date the southern district as a whole was referred to simply as "the Land,"[23] par excellence, and it is probable that the ideogram by which the name of Sumer was expressed, was originally used with a similar meaning.[24] The twin title, Sumer and Akkad, was first regularly employed as a designation for the whole country by the kings of Ur, who united the two halves of the land into a single empire, and called themselves kings of Sumer and Akkad. The earlier Semitic kings of Agade or Akkad[25] expressed the extent of their empire by claiming to rule "the four quarters (of the world)," while the still earlier king Lugal-zaggisi, in virtue of his authority in Sumer, adopted the title "King of the Land." In the time of the early city-states, before the period of Eannatum, no general title for the whole of Sumer or of Akkad is met with in the inscriptions that have been recovered. Each city with its surrounding territory formed a compact state in itself, and fought with its neighbours for local power and precedence. At this time the names of the cities occur by themselves in the titles of their rulers, and it was only after several of them had been welded into a single state that the need was felt for a more general name or designation. Thus, to speak of Akkad, and even perhaps of Sumer, in the earliest period, is to be guilty of an anachronism, but it is a pardonable one. The names may be employed as convenient geographical terms, as, for instance, when referring to the country as a whole, we speak of Babylonia during all periods of its history.

Of the names Sumer and Akkad, it would seem that neither was in use in the earliest historical periods, though the former was probably the older of the two. At a comparatively early date the southern district as a whole was referred to simply as "the Land,"[23] par excellence, and it is probable that the ideogram by which the name of Sumer was expressed, was originally used with a similar meaning.[24] The twin title, Sumer and Akkad, was first regularly employed as a designation for the whole country by the kings of Ur, who united the two halves of the land into a single empire, and called themselves kings of Sumer and Akkad. The earlier Semitic kings of Agade or Akkad[25] expressed the extent of their empire by claiming to rule "the four quarters (of the world)," while the still earlier king Lugal-zaggisi, in virtue of his authority in Sumer, adopted the title "King of the Land." In the time of the early city-states, before the period of Eannatum, no general title for the whole of Sumer or of Akkad is met with in the inscriptions that have been recovered. Each city with its surrounding territory formed a compact state in itself, and fought with its neighbours for local power and precedence. At this time the names of the cities occur by themselves in the titles of their rulers, and it was only after several of them had been welded into a single state that the need was felt for a more general name or designation. Thus, to speak of Akkad, and even perhaps of Sumer, in the earliest period, is to be guilty of an anachronism, but it is a pardonable one. The names may be employed as convenient geographical terms, as, for instance, when referring to the country as a whole, we speak of Babylonia during all periods of its history.

[1] In point of time, the work of Loftus and Taylor (see below, pp. 32 ff.) preceded that of De Sarzec, but the results obtained were necessarily less complete. It would be out of place in the present volume to give any account of excavations in Assyria, as they have only an indirect bearing on the period here treated. For a chronological sketch of the early travellers and excavators, see Rogers, "History of Babylonia and Assyria," vol. i. pp. 100 ff., who also gives a detailed account of the decipherment of the cuneiform inscriptions; cf. also Fossey, "Manuel," I., pp. 6 ff. For a similar chronological treatment, but from the archaeological side, see the sections with which Hilprecht prefaces his account of the Nippur excavations in "Explorations in Bible Lands," pp. 7 ff.

[2] See above, p. 11.

[3] Cf. "Cun. Texts in the Brit. Mus.," Pt. XVI., pl. 36, l. 4 f.; as written here the name might also be read Lagarum or Lagadil. That Lagash is the correct reading is proved by the fragment of a duplicate text published in Reisner, "Sum.-Bab. Hymnen," pl. 126, No. 81, where the final character of the name is unmistakably written as ash; cf. Meissner, "Orient. Lit.-Zeit.," 1907, col. 385.

[4] Separate mounds in the group were referred to by De Sarzec under the letters A-P, P', and V. For the account of the diggings and their results, see E. de Sarzec and Léon Heuzey, "Découvertes en Chaldée" ("Description des fouilles" by De Sarzec; "Description des monuments" by Heuzey; "Partie épigraphique" by Amiaud and Thureau-Dangin), Paris, 1884-1906; see also Heuzey, "Une Villa royale chaldéenne," and "Revue d'Assyriologie," passim.

[5] The plate opposite p. 20 illustrates the way in which Gudea's gateway has been worked into the structure of the Parthian Palace. The slight difference in the ground-level of the two buildings is also clearly shown.

[6] See the plate opposite p. 26.

[7] From the nature of this building Amiaud christened the mound the "Tell de la Maison des Fruits."

[8] A description of these buildings is given in Chap. IV., pp. 90 ff.

[9] Cf. "Zeits. für Assyr." II., pp. 406 ff.

[10] Cf. Messerschmidt, "Vorderasiatische Schriftdenkmäler," p. v. f., pl. 1 ff.

[11] The name is still often transcribed as Gishkhu or Gishukh; for the reading Umma, supplied by a Neo-Babylonian vocabulary, see "Cun. Texts," XII., pl. 28, Obv., l. 7, and cf. Hrozný, "Zeits. für Assyr." XX. (1907), pp. 421 ff. For its identification with Jôkha, see Scheil, "Rec. de trav.," XIX., p. 63; cf. also XXI., p. 125.

[12] Cf. "Mitteil. der Deutsch. Orient-Gesellschaft," No. 16, p. 20 f. Dr. Andrae adds valuable notes on other mounds he visited during this journey.

[13] See below, p. 33 f.

[14] See "Mitteil. der Deutsch. Orient-Gesellschaft," No. 15, p. 9 ff.

[15] Op. cit., No. 17, p. 4 ff.

[16] Each section of a trench is also given a letter, so that such a symbol as IV. b or XII. x indicates within very precise limits the provenance of any object discovered. The letter A on the plan marks the site of the house built by the expedition.

[17] This form of brick is characteristic of the Pre-Sargonic period; cf. p. 91.

[18] The positions of some of the larger ones, which were excavated in the northern part of the mounds, are indicated by black dots in the plan.

[19] The houses with the clay tablets were found in trenches VII., IX., XIII., and XV.

[20] In the folding map Fâra has been set on the right bank of the Shatt el-Kâr, in accordance with Loftus's map published in "Travels and Researches in Chaldaea and Susiana." From Andrae's notes it would seem that Abû Hatab, and probably Fâra also, lie on the east or left bank. But the ancient bed of the stream has disappeared in many places, and is difficult to follow, and elsewhere there are traces of two or three parallel channels at considerable distances apart, so that the exact position of the original bed of the Euphrates is not certain at this point.

[21] In the plan the trenches and excavated sites are lettered from A to K. The figures, preceded by a cross, give in metres and centimetres the height of the mound at that point above the level of the plain.

[22] Itûr-Shamash, whose brick-inscription furnished the information that Abû Hatab is the site of the city Kisurra, is to be set towards the end of this period; see below, Chap. XI., and cf. p. 283 f., n. 1.

[23] See the extracts from the "Reports of the Expedition of the Oriental Exploration Fund (Babylonian Section) of the University of Chicago," which were issued to the subscribers.

[24] See below, Chap. IV., pp. 85 ff.

[25] See "Chaldaea and Susiana," pp. 174 ff. and 188 f.

[26] Op. cit., pp. 244 ff., 266 ff.

[27] See his "Notes on the ruins of Mugeyer" in the Journal of the Royal Asiatic Society, 1855, pp. 260 ff., 414 f.

[28] See his "Notes on Abû Shahrein and Tel el-Lahm," op. cit., p. 409. The trench which disclosed this structure, built of uninscribed plano-convex bricks laid in bitumen, was cut near the south-eastern side of the ruins, between the mounds F and G (see plan), and to the north-east of the gulley.

[29] See Weissbach, "Wâdī Brîssā," Col. VI., ll. 46 ff., and cf. pp. 39 ff.

[30] The incantation is the one which has furnished us with authority for reading the name of Shirpurla as Lagash (see above, p. 17, n. 3). It is directed against the machinations of evil demons, and in one passage the powers for good inherent in the ancient cities of Babylonia are invoked on behalf of the possessed man. Here, along with the names of Eridu, Lagash, and Shuruppak, occurs the ideogram for Opis, which is rendered in the Assyrian translation as Ki-e-shi, i.e. Kesh, or Kish (cf. Thompson, "Devils and Evil Spirits," vol. i., p. 162 f.)

[31] See above, p. 9.

[32] See George Smith, "Trans. Soc. Bibl. Arch.," III., p. 364, and cf. Thureau-Dangin, "Orient. Lit.-Zeit.," 1909, col. 205 f.

[33] The fact that in an early Babylonian geographical list ("Cun. Inscr. West. Asia," Vol. IV., pl. 36, No. 1) the name of Opis is mentioned after a number of Sumerian cities, is no indication that the city itself, or another city of the same name, was regarded as situated in Sumer, as suggested by Jensen (cf. "Zeits. für Assyr.," XV., pp. 210 ff.); the next two names in the list are those of Magan and Melukhkha.

[34] For the fullest treatment of this subject, see Meyer, "Sumerier und Semiten in Babylonien" (Abh. der Königl. Preuss. Akad. der Wissenschaft., 1906).

[35] Cf. Herodotus, III., 8.

[36] The women of the earlier period appear to have worn a modified form of this garment, made of the same rough wool, but worn over the left shoulder (see below, p. 112, Fig. 43). On the Stele of the Vultures, Eannatum, like his soldiers, wears the petticoat, but this is supplemented by what is obviously a separate garment of different texture thrown over the left shoulder so as to leave the right arm free; this may have been the skin of an animal worn with the natural hair outside (see the plate opposite p. 124).

[37] A very similar fringed mantle was usually worn by the Sumerian women of the later period, but it was draped differently upon the body. Pressed at first over the breasts and under each arm, it is crossed at the back and its ends, thrown over the shoulders, fall in front in two symmetrical points; for a good example of the garment as seen from the front, see below, p. 71.

[38] See below, p. 245, Fig. 59.

[39] Remains of an inscription upon Fig. 6 treat of the dedication of a temple to the god Ningirsu, and to judge from the characters it probably does not date from a period earlier than that of Gudea.

[40] See the plate facing p. 52, and cf. p. 68 f.

[41] See below, Chap. VIII., pp. 220 ff.

[42] According to the traces on the stone the figure immediately behind the beardless chief has a shaven head and face, like his other two followers in Fig. 3. The figure on the right of this fragment wears hair and beard, and probably represents a member of the opposite party conducting them into the presence of his master.

[43] See "Déc. en Chaldée," pl. 1 bis, Figs. 3-7.

[44] The fact that on seals of this later period the Moon-god is represented in the Sumerian mantle and headdress may well have been a result of the Sumerian reaction, which took place under the kings of Ur (see below, p. 283 f.).

[45] See below, p. 131, Fig. 46.

[46] See p. 49. In Fig. 14 the hair and beard of the god who leads the worshipper into the presence of the goddess is clearer on the original stone. In Fig. 15 the locks of hair and long beards of the seated gods are more sharply outlined; they form a striking contrast to the figures of Sumerians, who are represented as pouring out libations and bringing offerings to the shrine.

[47] See p. 50, Fig. 16.

[48] Cf. Langdon, "Babyloniaca," II., p. 142; this explanation is preferable to treating the crowns as a feathered form of headdress. The changes in the dress of the Sumerian gods, and in the treatment of their beards, appear to have taken place in the age of the later Semitic kings of Kish and the kings of Akkad, and may well have been due to their influence. The use of sandals was certainly introduced by the Semites of this period.

[49] See Clay, "The Amer. Journ. of Semit. Lang, and Lit.," XXIII., pp. 269 ff. In later periods the name was pronounced as Ellil.

[50] Cf. "Nachträge zur aegyptischen Chronologie," p. 44 f., and "Geschichte des Altertums," Bd. I., Hft. II., p. 407.

[51] See Thureau-Dangin, "Sum. und Akkad. Königsinschriften," p. 38, Col. I., l. 26; the word is dam-kha-ra, which he rightly takes as the equivalent of the Semitic tamkhara, "battle" (cf. also Ungnad, "Orient. Lit.-Zeit.," 1908, col. 63 f.).

[52] In this respect the early Sumerian texts are in striking contrast to those of the later periods; the evidence of strong Semitic influence in the latter formed the main argument on which M. Halévy and his followers relied to disprove the existence of the Sumerians.

[53] See Messerschmidt, "Orient. Lit.-Zeit.," 1905, col. 268 ff.; and cf. King, "Chronicles," I., p. 180, n. 3.

[54] See Ungnad, op. cit., 1908, col. 62 ff.

[55] See below, Chap. VII. f.

[56] See below, p. 141, Fig. 48.

[57] See above, p. 14, n. 1.¨¨

[58] See further, Appendix I.

[59] Cf. Langdon, "Babyloniaca," I., pp. 225 f., 230, 284 ff., II., p. 99 f. The grounds, upon which the suggestion has been put forward, consist of a comparison between the verb "to go" in Sumerian, Greek, and Latin, an apparent resemblance in a few other roots, the existence of compound verbs in Sumerian, and the like; but quite apart from questions of general probability, the "parallelisms" noted are scarcely numerous enough, or sufficiently close, to justify the inference drawn from them.

The greater part of our knowledge of early Sumerian history has been derived from the wonderfully successful series of excavations carried out by the late M. de Sarzec at Tello,[1] between 1877 and 1900, and continued for some months in 1903 by Captain (now Commandant) Gaston Cros. These mounds mark the site of the city of Shirpurla or Lagash, and lie a few miles to the north-east of the modern village of Shatra, to the east of the Shatt el-Hai, and about an hour's ride from the present course of the stream. It is evident, however, that the city was built upon the stream, which at this point may originally have formed a branch of the Euphrates,[2] for there are traces of a dry channel upon its western side.

The greater part of our knowledge of early Sumerian history has been derived from the wonderfully successful series of excavations carried out by the late M. de Sarzec at Tello,[1] between 1877 and 1900, and continued for some months in 1903 by Captain (now Commandant) Gaston Cros. These mounds mark the site of the city of Shirpurla or Lagash, and lie a few miles to the north-east of the modern village of Shatra, to the east of the Shatt el-Hai, and about an hour's ride from the present course of the stream. It is evident, however, that the city was built upon the stream, which at this point may originally have formed a branch of the Euphrates,[2] for there are traces of a dry channel upon its western side.

The name of the city is expressed by the signs shir-pur-la (-ki), which are rendered in a bilingual incantation-text as Lagash.[3] Hitherto it has been generally held that Shirpurla represented the Sumerian name of the city, which was known to the later Semitic inhabitants as Lagash, in much the same way as Akkad was the Semitic name for Agade, though in the latter case the original name was taken over. But the prolonged excavations carried out in the mounds of Tello have failed to bring to light any Babylonian remains later than the period of the kings of Larsa who were contemporaneous with the First Dynasty of Babylon. At that time the city appears to have been destroyed, and to have lain deserted and forgotten until it was once more inhabited in the second century B.C. Thus it is difficult to find a reason for a second name. We may therefore assume that the place was called Lagash by the Sumerians, and that the signs which can be read as Shirpurla represent a traditional ideographic way of writing the name among the Sumerians themselves. There is no difficulty in supposing that the city's name and the way of writing it were preserved in Babylonian literature, although its site had been forgotten.

The group of mounds and hillocks which mark the site of the ancient city and its suburbs form a rough oval, running north and south, and measuring about two and a half miles long and one and a quarter broad. During the early spring the limits of the city are clearly visible, for its ruins stand out as a yellow spot in the midst of the light green vegetation which covers the surrounding plain. The grouping of the principal mounds may be seen in the accompanying plan, in which each contour-line represents an increase of one metre in height above the desert level. The three principal mounds in the centre of the oval, marked on the plan by the letters A, K, and V,[4] are those in which the most important discoveries have been made. The mound A, which rises steeply towards the north-west end of the oval, is known as the Palace Tell, since here was uncovered a great Parthian palace, erected immediately over a building of Gudea, whose bricks were partly reused and partly imitated. In consequence of this it was at first believed to be a palace of Gudea himself, an error that was corrected on the discovery that some of the later bricks bore the name of Hadadnadinakhe in Aramean and Greek characters, proving that the building belonged to the Seleucid era, and was probably not earlier than about 130 B.C. Coins were also found in the palace with Greek inscriptions of kings of the little independent province or kingdom of Kharakene, which was founded about 160 B.C. at the mouth of the Shatt el-'Arab. But worked into the structure of this late palace were the remains of Gudea's building, which formed part of E-ninnû, the temple of the city-god of Lagash. Of Gudea's structure a gateway and part of a tower are the portions that are best preserved,[5] while under the south-east corner of the palace was a wall of the rather earlier ruler Ur-Bau.[6]

The group of mounds and hillocks which mark the site of the ancient city and its suburbs form a rough oval, running north and south, and measuring about two and a half miles long and one and a quarter broad. During the early spring the limits of the city are clearly visible, for its ruins stand out as a yellow spot in the midst of the light green vegetation which covers the surrounding plain. The grouping of the principal mounds may be seen in the accompanying plan, in which each contour-line represents an increase of one metre in height above the desert level. The three principal mounds in the centre of the oval, marked on the plan by the letters A, K, and V,[4] are those in which the most important discoveries have been made. The mound A, which rises steeply towards the north-west end of the oval, is known as the Palace Tell, since here was uncovered a great Parthian palace, erected immediately over a building of Gudea, whose bricks were partly reused and partly imitated. In consequence of this it was at first believed to be a palace of Gudea himself, an error that was corrected on the discovery that some of the later bricks bore the name of Hadadnadinakhe in Aramean and Greek characters, proving that the building belonged to the Seleucid era, and was probably not earlier than about 130 B.C. Coins were also found in the palace with Greek inscriptions of kings of the little independent province or kingdom of Kharakene, which was founded about 160 B.C. at the mouth of the Shatt el-'Arab. But worked into the structure of this late palace were the remains of Gudea's building, which formed part of E-ninnû, the temple of the city-god of Lagash. Of Gudea's structure a gateway and part of a tower are the portions that are best preserved,[5] while under the south-east corner of the palace was a wall of the rather earlier ruler Ur-Bau.[6]

The group of mounds and hillocks which mark the site of the ancient city and its suburbs form a rough oval, running north and south, and measuring about two and a half miles long and one and a quarter broad. During the early spring the limits of the city are clearly visible, for its ruins stand out as a yellow spot in the midst of the light green vegetation which covers the surrounding plain. The grouping of the principal mounds may be seen in the accompanying plan, in which each contour-line represents an increase of one metre in height above the desert level. The three principal mounds in the centre of the oval, marked on the plan by the letters A, K, and V,[4] are those in which the most important discoveries have been made. The mound A, which rises steeply towards the north-west end of the oval, is known as the Palace Tell, since here was uncovered a great Parthian palace, erected immediately over a building of Gudea, whose bricks were partly reused and partly imitated. In consequence of this it was at first believed to be a palace of Gudea himself, an error that was corrected on the discovery that some of the later bricks bore the name of Hadadnadinakhe in Aramean and Greek characters, proving that the building belonged to the Seleucid era, and was probably not earlier than about 130 B.C. Coins were also found in the palace with Greek inscriptions of kings of the little independent province or kingdom of Kharakene, which was founded about 160 B.C. at the mouth of the Shatt el-'Arab. But worked into the structure of this late palace were the remains of Gudea's building, which formed part of E-ninnû, the temple of the city-god of Lagash. Of Gudea's structure a gateway and part of a tower are the portions that are best preserved,[5] while under the south-east corner of the palace was a wall of the rather earlier ruler Ur-Bau.[6]

In the lower strata no other earlier remains were brought to light, and it is possible that the site of the temple was changed or enlarged at this period, and that in earlier times it stood nearer the mound K, where the oldest buildings in Tello have been found. Here was a storehouse of Ur-Ninâ,[7] a very early patesi of the city and the founder of its most powerful dynasty, and in its immediate neighbourhood were recovered the most important monuments and inscriptions of the earlier period. Beneath Ur-Ninâ's storehouse was a still earlier building,[8] and at the same deep level above the virgin soil were found some of the earliest examples of Sumerian sculpture that have yet been recovered. In the mound V, christened the "Tell of the Tablets," were large collections of temple-documents and tablets of accounts, the majority of them dating from the period of the Dynasty of Ur.

In the lower strata no other earlier remains were brought to light, and it is possible that the site of the temple was changed or enlarged at this period, and that in earlier times it stood nearer the mound K, where the oldest buildings in Tello have been found. Here was a storehouse of Ur-Ninâ,[7] a very early patesi of the city and the founder of its most powerful dynasty, and in its immediate neighbourhood were recovered the most important monuments and inscriptions of the earlier period. Beneath Ur-Ninâ's storehouse was a still earlier building,[8] and at the same deep level above the virgin soil were found some of the earliest examples of Sumerian sculpture that have yet been recovered. In the mound V, christened the "Tell of the Tablets," were large collections of temple-documents and tablets of accounts, the majority of them dating from the period of the Dynasty of Ur.

The mounds of Surghul and El-Hibba, lying to the north-east of Tello and about six miles from each other, which were excavated by Dr. Koldewey in 1887, are instances in point. Both mounds, and particularly the former, contain numerous early graves beneath houses of unburnt brick, such as have subsequently been found at Fâra, and both cities were destroyed by fire probably at the time when Lagash was wiped out. From the quantities of ashes, and from the fact that some of the bodies appeared to have been partially burnt, Dr. Koldewey erroneously concluded that the mounds marked the sites of "fire-necropoles," where he imagined the early Babylonians burnt their dead, and the houses he regarded as tombs.[9] But in no period of Sumerian or Babylonian history was this practice in vogue. The dead were always buried, and any appearance of burning must have been produced during the destruction of the cities by fire. At El-Hibba remains were also visible of buildings constructed wholly or in part of kiln-baked bricks, which, coupled with the greater extent of its mounds, suggests that it was a more important Sumerian city than Surghul. This has been confirmed by the greater number of inscriptions which were found upon its site and have recently been published.[10] They include texts of the early patesis of Lagash, Eannatum and Enannatum I, and of the later patesi Gudea. A text of Gudea was also found at Surghul proving that both places were subject to Lagash, in whose territory they were probably always included during the periods of that city's power. That, apart from the graves, few objects of archaeological or artistic interest were recovered, may in part be traced to their proximity to Lagash, which as the seat of government naturally enjoyed an advantage in this respect over neighbouring towns.

The mounds of Surghul and El-Hibba, lying to the north-east of Tello and about six miles from each other, which were excavated by Dr. Koldewey in 1887, are instances in point. Both mounds, and particularly the former, contain numerous early graves beneath houses of unburnt brick, such as have subsequently been found at Fâra, and both cities were destroyed by fire probably at the time when Lagash was wiped out. From the quantities of ashes, and from the fact that some of the bodies appeared to have been partially burnt, Dr. Koldewey erroneously concluded that the mounds marked the sites of "fire-necropoles," where he imagined the early Babylonians burnt their dead, and the houses he regarded as tombs.[9] But in no period of Sumerian or Babylonian history was this practice in vogue. The dead were always buried, and any appearance of burning must have been produced during the destruction of the cities by fire. At El-Hibba remains were also visible of buildings constructed wholly or in part of kiln-baked bricks, which, coupled with the greater extent of its mounds, suggests that it was a more important Sumerian city than Surghul. This has been confirmed by the greater number of inscriptions which were found upon its site and have recently been published.[10] They include texts of the early patesis of Lagash, Eannatum and Enannatum I, and of the later patesi Gudea. A text of Gudea was also found at Surghul proving that both places were subject to Lagash, in whose territory they were probably always included during the periods of that city's power. That, apart from the graves, few objects of archaeological or artistic interest were recovered, may in part be traced to their proximity to Lagash, which as the seat of government naturally enjoyed an advantage in this respect over neighbouring towns.

During the course of her early history the most persistent rival of Lagash was the neighbouring city of Umma,[11] now identified with the mound of Jôkha, lying some distance to the north-west in the region between the Shatt el-Hai and the Shatt el-Kâr. Its neighbourhood and part of the mound itself are covered with sand-dunes, which give the spot a very desolate appearance, but they are of recent formation, since between them can still be seen traces of former cultivation. The principal mound is in the form of a ridge over half a mile long, running W.S.W. to E.N.E. and rising at its highest point about fifteen metres above the plain. Two lower extensions of the principal mound stretch out to the east and south-east.

No excavations have yet been conducted on this site, but it was visited by Dr. Andrae in the winter of 1902-3. He noted traces of a large building on a platform to the north of the principal ridge, marked A on the plan. It appears to have formed a square, its sides measuring seventy metres in length, and a small mound rises in the centre of it. Quantities of square, kiln-burnt bricks are scattered on the mound which covers it, and on the south side traces of a rectangular chamber are visible.[12] Numerous fragments of diorite also suggest the presence of sculptures, and at the south corner of the building, at the spot marked with a cross on the plan, the Germans found a fragment of diorite with part of a carefully chiselled inscription in archaic characters. The occurrence of unglazed potsherds, flint implements, and plano-convex bricks on other parts of the mound are an indication that, like Fâra, the site contains relics of still earlier habitation. Moreover, it is said that for years past Arab diggings have been carried out there, and early tablets and three cones of the patesi Galu-Babbar have reached Europe from this site. In view of the promising traces he noted and of the important part which the city played in early Sumerian history, it is almost to be regretted that Dr. Andrae did not substitute Jôkha for Abû Hatab as a site for his subsequent excavation.

Other mounds in the same neighbourhood also suggest prospects of success for the future excavator. One of these is Hammâm, which lies about seven and a half miles W.S.W. of Jôkha and close to the bed of the Shatt el-Kâr. It consists of a group of separate mounds, on one of which are the remains of a rectangular building resembling a ziggurat or temple-tower. Its side measures thirty metres, and it rises to a height of twelve metres above the surface of the mound, which in turn is three metres above the plain. Clay, in which layers of reeds are embedded, has been spread between the bricks as at Warka. More to the north of it in the same mound are traces of another building, possibly the temple of which it formed a part. To the south of Hammâm, and a little over three miles to the west of the Shatt el-Kâr is Tell 'Îd, another site which might repay excavation. It consists of a well-defined mound, about thirty metres high at the summit, and is visible from a considerable distance. Unlike Hammâm and Jôkha, however, it shows no trace upon its surface of any building, and there are no potsherds, bricks, or other objects scattered on the mound to afford an indication of its date. Both Tell 'Îd and Hammâm stand on a slightly elevated tract of desert soil, some ten miles broad, which raises them above the marshes caused by the inundations of the Euphrates. On the same tract farther to the south are Senkera and Warka, which were examined by Loftus in the early fifties.[13]

Of the early sites in the region of the Shatt el-Kâr the mounds at Fâra have been the most productive of remains dating from the prehistoric period of Sumerian culture. Systematic excavations were begun here by Dr. Koldewey in 1902,[14] and were continued in the following year by Drs. Andrae and Noeldeke.[15] The accompanying plan will give some idea of the extensive area occupied by the mounds, and of the method adopted for ascertaining their contents without too great an expenditure of time. The Arabic numerals against the contour lines indicate their height in metres above the level of the plain. Roman figures are set at each end of the trenches in the order in which they were cut. Thus the first two trenches (I. and II.), running from north to south and from east to west respectively, were cut across the mounds by Dr. Koldewey to gain some idea of their general character. The subsequent trenches were all cut parallel to the second through the higher portions of the site, a few of them being extended so as to cover the lower detached mounds to the east. In the plan the trenches are marked as continuous, but actually each consists of a series of short sections, divided by bands of soil left uncut. These hold up the sides of the trench and leave passages for crossing from one side to the other.[16] Whenever a trench discloses the remains of a building it can be completely uncovered and the trench afterwards continued until another building is disclosed. In the plan the principal cleared areas are outlined, and the position of walls which were uncovered within them is indicated by fine lines.

Of the early sites in the region of the Shatt el-Kâr the mounds at Fâra have been the most productive of remains dating from the prehistoric period of Sumerian culture. Systematic excavations were begun here by Dr. Koldewey in 1902,[14] and were continued in the following year by Drs. Andrae and Noeldeke.[15] The accompanying plan will give some idea of the extensive area occupied by the mounds, and of the method adopted for ascertaining their contents without too great an expenditure of time. The Arabic numerals against the contour lines indicate their height in metres above the level of the plain. Roman figures are set at each end of the trenches in the order in which they were cut. Thus the first two trenches (I. and II.), running from north to south and from east to west respectively, were cut across the mounds by Dr. Koldewey to gain some idea of their general character. The subsequent trenches were all cut parallel to the second through the higher portions of the site, a few of them being extended so as to cover the lower detached mounds to the east. In the plan the trenches are marked as continuous, but actually each consists of a series of short sections, divided by bands of soil left uncut. These hold up the sides of the trench and leave passages for crossing from one side to the other.[16] Whenever a trench discloses the remains of a building it can be completely uncovered and the trench afterwards continued until another building is disclosed. In the plan the principal cleared areas are outlined, and the position of walls which were uncovered within them is indicated by fine lines.

Of the early sites in the region of the Shatt el-Kâr the mounds at Fâra have been the most productive of remains dating from the prehistoric period of Sumerian culture. Systematic excavations were begun here by Dr. Koldewey in 1902,[14] and were continued in the following year by Drs. Andrae and Noeldeke.[15] The accompanying plan will give some idea of the extensive area occupied by the mounds, and of the method adopted for ascertaining their contents without too great an expenditure of time. The Arabic numerals against the contour lines indicate their height in metres above the level of the plain. Roman figures are set at each end of the trenches in the order in which they were cut. Thus the first two trenches (I. and II.), running from north to south and from east to west respectively, were cut across the mounds by Dr. Koldewey to gain some idea of their general character. The subsequent trenches were all cut parallel to the second through the higher portions of the site, a few of them being extended so as to cover the lower detached mounds to the east. In the plan the trenches are marked as continuous, but actually each consists of a series of short sections, divided by bands of soil left uncut. These hold up the sides of the trench and leave passages for crossing from one side to the other.[16] Whenever a trench discloses the remains of a building it can be completely uncovered and the trench afterwards continued until another building is disclosed. In the plan the principal cleared areas are outlined, and the position of walls which were uncovered within them is indicated by fine lines.

In the course of the systematic excavation of the site, it was clearly established that all the mounds at Fâra belong to a very early period. In many places the trenches cut through thick strata of ashes and charred remains, and it was seen that the whole settlement had been destroyed by fire, and that the greater part of it had never been reoccupied. All trace of buildings practically ceased at a depth of more than two metres beneath the present surface, and those that were excavated appear to belong to a single epoch. Their early period is attested by the fact that they are all built of plano-convex bricks,[17] both baked and unbaked, with thumb-marks or lines impressed by the finger on their upper surface. Many of them were clearly dwelling-houses, consisting of chambers grouped around a rectangular court; others are of circular form, measuring from two to five metres across, and their use has not been determined.[18] It has been suggested that the latter may have served as wells, and it is true that they generally descend to a depth of about four metres below the level of the plain. But they are scattered so thickly in the mound that this explanation of their use is scarcely adequate; moreover each was roofed in with an arch of overlapping bricks laid horizontally. They may have been cisterns, or designed for receiving refuse-water from the houses, but against this view is to be set the fact that they are not connected in any way with the numerous brick channels and clay drains that were discovered. Similar constructions were found at Surghul, and nothing in the débris which filled them, either there or at Fâra, has thrown light upon the purpose which they served.

In the course of the systematic excavation of the site, it was clearly established that all the mounds at Fâra belong to a very early period. In many places the trenches cut through thick strata of ashes and charred remains, and it was seen that the whole settlement had been destroyed by fire, and that the greater part of it had never been reoccupied. All trace of buildings practically ceased at a depth of more than two metres beneath the present surface, and those that were excavated appear to belong to a single epoch. Their early period is attested by the fact that they are all built of plano-convex bricks,[17] both baked and unbaked, with thumb-marks or lines impressed by the finger on their upper surface. Many of them were clearly dwelling-houses, consisting of chambers grouped around a rectangular court; others are of circular form, measuring from two to five metres across, and their use has not been determined.[18] It has been suggested that the latter may have served as wells, and it is true that they generally descend to a depth of about four metres below the level of the plain. But they are scattered so thickly in the mound that this explanation of their use is scarcely adequate; moreover each was roofed in with an arch of overlapping bricks laid horizontally. They may have been cisterns, or designed for receiving refuse-water from the houses, but against this view is to be set the fact that they are not connected in any way with the numerous brick channels and clay drains that were discovered. Similar constructions were found at Surghul, and nothing in the débris which filled them, either there or at Fâra, has thrown light upon the purpose which they served.

No difference in age appears to have separated the two classes of burial, for the offerings are alike in each, and the arrangement of the bodies is the same. Why there should have been a difference in custom it is difficult to say. It might be inferred that the sarcophagus was a mark of wealth, were it not that the offerings they contain are generally more scanty than in the mat-burials. Whatever may be the explanation there is little doubt that they belong to the same race and period. Moreover, we may definitely connect the graves with the buildings under which they are found, for in some of them were seal-cylinders precisely similar to others found in the débris covering the houses, and the designs upon them resemble those on sealings from the strata of ashes in the upper surface of the mounds. The seals are generally of shell or limestone, rarely of harder stone, and the designs represent heroes and mythological beings in conflict with animals. The presence of the sealings and seal-cylinders, resembling in form and design those of the early period at Tello, in itself suggests that Fâra marks the site of an early Sumerian town. This was put beyond a doubt by the discovery of clay tablets in six of the houses,[19] where they lay on the clay floor beneath masses of charred débris which had fallen from the roof; beside them were objects of household use, and in one room the remains of a charred reed-mat were under them. The tablets were of unbaked clay, similar in shape to early contracts from Tello, and the texts upon them, written in extremely archaic characters, referred to deeds of sale.

A less exhaustive examination of the neighbouring mounds of Abû Hatab was also undertaken by Drs. Andrae and Noeldeke. This site lies to the north of Fâra, and, like it, is close to the Shatt el-Kâr.[20] The southern part of the tell could not be examined because of the modern Arab graves which here lie thick around the tomb of the Imâm Sa'îd Muhammad. But the trenches cut in the higher parts of the mound, to the north and along its eastern edge, sufficed to indicate its general character.[21] Earlier remains, such as were found at Fâra, are here completely wanting, and it would appear to be not earlier than the period of the kings of Sumer and Akkad. This is indicated by bricks of Bûr-Sin I., King of Ur, which were discovered scattered in débris in the north-west part of the mound, and by the finding of case-tablets in the houses belonging to the period of the dynasties of Ur and Isin.[22] The graves also differed from those at Fâra, generally consisting of pot-burials. Here, in place of a shallow trough with a lid, the sarcophagus was formed of two great pots, deeply ribbed on the outside; these were set, one over the other, with their edges meeting, and after burial they were fixed together by means of pitch or bitumen. The skeleton is usually found within lying on its back or side in a crouching position with bent legs. The general arrangement of drinking-cups, offerings, and ornaments resembles that in the Fâra burials, so that the difference in the form of the sarcophagus is merely due to a later custom and not to any racial change. Very similar burials were found by Taylor at Mukayyar, and others have also been unearthed in the earlier strata of the mounds at Babylon.

A less exhaustive examination of the neighbouring mounds of Abû Hatab was also undertaken by Drs. Andrae and Noeldeke. This site lies to the north of Fâra, and, like it, is close to the Shatt el-Kâr.[20] The southern part of the tell could not be examined because of the modern Arab graves which here lie thick around the tomb of the Imâm Sa'îd Muhammad. But the trenches cut in the higher parts of the mound, to the north and along its eastern edge, sufficed to indicate its general character.[21] Earlier remains, such as were found at Fâra, are here completely wanting, and it would appear to be not earlier than the period of the kings of Sumer and Akkad. This is indicated by bricks of Bûr-Sin I., King of Ur, which were discovered scattered in débris in the north-west part of the mound, and by the finding of case-tablets in the houses belonging to the period of the dynasties of Ur and Isin.[22] The graves also differed from those at Fâra, generally consisting of pot-burials. Here, in place of a shallow trough with a lid, the sarcophagus was formed of two great pots, deeply ribbed on the outside; these were set, one over the other, with their edges meeting, and after burial they were fixed together by means of pitch or bitumen. The skeleton is usually found within lying on its back or side in a crouching position with bent legs. The general arrangement of drinking-cups, offerings, and ornaments resembles that in the Fâra burials, so that the difference in the form of the sarcophagus is merely due to a later custom and not to any racial change. Very similar burials were found by Taylor at Mukayyar, and others have also been unearthed in the earlier strata of the mounds at Babylon.

A less exhaustive examination of the neighbouring mounds of Abû Hatab was also undertaken by Drs. Andrae and Noeldeke. This site lies to the north of Fâra, and, like it, is close to the Shatt el-Kâr.[20] The southern part of the tell could not be examined because of the modern Arab graves which here lie thick around the tomb of the Imâm Sa'îd Muhammad. But the trenches cut in the higher parts of the mound, to the north and along its eastern edge, sufficed to indicate its general character.[21] Earlier remains, such as were found at Fâra, are here completely wanting, and it would appear to be not earlier than the period of the kings of Sumer and Akkad. This is indicated by bricks of Bûr-Sin I., King of Ur, which were discovered scattered in débris in the north-west part of the mound, and by the finding of case-tablets in the houses belonging to the period of the dynasties of Ur and Isin.[22] The graves also differed from those at Fâra, generally consisting of pot-burials. Here, in place of a shallow trough with a lid, the sarcophagus was formed of two great pots, deeply ribbed on the outside; these were set, one over the other, with their edges meeting, and after burial they were fixed together by means of pitch or bitumen. The skeleton is usually found within lying on its back or side in a crouching position with bent legs. The general arrangement of drinking-cups, offerings, and ornaments resembles that in the Fâra burials, so that the difference in the form of the sarcophagus is merely due to a later custom and not to any racial change. Very similar burials were found by Taylor at Mukayyar, and others have also been unearthed in the earlier strata of the mounds at Babylon.

The majority of the houses at Abû Hatab appear to have been destroyed by fire, and, in view of the complete absence of later remains, the tablets scattered on their floors indicate the period of its latest settlement. It thus represents a well-defined epoch, later than that of the mounds at Fâra, and most valuable for comparison with them. At neither Fâra nor Abû Hatab were the remains of any important building or temple disclosed, but the graves and houses of the common people have furnished information of even greater value for the archaeologist and historian. Another mound which should provide further material for the study of this earliest period is Bismâya, the site of the city at Adab, at which excavations were begun on December 25, 1903 by the University of Chicago and continued during the following year.[23] The mound of Hêtime to the west of Fâra, may, to judge from the square bricks and fragments of pot-burials that are found there, date from about the same period as Abû Hatab. But it is of small extent and height, the greater part being merely six or seven feet above the plain, while its two central mounds rise to a height of less than fourteen feet.

Another class of Sumerian cities consists of those which were not finally destroyed by the Western Semites, but continued to be important centres of political and social life during the later periods of Babylonian history. Niffer, Warka, Senkera, Mukayyar, and Abû Shahrain all doubtless contain in their lower strata remains of the early Sumerian cities which stood upon their sites; but the greater part of the mounds are made up of ruins dating from a period not earlier than that of the great builders of the Dynasty of Ur. In Nippur, during the American excavations on this site, the history of Ekur, the temple of the god Enlil, was traced back to the period of Shar-Gani-Sharri and Narâm-Sin;[24] and fragments of early vases found scattered in the débris beneath the chambers on the south-east side of the Ziggurat, have thrown valuable light upon an early period of Sumerian history. But the excavation of the pre-Sargonic strata, so far as it has yet been carried, has given negative rather than positive results. The excavations carried out on the other sites referred to were of a purely tentative character, and, although they were made in the early fifties of last century, they still remain the principal source of our knowledge concerning them.

Some idea of the extent of the mounds of Warka may be gathered from Loftus's plan. The irregular circle of the mounds, marking the later walls of the city, covers an area nearly six miles in circumference, and in view of this fact and of the short time and limited means at his disposal, it is surprising that he should have achieved such good results. His work at Buwârîya, the principal mound of the group (marked A on the plan), resulted in its identification with E-anna, the great temple of the goddess Ninni, or Ishtar, which was enormously added to in the reign of Ur-Engur. Loftus's careful notes and drawings of the facade of another important building, covered by the mound known as Wuswas (B), have been of great value from the architectural point of view, while no less interesting is his description of the "Cone Wall" (at E on the plan), consisting in great part of terra-cotta cones, dipped in red or black colour, and arranged to form various patterns on the surface of a wall composed of mud and chopped straw.[25] But the date of both these constructions is uncertain. The sarcophagus-graves and pot-burials which he came across when cutting his tunnels and trenches are clearly contemporaneous with those at Abû Hatab, and the mound may well contain still earlier remains. The finds made in the neighbouring mounds of Senkera (Larsa), and Tell Sifr, were also promising,[26] and, in spite of his want of success at Tell Medîna, it is possible that a longer examination would have yielded better results.

Some idea of the extent of the mounds of Warka may be gathered from Loftus's plan. The irregular circle of the mounds, marking the later walls of the city, covers an area nearly six miles in circumference, and in view of this fact and of the short time and limited means at his disposal, it is surprising that he should have achieved such good results. His work at Buwârîya, the principal mound of the group (marked A on the plan), resulted in its identification with E-anna, the great temple of the goddess Ninni, or Ishtar, which was enormously added to in the reign of Ur-Engur. Loftus's careful notes and drawings of the facade of another important building, covered by the mound known as Wuswas (B), have been of great value from the architectural point of view, while no less interesting is his description of the "Cone Wall" (at E on the plan), consisting in great part of terra-cotta cones, dipped in red or black colour, and arranged to form various patterns on the surface of a wall composed of mud and chopped straw.[25] But the date of both these constructions is uncertain. The sarcophagus-graves and pot-burials which he came across when cutting his tunnels and trenches are clearly contemporaneous with those at Abû Hatab, and the mound may well contain still earlier remains. The finds made in the neighbouring mounds of Senkera (Larsa), and Tell Sifr, were also promising,[26] and, in spite of his want of success at Tell Medîna, it is possible that a longer examination would have yielded better results.

The mounds of Mukayyar, which mark the site of Ur, the centre of the Moon-god's cult in Sumer, were partly excavated by Taylor in 1854 and 1855.[27] In the northern portion of the group he examined the great temple of the Moon-god (marked A on the plan), the earliest portions of its structure which he came across dating from the reigns of Dungi and Ur-Engur. Beneath a building in the neighbourhood of the temple (at B on the plan) he found a pavement consisting of plano-convex bricks, a sure indication that at this point, at least, were buildings of the earliest Sumerian period, while the sarcophagus-burials in other parts of the mound were of the early type. Taylor came across similar evidence of early building at Abû Shahrain,[28] the comparatively small mound which marks the site of the sacred city of Eridu, for at a point in the south-east side of the group he uncovered a building constructed of bricks of the same early character.

The mounds of Mukayyar, which mark the site of Ur, the centre of the Moon-god's cult in Sumer, were partly excavated by Taylor in 1854 and 1855.[27] In the northern portion of the group he examined the great temple of the Moon-god (marked A on the plan), the earliest portions of its structure which he came across dating from the reigns of Dungi and Ur-Engur. Beneath a building in the neighbourhood of the temple (at B on the plan) he found a pavement consisting of plano-convex bricks, a sure indication that at this point, at least, were buildings of the earliest Sumerian period, while the sarcophagus-burials in other parts of the mound were of the early type. Taylor came across similar evidence of early building at Abû Shahrain,[28] the comparatively small mound which marks the site of the sacred city of Eridu, for at a point in the south-east side of the group he uncovered a building constructed of bricks of the same early character.

Concerning the sites of other cities in Northern Babylonia, considerable uncertainty still exists. The extensive mounds of Tell Ibrâhîm, situated about four hours to the north-east of Hilla, are probably to be identified with Cutha, the centre of the cult of Nergal, but the mound of 'Akarkûf, which may be seen from so great a distance on the road between Baghdad and Falûja, probably covers a temple and city of the Kassite period. Both the cities of Kish and Opis, which figure so prominently in the early history of the relations between Sumer and Akkad, were, until quite recently, thought to be situated close to one another on the Tigris. That Opis lay on that river and not on the Euphrates is clear from the account which Nebuchadnezzar II. has left us of his famous fortifications of Babylon,[29] which are referred to by Greek writers as "the Median Wall" and "the Fortification of Semiramis."

The outermost ring of Nebuchadnezzar's triple line of defence consisted of an earthen rampart and a ditch, which he tells us extended from the bank of the Tigris above Opis to a point on the Euphrates within the city of Sippar, proving that Opis is to be sought upon the former river. His second line of defence was a similar ditch and rampart which stretched from the causeway on the bank of the Euphrates up to the city of Kish. It was assumed that this rampart also extended to the Tigris, although this is not stated in the text, and, since the ideogram for Opis is once rendered as Kesh in a bilingual incantation,[30] it seemed probable that Kish and Opis were twin cities, both situated on the Tigris at no great distance from each other. This view appeared to find corroboration in the close association of the two places during the wars of Eannatum, and in the fact that at the time of Enbi-Ishtar they seem to have formed a single state. But it has recently been shown that Kish lay upon the Euphrates,[31] and we may thus accept its former identification with the mound of El-Ohêmir where bricks were found by Ker Porter recording the building of E-meteursagga, the temple of Zamama, the patron deity of Kish.[32] Whether Opis is to be identified with the extensive mounds of Tell Manjûr, situated on the right bank of the Tigris in the great bend made by the river between Samarra and Baghdad, or whether, as appears more probable, it is to be sought further down stream in the neighbourhood of Seleucia, are questions which future excavation may decide.[33]

The outermost ring of Nebuchadnezzar's triple line of defence consisted of an earthen rampart and a ditch, which he tells us extended from the bank of the Tigris above Opis to a point on the Euphrates within the city of Sippar, proving that Opis is to be sought upon the former river. His second line of defence was a similar ditch and rampart which stretched from the causeway on the bank of the Euphrates up to the city of Kish. It was assumed that this rampart also extended to the Tigris, although this is not stated in the text, and, since the ideogram for Opis is once rendered as Kesh in a bilingual incantation,[30] it seemed probable that Kish and Opis were twin cities, both situated on the Tigris at no great distance from each other. This view appeared to find corroboration in the close association of the two places during the wars of Eannatum, and in the fact that at the time of Enbi-Ishtar they seem to have formed a single state. But it has recently been shown that Kish lay upon the Euphrates,[31] and we may thus accept its former identification with the mound of El-Ohêmir where bricks were found by Ker Porter recording the building of E-meteursagga, the temple of Zamama, the patron deity of Kish.[32] Whether Opis is to be identified with the extensive mounds of Tell Manjûr, situated on the right bank of the Tigris in the great bend made by the river between Samarra and Baghdad, or whether, as appears more probable, it is to be sought further down stream in the neighbourhood of Seleucia, are questions which future excavation may decide.[33]

The outermost ring of Nebuchadnezzar's triple line of defence consisted of an earthen rampart and a ditch, which he tells us extended from the bank of the Tigris above Opis to a point on the Euphrates within the city of Sippar, proving that Opis is to be sought upon the former river. His second line of defence was a similar ditch and rampart which stretched from the causeway on the bank of the Euphrates up to the city of Kish. It was assumed that this rampart also extended to the Tigris, although this is not stated in the text, and, since the ideogram for Opis is once rendered as Kesh in a bilingual incantation,[30] it seemed probable that Kish and Opis were twin cities, both situated on the Tigris at no great distance from each other. This view appeared to find corroboration in the close association of the two places during the wars of Eannatum, and in the fact that at the time of Enbi-Ishtar they seem to have formed a single state. But it has recently been shown that Kish lay upon the Euphrates,[31] and we may thus accept its former identification with the mound of El-Ohêmir where bricks were found by Ker Porter recording the building of E-meteursagga, the temple of Zamama, the patron deity of Kish.[32] Whether Opis is to be identified with the extensive mounds of Tell Manjûr, situated on the right bank of the Tigris in the great bend made by the river between Samarra and Baghdad, or whether, as appears more probable, it is to be sought further down stream in the neighbourhood of Seleucia, are questions which future excavation may decide.[33]

The outermost ring of Nebuchadnezzar's triple line of defence consisted of an earthen rampart and a ditch, which he tells us extended from the bank of the Tigris above Opis to a point on the Euphrates within the city of Sippar, proving that Opis is to be sought upon the former river. His second line of defence was a similar ditch and rampart which stretched from the causeway on the bank of the Euphrates up to the city of Kish. It was assumed that this rampart also extended to the Tigris, although this is not stated in the text, and, since the ideogram for Opis is once rendered as Kesh in a bilingual incantation,[30] it seemed probable that Kish and Opis were twin cities, both situated on the Tigris at no great distance from each other. This view appeared to find corroboration in the close association of the two places during the wars of Eannatum, and in the fact that at the time of Enbi-Ishtar they seem to have formed a single state. But it has recently been shown that Kish lay upon the Euphrates,[31] and we may thus accept its former identification with the mound of El-Ohêmir where bricks were found by Ker Porter recording the building of E-meteursagga, the temple of Zamama, the patron deity of Kish.[32] Whether Opis is to be identified with the extensive mounds of Tell Manjûr, situated on the right bank of the Tigris in the great bend made by the river between Samarra and Baghdad, or whether, as appears more probable, it is to be sought further down stream in the neighbourhood of Seleucia, are questions which future excavation may decide.[33]

It is now generally recognized that the two races which inhabited Sumer and Akkad during the early historical periods were sharply divided from one another not only by their speech but also in their physical characteristics.[34] One of the principal traits by which they may be distinguished consists in the treatment of the hair. While the Sumerians invariably shaved the head and face, the Semites retained the hair of the head and wore long beards. A slight modification in the dressing of the hair was introduced by the Western Semites of the First Babylonian Dynasty, who brought with them from Syria the Canaanite Bedouin custom of shaving the lips and allowing the beard to fall only from the chin; while they also appear to have cut the hair short in the manner of the Arabs or Nabateans of the Sinai peninsula.[35] The Semites who were settled in Babylonia during the earlier period, retained the moustache as well as the beard, and wore their hair long. While recognizing the slight change of custom, introduced for a time during the West Semitic domination, the practice of wearing hair and beard was a Semitic characteristic during all periods of history. The phrase "the black-headed ones," which is of frequent occurrence in the later texts, clearly originated as a description of the Semites, in contradistinction to the Sumerians with their shaven heads.

It is now generally recognized that the two races which inhabited Sumer and Akkad during the early historical periods were sharply divided from one another not only by their speech but also in their physical characteristics.[34] One of the principal traits by which they may be distinguished consists in the treatment of the hair. While the Sumerians invariably shaved the head and face, the Semites retained the hair of the head and wore long beards. A slight modification in the dressing of the hair was introduced by the Western Semites of the First Babylonian Dynasty, who brought with them from Syria the Canaanite Bedouin custom of shaving the lips and allowing the beard to fall only from the chin; while they also appear to have cut the hair short in the manner of the Arabs or Nabateans of the Sinai peninsula.[35] The Semites who were settled in Babylonia during the earlier period, retained the moustache as well as the beard, and wore their hair long. While recognizing the slight change of custom, introduced for a time during the West Semitic domination, the practice of wearing hair and beard was a Semitic characteristic during all periods of history. The phrase "the black-headed ones," which is of frequent occurrence in the later texts, clearly originated as a description of the Semites, in contradistinction to the Sumerians with their shaven heads.

A third characteristic consists of the different forms of dress worn by Sumerians and Semites, as represented on the monuments. The earliest Sumerians wore only a thick woollen garment, in the form of a petticoat, fastened round the waist by a band or girdle. The garment is sometimes represented as quite plain, in other cases it has a scolloped fringe or border, while in its most elaborate form it consists of three, four, or five horizontal flounces, each lined vertically and scolloped at the edge to represent thick locks of wool.[36] With the later Sumerian patesis this rough garment has been given up in favour of a great shawl or mantle, decorated with a border, which was worn over the left shoulder, and, falling in straight folds, draped the body with its opening in front.[37] Both these Sumerian forms of garment are of quite different types from the Semitic loin-cloth worn by Narâm-Sin on his stele of victory, and the Semitic plaid in which he is represented on his stele from Pir Hussein.[38] The latter garment is a long, narrow plaid which is wrapped round the body in parallel bands, with the end thrown over the left shoulder. It has no slit, or opening, in front like the later Sumerian mantle, and, on the other hand, was not a shaped garment like the earlier Sumerian flounced petticoat, though both were doubtless made of wool and were probably dyed in bright colours.

A third characteristic consists of the different forms of dress worn by Sumerians and Semites, as represented on the monuments. The earliest Sumerians wore only a thick woollen garment, in the form of a petticoat, fastened round the waist by a band or girdle. The garment is sometimes represented as quite plain, in other cases it has a scolloped fringe or border, while in its most elaborate form it consists of three, four, or five horizontal flounces, each lined vertically and scolloped at the edge to represent thick locks of wool.[36] With the later Sumerian patesis this rough garment has been given up in favour of a great shawl or mantle, decorated with a border, which was worn over the left shoulder, and, falling in straight folds, draped the body with its opening in front.[37] Both these Sumerian forms of garment are of quite different types from the Semitic loin-cloth worn by Narâm-Sin on his stele of victory, and the Semitic plaid in which he is represented on his stele from Pir Hussein.[38] The latter garment is a long, narrow plaid which is wrapped round the body in parallel bands, with the end thrown over the left shoulder. It has no slit, or opening, in front like the later Sumerian mantle, and, on the other hand, was not a shaped garment like the earlier Sumerian flounced petticoat, though both were doubtless made of wool and were probably dyed in bright colours.

A third characteristic consists of the different forms of dress worn by Sumerians and Semites, as represented on the monuments. The earliest Sumerians wore only a thick woollen garment, in the form of a petticoat, fastened round the waist by a band or girdle. The garment is sometimes represented as quite plain, in other cases it has a scolloped fringe or border, while in its most elaborate form it consists of three, four, or five horizontal flounces, each lined vertically and scolloped at the edge to represent thick locks of wool.[36] With the later Sumerian patesis this rough garment has been given up in favour of a great shawl or mantle, decorated with a border, which was worn over the left shoulder, and, falling in straight folds, draped the body with its opening in front.[37] Both these Sumerian forms of garment are of quite different types from the Semitic loin-cloth worn by Narâm-Sin on his stele of victory, and the Semitic plaid in which he is represented on his stele from Pir Hussein.[38] The latter garment is a long, narrow plaid which is wrapped round the body in parallel bands, with the end thrown over the left shoulder. It has no slit, or opening, in front like the later Sumerian mantle, and, on the other hand, was not a shaped garment like the earlier Sumerian flounced petticoat, though both were doubtless made of wool and were probably dyed in bright colours.

It is natural that upon monuments of the later period from Tello both racial types should be represented. The fragments of sculpture illustrated in Figs. 6 and 7 may possibly belong to the same monument, and, if so, we must assign it to a Semitic king.[39] That on the left represents a file of nude captives with shaven heads and faces, bound neck to neck with the same cord, and their arms tied behind them. On the other fragment both captive and conqueror are bearded. The latter's nose is anything but Semitic, though in figures of such small proportions carved in relief it would perhaps be rash to regard its shape as significant. The treatment of the hair, however, in itself constitutes a sufficiently marked difference in racial custom. Fig. 8 represents a circular support of steatite, around which are seated seven little figures holding tablets on their knees; it is here reproduced on a far smaller scale than the other fragments. The little figure that is best preserved is of unmistakably Semitic type, and wears a curled beard trimmed to a point, and hair that falls on the shoulders in two great twisted tresses; the face of the figure on his left is broken, but the head is clearly shaved. A similar mixture of types upon a single monument occurs on a large fragment of sculpture representing scenes of worship,[40] and also on Sharru-Gi's monument which has been found at Susa.[41]

It is natural that upon monuments of the later period from Tello both racial types should be represented. The fragments of sculpture illustrated in Figs. 6 and 7 may possibly belong to the same monument, and, if so, we must assign it to a Semitic king.[39] That on the left represents a file of nude captives with shaven heads and faces, bound neck to neck with the same cord, and their arms tied behind them. On the other fragment both captive and conqueror are bearded. The latter's nose is anything but Semitic, though in figures of such small proportions carved in relief it would perhaps be rash to regard its shape as significant. The treatment of the hair, however, in itself constitutes a sufficiently marked difference in racial custom. Fig. 8 represents a circular support of steatite, around which are seated seven little figures holding tablets on their knees; it is here reproduced on a far smaller scale than the other fragments. The little figure that is best preserved is of unmistakably Semitic type, and wears a curled beard trimmed to a point, and hair that falls on the shoulders in two great twisted tresses; the face of the figure on his left is broken, but the head is clearly shaved. A similar mixture of types upon a single monument occurs on a large fragment of sculpture representing scenes of worship,[40] and also on Sharru-Gi's monument which has been found at Susa.[41]

It is natural that upon monuments of the later period from Tello both racial types should be represented. The fragments of sculpture illustrated in Figs. 6 and 7 may possibly belong to the same monument, and, if so, we must assign it to a Semitic king.[39] That on the left represents a file of nude captives with shaven heads and faces, bound neck to neck with the same cord, and their arms tied behind them. On the other fragment both captive and conqueror are bearded. The latter's nose is anything but Semitic, though in figures of such small proportions carved in relief it would perhaps be rash to regard its shape as significant. The treatment of the hair, however, in itself constitutes a sufficiently marked difference in racial custom. Fig. 8 represents a circular support of steatite, around which are seated seven little figures holding tablets on their knees; it is here reproduced on a far smaller scale than the other fragments. The little figure that is best preserved is of unmistakably Semitic type, and wears a curled beard trimmed to a point, and hair that falls on the shoulders in two great twisted tresses; the face of the figure on his left is broken, but the head is clearly shaved. A similar mixture of types upon a single monument occurs on a large fragment of sculpture representing scenes of worship,[40] and also on Sharru-Gi's monument which has been found at Susa.[41]

The object is unfortunately broken into fragments, but enough of them have been recovered to indicate its character. Originally, it consisted of two circular blocks, placed one upon the other and sculptured on their outer edge with reliefs. They were perforated vertically with two holes which were intended to support maces, or other votive objects, in an upright position. The figures in the relief form two separate rows which advance towards one another, and at their head are two chiefs, who are represented meeting face to face (Fig. 9). It will be noticed that the chief on the left, who carries a bent club, has long hair falling on the shoulders and is bearded. Four of his followers on another fragment (Fig. 10) also have long hair and beards. The other chief, on the contrary, wears no hair on his face, only on his head, and, since his followers have shaven heads and faces,[42] we may conjecture that, like Eannatum on the Stele of the Vultures, he wears a wig. All the figures are nude to the waist, and the followers clasp their hands in token of subordination to their chiefs.

The extremely rude character of the sculpture is a sufficient indication of its early date, apart from the fact that the fragments were found scattered in the lowest strata at Tello. The fashion of indicating the hair is very archaic, and is also met with in a class of copper foundation-figures of extremely early date.[43] The monument belongs to a period when writing was already employed, for there are slight traces of an inscription on its upper surface, which probably recorded the occasion of the meeting of the chiefs. Moreover, from a fifth fragment that has been discovered it is seen that the names and titles of the various personages were engraved upon their garments. The monument thus belongs to the earliest Sumerian period, and, if we may apply the rule as to the treatment of the hair which we have seen holds good for the later periods, it would follow that at this time the Semite was already in the land. The scene, in fact, would represent the meeting of two early chieftains of the Sumerians and Semites, sculptured to commemorate an agreement or treaty which they had drawn up.

By a similar examination of the gods of the Sumerians, as they are represented on the monuments, Professor Meyer has sought to show that the Semites were not only in Babylonia at the date of the earliest Sumerian sculptures that have been recovered, but also that they were in occupation of the country before the Sumerians. The type of the Sumerian gods at the later period is well illustrated by a limestone panel of Gudea, which is preserved in the Berlin Museum. The sculptured scene is one that is often met with on cylinder-seals of the period, representing a suppliant being led by lesser deities into the presence of a greater god. In this instance Gudea is being led by his patron deity Ningishzida and another god into the presence of a deity who was seated on a throne and held a vase from which two streams of water flow. The right half of the panel is broken, but the figure of the seated god may be in part restored from the similar scene upon Gudea's cylinder-seal. There, however, the symbol of the spouting vase is multiplied, for not only does the god hold one in each hand, but three others are below his feet, and into them the water falls and spouts again. Professor Meyer would identify the god of the waters with Anu, though there is more to be said for M. Heuzey's view that he is Enki, the god of the deep. We are not here concerned, however, with the identity of the deities, but with the racial type they represent. It will be seen that they all have hair and beards and wear the Semitic plaid, and form a striking contrast to Gudea with his shaven head and face, and his fringed Sumerian mantle.[44]

A very similar contrast is represented by the Sumerian and his gods in the earlier historical periods. Upon the Stele of the Vultures, for instance, the god Ningirsu is represented with abundant hair, and although his lips and cheeks are shaved a long beard falls from below his chin.[45] He is girt around the waist with a plain garment, which is not of the later Semitic type, but the treatment of the hair and beard is obviously not Sumerian. The same bearded type of god is found upon early votive tablets from Nippur,[46] and also on a fragment of an archaic Sumerian relief from Tello, which, from the rudimentary character of the work and the style of the composition, has been regarded as the most ancient example of Sumerian sculpture known. The contours of the figures are vaguely indicated in low relief upon a flat plaque, and the interior details are indicated only by the point. The scene is evidently of a mythological character, for the seated figure may be recognized as a goddess by the horned crown she wears. Beside her stands a god who turns to smite a bound captive with a heavy club or mace. While the captive has the shaven head and face of a Sumerian, the god has abundant hair and a long beard.[47]

A very similar contrast is represented by the Sumerian and his gods in the earlier historical periods. Upon the Stele of the Vultures, for instance, the god Ningirsu is represented with abundant hair, and although his lips and cheeks are shaved a long beard falls from below his chin.[45] He is girt around the waist with a plain garment, which is not of the later Semitic type, but the treatment of the hair and beard is obviously not Sumerian. The same bearded type of god is found upon early votive tablets from Nippur,[46] and also on a fragment of an archaic Sumerian relief from Tello, which, from the rudimentary character of the work and the style of the composition, has been regarded as the most ancient example of Sumerian sculpture known. The contours of the figures are vaguely indicated in low relief upon a flat plaque, and the interior details are indicated only by the point. The scene is evidently of a mythological character, for the seated figure may be recognized as a goddess by the horned crown she wears. Beside her stands a god who turns to smite a bound captive with a heavy club or mace. While the captive has the shaven head and face of a Sumerian, the god has abundant hair and a long beard.[47]

A very similar contrast is represented by the Sumerian and his gods in the earlier historical periods. Upon the Stele of the Vultures, for instance, the god Ningirsu is represented with abundant hair, and although his lips and cheeks are shaved a long beard falls from below his chin.[45] He is girt around the waist with a plain garment, which is not of the later Semitic type, but the treatment of the hair and beard is obviously not Sumerian. The same bearded type of god is found upon early votive tablets from Nippur,[46] and also on a fragment of an archaic Sumerian relief from Tello, which, from the rudimentary character of the work and the style of the composition, has been regarded as the most ancient example of Sumerian sculpture known. The contours of the figures are vaguely indicated in low relief upon a flat plaque, and the interior details are indicated only by the point. The scene is evidently of a mythological character, for the seated figure may be recognized as a goddess by the horned crown she wears. Beside her stands a god who turns to smite a bound captive with a heavy club or mace. While the captive has the shaven head and face of a Sumerian, the god has abundant hair and a long beard.[47]

It may be admitted that the theory is attractive, and it certainly furnishes an explanation of the apparently foreign character of the Sumerian gods. But even from the archaeological side it is not so complete nor so convincing as at first sight it would appear. Since the later Sumerian gods were represented with full moustache and beard, like the earliest figures of Semitic kings which we possess, it would naturally be supposed that they would have this form in the still earlier periods of Sumerian history. But, as we have seen, their lips and cheeks are shaved. Are we then to postulate a still earlier Semitic settlement, of a rather different racial type to that which founded the kingdom of Kish and the empire of Akkad? Again, the garments of the gods in the earliest period have little in common with the Semitic plaid, and are nearer akin to the plainer form of garment worn by contemporary Sumerians. The divine headdress, too, is different to the later form, the single horns which encircle what may be a symbol of the date-palm,[48] giving place to a plain conical headdress decorated with several pairs of horns.

Thus, important differences are observable in the form of the earlier Sumerian gods and their dress and insignia, which it is difficult to reconcile with Professor Meyer's theory of their origin. Moreover, the principal example which he selected to illustrate his thesis, the god of the central shrine of Nippur, has since been proved never to have borne the Semitic name of Bêl, but to have been known under his Sumerian title of Enlil from the beginning.[49] It is true that Professor Meyer claims that this point does not affect his main argument;[50] but at least it proves that Nippur was always a Sumerian religious centre, and its recognition as the central and most important shrine in the country by Semites and Sumerians alike, tells against any theory requiring a comparatively late date for its foundation.

Thus, important differences are observable in the form of the earlier Sumerian gods and their dress and insignia, which it is difficult to reconcile with Professor Meyer's theory of their origin. Moreover, the principal example which he selected to illustrate his thesis, the god of the central shrine of Nippur, has since been proved never to have borne the Semitic name of Bêl, but to have been known under his Sumerian title of Enlil from the beginning.[49] It is true that Professor Meyer claims that this point does not affect his main argument;[50] but at least it proves that Nippur was always a Sumerian religious centre, and its recognition as the central and most important shrine in the country by Semites and Sumerians alike, tells against any theory requiring a comparatively late date for its foundation.

Such evidence as we possess from the linguistic side is also not in favour of the view which would regard the Semites as in occupation of the whole of Babylonia before the Sumerian immigration. If that had been the case we should naturally expect to find abundant traces of Semitic influence in the earliest Sumerian texts that have been recovered. But, as a matter of fact, no Semitism occurs in any text from Ur-Ninâ's period to that of Lugal-zaggisi with the single exception of a Semitic loan-word on the Cone of Entemena.[51] In spite of the scanty nature of our material, this fact distinctly militates against the assumption that Semites and Sumerians were living side by side in Sumer at the time.[52] But the occurrence of the Semitic word in Entemena's inscription proves that external contact with some Semitic people had already taken place. Moreover, it is possible to press the argument from the purely linguistic side too far. A date-formula of Samsu-iluna's reign has proved that the Semitic speech of Babylonia was known as "Akkadian,"[53] and it has therefore been argued that the first appearance of Semitic speech in the country must date from the establishment of Shar-Gani-sharri's empire with its capital at Akkad.[54] But there is little doubt that the Semitic kingdom of Kish, represented by the reigns of Sharru-Gi, Manishtusu and Urumush, was anterior to Sargon's empire,[55] and, long before the rise of Kish, the town of Akkad may well have been the first important centre of Semitic settlement in the north.

Such evidence as we possess from the linguistic side is also not in favour of the view which would regard the Semites as in occupation of the whole of Babylonia before the Sumerian immigration. If that had been the case we should naturally expect to find abundant traces of Semitic influence in the earliest Sumerian texts that have been recovered. But, as a matter of fact, no Semitism occurs in any text from Ur-Ninâ's period to that of Lugal-zaggisi with the single exception of a Semitic loan-word on the Cone of Entemena.[51] In spite of the scanty nature of our material, this fact distinctly militates against the assumption that Semites and Sumerians were living side by side in Sumer at the time.[52] But the occurrence of the Semitic word in Entemena's inscription proves that external contact with some Semitic people had already taken place. Moreover, it is possible to press the argument from the purely linguistic side too far. A date-formula of Samsu-iluna's reign has proved that the Semitic speech of Babylonia was known as "Akkadian,"[53] and it has therefore been argued that the first appearance of Semitic speech in the country must date from the establishment of Shar-Gani-sharri's empire with its capital at Akkad.[54] But there is little doubt that the Semitic kingdom of Kish, represented by the reigns of Sharru-Gi, Manishtusu and Urumush, was anterior to Sargon's empire,[55] and, long before the rise of Kish, the town of Akkad may well have been the first important centre of Semitic settlement in the north.

Such evidence as we possess from the linguistic side is also not in favour of the view which would regard the Semites as in occupation of the whole of Babylonia before the Sumerian immigration. If that had been the case we should naturally expect to find abundant traces of Semitic influence in the earliest Sumerian texts that have been recovered. But, as a matter of fact, no Semitism occurs in any text from Ur-Ninâ's period to that of Lugal-zaggisi with the single exception of a Semitic loan-word on the Cone of Entemena.[51] In spite of the scanty nature of our material, this fact distinctly militates against the assumption that Semites and Sumerians were living side by side in Sumer at the time.[52] But the occurrence of the Semitic word in Entemena's inscription proves that external contact with some Semitic people had already taken place. Moreover, it is possible to press the argument from the purely linguistic side too far. A date-formula of Samsu-iluna's reign has proved that the Semitic speech of Babylonia was known as "Akkadian,"[53] and it has therefore been argued that the first appearance of Semitic speech in the country must date from the establishment of Shar-Gani-sharri's empire with its capital at Akkad.[54] But there is little doubt that the Semitic kingdom of Kish, represented by the reigns of Sharru-Gi, Manishtusu and Urumush, was anterior to Sargon's empire,[55] and, long before the rise of Kish, the town of Akkad may well have been the first important centre of Semitic settlement in the north.

Such evidence as we possess from the linguistic side is also not in favour of the view which would regard the Semites as in occupation of the whole of Babylonia before the Sumerian immigration. If that had been the case we should naturally expect to find abundant traces of Semitic influence in the earliest Sumerian texts that have been recovered. But, as a matter of fact, no Semitism occurs in any text from Ur-Ninâ's period to that of Lugal-zaggisi with the single exception of a Semitic loan-word on the Cone of Entemena.[51] In spite of the scanty nature of our material, this fact distinctly militates against the assumption that Semites and Sumerians were living side by side in Sumer at the time.[52] But the occurrence of the Semitic word in Entemena's inscription proves that external contact with some Semitic people had already taken place. Moreover, it is possible to press the argument from the purely linguistic side too far. A date-formula of Samsu-iluna's reign has proved that the Semitic speech of Babylonia was known as "Akkadian,"[53] and it has therefore been argued that the first appearance of Semitic speech in the country must date from the establishment of Shar-Gani-sharri's empire with its capital at Akkad.[54] But there is little doubt that the Semitic kingdom of Kish, represented by the reigns of Sharru-Gi, Manishtusu and Urumush, was anterior to Sargon's empire,[55] and, long before the rise of Kish, the town of Akkad may well have been the first important centre of Semitic settlement in the north.

Such evidence as we possess from the linguistic side is also not in favour of the view which would regard the Semites as in occupation of the whole of Babylonia before the Sumerian immigration. If that had been the case we should naturally expect to find abundant traces of Semitic influence in the earliest Sumerian texts that have been recovered. But, as a matter of fact, no Semitism occurs in any text from Ur-Ninâ's period to that of Lugal-zaggisi with the single exception of a Semitic loan-word on the Cone of Entemena.[51] In spite of the scanty nature of our material, this fact distinctly militates against the assumption that Semites and Sumerians were living side by side in Sumer at the time.[52] But the occurrence of the Semitic word in Entemena's inscription proves that external contact with some Semitic people had already taken place. Moreover, it is possible to press the argument from the purely linguistic side too far. A date-formula of Samsu-iluna's reign has proved that the Semitic speech of Babylonia was known as "Akkadian,"[53] and it has therefore been argued that the first appearance of Semitic speech in the country must date from the establishment of Shar-Gani-sharri's empire with its capital at Akkad.[54] But there is little doubt that the Semitic kingdom of Kish, represented by the reigns of Sharru-Gi, Manishtusu and Urumush, was anterior to Sargon's empire,[55] and, long before the rise of Kish, the town of Akkad may well have been the first important centre of Semitic settlement in the north.

It would thus appear that at the earliest period of which remains or records have been recovered, Semites and Sumerians were both settled in Babylonia, the one race in the north, the other southwards nearer the Persian Gulf. Living at first in comparative isolation, trade and war would gradually bring them into closer contact. Whether we may regard the earliest rulers of Kish as Semites like their later successors, is still in doubt. The character of Enbi-Ishtar's name points to his being a Semite; but the still earlier king of Kish, who is referred to on the Stele of the Vultures, is represented on that monument as a Sumerian with shaven head and face.[56] But this may have been due to a convention in the sculpture of the time, and it is quite possible that Mesilim and his successors were Semites, and that their relations with the contemporary rulers of Lagash represent the earlier stages in a racial conflict which dominates the history of the later periods.

Of the original home of the Sumerians, from which they came to the fertile plains of Southern Babylonia, it is impossible to speak with confidence. The fact that they settled at the mouths of the great rivers has led to the suggestion that they arrived by sea, and this has been connected with the story in Berossus of Oannes and the other fish-men, who came up from the Erythraean Sea and brought religion and culture with them. But the legend need not bear this interpretation; it merely points to the Sea-country on the shores of the Gulf as the earliest centre of Sumerian culture in the land. Others have argued that they came from a mountain-home, and have cited in support of their view the institution of the ziggurat or temple-tower, built "like a mountain," and the employment of the same ideogram for "mountain" and for "land." But the massive temple-tower appears to date from the period of Gudea and the earlier kings of Ur, and, with the single exception of Nippur, was probably not a characteristic feature of the earlier temples; and it is now known that the ideogram for "land" and "mountain" was employed in the earlier periods for foreign lands, in contradistinction to that of the Sumerians themselves.[57] But, in spite of the unsoundness of these arguments, it is most probable that the Sumerians did descend on Babylonia from the mountains on the east. Their entrance into the country would thus have been the first of several immigrations from that quarter, due to climatic and physical changes in Central Asia.[58]

Of the original home of the Sumerians, from which they came to the fertile plains of Southern Babylonia, it is impossible to speak with confidence. The fact that they settled at the mouths of the great rivers has led to the suggestion that they arrived by sea, and this has been connected with the story in Berossus of Oannes and the other fish-men, who came up from the Erythraean Sea and brought religion and culture with them. But the legend need not bear this interpretation; it merely points to the Sea-country on the shores of the Gulf as the earliest centre of Sumerian culture in the land. Others have argued that they came from a mountain-home, and have cited in support of their view the institution of the ziggurat or temple-tower, built "like a mountain," and the employment of the same ideogram for "mountain" and for "land." But the massive temple-tower appears to date from the period of Gudea and the earlier kings of Ur, and, with the single exception of Nippur, was probably not a characteristic feature of the earlier temples; and it is now known that the ideogram for "land" and "mountain" was employed in the earlier periods for foreign lands, in contradistinction to that of the Sumerians themselves.[57] But, in spite of the unsoundness of these arguments, it is most probable that the Sumerians did descend on Babylonia from the mountains on the east. Their entrance into the country would thus have been the first of several immigrations from that quarter, due to climatic and physical changes in Central Asia.[58]

Still more obscure is the problem of their racial affinity. The obliquely set eyes of the figures in the earlier reliefs, due mainly to an ignorance of perspective characteristic of all primitive art, first suggested the theory that the Sumerians were of Mongol type; and the further developments of this view, according to which a Chinese origin is to be sought both for Sumerian roots and for the cuneiform character, are too improbable to need detailed refutation. A more recent suggestion, that their language is of Indo-European origin and structure,[59] is scarcely less improbable, while resemblances which have been pointed out between isolated words in Sumerian and in Armenian, Turkish, and other languages of Western Asia, may well be fortuitous. With the Elamites upon their eastern border the Sumerians had close relations from the first, but the two races do not appear to be related either in language or by physical characteristics. The scientific study of the Sumerian tongue, inaugurated by Professors Zimmern and Jensen, and more especially by the work of M. Thureau-Dangin on the early texts, will doubtless lead in time to more accurate knowledge on this subject; but, until the phonetic elements of the language are firmly established, all theories based upon linguistic comparisons are necessarily insecure.

[1] These have been collected and translated by Thureau-Dangin in "Les Inscriptions de Sumer et d'Akkad," the German edition of which, published under the title "Die sumerischen und akkadischen Königsinschriften" in the Vorderasiatische Bibliothek, includes the author's corrections and an introduction; a glossary to subjects of a religious character, compiled by Langdon, is added to the German edition of the work.

[2] Cf. Thureau-Dangin, "Königsinschriften," pp. 228 ff., where the lists are restored from dates on early tablets; for the earlier date-formulæ from tablets, see pp. 224 ff.

[3] See Hilprecht, "Mathematical, Metrological, and Chronological Tablets," p. 46 f., pl. 30, No. 47.

[4] Cf. "Cun. Inscr. West. Asia," V., pl. 64, Col. II., ll. 54-65.

[5] Hilprecht formerly placed the founding of Enlil's temple and the first settlement at Nippur "somewhere between 6000 and 7000 B.C., possibly even earlier" (cf. "Old Babylonian Inscriptions chiefly from Nippur," Pt. II., p. 24.)

[6] See Lehmann-Haupt, "Zwei Hauptprobleme," pp. 172 ff., and Winckler, "Forschungen," I., p. 549; "Die Keilinschriften und das Alte Testament" (3rd ed.), I., p. 17 f., and "Mitteil. der Vorderas. Gesellschaft," 1906, I., p. 12, n. 1; cf. also Thureau-Dangin, "Rev. d'Assyr.," IV., p. 72, and "Rec. de tabl.," p. ix.

[7] Cf. Radau, "Early Babylonian History," pp. 30 ff., 215 ff.

[8] Cf. King, "Chronicles," I., p. 16. This explanation is preferable to Lehmann-Haupfs emendation of the figures, by which he suggests that a thousand years were added to it by a scribal error. The principle of emending the figures in these later chronological references is totally unscientific. For the emenders, while postulating mechanical errors in the writing of the figures, still regard the calculations of the native scribes as above reproach; whereas many of their figures, which are incapable of emendation, are inconsistent with each other.

[9] For references, see King, "Chronicles," I., p. 77. n. 1.

[10] Op. cit., pp. 93 ff.

[11] Op. cit., Chap. IV. f. Meyer also adopts this view ("Geschichte des Altertums," Bd. I., Hft. II., p. 340 f.).

[12] Cf. "Chronicles," I., pp. 90 ff.

[13] The purely arbitrary character of the assumption is well illustrated by the different results obtained by those who make it. By clinging to Berossus's date of 2232 B.C., Thureau-Dangin assigns to the second dynasty of the Kings' List a period of 168 years of independent rule in Babylon (cf. "Zeits. für Assyr.," XXI., pp. 176 ff., and "Journal des savants," 1908, pp. 190 ff.), and Ungnad 177 years ("Orient. Lit.-Zeit.," 1907, col. 638, 1908, col. 63 ff.). Lehmann-Haupt, in his suggested reconciliation of the new data with his former emendation of the Bavian date, makes the period 80 years ("Klio," 1908, pp. 227 E). Poebel, ignoring Berossus and attempting to reconcile the native chronological notices to early kings, makes it 160 years (cf. "Zeits. für Assyr.," XXI., pp. 162 ff.). The latest combination is that proposed by Schnabel, who accepts the date of 2232 B.C. for both the system of Berossus and that represented by the Kings' List, but places the historical beginning of the First Dynasty in 2172 B.C.; this necessitates a gap of 120 years between Dynasties I. and III. ("Mitteil. der Vorderas. Gesellschaft," 1908, pp. 241 ff.). But all these systems are mainly based on a manipulation of the figures, and completely ignore the archaeological evidence.

[14] See below, Chap. XI., pp. 313 ff.

[15] Cf. Hilprecht, "Math., Met., and Chron. Tabl.," p. 55, n. 1.

[16] Thureau-Dangin would assign only one hundred years to this period (cf. "Journal des savants," 1908, p. 201).

[17] The period may well have been longer, especially if Manishtusu should prove to have been the contemporary of Urukagina.

[18] See below, pp. 176, n. 2, 209 f.

[19] For a list of the kings and rulers of Sumer and Akkad with their approximate dates, see the List of Rulers at the end of the volume.

[20] See the plate opposite p. 62. The objects have been previously published by Hayes Ward in "Proc. Amer. Orient. Soc.," Oct., 1885, and "Amer. Journ. Arch.," vol. iv. (1888), pp. 39 ff. They subsequently found their way into a London sale-room, where they were bought as forgeries and presented as such to the British Museum.

[21] Our knowledge of Sumerian art is mainly derived from the finds at Tello, since the objects from other early sites are not yet published. For its best and fullest discussion, see Heuzey's descriptions in "Découvertes en Chaldée," his "Catalogue des antiquités chaldéennes," "Une Villa royale chaldéenne," and the "Revue d'Assyriologie"; cf. also Perrot and Chipiez, "Histoire de l'art," vol. ii. The finest examples of Semitic art have been found at Susa (see De Morgan, "Mémoires de la Délégation en Perse," passim). A scientific treatment of the subject is adopted by Meyer in "Sumerier und Semiten," but he is inclined to assign too much credit to the Semite, and to overestimate his share in the artistic development of the two races.

[22] See below, p. 267, Fig. 66.

[23] See the photographic reproduction in "Déc. en Chaldée," pl. 22, Fig. 5.

[24] For the use of these perforated sculptures, see below, p. 110 f.

[25] The rite is represented upon other Sumerian monuments such as the Stele of the Vultures (see below, p. 140). Heuzey suggests that the liturgy may have forbidden the loss of the libation-water, the rite symbolizing its use for the profit of vegetation; cf. "Catalogue des antiquités chaldéennes," p. 118.

[26] See the plate opposite p. 52.

[27] Cf. Heuzey, "Déc. en Chaldée," p. 218; "Catalogue," p. 149.

[28] See "Déc. en Chaldée," pl. 24, Fig. 4, pp. 216 ff.

[29] See the plate opposite p. 268.

[30] For the seated statue of Gudea as the architect of Gatumdug's temple, see the plate opposite p. 66; and for descriptions of the statues, see Chap. IX., p. 269 f.

[31] See the very beautiful drawing in outline which Heuzey prints on the title-page of his Catalogue.

[32] Cf. Heuzey, "Déc. en Chaldée," p. 158.

[33] It should be noted that of the seven objects from Nippur and other south-Babylonian sites which were submitted to analysis by Herr Otto Helm in Danzig, only two contained a percentage of tin (cf. "Zeitschrift für Ethnologie," 1901, pp. 157 ff.). Of these a nail (op. cit., p. 161) is from a stratum in Nippur, dated by Prof. Hilprecht himself after 300 A.D. The "stilusartige Instrument," which, like the nail, contained over five per cent, of tin, was not found at Nippur, but is said to have come from a mound about thirty miles to the south of it. Nothing is therefore known with accuracy as to its date. The percentage of antimony in the other objects is comparatively small, and the dates assigned to them are not clearly substantiated. These facts do not justify Hilprecht's confident statement in "Explorations," p. 252. Meyer also credits the earliest Sumerians with using bronze beside copper, and he describes the axe-heads and arm-rings found in the early graves as of bronze (cf. "Geschichte des Altertums," Bd. I., Hft. II., p. 416 f.); but he also describes the little foundation-figures from the oldest stratum at Tello as of bronze, whereas analysis has proved them to be copper.

[34] This point is made by Sayce (cf. "The Archaeology of the Cuneiform Inscriptions," p. 59 f.), who, however, holds the definite opinion that nothing of bronze has been discovered on the earlier sites (op. cit., p. 55 f.).

[35] Cf. Berthelot, "La chimie au moyen âge," tome I., Appendix IX., p. 391 f.; "Introduction à l'étude de la chimie," p. 227 f., and Heuzey in "Déc. en Chaldée," p. 238; antimony is said to have been known and used by itself, though not as an alloy (Berthelot, "Introd.," p. 223), but there is no proof of the date of the fragment from Tello, which was analysed. It may be added that the votive figures of Gudea's reign, which are preserved in the British Museum and are usually regarded as of bronze (cf. the plate opposite p. 272), should, since they came from Tello, be more accurately described as of copper.

[36] See Loftus, "Chaldaea and Susiana," p. 268 f., who describes all the objects as of copper. One of the knives excavated by Loftus was subsequently analysed and found to be copper (see "Report of the British Assoc.," Nottingham, 1893, p. 715); this analysis was confirmed by that of Dr. J. H. Gladstone (published in the "Proc. Soc. Bibl. Arch.," vol. xvi., p. 98 f.). A careful analysis of the metal objects found by members of the Deutsche Orient-Gesellschaft at Fâra in 1902 and 1903, and styled by them as bronze (see "Mitteilungen," No. 17, p. 6), would probably result in proving the absence of any alloy.

[37] See the blocks on p. 256.

[38] See the plate opposite p. 272.

[39] See "Déc. en Chaldée," pl. 45, Fig. 1.

[40] See Fig. 27, and cf. Hilprecht, "Explorations," p. 539 f.

[41] Like the brick-stamps, they may sometimes have been made of clay burnt to an extreme hardness.

[42] See the stamped figure published on the plate opposite p. 72 from a terra-cotta in the British Museum.

[43] The ringed staff occurs as a sacred emblem upon cylinder-seals, and is sometimes carried by heroes (cf. p. 82, Fig. 34). A colossal example of one, made of wood and sheathed in copper, was found at Tello by De Sarzec (see Heuzey, "Rev. d'Assyr.," IV., p. 112, and "Déc. en Chaldée," pl. 57, Fig. 1), but the precise use and significance of the object has not been determined.

[44] See the plate opposite p. 76, and see below, p. 174 f.

[45] It should be noted that a few of the early cylinder-seals found at Fâra Andrae considers to have been engraved with the help of the wheel (see "Mitteil. der Deutsch. Orient-Gesellschaft," No. 17, p. 5). The suggestion has also been made that, on the introduction of harder stones, the cutting tool may have been tipped with a flake of corundum; cf. Hayes Ward, "Cylinders and other Oriental Seals," p. 13.

[46] For early examples, see above, p. 49.

[47] See further, Chap. XII.

[48] See below, p. 175.

[49] See the plate opposite p. 124.

[50] See Heuzey, "Catalogue," p. 387.

[51] See above, p. 79, Fig. 30.

[52] See above, p. 78, and below, p. 167 f.

In attempting to set limits to the earlier periods of Sumerian history, it is still impossible to do more than form a rough and approximate estimate of their duration. For in dealing with the chronology of the remoter ages, we are, to a great extent, groping in the dark. The material that has been employed for settling the order of the early kings, and for determining their periods, falls naturally into three main classes. The most important of our sources of information consists of the contemporary inscriptions of the early kings themselves, which have been recovered upon the sites of the ancient cities in Babylonia.[1] The inscriptions frequently give genealogies of the rulers whose achievements they record, and they thus enable us to ascertain the sequence of the kings and the relative dates at which they reigned. This class of evidence also makes it possible to fix certain points of contact between the separate lines of rulers who maintained an independent authority within the borders of their city-states.

But the disadvantages of the system are obvious, for an event might appear of great importance in one city and might be of no interest to another situated at some distance from it. Thus it happened that the same event was not employed throughout the whole country for designating a particular year, and we have evidence that different systems of dating were employed in different cities. Moreover, it would have required an unusually good memory to fix the exact period of a document by a single reference to an event which took place in the year when it was drawn up, more especially after the system had been in use for a considerable time. Thus, in order to fix the relative dates of documents without delay, the scribes compiled lists of the titles of the years, arranged in order under the reigns of the successive kings, and these were doubtless stored in some archive-chamber, where they were easily accessible in the case of any dispute arising with regard to the date of a particular year. It is fortunate that some of these early Sumerian date-lists have been recovered, and we are furnished by them with an outline of Sumerian history, which has the value of a contemporary record.[2] They have thrown light upon a period of which at one time we knew little, and they have served to remove more than one erroneous supposition. Thus the so-called Second Dynasty of Ur was proved by them to have been non-existent, and the consequent reduplication of kings bearing the names of Ur-Engur and Dungi was shown to have had no foundation in fact.

From the compilation of lists of the separate years it was but a step to the classification of the reigns of the kings themselves and their arrangement in the form of dynasties. Among the mass of tablets recovered from Niffer has been found a fragment of one of these early dynastic tablets,[3] which supplements the date-lists and is of the greatest value for settling the chronology of the later period. The reverse of the tablet gives complete lists of the names of the kings who formed the Dynasties of Ur and Isin, together with notes as to the length of their respective reigns, and it further states that the Dynasty of Isin directly succeeded that of Ur. This document fixes once for all the length of the period to which it refers, and it is much to be regretted that so little of the text has been recovered. Our information is at present confined to what is legible on part of one column of the tablet. But the text in its complete form must have contained no less than six columns of writing, and it probably gave a list of various dynasties which ruled in Babylonia from the very earliest times down to the date of its compilation, though many of the dynasties enumerated were doubtless contemporaneous. It was on the base of such documents as this dynastic list that the famous dynastic tablet was compiled for the library of Ashurbani-pal at Nineveh, and the existence of such lengthy dynastic records must have contributed to the exaggerated estimate for the beginnings of Babylonian history which have come down to us from the work of Berossus.

The three classes of evidence that have been referred to in the preceding paragraphs enable us to settle the relative order of many of the early rulers of Babylonia, but they do not supply us with any definite date by means of which the chronology of these earlier ages may be brought into relation with that of the later periods of Babylonian history. In order to secure such a point of connection, reliance has in the past been placed upon a notice of one of the early rulers of Babylonia, which occurs in an inscription of the last king of the Neo-Babylonian empire. On a clay cylinder of Nabonidus, which is preserved in the British Museum, it is stated that 3200 years elapsed between the burial of Narâm-Sin's foundation-memorial in the temple of the Sun-god at Sippar, and the finding of the memorial by Nabonidus himself when digging in the temple's foundations.[4] Now Narâm-Sin was an early king of Akkad, and, according to later tradition, was the son of the still more famous Sargon I. On the strength of the figure given by Nabonidus, the approximate date of 3750 B.C. has been assigned to Narâm-Sin, and that of 3800 B.C. to his father Sargon; and mainly on the basis of these early dates the beginning of Sumerian history has been set back as far as 5000 and even 6000 B.C.[5]

The three classes of evidence that have been referred to in the preceding paragraphs enable us to settle the relative order of many of the early rulers of Babylonia, but they do not supply us with any definite date by means of which the chronology of these earlier ages may be brought into relation with that of the later periods of Babylonian history. In order to secure such a point of connection, reliance has in the past been placed upon a notice of one of the early rulers of Babylonia, which occurs in an inscription of the last king of the Neo-Babylonian empire. On a clay cylinder of Nabonidus, which is preserved in the British Museum, it is stated that 3200 years elapsed between the burial of Narâm-Sin's foundation-memorial in the temple of the Sun-god at Sippar, and the finding of the memorial by Nabonidus himself when digging in the temple's foundations.[4] Now Narâm-Sin was an early king of Akkad, and, according to later tradition, was the son of the still more famous Sargon I. On the strength of the figure given by Nabonidus, the approximate date of 3750 B.C. has been assigned to Narâm-Sin, and that of 3800 B.C. to his father Sargon; and mainly on the basis of these early dates the beginning of Sumerian history has been set back as far as 5000 and even 6000 B.C.[5]

The improbably high estimate of Nabonidus for the date of Narâm-Sin has long been the subject of criticism.[6] It is an entirely isolated statement, unsupported by any other reference in early or late texts; and the scribes who were responsible for it were clearly not anxious to diminish the antiquity of the foundation-record, which had been found at such a depth below the later temple's foundations, and after so prolonged a search. To accept it as accurate entailed the leaving of enormous gaps in the chronological schemes, even when postulating the highest possible dates for the dynasties of Ur and Babylon. An alternative device of partially filling the gaps by the invention of kings and even dynasties[7] was not a success, as their existence has since been definitely disproved. Moreover, the recent reduction in the date of the First Dynasty of Babylon, necessitated by the proof that the first three dynasties of the Kings' List were partly contemporaneous, made its discrepancy with Nabonidus's figures still more glaring, while at the same time it furnished a possible explanation of so high a figure resulting from his calculations. For his scribes in all good faith may have reckoned as consecutive a number of early dynasties which had been contemporaneous.[8] The final disproof of the figure is furnished by evidence of an archaeological and epigraphic character. No such long interval as twelve or thirteen hundred years can have separated the art of Gudea's period from that of Narâm-Sin; and the clay tablets of the two epochs differ so little in shape, and in the forms of the characters with which they are inscribed, that we must regard the two ages as immediately following one another without any considerable break.

The improbably high estimate of Nabonidus for the date of Narâm-Sin has long been the subject of criticism.[6] It is an entirely isolated statement, unsupported by any other reference in early or late texts; and the scribes who were responsible for it were clearly not anxious to diminish the antiquity of the foundation-record, which had been found at such a depth below the later temple's foundations, and after so prolonged a search. To accept it as accurate entailed the leaving of enormous gaps in the chronological schemes, even when postulating the highest possible dates for the dynasties of Ur and Babylon. An alternative device of partially filling the gaps by the invention of kings and even dynasties[7] was not a success, as their existence has since been definitely disproved. Moreover, the recent reduction in the date of the First Dynasty of Babylon, necessitated by the proof that the first three dynasties of the Kings' List were partly contemporaneous, made its discrepancy with Nabonidus's figures still more glaring, while at the same time it furnished a possible explanation of so high a figure resulting from his calculations. For his scribes in all good faith may have reckoned as consecutive a number of early dynasties which had been contemporaneous.[8] The final disproof of the figure is furnished by evidence of an archaeological and epigraphic character. No such long interval as twelve or thirteen hundred years can have separated the art of Gudea's period from that of Narâm-Sin; and the clay tablets of the two epochs differ so little in shape, and in the forms of the characters with which they are inscribed, that we must regard the two ages as immediately following one another without any considerable break.

The improbably high estimate of Nabonidus for the date of Narâm-Sin has long been the subject of criticism.[6] It is an entirely isolated statement, unsupported by any other reference in early or late texts; and the scribes who were responsible for it were clearly not anxious to diminish the antiquity of the foundation-record, which had been found at such a depth below the later temple's foundations, and after so prolonged a search. To accept it as accurate entailed the leaving of enormous gaps in the chronological schemes, even when postulating the highest possible dates for the dynasties of Ur and Babylon. An alternative device of partially filling the gaps by the invention of kings and even dynasties[7] was not a success, as their existence has since been definitely disproved. Moreover, the recent reduction in the date of the First Dynasty of Babylon, necessitated by the proof that the first three dynasties of the Kings' List were partly contemporaneous, made its discrepancy with Nabonidus's figures still more glaring, while at the same time it furnished a possible explanation of so high a figure resulting from his calculations. For his scribes in all good faith may have reckoned as consecutive a number of early dynasties which had been contemporaneous.[8] The final disproof of the figure is furnished by evidence of an archaeological and epigraphic character. No such long interval as twelve or thirteen hundred years can have separated the art of Gudea's period from that of Narâm-Sin; and the clay tablets of the two epochs differ so little in shape, and in the forms of the characters with which they are inscribed, that we must regard the two ages as immediately following one another without any considerable break.

By rejecting the figures of Nabonidus we cut away our only external connection with the chronology of the later periods, and, in order to evolve a scheme for earlier times we have to fall back on a process of reckoning from below. Without discussing in detail the later chronology, it will be well to indicate briefly the foundations on which we can begin to build. By the aid of the Ptolemaic Canon, whose accuracy is confirmed by the larger List of Kings and the principal Babylonian Chronicle, the later chronology of Babylon is definitely fixed back to the year 747 B.C.; by means of the eponym lists that for Assyria is fixed back to the year 911 B.C. Each scheme controls and confirms the other, and the solar eclipse of June 15th, 763 B.C., which is recorded in the eponymy of Pûr-Sagale, places the dead reckoning for these later periods upon an absolutely certain basis. For the earlier periods of Babylonian history, as far back as the foundation of the Babylonian monarchy, a chronological framework has been supplied by the principal List of Kings.[9] In spite of gaps in the text which render the lengths of Dynasties IV. and VIII. uncertain, it is possible, mainly by the help of synchronisms between Assyrian and Babylonian kings, to fix approximately the date of Dynasty III. Some difference of opinion exists with regard to this date, but the beginning of the dynasty may be placed at about the middle of the eighteenth century B.C.

With regard to Dynasty II. of the King's List it is now known that it ruled in the Sea-country in the region of the Persian Gulf, its earlier kings being contemporary with the close of Dynasty I. and its later ones with the early part of Dynasty III.[10] Here we come to the first of two points on which there is a considerable difference of opinion. The available evidence suggests that the kings of the Sea-country never ruled in Babylon, and that the Third, or Kassite, Dynasty followed the First Dynasty of Babylon without any considerable break.[11] But the date 2232 B.C., which probably represents the beginning of the non-mythical dynasties of Berossus,[12] has hitherto played a considerable part in modern schemes of chronology, and, in spite of the fact that no amount of ingenuity can reconcile his dynasties with those of history, there is still a strong temptation to retain the date for the beginning of Dynasty I. of the Kings' List as affording a fixed and certain point from which to start calculations. But this can only be done by assuming that some of the kings of the Sea-country ruled over the whole of Babylonia, an assumption that is negatived by such historical and archaeological evidence as we possess.[13] It is safer to treat the date 2232 B.C. as without significance, and to follow the evidence in confining the kings of the Sea-country to their own land. If we do this we obtain a date for the foundation of the Babylonian monarchy about the middle of the twenty-first century B.C.

With regard to Dynasty II. of the King's List it is now known that it ruled in the Sea-country in the region of the Persian Gulf, its earlier kings being contemporary with the close of Dynasty I. and its later ones with the early part of Dynasty III.[10] Here we come to the first of two points on which there is a considerable difference of opinion. The available evidence suggests that the kings of the Sea-country never ruled in Babylon, and that the Third, or Kassite, Dynasty followed the First Dynasty of Babylon without any considerable break.[11] But the date 2232 B.C., which probably represents the beginning of the non-mythical dynasties of Berossus,[12] has hitherto played a considerable part in modern schemes of chronology, and, in spite of the fact that no amount of ingenuity can reconcile his dynasties with those of history, there is still a strong temptation to retain the date for the beginning of Dynasty I. of the Kings' List as affording a fixed and certain point from which to start calculations. But this can only be done by assuming that some of the kings of the Sea-country ruled over the whole of Babylonia, an assumption that is negatived by such historical and archaeological evidence as we possess.[13] It is safer to treat the date 2232 B.C. as without significance, and to follow the evidence in confining the kings of the Sea-country to their own land. If we do this we obtain a date for the foundation of the Babylonian monarchy about the middle of the twenty-first century B.C.

With regard to Dynasty II. of the King's List it is now known that it ruled in the Sea-country in the region of the Persian Gulf, its earlier kings being contemporary with the close of Dynasty I. and its later ones with the early part of Dynasty III.[10] Here we come to the first of two points on which there is a considerable difference of opinion. The available evidence suggests that the kings of the Sea-country never ruled in Babylon, and that the Third, or Kassite, Dynasty followed the First Dynasty of Babylon without any considerable break.[11] But the date 2232 B.C., which probably represents the beginning of the non-mythical dynasties of Berossus,[12] has hitherto played a considerable part in modern schemes of chronology, and, in spite of the fact that no amount of ingenuity can reconcile his dynasties with those of history, there is still a strong temptation to retain the date for the beginning of Dynasty I. of the Kings' List as affording a fixed and certain point from which to start calculations. But this can only be done by assuming that some of the kings of the Sea-country ruled over the whole of Babylonia, an assumption that is negatived by such historical and archaeological evidence as we possess.[13] It is safer to treat the date 2232 B.C. as without significance, and to follow the evidence in confining the kings of the Sea-country to their own land. If we do this we obtain a date for the foundation of the Babylonian monarchy about the middle of the twenty-first century B.C.

With regard to Dynasty II. of the King's List it is now known that it ruled in the Sea-country in the region of the Persian Gulf, its earlier kings being contemporary with the close of Dynasty I. and its later ones with the early part of Dynasty III.[10] Here we come to the first of two points on which there is a considerable difference of opinion. The available evidence suggests that the kings of the Sea-country never ruled in Babylon, and that the Third, or Kassite, Dynasty followed the First Dynasty of Babylon without any considerable break.[11] But the date 2232 B.C., which probably represents the beginning of the non-mythical dynasties of Berossus,[12] has hitherto played a considerable part in modern schemes of chronology, and, in spite of the fact that no amount of ingenuity can reconcile his dynasties with those of history, there is still a strong temptation to retain the date for the beginning of Dynasty I. of the Kings' List as affording a fixed and certain point from which to start calculations. But this can only be done by assuming that some of the kings of the Sea-country ruled over the whole of Babylonia, an assumption that is negatived by such historical and archaeological evidence as we possess.[13] It is safer to treat the date 2232 B.C. as without significance, and to follow the evidence in confining the kings of the Sea-country to their own land. If we do this we obtain a date for the foundation of the Babylonian monarchy about the middle of the twenty-first century B.C.

The second important point on which opinion is not agreed, concerns the relation of the First Dynasty of Babylon to that of Isin. From the Nippur dynastic list we know the duration of the dynasties of Ur and Isin, and if we could connect the latter with the First Dynasty of Babylon, we should be able to carry a fixed chronology at least as far back as the age of Gudea. Such a point of connection has been suggested in the date-formula for the seventeenth year of Sin-muballit's reign, which records a capture of Isin; and by identifying this event with the fall of the dynasty, it is assumed that the kings of Isin and of Babylon overlapped for a period of about ninety-nine years. In a later chapter the evidence is discussed on which this theory rests, and it is shown that the capture of Isin in Sin-muballit's seventeenth year had nothing to do with the dynasty of that name, but was an episode in the later struggle between Babylon and Larsa.[14] We thus have no means of deciding what interval, if any, separated the two dynasties from one another, and consequently all the earlier dates remain only approximate.

The contract-tablets dating from the period of the Dynasty of Isin, which have been found at Nippur, are said to resemble closely those of the First Babylonian Dynasty in form, material, writing, and terminology.[15] It would thus appear that no long interval separated the two dynasties from one another. We have seen that the foundation of the Babylonian monarchy may be set in about the middle of the twenty-first century B.C., and by placing the end of the Dynasty of Isin within the first half of that same century we obtain the approximate dates of 2300 B.C. for the Dynasty of Isin, and 2400 B.C. for the Dynasty of Ur. It is true that we know that the Dynasty of Ur lasted for exactly one hundred and seventeen years, and that of Isin for two hundred and twenty-five years and a half, but until we can definitely connect the Dynasty of Isin with that of Babylon, any attempt to work out the dates in detail would be misleading. We must be content to await the recovery of new material, and meanwhile to think in periods.

There is evidence that Ur-Engur established his rule in Ur, and founded his dynasty in the time of Ur-Ningirsu, the son of Gudea of Lagash. We may therefore place Gudea's accession at about 2450 B.C. This date is some thirteen hundred years later than that assigned to Narâm-Sin by Nabonidus. But the latter, we have already seen, must be reduced, in accordance with evidence furnished by Tello tablets, which are dated in the reigns of the intermediate patesis of Lagash. If we set this interval at one hundred and fifty years,[16] we obtain for Narâm-Sin a date of 2600 B.C., and for Shar-Gani-Sharri one of 2650 B.C. For the later Semitic kings of Kish, headed by Sharru-Gi, one hundred years is not too much to allow;[17] we thus obtain for Sharru-Gi the approximate date of 2750 B.C. It is possible that Manishtusu, King of Kish, was the contemporary of Urukagina of Lagash, but the evidence in favour of the synchronism is not sufficiently strong to justify its acceptance.[18] By placing Urukagina at 2800 B.C., we obtain for Ur-Ninâ an approximate date of 3000 B.C., and for still earlier rulers such as Mesilim, a date rather earlier than this.[19] It is difficult to estimate the age of the early graves, cylinder-seals and tablets found at Fâra, but they cannot be placed at a much later period than 3400 B.C. Thus the age of Sumerian civilization can be traced in Babylonia back to about the middle of the fourth millennium B.C., but not beyond.

There is evidence that Ur-Engur established his rule in Ur, and founded his dynasty in the time of Ur-Ningirsu, the son of Gudea of Lagash. We may therefore place Gudea's accession at about 2450 B.C. This date is some thirteen hundred years later than that assigned to Narâm-Sin by Nabonidus. But the latter, we have already seen, must be reduced, in accordance with evidence furnished by Tello tablets, which are dated in the reigns of the intermediate patesis of Lagash. If we set this interval at one hundred and fifty years,[16] we obtain for Narâm-Sin a date of 2600 B.C., and for Shar-Gani-Sharri one of 2650 B.C. For the later Semitic kings of Kish, headed by Sharru-Gi, one hundred years is not too much to allow;[17] we thus obtain for Sharru-Gi the approximate date of 2750 B.C. It is possible that Manishtusu, King of Kish, was the contemporary of Urukagina of Lagash, but the evidence in favour of the synchronism is not sufficiently strong to justify its acceptance.[18] By placing Urukagina at 2800 B.C., we obtain for Ur-Ninâ an approximate date of 3000 B.C., and for still earlier rulers such as Mesilim, a date rather earlier than this.[19] It is difficult to estimate the age of the early graves, cylinder-seals and tablets found at Fâra, but they cannot be placed at a much later period than 3400 B.C. Thus the age of Sumerian civilization can be traced in Babylonia back to about the middle of the fourth millennium B.C., but not beyond.

There is evidence that Ur-Engur established his rule in Ur, and founded his dynasty in the time of Ur-Ningirsu, the son of Gudea of Lagash. We may therefore place Gudea's accession at about 2450 B.C. This date is some thirteen hundred years later than that assigned to Narâm-Sin by Nabonidus. But the latter, we have already seen, must be reduced, in accordance with evidence furnished by Tello tablets, which are dated in the reigns of the intermediate patesis of Lagash. If we set this interval at one hundred and fifty years,[16] we obtain for Narâm-Sin a date of 2600 B.C., and for Shar-Gani-Sharri one of 2650 B.C. For the later Semitic kings of Kish, headed by Sharru-Gi, one hundred years is not too much to allow;[17] we thus obtain for Sharru-Gi the approximate date of 2750 B.C. It is possible that Manishtusu, King of Kish, was the contemporary of Urukagina of Lagash, but the evidence in favour of the synchronism is not sufficiently strong to justify its acceptance.[18] By placing Urukagina at 2800 B.C., we obtain for Ur-Ninâ an approximate date of 3000 B.C., and for still earlier rulers such as Mesilim, a date rather earlier than this.[19] It is difficult to estimate the age of the early graves, cylinder-seals and tablets found at Fâra, but they cannot be placed at a much later period than 3400 B.C. Thus the age of Sumerian civilization can be traced in Babylonia back to about the middle of the fourth millennium B.C., but not beyond.

There is evidence that Ur-Engur established his rule in Ur, and founded his dynasty in the time of Ur-Ningirsu, the son of Gudea of Lagash. We may therefore place Gudea's accession at about 2450 B.C. This date is some thirteen hundred years later than that assigned to Narâm-Sin by Nabonidus. But the latter, we have already seen, must be reduced, in accordance with evidence furnished by Tello tablets, which are dated in the reigns of the intermediate patesis of Lagash. If we set this interval at one hundred and fifty years,[16] we obtain for Narâm-Sin a date of 2600 B.C., and for Shar-Gani-Sharri one of 2650 B.C. For the later Semitic kings of Kish, headed by Sharru-Gi, one hundred years is not too much to allow;[17] we thus obtain for Sharru-Gi the approximate date of 2750 B.C. It is possible that Manishtusu, King of Kish, was the contemporary of Urukagina of Lagash, but the evidence in favour of the synchronism is not sufficiently strong to justify its acceptance.[18] By placing Urukagina at 2800 B.C., we obtain for Ur-Ninâ an approximate date of 3000 B.C., and for still earlier rulers such as Mesilim, a date rather earlier than this.[19] It is difficult to estimate the age of the early graves, cylinder-seals and tablets found at Fâra, but they cannot be placed at a much later period than 3400 B.C. Thus the age of Sumerian civilization can be traced in Babylonia back to about the middle of the fourth millennium B.C., but not beyond.

It must be confessed that this is a reduction in the date usually assigned to the earliest relics that have been recovered of the Sumerian civilization, but its achievements are by no means belittled by the compression of its period of development. It is not suggested that this date marks the beginning of Sumerian culture, for, as we have noted, it is probable that the race was already possessed of a high standard of civilization on their arrival in Babylonia. The invention of cuneiform writing, which was one of their most noteworthy achievements, had already taken place, for the characters in the earliest inscriptions recovered have lost their pictorial form. Assuming the genuineness of the "Blau Monuments," it must be admitted that even on them the characters are in a comparatively advanced stage of development.[20] We may thus put back into a more remote age the origin and early growth of Sumerian culture, which took place at a time when it was not Sumerian.

In the concluding chapter of this volume an estimate is given to the extent to which Sumerian culture influenced, either directly or indirectly, other races in Asia, Egypt, and the West. In such matters the interest attaching to the Sumerian original is largely derived from its effects, and its study may be undertaken mainly with the view of elucidating a later development. But one department of Sumerian activity forms a striking exception to this rule. The arts of sculpture and engraving, as practised by the Sumerians, are well worthy of study on their own account, for while their work in all periods is marked by spirit and originality, that of the later time reaches a remarkable standard of excellence. The improvement in technique observable in the later period may largely be due to the influence of Semitic work, which was derived from Sumer and reacted in its turn on the parent stem. But the original impulse to artistic production was of purely Sumerian origin, and it is possible to trace the gradual development of its products from the rudest reliefs of the archaic period to the finished sculpture of Gudea's reign.[21] The character of the Semitic art of Akkad was secondary and derivative, though the Semites certainly improved on what they borrowed; in that of the Sumerians the seeds of its later excellence may be detected from the beginning. The most ancient of the sculptured reliefs of the Sumerians are very rudely cut, and their age is attested not only by their primitive character, but also by the linear form of the writing which is found upon them. These, owing to their smaller size, are the best preserved, for the later reliefs, which belong to the period when Sumerian art reached its fullest development, are unfortunately represented only by fragments. But they suffice to show the spirit which animated these ancient craftsmen, and enabled them successfully to overcome difficulties of technique which were carefully avoided by the later sculptors of Assyria. To take a single instance, we may note the manner in which they represented the heads of the principal figures of a composition in full-face, and did not seek to avoid the difficulty of foreshortening the features by a monotonous arrangement in profile. A good example of their bolder method of composition is afforded by the relief of a god, generally identified with Ningirsu, which dates from the epoch of Gudea; he is seated upon a throne, and while the torso and bearded head are sculptured full-face, the legs are in profile.[22] On another fragment of a relief of the same period, beautifully cut in alabaster but much damaged by fire, a goddess is represented seated on the knees of a god. The rendering of the group is very spirited, for while the god gazes in profile at his wife, she looks out from the sculpture curving her body from the hips.[23]

In the concluding chapter of this volume an estimate is given to the extent to which Sumerian culture influenced, either directly or indirectly, other races in Asia, Egypt, and the West. In such matters the interest attaching to the Sumerian original is largely derived from its effects, and its study may be undertaken mainly with the view of elucidating a later development. But one department of Sumerian activity forms a striking exception to this rule. The arts of sculpture and engraving, as practised by the Sumerians, are well worthy of study on their own account, for while their work in all periods is marked by spirit and originality, that of the later time reaches a remarkable standard of excellence. The improvement in technique observable in the later period may largely be due to the influence of Semitic work, which was derived from Sumer and reacted in its turn on the parent stem. But the original impulse to artistic production was of purely Sumerian origin, and it is possible to trace the gradual development of its products from the rudest reliefs of the archaic period to the finished sculpture of Gudea's reign.[21] The character of the Semitic art of Akkad was secondary and derivative, though the Semites certainly improved on what they borrowed; in that of the Sumerians the seeds of its later excellence may be detected from the beginning. The most ancient of the sculptured reliefs of the Sumerians are very rudely cut, and their age is attested not only by their primitive character, but also by the linear form of the writing which is found upon them. These, owing to their smaller size, are the best preserved, for the later reliefs, which belong to the period when Sumerian art reached its fullest development, are unfortunately represented only by fragments. But they suffice to show the spirit which animated these ancient craftsmen, and enabled them successfully to overcome difficulties of technique which were carefully avoided by the later sculptors of Assyria. To take a single instance, we may note the manner in which they represented the heads of the principal figures of a composition in full-face, and did not seek to avoid the difficulty of foreshortening the features by a monotonous arrangement in profile. A good example of their bolder method of composition is afforded by the relief of a god, generally identified with Ningirsu, which dates from the epoch of Gudea; he is seated upon a throne, and while the torso and bearded head are sculptured full-face, the legs are in profile.[22] On another fragment of a relief of the same period, beautifully cut in alabaster but much damaged by fire, a goddess is represented seated on the knees of a god. The rendering of the group is very spirited, for while the god gazes in profile at his wife, she looks out from the sculpture curving her body from the hips.[23]

In the concluding chapter of this volume an estimate is given to the extent to which Sumerian culture influenced, either directly or indirectly, other races in Asia, Egypt, and the West. In such matters the interest attaching to the Sumerian original is largely derived from its effects, and its study may be undertaken mainly with the view of elucidating a later development. But one department of Sumerian activity forms a striking exception to this rule. The arts of sculpture and engraving, as practised by the Sumerians, are well worthy of study on their own account, for while their work in all periods is marked by spirit and originality, that of the later time reaches a remarkable standard of excellence. The improvement in technique observable in the later period may largely be due to the influence of Semitic work, which was derived from Sumer and reacted in its turn on the parent stem. But the original impulse to artistic production was of purely Sumerian origin, and it is possible to trace the gradual development of its products from the rudest reliefs of the archaic period to the finished sculpture of Gudea's reign.[21] The character of the Semitic art of Akkad was secondary and derivative, though the Semites certainly improved on what they borrowed; in that of the Sumerians the seeds of its later excellence may be detected from the beginning. The most ancient of the sculptured reliefs of the Sumerians are very rudely cut, and their age is attested not only by their primitive character, but also by the linear form of the writing which is found upon them. These, owing to their smaller size, are the best preserved, for the later reliefs, which belong to the period when Sumerian art reached its fullest development, are unfortunately represented only by fragments. But they suffice to show the spirit which animated these ancient craftsmen, and enabled them successfully to overcome difficulties of technique which were carefully avoided by the later sculptors of Assyria. To take a single instance, we may note the manner in which they represented the heads of the principal figures of a composition in full-face, and did not seek to avoid the difficulty of foreshortening the features by a monotonous arrangement in profile. A good example of their bolder method of composition is afforded by the relief of a god, generally identified with Ningirsu, which dates from the epoch of Gudea; he is seated upon a throne, and while the torso and bearded head are sculptured full-face, the legs are in profile.[22] On another fragment of a relief of the same period, beautifully cut in alabaster but much damaged by fire, a goddess is represented seated on the knees of a god. The rendering of the group is very spirited, for while the god gazes in profile at his wife, she looks out from the sculpture curving her body from the hips.[23]

In neither instance can it be said that the sculptor has completely succeeded in portraying a natural attitude, for the head in each case should be only in three-quarter profile, but such attempts at an unconventional treatment afford striking evidence of the originality which characterized the work of the Sumerians. Both the sculptures referred to date from the later Sumerian period, and, if they were the only instances recovered, it might be urged that the innovation should be traced to the influence of North Babylonian art under the patronage of the kings of Akkad. Fortunately, however, we possess an interesting example of the same class of treatment, which undoubtedly dates from a period anterior to the Semitic domination. This is afforded by a perforated plaque, somewhat similar to the more primitive ones of Ur-Ninâ,[24] engraved in shallow relief with a libation-scene. The figure of a man, completely nude and with shaven head and face, raises a libation-vase with a long spout, from which he is about to pour water into a vase holding two palm leaves and a flowering branch.[25] The goddess in whose honour the rite is being performed is seated in the mountains, represented as in later times by a number of small lozenges or half circles. While her feet and knees are in profile, the head is represented full-face, and the sculptor's want of skill in this novel treatment has led him to assign the head a size out of all proportion to the rest of the body. The effect is almost grotesque, but the work is of considerable interest as one of the earliest attempts on the part of the Sumerian sculptors to break away from the stiff and formal traditions of the archaic period. From the general style of the work the relief may probably be dated about the period of Eannatum's reign.

In neither instance can it be said that the sculptor has completely succeeded in portraying a natural attitude, for the head in each case should be only in three-quarter profile, but such attempts at an unconventional treatment afford striking evidence of the originality which characterized the work of the Sumerians. Both the sculptures referred to date from the later Sumerian period, and, if they were the only instances recovered, it might be urged that the innovation should be traced to the influence of North Babylonian art under the patronage of the kings of Akkad. Fortunately, however, we possess an interesting example of the same class of treatment, which undoubtedly dates from a period anterior to the Semitic domination. This is afforded by a perforated plaque, somewhat similar to the more primitive ones of Ur-Ninâ,[24] engraved in shallow relief with a libation-scene. The figure of a man, completely nude and with shaven head and face, raises a libation-vase with a long spout, from which he is about to pour water into a vase holding two palm leaves and a flowering branch.[25] The goddess in whose honour the rite is being performed is seated in the mountains, represented as in later times by a number of small lozenges or half circles. While her feet and knees are in profile, the head is represented full-face, and the sculptor's want of skill in this novel treatment has led him to assign the head a size out of all proportion to the rest of the body. The effect is almost grotesque, but the work is of considerable interest as one of the earliest attempts on the part of the Sumerian sculptors to break away from the stiff and formal traditions of the archaic period. From the general style of the work the relief may probably be dated about the period of Eannatum's reign.

The Sumerians did not attain the decorative effect of the Assyrian bas-reliefs with which the later kings lined the walls of their palaces. In fact, the small size of the figures rendered them suitable for the enrichment of stelæ, plaques, basins and stone vases, rather than for elaborate wall sculptures, for which in any case they had not the material. The largest fragment of an early bas-relief that has been recovered appears to have formed the angle of a stone pedestal, and is decorated with figures in several registers representing ceremonies of Sumerian worship.[26] In the upper register on the side that is best preserved is a priest leading worshippers into the presence of a god, while below is a crouching figure, probably that of a woman who plays on a great lyre or harp of eleven cords, furnished with two uprights and decorated with a horned head and the figure of a bull. On the side in the upper row is a heavily bearded figure on a larger scale than the rest, and the mixture of Sumerian and Semitic types in the figures preceding him suggests that the monument is to be assigned to the period of Semitic domination, under the rule of the kings of Kish or Akkad. But it is obviously Sumerian in character, resembling the work of Gudea's period rather than that of Narâm-Sin.

The perfection of detail which characterized the best work of the Sumerian sculptors is well illustrated by two fragments of reliefs, parts of which are drawn in outline in the accompanying blocks. The one on the left is from a bas-relief representing a line of humped cattle and horned sheep defiling past the spectator. It is badly broken, but enough is preserved to show the surprising fidelity with which the sculptor has reproduced the animal's form and attitude. Though the subject recalls the lines of domestic animals upon the Assyrian bas-reliefs, the Sumerian treatment is infinitely superior. The same high qualities of design and workmanship are visible in the little fragment on the right. Of the main sculpture only a human foot remains; but it is beautifully modelled. The decorative border below the foot represents the spouting vase with its two streams of water and two fish swimming against the stream. A plant rises from the vase between the streams, the symbol of vegetation nourished by the waters.[27] The extreme delicacy of the original shows to what degree of perfection Sumerian work attained during the best period.

The use of sculpture in relief was also most happily employed for the decoration of basins or fountains. The most elaborate of those recovered, unhappily represented by mutilated fragments only, was decorated on the outside with a chain of female figures passing from hand to hand vases of spouting water.[28] Better preserved are the remains of another basin, which was set up by Gudea in Ningirsu's temple at Lagash. Rectangular in shape, each corner was decorated with a lion. The head, drawn in the accompanying block, is a fine piece of sculpture, and almost stands out from the corner, while the body, carved in profile on the side of the basin, is in low relief. In this portrayal of a lion turning its head, the designer has formed a bold but decorative combination of relief with sculpture in the round.

The most famous examples of Sumerian sculpture are the statues of Gudea, and the rather earlier one of Ur-Bau, which, however, lose much of their character by the absence of their heads. It is true that a head has been fitted to a smaller and more recently found figure of Gudea;[29] but this proves to be out of all proportion to the body—a defect that was probably absent from the larger statues. The traditional attitude of devotion, symbolized by the clasping of the hands over the breast, gives them a certain monotony; but their modelling is superior to anything achieved by the Babylonians and Assyrians of a later time.[30] Thus there is a complete absence of exaggeration in the rendering of the muscles; the sculptor has not attempted by such crude and conventional methods to ascribe to his model a supernatural strength and vigour, but has worked direct from nature. They are carved in diorite, varying in colour from dark green to black, and that so hard a material should have been worked in the large masses required, is in itself an achievement of no small importance, and argues great technical skill on the part of the sculptors of the later period.

The most famous examples of Sumerian sculpture are the statues of Gudea, and the rather earlier one of Ur-Bau, which, however, lose much of their character by the absence of their heads. It is true that a head has been fitted to a smaller and more recently found figure of Gudea;[29] but this proves to be out of all proportion to the body—a defect that was probably absent from the larger statues. The traditional attitude of devotion, symbolized by the clasping of the hands over the breast, gives them a certain monotony; but their modelling is superior to anything achieved by the Babylonians and Assyrians of a later time.[30] Thus there is a complete absence of exaggeration in the rendering of the muscles; the sculptor has not attempted by such crude and conventional methods to ascribe to his model a supernatural strength and vigour, but has worked direct from nature. They are carved in diorite, varying in colour from dark green to black, and that so hard a material should have been worked in the large masses required, is in itself an achievement of no small importance, and argues great technical skill on the part of the sculptors of the later period.

The drawing in Fig. 23 scarcely does justice to the beauty of the face, since it exaggerates the conventional representation of the eyebrows, and reproduces the texture of the stone at the expense of the outline. Moreover, the face is almost more striking in profile.[31] The nose, though perfectly straight, is rather large, but this is clearly a racial characteristic. Even so, the type of female beauty portrayed is singularly striking, and the manner in which the Sumerian sculptor has succeeded in reproducing it was not approached in the work of any later period. Another head from a female statuette, with the hair dressed in a similar fashion, is equally beautiful. The absence of part of the nose tends to give it a rather less marked ethnographic character, and probably increases the resemblance which has been claimed for it to types of classical antiquity.[32]

The drawing in Fig. 23 scarcely does justice to the beauty of the face, since it exaggerates the conventional representation of the eyebrows, and reproduces the texture of the stone at the expense of the outline. Moreover, the face is almost more striking in profile.[31] The nose, though perfectly straight, is rather large, but this is clearly a racial characteristic. Even so, the type of female beauty portrayed is singularly striking, and the manner in which the Sumerian sculptor has succeeded in reproducing it was not approached in the work of any later period. Another head from a female statuette, with the hair dressed in a similar fashion, is equally beautiful. The absence of part of the nose tends to give it a rather less marked ethnographic character, and probably increases the resemblance which has been claimed for it to types of classical antiquity.[32]

The art of casting in metal was also practised by the Sumerians, and even in the earliest period, anterior to the reign of Ur-Ninâ, small foundation-figures have been discovered, which were cast solid in copper. In fact, copper was the metal most commonly employed by the Sumerians, and their stage of culture throughout the long period of their history may be described as a copper age, rather than an age of bronze. It is true that the claim is sometimes put forward, based on very unsatisfactory evidence, that the Sumerian metal-founders used not only tin but also antimony in order to harden copper, and at the same time render it more fusible;[33] and it is difficult to explain the employment of two ideograms for the metal, even in the earlier periods, unless one signified bronze and the other copper.[34] But a careful analysis by M. Berthelot of the numerous metal objects found at Tello, the dates of which can be definitely ascertained, has shown that, even under the later rulers of Lagash and the kings of Ur, not only votive figures, but also tools and weapons of copper, contain no trace of tin employed as an alloy.[35] As at Tello, so at Tell Sifr, the vessels and weapons found by Loftus are of copper, not bronze.[36] The presence of an exceedingly small proportion of elements other than copper in the objects submitted to analysis was probably not intentional, but was due to the necessarily imperfect method of smelting that was employed.

The art of casting in metal was also practised by the Sumerians, and even in the earliest period, anterior to the reign of Ur-Ninâ, small foundation-figures have been discovered, which were cast solid in copper. In fact, copper was the metal most commonly employed by the Sumerians, and their stage of culture throughout the long period of their history may be described as a copper age, rather than an age of bronze. It is true that the claim is sometimes put forward, based on very unsatisfactory evidence, that the Sumerian metal-founders used not only tin but also antimony in order to harden copper, and at the same time render it more fusible;[33] and it is difficult to explain the employment of two ideograms for the metal, even in the earlier periods, unless one signified bronze and the other copper.[34] But a careful analysis by M. Berthelot of the numerous metal objects found at Tello, the dates of which can be definitely ascertained, has shown that, even under the later rulers of Lagash and the kings of Ur, not only votive figures, but also tools and weapons of copper, contain no trace of tin employed as an alloy.[35] As at Tello, so at Tell Sifr, the vessels and weapons found by Loftus are of copper, not bronze.[36] The presence of an exceedingly small proportion of elements other than copper in the objects submitted to analysis was probably not intentional, but was due to the necessarily imperfect method of smelting that was employed.

The art of casting in metal was also practised by the Sumerians, and even in the earliest period, anterior to the reign of Ur-Ninâ, small foundation-figures have been discovered, which were cast solid in copper. In fact, copper was the metal most commonly employed by the Sumerians, and their stage of culture throughout the long period of their history may be described as a copper age, rather than an age of bronze. It is true that the claim is sometimes put forward, based on very unsatisfactory evidence, that the Sumerian metal-founders used not only tin but also antimony in order to harden copper, and at the same time render it more fusible;[33] and it is difficult to explain the employment of two ideograms for the metal, even in the earlier periods, unless one signified bronze and the other copper.[34] But a careful analysis by M. Berthelot of the numerous metal objects found at Tello, the dates of which can be definitely ascertained, has shown that, even under the later rulers of Lagash and the kings of Ur, not only votive figures, but also tools and weapons of copper, contain no trace of tin employed as an alloy.[35] As at Tello, so at Tell Sifr, the vessels and weapons found by Loftus are of copper, not bronze.[36] The presence of an exceedingly small proportion of elements other than copper in the objects submitted to analysis was probably not intentional, but was due to the necessarily imperfect method of smelting that was employed.

The art of casting in metal was also practised by the Sumerians, and even in the earliest period, anterior to the reign of Ur-Ninâ, small foundation-figures have been discovered, which were cast solid in copper. In fact, copper was the metal most commonly employed by the Sumerians, and their stage of culture throughout the long period of their history may be described as a copper age, rather than an age of bronze. It is true that the claim is sometimes put forward, based on very unsatisfactory evidence, that the Sumerian metal-founders used not only tin but also antimony in order to harden copper, and at the same time render it more fusible;[33] and it is difficult to explain the employment of two ideograms for the metal, even in the earlier periods, unless one signified bronze and the other copper.[34] But a careful analysis by M. Berthelot of the numerous metal objects found at Tello, the dates of which can be definitely ascertained, has shown that, even under the later rulers of Lagash and the kings of Ur, not only votive figures, but also tools and weapons of copper, contain no trace of tin employed as an alloy.[35] As at Tello, so at Tell Sifr, the vessels and weapons found by Loftus are of copper, not bronze.[36] The presence of an exceedingly small proportion of elements other than copper in the objects submitted to analysis was probably not intentional, but was due to the necessarily imperfect method of smelting that was employed.

No trace has yet been found of any mould used by the Sumerians in the process of casting metal, but we may assume that clay was employed both for solid and hollow castings. While many figures of the same form have been found, no two are exactly alike nor of quite the same proportions, so that it may be inferred that a mould was never used a second time, but that each was broken in order to remove the casting. The copper foundation-figures usually take the form of nails, terminating with the bust of a female figure, and they were set in a socket beneath stone foundation-inscriptions which they support. Later, votive objects, cast in copper, represent male figures, bearing on their heads the builder's basket, in which is clay for the sacred bricks of the temple's foundation; or they consist of great cones or nails supporting a recumbent bull,[37] or clasped by the kneeling figure of a god.[38] Large figures of wood were sometimes covered with thin plates of copper joined by a series of small nails or rivets, as is proved by the horn of a bull of natural size, which has been discovered at Tello.[39] But hollow castings in copper of a considerable size have also been found. A good example is the bull's head, figured in the accompanying block, which probably dates from a period not later than the close of Ur-Ninâ's dynasty. Its eyes are inlaid with mother-of-pearl and lapis-lazuli, and a very similar method of inlaying is met with in the copper head of a goat which was found at Fâra.[40]

No trace has yet been found of any mould used by the Sumerians in the process of casting metal, but we may assume that clay was employed both for solid and hollow castings. While many figures of the same form have been found, no two are exactly alike nor of quite the same proportions, so that it may be inferred that a mould was never used a second time, but that each was broken in order to remove the casting. The copper foundation-figures usually take the form of nails, terminating with the bust of a female figure, and they were set in a socket beneath stone foundation-inscriptions which they support. Later, votive objects, cast in copper, represent male figures, bearing on their heads the builder's basket, in which is clay for the sacred bricks of the temple's foundation; or they consist of great cones or nails supporting a recumbent bull,[37] or clasped by the kneeling figure of a god.[38] Large figures of wood were sometimes covered with thin plates of copper joined by a series of small nails or rivets, as is proved by the horn of a bull of natural size, which has been discovered at Tello.[39] But hollow castings in copper of a considerable size have also been found. A good example is the bull's head, figured in the accompanying block, which probably dates from a period not later than the close of Ur-Ninâ's dynasty. Its eyes are inlaid with mother-of-pearl and lapis-lazuli, and a very similar method of inlaying is met with in the copper head of a goat which was found at Fâra.[40]

No trace has yet been found of any mould used by the Sumerians in the process of casting metal, but we may assume that clay was employed both for solid and hollow castings. While many figures of the same form have been found, no two are exactly alike nor of quite the same proportions, so that it may be inferred that a mould was never used a second time, but that each was broken in order to remove the casting. The copper foundation-figures usually take the form of nails, terminating with the bust of a female figure, and they were set in a socket beneath stone foundation-inscriptions which they support. Later, votive objects, cast in copper, represent male figures, bearing on their heads the builder's basket, in which is clay for the sacred bricks of the temple's foundation; or they consist of great cones or nails supporting a recumbent bull,[37] or clasped by the kneeling figure of a god.[38] Large figures of wood were sometimes covered with thin plates of copper joined by a series of small nails or rivets, as is proved by the horn of a bull of natural size, which has been discovered at Tello.[39] But hollow castings in copper of a considerable size have also been found. A good example is the bull's head, figured in the accompanying block, which probably dates from a period not later than the close of Ur-Ninâ's dynasty. Its eyes are inlaid with mother-of-pearl and lapis-lazuli, and a very similar method of inlaying is met with in the copper head of a goat which was found at Fâra.[40]

No trace has yet been found of any mould used by the Sumerians in the process of casting metal, but we may assume that clay was employed both for solid and hollow castings. While many figures of the same form have been found, no two are exactly alike nor of quite the same proportions, so that it may be inferred that a mould was never used a second time, but that each was broken in order to remove the casting. The copper foundation-figures usually take the form of nails, terminating with the bust of a female figure, and they were set in a socket beneath stone foundation-inscriptions which they support. Later, votive objects, cast in copper, represent male figures, bearing on their heads the builder's basket, in which is clay for the sacred bricks of the temple's foundation; or they consist of great cones or nails supporting a recumbent bull,[37] or clasped by the kneeling figure of a god.[38] Large figures of wood were sometimes covered with thin plates of copper joined by a series of small nails or rivets, as is proved by the horn of a bull of natural size, which has been discovered at Tello.[39] But hollow castings in copper of a considerable size have also been found. A good example is the bull's head, figured in the accompanying block, which probably dates from a period not later than the close of Ur-Ninâ's dynasty. Its eyes are inlaid with mother-of-pearl and lapis-lazuli, and a very similar method of inlaying is met with in the copper head of a goat which was found at Fâra.[40]

A far simpler process of manufacture was employed for the making of votive figures of terra-cotta, which, in order of development, preceded the use of metal for this purpose, though they continued to be manufactured in considerable quantities during the later periods. Here the mould, in a single piece, was cut in stone or some other hard material,[41] and the clay, after being impressed into it, was smoothed down on the back by hand. The flat border of clay left by the upper surface of the mould, was frequently not removed, so that the figures are sometimes found standing out from a flat background in the manner of a sculptured plaque, or bas-relief.

In the period of Gudea, the mould was definitely used as a stamp, thus returning to the original use from which its later employment was developed. Interesting examples of such later stamped figures include representations of a god wearing a horned headdress, to which are added the ears of a bull, and of a hero, often identified with Gilgamesh, who holds a vase from which two streams of water flow.[42] The clay employed for the votive figures is extremely fine in quality, and most of them are baked to a degree of hardness resembling stone or metal.

It is probable that such composite monsters, with the bodies and heads of serpents and the wings and talons of birds, were originally malevolent in character, but here, like the serpents, they are clearly represented as tamed, and in the service of the god to whom the vase was dedicated. This is sufficiently proved by the ringed staffs they carry,[43] their modified horned headdresses, and their carefully twisted locks of hair. They were peculiarly sacred to Ningishzida and in Fig. 12 they may be seen rising as emblems from his shoulders. The rich effect of the dark green steatite was originally enhanced by inlaying, for the bodies of the dragons are now pitted with deep holes. These were no doubt originally inlaid with some other material, probably shell, which has been found employed for this purpose in a fragment of a vase of a very similar character.

In the same category with the monsters on the vase we may class the human-headed bulls, of which small sculptured figures, in a recumbent attitude, have been found at Tello; these were afterwards adopted by the Assyrian kings, and employed as the colossal guardians of their palace door-ways. The extent to which this particular form of composite monster was employed for religious and decorative purposes may be seen on the cylinder-seals, upon which in the earlier period it represents the favourite device. Examples are frequently found in decorative combinations, together with figures of early bearded heroes, possibly to be identified with Gilgamesh, and with a strange creature, half-man and half-bull, resembling the later descriptions of Ea-bani, who strive with lions and other animals.[44] Gudea's catalogue of the temple furniture and votive objects, with which he enriched E-ninnû, throws light upon the manner in which Sumerian art reflected this aspect of the Sumerian religion. Some of the legends and beliefs may well have been derived from Semitic sources, but the imagery, which exerted so strong an influence upon the development of their art, may probably be traced to the Sumerians themselves.

The engraving upon cylinder-seals during the Sumerian period appears to have been done generally by hand, without the help of a drill or a revolving tool.[45] Outline engraving with the point was also practised, that on stone having probably preceded the use of the bas-relief,[46] but it continued to be employed in the later periods for the decoration of metal and shell. The finest example of metal engraving is the silver vase of Entemena, around which is incised in outline a decorative band, consisting of variations of the emblem of Lagash, arranged beneath a row of seven calves. But the largest number of designs engraved in outline have been found, not upon stone or metal, but upon shell. It is an interesting fact that among the smaller objects found by M. de Sarzec at Tello, there is not a single fragment of ivory, and it would seem that this material was not known to the earliest inhabitants of Babylonia, a fact which has some bearing on the disputed question of their relations to Egypt, and to the earlier stages of Egyptian culture.[47]

The engraving upon cylinder-seals during the Sumerian period appears to have been done generally by hand, without the help of a drill or a revolving tool.[45] Outline engraving with the point was also practised, that on stone having probably preceded the use of the bas-relief,[46] but it continued to be employed in the later periods for the decoration of metal and shell. The finest example of metal engraving is the silver vase of Entemena, around which is incised in outline a decorative band, consisting of variations of the emblem of Lagash, arranged beneath a row of seven calves. But the largest number of designs engraved in outline have been found, not upon stone or metal, but upon shell. It is an interesting fact that among the smaller objects found by M. de Sarzec at Tello, there is not a single fragment of ivory, and it would seem that this material was not known to the earliest inhabitants of Babylonia, a fact which has some bearing on the disputed question of their relations to Egypt, and to the earlier stages of Egyptian culture.[47]

The engraving upon cylinder-seals during the Sumerian period appears to have been done generally by hand, without the help of a drill or a revolving tool.[45] Outline engraving with the point was also practised, that on stone having probably preceded the use of the bas-relief,[46] but it continued to be employed in the later periods for the decoration of metal and shell. The finest example of metal engraving is the silver vase of Entemena, around which is incised in outline a decorative band, consisting of variations of the emblem of Lagash, arranged beneath a row of seven calves. But the largest number of designs engraved in outline have been found, not upon stone or metal, but upon shell. It is an interesting fact that among the smaller objects found by M. de Sarzec at Tello, there is not a single fragment of ivory, and it would seem that this material was not known to the earliest inhabitants of Babylonia, a fact which has some bearing on the disputed question of their relations to Egypt, and to the earlier stages of Egyptian culture.[47]

For in the space on the right of the fragment behind the lion's mane are engraved two weapons. The upper one is a hilted dagger with its point towards the lion; this may be compared with the short daggers held by the mythological beings resembling Ea-bani upon one of Lugal-anda's seals, with which they are represented as stabbing lions in the neck.[48] Below is a hand holding a curved mace or throwing stick, formed of three strands bound with leather thongs or bands of metal, like that held by Eannatum upon the Stele of the Vultures.[49] It is, therefore, clear that on the panel to the right of the lion and bull a king, or patesi, was represented in the act of attacking the lion, and we may infer that the whole of the cup was decorated with a continuous band of engraving, though some of the groups in the design may have been arranged symmetrically, with repetitions such as are found upon the earlier cylinder-seals.

For in the space on the right of the fragment behind the lion's mane are engraved two weapons. The upper one is a hilted dagger with its point towards the lion; this may be compared with the short daggers held by the mythological beings resembling Ea-bani upon one of Lugal-anda's seals, with which they are represented as stabbing lions in the neck.[48] Below is a hand holding a curved mace or throwing stick, formed of three strands bound with leather thongs or bands of metal, like that held by Eannatum upon the Stele of the Vultures.[49] It is, therefore, clear that on the panel to the right of the lion and bull a king, or patesi, was represented in the act of attacking the lion, and we may infer that the whole of the cup was decorated with a continuous band of engraving, though some of the groups in the design may have been arranged symmetrically, with repetitions such as are found upon the earlier cylinder-seals.

The position of the lion upon the fragment, represented with luxuriant mane and with head facing the spectator, and the vigour of the design as a whole combined with certain inequalities of treatment, have suggested a comparison with the lions upon the sculptured mace-head of Mesilim. The piece has, therefore, been assigned to the epoch of the earlier kings of Kish, anterior to the period of Ur-Ninâ.[50] It may perhaps belong to the rather later period of Ur-Ninâ's dynasty, but, even so, it suffices to indicate the excellence in design and draughtsmanship attained by the earlier Sumerians. In vigour and originality their representations of animals were unequalled by those of the later inhabitants of Babylonia and Assyria, until shortly before the close of the Assyrian empire. But the Sumerian artists only gradually acquired their skill, and on some of the engraved fragments recovered it is possible to trace an advance on earlier work. The designs in the accompanying blocks have been selected as illustrating, to some extent, the change which gradually took place in the treatment of animal forms by the Sumerians.

Of the three designs, that on the left is engraved upon a convex piece of shell, thin as the shell of an egg; it represents a lion-headed eagle which has swooped down upon the back of a human-headed bull and is attacking him with mouth and claws. The subject resembles that found upon the most primitive Sumerian cylinder-seals, and its rough and angular treatment is sufficient indication of the very archaic character of the work. The central panel resembles in shape that of the lion and the bull.[51] The design represents a leaping ibex with flowering plants in the background, and the drawing is freer and less stiff than that of the animals on the silver vase of Entemena.[52] Some archaic characteristics may still be noted, such as the springing tufts of hair at the joints of the hind legs; but the general treatment of the subject marks a distinct advance upon the archaic conventions of the earlier fragment. The third design is that of a leaping kid, engraved upon a flat piece of shell and cut out for inlaying. Here the drawing is absolutely true to nature, and the artist has even noted the slight swelling of the head caused by the growing horns.

Of the three designs, that on the left is engraved upon a convex piece of shell, thin as the shell of an egg; it represents a lion-headed eagle which has swooped down upon the back of a human-headed bull and is attacking him with mouth and claws. The subject resembles that found upon the most primitive Sumerian cylinder-seals, and its rough and angular treatment is sufficient indication of the very archaic character of the work. The central panel resembles in shape that of the lion and the bull.[51] The design represents a leaping ibex with flowering plants in the background, and the drawing is freer and less stiff than that of the animals on the silver vase of Entemena.[52] Some archaic characteristics may still be noted, such as the springing tufts of hair at the joints of the hind legs; but the general treatment of the subject marks a distinct advance upon the archaic conventions of the earlier fragment. The third design is that of a leaping kid, engraved upon a flat piece of shell and cut out for inlaying. Here the drawing is absolutely true to nature, and the artist has even noted the slight swelling of the head caused by the growing horns.

[1] For an account of the excavations at Nippur and their results, see Hilprecht, "Explorations in Bible Lands," pp. 289 ff., and Fisher, "Excavations at Nippur," Pt. I. (1905), Pt. II. (1900).

[2] At a later period this was converted into a Parthian fortress.

[3] See the plan of Tello on p. 19.

[4] For example, compare the orientation of Enlil's temple on p. 88.

[5] It has been compared to the granaries of Egypt as depicted in wall-paintings or represented by models placed in the tombs; cf. Heuzey, "Une Villa royale chaldéenne,"—p. 9 f.

[6] See H, H on plan.

[7] See above, p. 45 f.

[8] Cf. Heuzey, "Une Villa royale," p. 24.

[9] Cf. Thureau-Dangin, "Recueil de tablettes chaldéennes," p. i. f., Nos. 1 ff., 9 ff., and "Rev. d'Assyr.," VI., pp. 11 ff.

[10] See below, Chap. VII., p. 206 f.

[11] Cf. Heuzey and Thureau-Dangin, "Comptes rendus de l'Acad. des Inscriptions," 1907, pp. 516 ff. The head of the figure had been found many years before by M. de Sarzec, and was published in "Déc. en Chald.," p. 6 ter, Figs. 1 a and b.

[12] Cf. Meyer, "Sum. und Sem.," p. 81, n. 2.

[13] Cf. Banks, "Scientific American," Aug. 19, 1905, p. 137, and "Amer. Journ. Semit. Lang.," XXI., p. 59.

[14] "Déc. en Chald.," pl. 5, No. 3.

[15] See the plate opposite p. 102. The king of Ma'er's figure is the one on the right.

[16] Cf. Hilprecht, "Old Bab. Inscr.," II., pl. 44, No. 96, and Thureau-Dangin, "Königsinschriften," p. 158 f.

[17] See Heuzey, "Revue d'Assyr.," IV., p. 109; cf. "Königsinschriften," p>. 160 f.

[18] See the blocks on p. 98. A variant form of the emblem occurs on the perforated block of Dudu (see the plate facing p. 110). There the lions turn to bite the spread wings of the eagle, indicating that the emblem is symbolical of strife ending in the victory of Lagash (cf. Heuzey, "Cat.," p. 121).

[19] See the Cone of Entemena, "Déc. en Chald.," p. xlvii.; and cf. Thureau-Dangin, "Rev. d'Assyr.," IV., pp. 37 ff., and "Königsinschriften," pp. 36 ff. Entemena's sketch of the early relations of Lagash and Umma precedes his account of his own conquest of the latter city; see below, p. 164 f.

[20] See above, pp. 11, 21 f.

[21] See Hilprecht, "Old Babylonian Inscriptions," Pt. II., p. 62, pl. 46, No. 108 f., and Pt. I., p. 47.

[22] See Hilprecht, op. cit., Pt. II., p. 51, pl. 43, No. 93; cf. Winckler, "Altorientalische Forschungen," I., p. 372 f., and Thureau-Dangin, "Königsinschriften," p. 160 f.

[23] See "Cuneiform Texts in the British Museum," Pt. III., pl. 1, and cf. Thureau-Dangin, "Rev. d'Assyr.," IV., p. 74, and "Königsinschriften," p. 160 f. For a photographic reproduction of the tablet, see the plate facing p. 218.

[24] Since the central cult of Ninni and of Anu was at Erech, it is possible that Lugal-tarsi's dedication implies the subjection of Erech to Kish at this period.

[25] See above, pp. 91 ff.

[26] "Déc. en Chaldée," p. xl.; cf. Thureau-Dangin, "Königsinschriften," p. 10 f.

[27] See Thureau-Dangin, "Recueil de tablettes chaldéennes," p. 1, pl. 1, No. 1.

[28] It has been suggested that the title lugal, "king," did not acquire its later significance until the age of Sargon (Shar-Gani-sharri), but that it was used by earlier rulers as the equivalent of the Semitic belu, "lord" (cf. Ungnad, "Orient. Lit.-Zeit.," 1908, col. 64, n. 5). But, in view of the fact that Mesilim bore the title, it would seem that in his time it already conveyed a claim to greater authority than that inherent in the word patesi. The latter title was of a purely religious origin; when borne by a ruler it designated him as the representative of his city-god, but the title "king" was of a more secular character, and connoted a wider dominion. But it must be admitted that some inconsistencies in the use of the titles by members of Ur-Ninâ's dynasty seem to suggest that the distinction between them was not quite so marked as in the later periods.

[29] See Hilprecht, "Zeits. für Assyr.," XI., p. 330 f.; and Thureau-Dangin, op. cit., XV., p. 403.

[30] See Heuzey, "Rev. d'Assyr.," IV., p. 106. A fragment of a similar bowl, probably of the same early period, is definitely stated in the inscription upon it to have been set aside for Bau as a part of certain spoil.

[31] They are collected and translated by Thureau-Dangin, "Königsinschriften," pp. 2 ff.

[32] "Découvertes en Chaldée," p. xxxvii., No. 10.

[33] See above, p. 90 f. Other divisions of Lagash were Ninâ, Uru-azagga and Uru.

[34] See above, p. 107.

[35] The reading of the second half of the name is uncertain. The two signs which form the name were provisionally read by Amiaud as Dun-sir ("Records of the Past," N.S., I., p. 59), and by Jensen as Shul-gur (cf. Schrader's "Keilinschriftliche Bibliothek," Bd. III., Hft. 1, p. 18 f.); see also Thureau-Dangin, "Rev. d'Assyr." III., p. 119, n. 5, and Radau, "Early Bab. Hist.," p. 92, n. 18.

[36] See below, pp. 168 f., 177.

[37] For a description of his principal storehouse or magazine, the remains of which have been found at Tello, see above, pp. 91 ff.

[38] See below, p. 169.

[39] See the opposite plate and the illustrations on p. 113 f.

[40] Cf. Meyer, "Sumerier und Semiten," p. 77.

[41] Dudu's block was probably let into solid masonry or brickwork, while the plaques of Ur-Ninâ would have rested on the surface of altars built of brick; cf. Heuzey, "Découvertes en Chaldée," p. 204.

[42] See the plate opposite p. 110.

[43] See above, p. 41 f.

[44] See the plate opposite p. 138.

[45] So, for instance, Radau, "Early Bab. History," p. 70.

[46] The figure, which is in the Louvre, was not found at Tello, but was purchased at Shatra, so that its provenance is not certain.

[47] See Radau, op. cit., p. 70, and cp. Genouillac, "Tablettes sumériennes archaïques," p. xi.

[48] See the similar figure on a fragment of shell, illustrated on p. 41.

[49] Cf. Radau, "Early Bab. History," p. 71.

[50] Cf. Genouillac, "Tablettes sumériennes archaïques," pp. xxii. ff.

[51] See above, p. 105.

[52] "Déc. en Chaldée," p. xl., Col. II.

[53] Op. cit., p. xlvii.

[54] Col. II., l. 9.

[55] "Déc. en Chaldée," p. xliii., Col. VIII.

[56] See above, p. 106, n. 1.

Although, during the floods, Niffer is at times nearly isolated, the water never approaches within a considerable distance of the actual mounds. This is not due to any natural configuration of the soil, but to the fact that around the inner city, the site of which is marked by the mounds, there was built an outer ring of habitations at a time when the enclosed town of the earlier periods became too small to contain the growing population. The American excavations, which have been conducted on the site between the years 1889 and 1900, have shown that the earliest area of habitation was far more restricted than the mounds which cover the inner city.[1] In the plan on p. 88 it will be seen that this portion of the site is divided into two parts by the ancient bed of the Shatt en-Nîl. The contours of the mounds are indicated by dotted lines, and each of them bears a number in Roman figures. Mound III. is that which covered E-kur, the temple of Enlil, and it was around the shrine, in the shaded area upon the plan, that the original village or settlement was probably built. Here in the lowest stratum of the mound were found large beds of wood-ashes and animal bones, the remains of the earliest period of occupation.

The most striking feature in the temple-area, which was uncovered in the course of the excavations, is the great temple-tower, or ziggurat, erected by Ur-Engur, and faced by him with kiln-baked bricks bearing his name and inscription.[2] The ziggurat in its later and imposing form was built by him, though within its structure were found the cores of earlier and smaller towers, erected by Narâm-Sin and during the pre-Sargonic period. In fact, Ur-Engur considerably altered the appearance of the temple. In addition to building the ziggurat, he raised the level of the inner court above Narâm-Sin's pavement, and he straightened the course of the outer wall, using that of Narâm-Sin as a foundation where it crossed his line. His wall also included mounds XII. and V., in the latter of which many of the temple-archives have been found. During the Kassite period these were stored in buildings in mound X., across the Shatt en-Nîl in the area included within the inner city during the later periods. An alteration in the course of the river from the north-east to the south-west side of the temple area probably dates from the period of Samsu-iluna, who upon a cone found in débris in the temple-court records that he erected a dam and dug out a new channel for the Euphrates. His object in doing so was probably to bring a supply of water within reach of the later extension of the city on the south-west side.

The group of oldest constructions at Tello was discovered in the mound known as K, which rises to a height of seventeen metres above the plain. It is the largest and highest after the Palace Tell, to the south-east of which it lies at a distance of about two hundred metres.[3] Here, during his later excavations on the site, M. de Sarzec came upon the remains of a regular agricultural establishment, which throw an interesting light upon certain passages in the early foundation-inscriptions referring to constructions of a practical rather than of a purely religious character. It is true the titles of these buildings are often difficult to explain, but the mention of different classes of plantations in connection with them proves that they were mainly intended for agricultural purposes. Their titles are most frequently met with in Entemena's records, but Ur-Ninâ refers by name to the principal storehouse, and the excavations have shown that before his time this portion of the city had already acquired its later character. Here was situated the administrative centre of the sacred properties attached to the temples, and possibly also those of the patesi himself. It is true that the name of Ningirsu's great storehouse does not occur upon bricks or records found in the ancient structures upon Tell K, but it is quite possible that this was not a name for a single edifice, but was a general title for the whole complex of buildings, courts and outhouses employed in connection with the preparation and storage of produce from the city's lands and plantations.

At a depth of only two and a half metres from the surface of the tell M. de Sarzec came upon a building of the period of Gudea, of which only the angle of a wall remained. But, unlike the great Palace Tell, where the lowest diggings revealed nothing earlier than the reign of Ur-Bau, a deepening of his trenches here resulted in the recovery of buildings dating from the earliest periods in the history of the city. In accordance with the practice of the country, as each new building had been erected on the site, the foundations of the one it had displaced were left intact and carefully preserved within the new platform, in order to raise the building still higher above the plain and form a solid substructure for its support. To this practice we owe the preservation, in a comparatively complete form, of the foundations of earlier structures in the mound. At no great depth beneath Gudea's building were unearthed the remains of Ur-Ninâ's storehouse. Comparatively small in size, it is oriented by its angles, the two shorter sides facing north-west and south-east, and the two longer ones south-west and north-east, in accordance with the normal Sumerian system.[4] It was built of kiln-baked bricks, not square and flat like those of Gudea or of Sargon and Narâm-Sin, but oblong and plano-convex, and each bore the mark of a right thumb imprinted in the middle of its convex side. A few of the bricks that were found bear Ur-Ninâ's name in linear characters, and record his construction of the "House of Girsu," while one of them refers to the temple of Ningirsu. These may not have been in their original positions, but there is little doubt that the storehouse dates from Ur-Ninâ's reign, and it may well have been employed in connection with the temple of the city-god.

Built upon a platform composed of three layers of bricks set in bitumen, the walls of the building were still preserved to the height of a few feet. It is to be noted that on none of the sides is there a trace of any doorway or entrance, and it is probable that access was obtained from the outside by ladders of wood, or stairways of unburnt brick, reaching to the upper story. At D and E on the plan are traces of what may have been either steps or buttresses, but these do not belong to the original building and were added at a later time. The absence of any entrance certainly proves that the building was employed as a storehouse.[5] Within the building are two chambers, the one square (A), the other of a more oblong shape (B). They were separated by a transverse passage or corridor (C), which also ran round inside the outer walls, thus giving the interior chamber additional security. The double walls were well calculated to protect the interior from damp or heat, and would render it more difficult for pillagers to effect an entrance. Both in the chambers and the passages a coating of bitumen was spread upon the floor and walls. Here grain, oil, and fermented drink could have been stored in quantity, and the building may also have served as a magazine for arms and tools, and for the more precious kinds of building material.

Around the outside of the building, at a distance of about four metres from it, are a series of eight brick bases, two on each side, in a direct line with the walls.[6] On these stood pillars of cedar-wood, of which the charred remains were still visible. They probably supported a great wooden portico or gallery, which ran round the walls of the building and was doubtless used for the temporary storage of goods and agricultural implements. On the north-east side of the building a brick pavement (F) extended for some distance beyond the gallery, and at the southern angle, within the row of pillars and beneath the roof of the portico, was a small double basin (G) carefully lined with bitumen. At a greater distance from the house were two larger basins or tanks (I and K), with platforms built beside them of brick and bitumen (J and L); with one of them was connected a channel or water-course (M). At a later time Eannatum sunk a well not far to the west of Ur-Ninâ's storehouse, and from it a similar water-course ran to a circular basin; a large oval basin and others of rectangular shape were found rather more to the north. These, like Ur-Ninâ's tanks, were probably employed for the washing of vessels and for the cleansing processes which accompanied the preparation and storage of date-wine, the pressing of oil, and the numerous other occupations of a large agricultural community.

The bricks of the building were small and plano-convex, with thumb-impressions and without inscriptions, so that it is impossible to recover the name of its builder. But the objects found at the same deep level indicate a high antiquity, and present us with a picture of some of the inhabitants of the country at a time when this building, which was one of the oldest constructions at Lagash, stood upon the surface of the mound. The circular relief, sculptured with the meeting of the chieftains,[7] was found in fragments near the building. Another archaic piece of sculpture of the same remote period, which was also found in the neighbourhood, represents a figure, crowned with palm-branches; one hand is raised in an attitude of speech or adoration, and on the right are two standards supporting what appear to be colossal mace-heads. The sex of the figure is uncertain, but it may well be that of a woman; the lines below the chin which come from behind the ear, are not necessarily a beard, but may be intended for a thick lock of hair falling over the right shoulder. The scene probably represents an act of worship, and an archaic inscription on the field of the plaque appears to record a list of offerings, probably in honour of Ningirsu, whose name is mentioned together with that of his temple E-ninnû. It is interesting to note that in this very early age the temple of the city-god of Lagash already bore its later name.

The earliest written records of the Sumerians which we possess, apart from those engraved upon stone and of a purely votive character, concern the sale and donation of land, and they prove that certain customs were already in vogue with regard to the transfer of property, which we meet with again in later historical periods. A few such tablets of rounded form and fashioned of unburnt clay were found at Lagash on Tell K, and slightly below the level of Ur-Ninâ's building;[8] they may thus be assigned to a period anterior to his reign. Others of the same rounded form, but of baked clay, have been found at Shuruppak. It is a significant fact that several of these documents, after describing the amount of land sold and recording the principal price that was paid for it, enumerate a number of supplementary presents made by the buyer to the seller and his associates.[9] The presents consist of oxen, oil, wool and cloth, and precisely similar gifts are recorded on the Obelisk of Manishtusu.[10] It would thus appear that even in this early period the system of land tenure was already firmly established, which prevailed in both Sumer and Akkad under the earlier historical rulers.

The earliest written records of the Sumerians which we possess, apart from those engraved upon stone and of a purely votive character, concern the sale and donation of land, and they prove that certain customs were already in vogue with regard to the transfer of property, which we meet with again in later historical periods. A few such tablets of rounded form and fashioned of unburnt clay were found at Lagash on Tell K, and slightly below the level of Ur-Ninâ's building;[8] they may thus be assigned to a period anterior to his reign. Others of the same rounded form, but of baked clay, have been found at Shuruppak. It is a significant fact that several of these documents, after describing the amount of land sold and recording the principal price that was paid for it, enumerate a number of supplementary presents made by the buyer to the seller and his associates.[9] The presents consist of oxen, oil, wool and cloth, and precisely similar gifts are recorded on the Obelisk of Manishtusu.[10] It would thus appear that even in this early period the system of land tenure was already firmly established, which prevailed in both Sumer and Akkad under the earlier historical rulers.

The earliest written records of the Sumerians which we possess, apart from those engraved upon stone and of a purely votive character, concern the sale and donation of land, and they prove that certain customs were already in vogue with regard to the transfer of property, which we meet with again in later historical periods. A few such tablets of rounded form and fashioned of unburnt clay were found at Lagash on Tell K, and slightly below the level of Ur-Ninâ's building;[8] they may thus be assigned to a period anterior to his reign. Others of the same rounded form, but of baked clay, have been found at Shuruppak. It is a significant fact that several of these documents, after describing the amount of land sold and recording the principal price that was paid for it, enumerate a number of supplementary presents made by the buyer to the seller and his associates.[9] The presents consist of oxen, oil, wool and cloth, and precisely similar gifts are recorded on the Obelisk of Manishtusu.[10] It would thus appear that even in this early period the system of land tenure was already firmly established, which prevailed in both Sumer and Akkad under the earlier historical rulers.

From the Shuruppak tablets we also learn the names of a number of early rulers or officials of that city, in whose reigns or periods of office the documents were drawn up. Among the names recovered are those of Ur-Ninpa, Kanizi and Mash-Shuruppak, but they are given no titles on the tablets, and it is impossible to say whether their office preceded that of the patesi, or whether they were magistrates of the city who were subordinate to a ruler of higher rank. Another of these early deeds of sale is inscribed, not upon a tablet, but on the body of a black stone statuette that has been found at Tello.[11] From the text we learn that the buyer of the property was a certain Lupad, and the figure is evidently intended to represent him. Although it was found on the site of Lagash, and the text records a purchase of land in that city, it is remarkable that Lupad is described as a high official of the neighbouring city of Umma, which was the principal rival of Lagash during the greater part of its history. The archaic character of the sculpture, and the early form of writing upon it, suggest a date not much later than that of Ur-Ninâ, so that we must suppose the transaction took place at a period when one of the two rival cities acknowledged the suzerainty of the other. Unlike other Sumerian figures that have been recovered, Lupad's head has a slight ridge over the brow and below the cheek-bones. This has been explained by Heuzey as representing short hair and beard, but it more probably indicates the limits of those portions of the head and face that were shaved.[12] Thus Lupad presents no exception to the general Sumerian method of treating the hair.

From the Shuruppak tablets we also learn the names of a number of early rulers or officials of that city, in whose reigns or periods of office the documents were drawn up. Among the names recovered are those of Ur-Ninpa, Kanizi and Mash-Shuruppak, but they are given no titles on the tablets, and it is impossible to say whether their office preceded that of the patesi, or whether they were magistrates of the city who were subordinate to a ruler of higher rank. Another of these early deeds of sale is inscribed, not upon a tablet, but on the body of a black stone statuette that has been found at Tello.[11] From the text we learn that the buyer of the property was a certain Lupad, and the figure is evidently intended to represent him. Although it was found on the site of Lagash, and the text records a purchase of land in that city, it is remarkable that Lupad is described as a high official of the neighbouring city of Umma, which was the principal rival of Lagash during the greater part of its history. The archaic character of the sculpture, and the early form of writing upon it, suggest a date not much later than that of Ur-Ninâ, so that we must suppose the transaction took place at a period when one of the two rival cities acknowledged the suzerainty of the other. Unlike other Sumerian figures that have been recovered, Lupad's head has a slight ridge over the brow and below the cheek-bones. This has been explained by Heuzey as representing short hair and beard, but it more probably indicates the limits of those portions of the head and face that were shaved.[12] Thus Lupad presents no exception to the general Sumerian method of treating the hair.

In order to assign a date to such figures as that of Lupad, it is necessary, in the absence of other evidence, to be guided entirely by the style of the sculpture and the character of the writing. Several such figures of archaic Sumerian type have been recovered, and three of them represent kings who ruled in different cities at this early period. The finest of these is a standing figure of Esar, King of Adab, which was found in the course of the American excavations at Bismâya, and is now preserved in the Imperial Ottoman Museum at Constantinople. Its discoverers claimed that it was the earliest example of Sumerian sculpture known,[13] but it may be roughly placed at about the time of Ur-Ninâ's dynasty. A second king is represented by two fragments of a statuette from Tello, inscribed in archaic characters with a dedicatory text of E-abzu, King of Umma,[14] while the third is a seated figure of a king of the northern city or district of Ma'er, or Mari, and is preserved in the British Museum.[15] The same uncertainty applies to the date of Ur-Enlil, a patesi of Nippur, whose name is mentioned on one of the fragments of votive vases from that city which were found together on the south-east side of the temple-tower.[16] As in the case of Esar, King of Adab, we can only assign these rulers approximately to the period of the earlier rulers of Lagash.

In order to assign a date to such figures as that of Lupad, it is necessary, in the absence of other evidence, to be guided entirely by the style of the sculpture and the character of the writing. Several such figures of archaic Sumerian type have been recovered, and three of them represent kings who ruled in different cities at this early period. The finest of these is a standing figure of Esar, King of Adab, which was found in the course of the American excavations at Bismâya, and is now preserved in the Imperial Ottoman Museum at Constantinople. Its discoverers claimed that it was the earliest example of Sumerian sculpture known,[13] but it may be roughly placed at about the time of Ur-Ninâ's dynasty. A second king is represented by two fragments of a statuette from Tello, inscribed in archaic characters with a dedicatory text of E-abzu, King of Umma,[14] while the third is a seated figure of a king of the northern city or district of Ma'er, or Mari, and is preserved in the British Museum.[15] The same uncertainty applies to the date of Ur-Enlil, a patesi of Nippur, whose name is mentioned on one of the fragments of votive vases from that city which were found together on the south-east side of the temple-tower.[16] As in the case of Esar, King of Adab, we can only assign these rulers approximately to the period of the earlier rulers of Lagash.

In order to assign a date to such figures as that of Lupad, it is necessary, in the absence of other evidence, to be guided entirely by the style of the sculpture and the character of the writing. Several such figures of archaic Sumerian type have been recovered, and three of them represent kings who ruled in different cities at this early period. The finest of these is a standing figure of Esar, King of Adab, which was found in the course of the American excavations at Bismâya, and is now preserved in the Imperial Ottoman Museum at Constantinople. Its discoverers claimed that it was the earliest example of Sumerian sculpture known,[13] but it may be roughly placed at about the time of Ur-Ninâ's dynasty. A second king is represented by two fragments of a statuette from Tello, inscribed in archaic characters with a dedicatory text of E-abzu, King of Umma,[14] while the third is a seated figure of a king of the northern city or district of Ma'er, or Mari, and is preserved in the British Museum.[15] The same uncertainty applies to the date of Ur-Enlil, a patesi of Nippur, whose name is mentioned on one of the fragments of votive vases from that city which were found together on the south-east side of the temple-tower.[16] As in the case of Esar, King of Adab, we can only assign these rulers approximately to the period of the earlier rulers of Lagash.

In order to assign a date to such figures as that of Lupad, it is necessary, in the absence of other evidence, to be guided entirely by the style of the sculpture and the character of the writing. Several such figures of archaic Sumerian type have been recovered, and three of them represent kings who ruled in different cities at this early period. The finest of these is a standing figure of Esar, King of Adab, which was found in the course of the American excavations at Bismâya, and is now preserved in the Imperial Ottoman Museum at Constantinople. Its discoverers claimed that it was the earliest example of Sumerian sculpture known,[13] but it may be roughly placed at about the time of Ur-Ninâ's dynasty. A second king is represented by two fragments of a statuette from Tello, inscribed in archaic characters with a dedicatory text of E-abzu, King of Umma,[14] while the third is a seated figure of a king of the northern city or district of Ma'er, or Mari, and is preserved in the British Museum.[15] The same uncertainty applies to the date of Ur-Enlil, a patesi of Nippur, whose name is mentioned on one of the fragments of votive vases from that city which were found together on the south-east side of the temple-tower.[16] As in the case of Esar, King of Adab, we can only assign these rulers approximately to the period of the earlier rulers of Lagash.

At the earliest period of which we have any historical records it would appear that the city of Kish exercised a suzerainty over Sumer. Here there ruled at this time a king named Mesilim, to whom Lagash, and probably other great cities in the south, owed allegiance. During his reign a certain Lugal-shag-engur was patesi of Lagash, and we have definite record that he acknowledged Mesilim's supremacy. For a votive mace-head of colossal size has been found at Tello, which bears an inscription stating that it was dedicated to Ningirsu by Mesilim, who had restored his great temple at Lagash during the time that Lugal-shag-engur was patesi of that city.[17] The text, the brevity of which is characteristic of these early votive inscriptions, consists of but a few words, and reads: "Mesilim, King of Kish, the builder of the temple of Ningirsu, deposited this mace-head (for) Ningirsu (at the time when) Lugal-shag-engur (was) patesi of Lagash." In spite of its brevity the importance of the inscription is considerable, since it furnishes a synchronism between two early rulers of Sumer and the North.

The weapon itself, upon which it is engraved, IS also noteworthy. As may be inferred from its colossal size the mace was never intended for actual use in battle, but was sculptured by Mesilim's orders with the special object of being dedicated in the temple of the god. It is decorated with rudely-carved figures of lions, which run around it and form a single composition in relief. The lions are six in number, and are represented as pursuing and attacking one another. Each has seized the hind-leg and the back of the one which precedes it; they thus form an endless chain around the object, and are a most effective form of decoration. Unlike the majority of mace-heads, that of Mesilim is not perforated from top to bottom. The hole for receiving the handle of the weapon, though deep, is not continued to the top of the stone, which is carved in low relief with a representation of a lion-headed eagle with wings outspread and claws extended. Looked at from above, this fantastic animal appears as an isolated figure, but it is not to be separated from the lions running round the side of the mace-head. In fact, we may see in the whole composition a development of the symbol which formed the arms of the city of Lagash, and was the peculiar emblem of the city-god Ningirsu.[18] In the latter, the lion-headed eagle grasps two lions by the back, and in Mesilim's sacred mace we have the same motive of a lion-headed eagle above lions. It was, indeed, a peculiarly appropriate votive offering for an overlord of Lagash to make. As suzerain of Lagash, Mesilim had repaired the temple of Ningirsu, the city-god; the colossal mace-head, wrought with a design taken from the emblem of the city and its god, was thus a fitting object for his inscription. By depositing it in Ningirsu's temple, he not only sought to secure the favour of the local god by his piety, but he left in his city a permanent record of his own dominion.

Of Lugal-shag-engur we know as yet nothing beyond his name, and the fact that he was patesi of Lagash at the time of Mesilim, but the latter ruler has left a more enduring mark upon history. For a later patesi of Lagash, Entemena, when giving a historical summary of the relations which existed between his own city and the neighbouring city of Umma, begins his account with the period of Mesilim, and furnishes additional testimony to the part which this early king of Kish played in the local affairs of southern Babylonia.[19] From Mesilim's own inscription on the mace-head, we have already seen that he interested himself in the repair of temples and in fostering the local cults of cities in the south; from Entemena's record we learn that his activities also extended to adjusting the political relations between the separate states. The proximity of Umma to Lagash brought the two cities into constant rivalry, and, although they were separated by the Shatt el-Hai,[20] their respective territories were not always confined to their own sides of the stream. During the reign of Mesilim the antagonism between the cities came to a head, and, in order to prevent the outbreak of hostilities, Mesilim stepped in as arbitrator, possibly at the invitation of the two disputants. The point at issue concerned the boundary-line between the territories of Lagash and Umma, and Mesilim, as arbitrator, drew up a treaty of delimitation.

Of Lugal-shag-engur we know as yet nothing beyond his name, and the fact that he was patesi of Lagash at the time of Mesilim, but the latter ruler has left a more enduring mark upon history. For a later patesi of Lagash, Entemena, when giving a historical summary of the relations which existed between his own city and the neighbouring city of Umma, begins his account with the period of Mesilim, and furnishes additional testimony to the part which this early king of Kish played in the local affairs of southern Babylonia.[19] From Mesilim's own inscription on the mace-head, we have already seen that he interested himself in the repair of temples and in fostering the local cults of cities in the south; from Entemena's record we learn that his activities also extended to adjusting the political relations between the separate states. The proximity of Umma to Lagash brought the two cities into constant rivalry, and, although they were separated by the Shatt el-Hai,[20] their respective territories were not always confined to their own sides of the stream. During the reign of Mesilim the antagonism between the cities came to a head, and, in order to prevent the outbreak of hostilities, Mesilim stepped in as arbitrator, possibly at the invitation of the two disputants. The point at issue concerned the boundary-line between the territories of Lagash and Umma, and Mesilim, as arbitrator, drew up a treaty of delimitation.

We are enabled to fix approximately the period of Mesilim by this reference to him upon the cone of Entemena, but we have no such means of determining the date of another early ruler of the city of Kish, whose name has been recovered during the American excavations on the site of Nippur. Three fragments of a vase of dark brown sandstone have been found there, engraved with an inscription of Utug, an early patesi of Kish. They are said to have been found in the strata beneath the chambers of the great temple of Enlil on the south-east side of the ziggurat, or temple-tower.[21] It would be rash to form any theory as to the date of the vase solely from the position in which the fragments are said to have been discovered, but the extremely archaic forms of the characters of the inscription suggest that it dates from the earliest period of Babylonian history. Moreover, Utug is termed upon it patesi, not king, of Kish, suggesting that he ruled at a time when Kish had not the power and influence it enjoyed under Mesilim. The hegemony in Sumer and Akkad constantly passed from one city to another, so that it is possible that Utug should be set after Mesilim, when the power of Kish had temporarily declined. But as the characters of Utug's inscription are far more archaic than those of Mesilim, we may provisionally set him in the period before Kish attained the rank of a kingdom in place of its patesiate. But how long an interval separated Utug from Mesilim there is no means of telling.

It is probable that the early supremacy which Kish enjoyed during the reign of Mesilim continued for some time after his death. At any rate, the names of two other early rulers of that city are known, and, as they both bear the title of king, and not patesi, we may conclude that they lived during a period of the city's prosperity or expansion. The name of one of these kings, Urzage, occurs upon a broken vase of white calcite stalagmite, which was found at Nippur, approximately in the same place as the vase of the patesi Utug.[22] The inscription upon the vase records the fact that it was dedicated by Urzage to Enlil, "king of the lands." and his consort Ninlil, "the lady of heaven and earth." The end of the text is wanting, but we may conjecture that, like his earlier predecessor Utug, the king dedicated the vase in the temple of Enlil, at Nippur, in gratitude for some victory over his enemies. We may thus see in the dedication of the vase further evidence of the continued prosperity of Kish, though it is clear that it only maintained its position among the other great cities of the land by force of arms. The name of the other early king of Kish, Lugal-tarsi, is known to us from a short inscription upon a small tablet of lapis-lazuli preserved in the British Museum.[23] The text records the building of the wall of the enclosure, or outer court, of a temple dedicated to Anu and the goddess Ninni, but, as its provenance is unknown, it is impossible to base any argument upon it with reference to the extent of the influence exerted by Kish during the reign of Lugal-tarsi.[24] Such are the few facts which have come down to us with regard to the earliest period of the supremacy of Kish. But the fortunes of the city were destined to undergo a complete change, in consequence of the increase in the power of Lagash which took place during the reign of Eannatum. Before we describe the transfer of power from the north to Sumer, it will be necessary to retrace our steps to the point where we left the history of that city, during the time that Mesilim was ruling in the north.

It is probable that the early supremacy which Kish enjoyed during the reign of Mesilim continued for some time after his death. At any rate, the names of two other early rulers of that city are known, and, as they both bear the title of king, and not patesi, we may conclude that they lived during a period of the city's prosperity or expansion. The name of one of these kings, Urzage, occurs upon a broken vase of white calcite stalagmite, which was found at Nippur, approximately in the same place as the vase of the patesi Utug.[22] The inscription upon the vase records the fact that it was dedicated by Urzage to Enlil, "king of the lands." and his consort Ninlil, "the lady of heaven and earth." The end of the text is wanting, but we may conjecture that, like his earlier predecessor Utug, the king dedicated the vase in the temple of Enlil, at Nippur, in gratitude for some victory over his enemies. We may thus see in the dedication of the vase further evidence of the continued prosperity of Kish, though it is clear that it only maintained its position among the other great cities of the land by force of arms. The name of the other early king of Kish, Lugal-tarsi, is known to us from a short inscription upon a small tablet of lapis-lazuli preserved in the British Museum.[23] The text records the building of the wall of the enclosure, or outer court, of a temple dedicated to Anu and the goddess Ninni, but, as its provenance is unknown, it is impossible to base any argument upon it with reference to the extent of the influence exerted by Kish during the reign of Lugal-tarsi.[24] Such are the few facts which have come down to us with regard to the earliest period of the supremacy of Kish. But the fortunes of the city were destined to undergo a complete change, in consequence of the increase in the power of Lagash which took place during the reign of Eannatum. Before we describe the transfer of power from the north to Sumer, it will be necessary to retrace our steps to the point where we left the history of that city, during the time that Mesilim was ruling in the north.

It is probable that the early supremacy which Kish enjoyed during the reign of Mesilim continued for some time after his death. At any rate, the names of two other early rulers of that city are known, and, as they both bear the title of king, and not patesi, we may conclude that they lived during a period of the city's prosperity or expansion. The name of one of these kings, Urzage, occurs upon a broken vase of white calcite stalagmite, which was found at Nippur, approximately in the same place as the vase of the patesi Utug.[22] The inscription upon the vase records the fact that it was dedicated by Urzage to Enlil, "king of the lands." and his consort Ninlil, "the lady of heaven and earth." The end of the text is wanting, but we may conjecture that, like his earlier predecessor Utug, the king dedicated the vase in the temple of Enlil, at Nippur, in gratitude for some victory over his enemies. We may thus see in the dedication of the vase further evidence of the continued prosperity of Kish, though it is clear that it only maintained its position among the other great cities of the land by force of arms. The name of the other early king of Kish, Lugal-tarsi, is known to us from a short inscription upon a small tablet of lapis-lazuli preserved in the British Museum.[23] The text records the building of the wall of the enclosure, or outer court, of a temple dedicated to Anu and the goddess Ninni, but, as its provenance is unknown, it is impossible to base any argument upon it with reference to the extent of the influence exerted by Kish during the reign of Lugal-tarsi.[24] Such are the few facts which have come down to us with regard to the earliest period of the supremacy of Kish. But the fortunes of the city were destined to undergo a complete change, in consequence of the increase in the power of Lagash which took place during the reign of Eannatum. Before we describe the transfer of power from the north to Sumer, it will be necessary to retrace our steps to the point where we left the history of that city, during the time that Mesilim was ruling in the north.

The names of the successors of Lugal-shag-engur, Mesilim's contemporary, upon the throne of Lagash have not yet been recovered, and we do not know how long an interval separated his reign from that of Ur-Ninâ, the early king of Lagash, from whose time so many inscriptions and archaeological remains have been recovered at Tello.[25] It is possible that within this period we should set another ruler of Lagash, named Badu, to whom reference appears to be made by Eannatum upon the famous Stele of the Vultures. The passage occurs in the small fragment that has been preserved of the first column of the text engraved upon the stele,[26] the following line containing the title "King of Lagash." The context of the passage is not preserved, but it is possible that the signs which precede the title are to be taken as a proper name, and in that case they would give the name of an early ruler of the city. In favour of this view we may note that in the text upon an archaic clay tablet found below the level of Ur-Ninâ s building at Tello[27] the name Badu occurs, and, although it is not there employed as that of a king or patesi, the passage may be taken as evidence of the use of Badu as a proper name in this early age.

The names of the successors of Lugal-shag-engur, Mesilim's contemporary, upon the throne of Lagash have not yet been recovered, and we do not know how long an interval separated his reign from that of Ur-Ninâ, the early king of Lagash, from whose time so many inscriptions and archaeological remains have been recovered at Tello.[25] It is possible that within this period we should set another ruler of Lagash, named Badu, to whom reference appears to be made by Eannatum upon the famous Stele of the Vultures. The passage occurs in the small fragment that has been preserved of the first column of the text engraved upon the stele,[26] the following line containing the title "King of Lagash." The context of the passage is not preserved, but it is possible that the signs which precede the title are to be taken as a proper name, and in that case they would give the name of an early ruler of the city. In favour of this view we may note that in the text upon an archaic clay tablet found below the level of Ur-Ninâ s building at Tello[27] the name Badu occurs, and, although it is not there employed as that of a king or patesi, the passage may be taken as evidence of the use of Badu as a proper name in this early age.

The names of the successors of Lugal-shag-engur, Mesilim's contemporary, upon the throne of Lagash have not yet been recovered, and we do not know how long an interval separated his reign from that of Ur-Ninâ, the early king of Lagash, from whose time so many inscriptions and archaeological remains have been recovered at Tello.[25] It is possible that within this period we should set another ruler of Lagash, named Badu, to whom reference appears to be made by Eannatum upon the famous Stele of the Vultures. The passage occurs in the small fragment that has been preserved of the first column of the text engraved upon the stele,[26] the following line containing the title "King of Lagash." The context of the passage is not preserved, but it is possible that the signs which precede the title are to be taken as a proper name, and in that case they would give the name of an early ruler of the city. In favour of this view we may note that in the text upon an archaic clay tablet found below the level of Ur-Ninâ s building at Tello[27] the name Badu occurs, and, although it is not there employed as that of a king or patesi, the passage may be taken as evidence of the use of Badu as a proper name in this early age.

Assuming that Badu represents a royal name, it may be inferred from internal evidence furnished by Eannatum's inscription that he lived and reigned at some period before Ur-Ninâ. The introductory columns of Eannatum's text appear to give a brief historical summary concerning the relations which were maintained between Lagash and the neighbouring city of Umma in the period anterior to Eannatum's own reign. Now the second column of the text describes the attitude of Umma to Lagash in the reign of Akurgal, Ur-Ninâ's son and successor; it is thus a natural inference that Badu was a still earlier ruler who reigned at any rate before Ur-Ninâ. Whether he reigned before Lugal-shag-engur also, there are no data for deciding. It will be noted that Eannatum calls him "king" of Lagash, not "patesi," but the use of these titles by Eannatum, as applied to his predecessors, is not consistent, and, that he should describe Badu as "king," is no proof that Badu himself claimed that title. But he may have done so, and we may provisionally place him in the interval between the patesi Lugal-shag-engur and Ur-Ninâ, who in his numerous texts that have been recovered always claims the title of "king" in place of "patesi," a fact that suggests an increase in the power and importance of Lagash.[28] To the same period we may probably assign Enkhegal, another early king of Lagash, whose name has been recovered on an archaic tablet of limestone.[29]

Assuming that Badu represents a royal name, it may be inferred from internal evidence furnished by Eannatum's inscription that he lived and reigned at some period before Ur-Ninâ. The introductory columns of Eannatum's text appear to give a brief historical summary concerning the relations which were maintained between Lagash and the neighbouring city of Umma in the period anterior to Eannatum's own reign. Now the second column of the text describes the attitude of Umma to Lagash in the reign of Akurgal, Ur-Ninâ's son and successor; it is thus a natural inference that Badu was a still earlier ruler who reigned at any rate before Ur-Ninâ. Whether he reigned before Lugal-shag-engur also, there are no data for deciding. It will be noted that Eannatum calls him "king" of Lagash, not "patesi," but the use of these titles by Eannatum, as applied to his predecessors, is not consistent, and, that he should describe Badu as "king," is no proof that Badu himself claimed that title. But he may have done so, and we may provisionally place him in the interval between the patesi Lugal-shag-engur and Ur-Ninâ, who in his numerous texts that have been recovered always claims the title of "king" in place of "patesi," a fact that suggests an increase in the power and importance of Lagash.[28] To the same period we may probably assign Enkhegal, another early king of Lagash, whose name has been recovered on an archaic tablet of limestone.[29]

It is possible that Ur-Ninâ himself, though not a great soldier, did something to secure, or at least to maintain, the independence of his city. In any case, we know that he was the founder of his dynasty, for to neither his father Gunidu, nor to his grandfather Gursar, does he ascribe any titular rank. We may assume that he belonged to a powerful Sumerian family in Lagash, but, whether he obtained the throne by inheritance from some collateral branch, or secured it as the result of a revolt within the city, is not recorded. It is strange that in none of his numerous inscriptions does he lay claim to any conquest or achievement in the field. Most of his texts, it is true, are of a dedicatory character, but, to judge from those of other Sumerian rulers, this fact should not have prevented him from referring to them, had he any such successes to chronicle. The nearest approach to a record of a military nature is that he rebuilt the wall of Lagash. It is therefore clear that, though he may not have embarked on an aggressive policy, he did not neglect the defence of his own city. But that appears to have been the extent of his ambition: so long as the fortifications of the city were intact, and the armed men at her disposal sufficient for the defence of Lagash herself and her outlying territory, he did not seek to add to his own renown or to the city's wealth by foreign conquest. The silence of Entemena with regard to the relations of Lagash to Umma at this period is not conclusive evidence that Mesilim's treaty was still in force, or that the peace he inaugurated had remained unbroken. But Entemena's silence fully accords with that of Ur-Ninâ himself, and we may infer that, in spite of his claims to the royal title, he succeeded in avoiding any quarrel with his city's hereditary foe. Ur-Ninâ's attitude towards the city-state upon his own immediate borders may be regarded as typical of his policy as a whole. The onyx bowl which he dedicated to the goddess Bau may possibly have been part of certain booty won in battle,[30] but his aim appears to have been to devote his energies to the improvement of his land and the adornment of his city. It is therefore natural that his inscriptions[31] should consist of mere catalogues of the names of temples and other buildings erected during his reign, together with lists of the statues he dedicated to his gods, and of the canals he cut in order to increase the material wealth of his people.

It is possible that Ur-Ninâ himself, though not a great soldier, did something to secure, or at least to maintain, the independence of his city. In any case, we know that he was the founder of his dynasty, for to neither his father Gunidu, nor to his grandfather Gursar, does he ascribe any titular rank. We may assume that he belonged to a powerful Sumerian family in Lagash, but, whether he obtained the throne by inheritance from some collateral branch, or secured it as the result of a revolt within the city, is not recorded. It is strange that in none of his numerous inscriptions does he lay claim to any conquest or achievement in the field. Most of his texts, it is true, are of a dedicatory character, but, to judge from those of other Sumerian rulers, this fact should not have prevented him from referring to them, had he any such successes to chronicle. The nearest approach to a record of a military nature is that he rebuilt the wall of Lagash. It is therefore clear that, though he may not have embarked on an aggressive policy, he did not neglect the defence of his own city. But that appears to have been the extent of his ambition: so long as the fortifications of the city were intact, and the armed men at her disposal sufficient for the defence of Lagash herself and her outlying territory, he did not seek to add to his own renown or to the city's wealth by foreign conquest. The silence of Entemena with regard to the relations of Lagash to Umma at this period is not conclusive evidence that Mesilim's treaty was still in force, or that the peace he inaugurated had remained unbroken. But Entemena's silence fully accords with that of Ur-Ninâ himself, and we may infer that, in spite of his claims to the royal title, he succeeded in avoiding any quarrel with his city's hereditary foe. Ur-Ninâ's attitude towards the city-state upon his own immediate borders may be regarded as typical of his policy as a whole. The onyx bowl which he dedicated to the goddess Bau may possibly have been part of certain booty won in battle,[30] but his aim appears to have been to devote his energies to the improvement of his land and the adornment of his city. It is therefore natural that his inscriptions[31] should consist of mere catalogues of the names of temples and other buildings erected during his reign, together with lists of the statues he dedicated to his gods, and of the canals he cut in order to increase the material wealth of his people.

But, while Ur-Ninâ's policy appears to have been mainly of a domestic character, he did not fail to maintain relations with other cities in the sphere of religious observance. That he should have continued in active communication with Nippur, as the religious centre of the whole of Babylonia, is what we might infer from the practice of the period, and we may probably trace to this fact his dedication to Enlil of one of the canals which was cut during his reign. A more striking instance of the deference paid by Ur-Ninâ to the god of another city may be seen in his relations to Enki, the Sumerian prototype of the god Ea. When Ur-Ninâ planned the rebuilding of the temple E-ninnû, he appears to have taken precautions to ensure the success of his scheme by making a direct appeal to Enki, the city-god of Eridu. On a diorite plaque that has been found at Tello[32] he records the delivery of his prayer to Enki, that in his character of Chief Diviner he should use his pure reed, the wand of his divination, to render the work good and should pronounce a favourable oracle. The temple of Enki in the city of Eridu, near the shore of the Persian Gulf, was one of the earliest and most sacred of Sumerian shrines, and we may perhaps picture Ur-Ninâ as journeying thither from Lagash, in order to carry his petition in person into the presence of its mysterious god.

A glance at his texts will show that Ur-Ninâ more than once describes himself as the builder of "the House of Girsu," a title by which he refers to E-ninnû, the great temple dedicated to Ningirsu, since it stood in that quarter of the city which was named Girsu and was by far its most important building.[33] He also built E-pa, a sanctuary closely connected with E-ninnû and the worship of Ningirsu. This temple was added to at a later date by Gudea, who installed therein his patron god, Ningishzida, and set the nuptial gifts of Bau, Ningirsu's consort, within its shrine; it is possible that Ur-Ninâ's onyx bowl, which was dedicated to Bau, and the fragments of other bowls found with it,[34] were deposited by Ur-Ninâ in the same temple. Of other deities in Ningirsu's entourage, whom Ur-Ninâ singled out for special veneration, may be mentioned Dunshagga, Ningirsu's son, and Uri-zi, the god whose duty it was to look after Ningirsu's harîm. Among lesser temples, or portions of temples, which were built or restored by him was the Tirash, where on the day of the New Moon's appearance it was the custom to hold a festival in honour of Ningirsu; while another act of piety which Ur-Ninâ records was the making of a statue of Lugal-uru, the god from whose festival one of the Sumerian months took its name. In this connection, mention may also be made of the god Dun-...,[35] whom Ur-Ninâ describes as the "God-king," since he stood in a peculiar relation to Ur-Ninâ and his family. He became the patron deity of the dynasty which Ur-Ninâ founded, and, down to the reign of Enannatum II., was the personal protector of the reigning king or patesi of Lagash.[36]

A glance at his texts will show that Ur-Ninâ more than once describes himself as the builder of "the House of Girsu," a title by which he refers to E-ninnû, the great temple dedicated to Ningirsu, since it stood in that quarter of the city which was named Girsu and was by far its most important building.[33] He also built E-pa, a sanctuary closely connected with E-ninnû and the worship of Ningirsu. This temple was added to at a later date by Gudea, who installed therein his patron god, Ningishzida, and set the nuptial gifts of Bau, Ningirsu's consort, within its shrine; it is possible that Ur-Ninâ's onyx bowl, which was dedicated to Bau, and the fragments of other bowls found with it,[34] were deposited by Ur-Ninâ in the same temple. Of other deities in Ningirsu's entourage, whom Ur-Ninâ singled out for special veneration, may be mentioned Dunshagga, Ningirsu's son, and Uri-zi, the god whose duty it was to look after Ningirsu's harîm. Among lesser temples, or portions of temples, which were built or restored by him was the Tirash, where on the day of the New Moon's appearance it was the custom to hold a festival in honour of Ningirsu; while another act of piety which Ur-Ninâ records was the making of a statue of Lugal-uru, the god from whose festival one of the Sumerian months took its name. In this connection, mention may also be made of the god Dun-...,[35] whom Ur-Ninâ describes as the "God-king," since he stood in a peculiar relation to Ur-Ninâ and his family. He became the patron deity of the dynasty which Ur-Ninâ founded, and, down to the reign of Enannatum II., was the personal protector of the reigning king or patesi of Lagash.[36]

A glance at his texts will show that Ur-Ninâ more than once describes himself as the builder of "the House of Girsu," a title by which he refers to E-ninnû, the great temple dedicated to Ningirsu, since it stood in that quarter of the city which was named Girsu and was by far its most important building.[33] He also built E-pa, a sanctuary closely connected with E-ninnû and the worship of Ningirsu. This temple was added to at a later date by Gudea, who installed therein his patron god, Ningishzida, and set the nuptial gifts of Bau, Ningirsu's consort, within its shrine; it is possible that Ur-Ninâ's onyx bowl, which was dedicated to Bau, and the fragments of other bowls found with it,[34] were deposited by Ur-Ninâ in the same temple. Of other deities in Ningirsu's entourage, whom Ur-Ninâ singled out for special veneration, may be mentioned Dunshagga, Ningirsu's son, and Uri-zi, the god whose duty it was to look after Ningirsu's harîm. Among lesser temples, or portions of temples, which were built or restored by him was the Tirash, where on the day of the New Moon's appearance it was the custom to hold a festival in honour of Ningirsu; while another act of piety which Ur-Ninâ records was the making of a statue of Lugal-uru, the god from whose festival one of the Sumerian months took its name. In this connection, mention may also be made of the god Dun-...,[35] whom Ur-Ninâ describes as the "God-king," since he stood in a peculiar relation to Ur-Ninâ and his family. He became the patron deity of the dynasty which Ur-Ninâ founded, and, down to the reign of Enannatum II., was the personal protector of the reigning king or patesi of Lagash.[36]

A glance at his texts will show that Ur-Ninâ more than once describes himself as the builder of "the House of Girsu," a title by which he refers to E-ninnû, the great temple dedicated to Ningirsu, since it stood in that quarter of the city which was named Girsu and was by far its most important building.[33] He also built E-pa, a sanctuary closely connected with E-ninnû and the worship of Ningirsu. This temple was added to at a later date by Gudea, who installed therein his patron god, Ningishzida, and set the nuptial gifts of Bau, Ningirsu's consort, within its shrine; it is possible that Ur-Ninâ's onyx bowl, which was dedicated to Bau, and the fragments of other bowls found with it,[34] were deposited by Ur-Ninâ in the same temple. Of other deities in Ningirsu's entourage, whom Ur-Ninâ singled out for special veneration, may be mentioned Dunshagga, Ningirsu's son, and Uri-zi, the god whose duty it was to look after Ningirsu's harîm. Among lesser temples, or portions of temples, which were built or restored by him was the Tirash, where on the day of the New Moon's appearance it was the custom to hold a festival in honour of Ningirsu; while another act of piety which Ur-Ninâ records was the making of a statue of Lugal-uru, the god from whose festival one of the Sumerian months took its name. In this connection, mention may also be made of the god Dun-...,[35] whom Ur-Ninâ describes as the "God-king," since he stood in a peculiar relation to Ur-Ninâ and his family. He became the patron deity of the dynasty which Ur-Ninâ founded, and, down to the reign of Enannatum II., was the personal protector of the reigning king or patesi of Lagash.[36]

Although, as we have seen, the exact relation of the three patesis, Enetarzi, Enlitarzi, and Lugal-anda, to the dynasty of Ur-Ninâ is still a matter for conjecture, there is no doubt that with Urukagina, at any rate, a complete break took place, not only in the succession, but also in the traditions and principles which had guided for so long the ruling family at Lagash. That Urukagina did not obtain the throne by right of succession is clear from the total absence of any genealogies in his inscriptions. He does not even name his father,[35] so that we may trace his succession to his own initiative. He himself ascribes to Ningirsu his elevation to the throne, and the phrase that follows suggests that this was not accomplished without a struggle. When describing in detail the drastic reforms which he had carried out in the internal administration of the state, he prefaces his account by stating that they took place when Ningirsu had given him the kingdom of Lagash and had established his might. In view of these very reforms, we may regard it as extremely probable that he headed a reaction against certain abuses which had characterized the recent government of the city, and that, in usurping the throne, he owed his success to a wide-spread feeling of discontent among the great body of the people.

For the construction of his temples Ur-Ninâ states that he fetched wood from the mountains, but unlike Gudea in a later age, he is not recorded to have brought in his craftsmen from abroad. In addition to the building of temples, Ur-Ninâ's other main activity appears to have centred in the cutting of canals; among these was the canal named Asukhur, on the banks of which his grandson Eannatum won a battle. That the changes he introduced into the canalization of the country were entirely successful may be inferred from the numerous storehouses and magazines, which he records he built in connection with the various temples,[37] and by his statement that when he added to the temple of Ningirsu he stored up large quantities of grain within the temple-granaries. In fact, from the inscriptions he has left us, Ur-Ninâ appears as a pacific monarch devoted to the worship of his city-gods and to the welfare of his own people. His ambitions lay within his own borders, and, when he had secured his frontier, he was content to practise the arts of peace. It was doubtless due to this wise and far-seeing policy that the resources of the city were husbanded, so that under his more famous grandson she was enabled to repel the attack of enemies and embark upon a career of foreign conquest. Ur-Ninâ's posthumous fame is evidence that his reign was a period of peace and prosperity for Lagash. His great-grandson Entemena boasts of being his descendant, and ascribes to him the title of King of Lagash which he did not claim either for himself or for his father Enannatum I., while even in the reign of Lugal-anda offerings continued to be made in connection with his statue in Lagash.[38]

For the construction of his temples Ur-Ninâ states that he fetched wood from the mountains, but unlike Gudea in a later age, he is not recorded to have brought in his craftsmen from abroad. In addition to the building of temples, Ur-Ninâ's other main activity appears to have centred in the cutting of canals; among these was the canal named Asukhur, on the banks of which his grandson Eannatum won a battle. That the changes he introduced into the canalization of the country were entirely successful may be inferred from the numerous storehouses and magazines, which he records he built in connection with the various temples,[37] and by his statement that when he added to the temple of Ningirsu he stored up large quantities of grain within the temple-granaries. In fact, from the inscriptions he has left us, Ur-Ninâ appears as a pacific monarch devoted to the worship of his city-gods and to the welfare of his own people. His ambitions lay within his own borders, and, when he had secured his frontier, he was content to practise the arts of peace. It was doubtless due to this wise and far-seeing policy that the resources of the city were husbanded, so that under his more famous grandson she was enabled to repel the attack of enemies and embark upon a career of foreign conquest. Ur-Ninâ's posthumous fame is evidence that his reign was a period of peace and prosperity for Lagash. His great-grandson Entemena boasts of being his descendant, and ascribes to him the title of King of Lagash which he did not claim either for himself or for his father Enannatum I., while even in the reign of Lugal-anda offerings continued to be made in connection with his statue in Lagash.[38]

With Enannatum II., the son of Entemena, who succeeded his father upon the throne, the dynasty founded by Ur-Ninâ, so far as we know, came to an end.[21] The reign of Entemena's son is attested by a single inscription engraved upon a door-socket from the great store-house of Ningirsu at Lagash, his restoration of which is recorded in the text. There then occurs a gap in our sequence of royal inscriptions found at Tello, the next ruler who has left us any records of his own, being Urukagina, the ill-fated reformer and king of Lagash, under whom the city was destined to suffer what was undoubtedly the greatest reverse she encountered in the long course of her history. Although we have no royal texts relating to the period between the reigns of Enannatum II. and Urukagina, we are fortunately not without means for estimating approximately its length and recovering the names of some, if not all, of the patesis who occupied the throne of Lagash in the interval. Our information is derived from a number of clay tablets, the majority of which were found in the course of native diggings at Tello after M. de Sarzec's death.[22] They formed part of the private archive of the patesis of Lagash at this time, and are concerned with the household expenses of the court and particularly of the harîm. Frequently these tablets of accounts make mention of the reigning patesi or his wife, and from them we have recovered the names of three patesis—Enetarzi, Enlitarzi, and Lugal-anda[23]—who are to be set in the interval between Enannatum II. and Urukagina. Moreover, it has been pointed out that the inscriptions upon most of the tablets end with a peculiar form of figure, consisting of one or more diagonal strokes cutting a single horizontal one; and a plausible explanation has been given of these figures, to the effect that they were intended to indicate the date of the tablet, the number of diagonal strokes showing at a glance the year of the patesi's reign in which the text was written, and to which the accounts refer. A considerable number of such tablets have been examined, and by counting the strokes upon them it has been concluded that Enetarzi reigned for at least four years, Enlitarzi for at least five years, and Lugal-anda for at least seven years.[24]

We are not dependent solely on what we can gather from the inscriptions themselves for a knowledge of Ur-Ninâ. For he has left us sculptured representations, not only of himself, but also of his sons and principal officers, from which we may form a very clear picture of the primitive conditions of life obtaining in Sumer at the time of this early ruler. The sculptures take the form of limestone plaques, roughly carved in low relief with figures of Ur-Ninâ surrounded by his family and his court.[39] The plaques are oblong in shape, with the corners slightly rounded, and in the centre of each is bored a circular hole. Though they are obviously of a votive character, the exact object for which they are intended is not clear at first sight. It has been, and indeed is still, conjectured that the plaques were fixed vertically to the walls of shrines,[40] but this explanation has been discredited by the discovery of the plaque, or rather block, of Dudu, the priest of Ningirsu during the reign of Entemena. From the shape of the latter, the reverse of which is not flat but pyramidal, and also from the inscription upon it, we gather that the object of these perforated bas-reliefs was to form horizontal supports for ceremonial mace-heads or sacred emblems, which were dedicated as votive offerings in the temples of the gods.[41] The great value of those of Ur-Ninâ consists in the vivid pictures they give us of royal personages and high officials at this early period.

Behind the king is a little figure intended for the royal cup-bearer, Anita, and facing him are five of his children. It is usually held that the first of these figures, who bears the name of Lidda and is clothed in a more elaborate dress than the other four, is intended for the king's eldest son.[45] But in addition to the distinctive dress, this figure is further differentiated from the others by wearing long hair in place of having the head shaved. In this respect it bears some resemblance to an archaic statuette, which appears to be that of a woman;[46] and the sign attached to Lidda's name, engraved upon the stone, is possibly that for "daughter," not "son." It is thus not unlikely that we should identify the figure with a daughter of Ur-Ninâ. The other figures in the row are four of the king's sons, named Akurgal, Lugal-ezen, Anikurra and Muninnikurta. A curious point that may be noted is that the height of these figures increases as they recede from the king. Thus the first of the small figures, that of Akurgal, who succeeded Ur-Ninâ upon the throne, is represented as smaller than his brothers, and it has been suggested in consequence that he was not the king's eldest son,[47] a point to which we will return later. In the scene sculptured upon the lower half of the plaque the king is represented as seated upon a throne and raising in his right hand a cup from which he appears to be pouring a libation. We may probably see in this group a picture of the king dedicating the temple after the task of building was finished. The inscription records the fact that he had brought wood from the mountains, doubtless employed in the construction of the temples, a detail which emphasises the difficulties he had overcome. The cup-bearer who stands behind the throne is in this scene, not Anita, but Sagantug, while the figure facing the king is a high official named Dudu, and to the left of Dudu are three more of the king's sons named Anunpad, Menudgid, and Addatur.

We are not dependent solely on what we can gather from the inscriptions themselves for a knowledge of Ur-Ninâ. For he has left us sculptured representations, not only of himself, but also of his sons and principal officers, from which we may form a very clear picture of the primitive conditions of life obtaining in Sumer at the time of this early ruler. The sculptures take the form of limestone plaques, roughly carved in low relief with figures of Ur-Ninâ surrounded by his family and his court.[39] The plaques are oblong in shape, with the corners slightly rounded, and in the centre of each is bored a circular hole. Though they are obviously of a votive character, the exact object for which they are intended is not clear at first sight. It has been, and indeed is still, conjectured that the plaques were fixed vertically to the walls of shrines,[40] but this explanation has been discredited by the discovery of the plaque, or rather block, of Dudu, the priest of Ningirsu during the reign of Entemena. From the shape of the latter, the reverse of which is not flat but pyramidal, and also from the inscription upon it, we gather that the object of these perforated bas-reliefs was to form horizontal supports for ceremonial mace-heads or sacred emblems, which were dedicated as votive offerings in the temples of the gods.[41] The great value of those of Ur-Ninâ consists in the vivid pictures they give us of royal personages and high officials at this early period.

We are not dependent solely on what we can gather from the inscriptions themselves for a knowledge of Ur-Ninâ. For he has left us sculptured representations, not only of himself, but also of his sons and principal officers, from which we may form a very clear picture of the primitive conditions of life obtaining in Sumer at the time of this early ruler. The sculptures take the form of limestone plaques, roughly carved in low relief with figures of Ur-Ninâ surrounded by his family and his court.[39] The plaques are oblong in shape, with the corners slightly rounded, and in the centre of each is bored a circular hole. Though they are obviously of a votive character, the exact object for which they are intended is not clear at first sight. It has been, and indeed is still, conjectured that the plaques were fixed vertically to the walls of shrines,[40] but this explanation has been discredited by the discovery of the plaque, or rather block, of Dudu, the priest of Ningirsu during the reign of Entemena. From the shape of the latter, the reverse of which is not flat but pyramidal, and also from the inscription upon it, we gather that the object of these perforated bas-reliefs was to form horizontal supports for ceremonial mace-heads or sacred emblems, which were dedicated as votive offerings in the temples of the gods.[41] The great value of those of Ur-Ninâ consists in the vivid pictures they give us of royal personages and high officials at this early period.

The largest of the plaques[42] is sculptured with two separate scenes, in each of which Ur-Ninâ is represented in a different attitude and with a different occupation, while around him stand his sons and ministers. In the upper scene the king is standing; he is nude down to the waist and his feet are bare, while around his loins he wears the rough woollen garment of the period,[43] and upon his shaven head he supports a basket which he steadies with his right hand. The text engraved beside the king, in addition to giving his name and genealogy, records that he has built the temple of Ningirsu, the abzu-banda which was probably a great laver or basin intended for the temple-service, and the temple of Ninâ; and it has been suggested that the king is here portrayed bearing a basket of offerings to lay before his god or goddess. But the basket he carries is exactly similar to those borne by labourers for heaping earth upon the dead as represented upon the Stele of the Vultures,[44] and baskets have always been used in the east by labourers and builders for carrying earth and other building-materials. It is therefore more probable that the king is here revealed in the character of a labourer bearing materials for the construction of the temples referred to in the text. The same explanation applies to the copper votive figures of a later period which are represented bearing baskets on their heads. In a similar spirit Gudea has left us statues of himself as an architect, holding tablet and rule; Ur-Ninâ represents himself in the still more humble rôle of a labourer engaged in the actual work of building the temple for his god.

For the construction of his temples Ur-Ninâ states that he fetched wood from the mountains, but unlike Gudea in a later age, he is not recorded to have brought in his craftsmen from abroad. In addition to the building of temples, Ur-Ninâ's other main activity appears to have centred in the cutting of canals; among these was the canal named Asukhur, on the banks of which his grandson Eannatum won a battle. That the changes he introduced into the canalization of the country were entirely successful may be inferred from the numerous storehouses and magazines, which he records he built in connection with the various temples,[37] and by his statement that when he added to the temple of Ningirsu he stored up large quantities of grain within the temple-granaries. In fact, from the inscriptions he has left us, Ur-Ninâ appears as a pacific monarch devoted to the worship of his city-gods and to the welfare of his own people. His ambitions lay within his own borders, and, when he had secured his frontier, he was content to practise the arts of peace. It was doubtless due to this wise and far-seeing policy that the resources of the city were husbanded, so that under his more famous grandson she was enabled to repel the attack of enemies and embark upon a career of foreign conquest. Ur-Ninâ's posthumous fame is evidence that his reign was a period of peace and prosperity for Lagash. His great-grandson Entemena boasts of being his descendant, and ascribes to him the title of King of Lagash which he did not claim either for himself or for his father Enannatum I., while even in the reign of Lugal-anda offerings continued to be made in connection with his statue in Lagash.[38]

The largest of the plaques[42] is sculptured with two separate scenes, in each of which Ur-Ninâ is represented in a different attitude and with a different occupation, while around him stand his sons and ministers. In the upper scene the king is standing; he is nude down to the waist and his feet are bare, while around his loins he wears the rough woollen garment of the period,[43] and upon his shaven head he supports a basket which he steadies with his right hand. The text engraved beside the king, in addition to giving his name and genealogy, records that he has built the temple of Ningirsu, the abzu-banda which was probably a great laver or basin intended for the temple-service, and the temple of Ninâ; and it has been suggested that the king is here portrayed bearing a basket of offerings to lay before his god or goddess. But the basket he carries is exactly similar to those borne by labourers for heaping earth upon the dead as represented upon the Stele of the Vultures,[44] and baskets have always been used in the east by labourers and builders for carrying earth and other building-materials. It is therefore more probable that the king is here revealed in the character of a labourer bearing materials for the construction of the temples referred to in the text. The same explanation applies to the copper votive figures of a later period which are represented bearing baskets on their heads. In a similar spirit Gudea has left us statues of himself as an architect, holding tablet and rule; Ur-Ninâ represents himself in the still more humble rôle of a labourer engaged in the actual work of building the temple for his god.

Another distinctive characteristic, almost equally striking, may be seen in the features of the face as represented in the outline engraving and in the sculpture of the earlier periods. It is true that the Sumerian had a prominent nose, which forms, indeed, his most striking feature, but both nose and lips are never full and fleshy as with the Semites. It is sometimes claimed that such primitive representations as occur upon Ur-Ninâ's bas-reliefs, or in Fig. 1 in the accompanying block, are too rude to be regarded as representing accurately an ethnological type. But it will be noted that the same general characteristics are also found in the later and more finished sculptures of Gudea's period. This fact is illustrated by the two black diorite heads of statuettes figured on the following page. In both examples certain archaic conventions are retained, such as the exaggerated line of the eyebrows, and the unfinished ear; but nose and lips are obviously not Semitic, and they accurately reproduce the same racial type which is found upon the earlier reliefs.

The largest of the plaques[42] is sculptured with two separate scenes, in each of which Ur-Ninâ is represented in a different attitude and with a different occupation, while around him stand his sons and ministers. In the upper scene the king is standing; he is nude down to the waist and his feet are bare, while around his loins he wears the rough woollen garment of the period,[43] and upon his shaven head he supports a basket which he steadies with his right hand. The text engraved beside the king, in addition to giving his name and genealogy, records that he has built the temple of Ningirsu, the abzu-banda which was probably a great laver or basin intended for the temple-service, and the temple of Ninâ; and it has been suggested that the king is here portrayed bearing a basket of offerings to lay before his god or goddess. But the basket he carries is exactly similar to those borne by labourers for heaping earth upon the dead as represented upon the Stele of the Vultures,[44] and baskets have always been used in the east by labourers and builders for carrying earth and other building-materials. It is therefore more probable that the king is here revealed in the character of a labourer bearing materials for the construction of the temples referred to in the text. The same explanation applies to the copper votive figures of a later period which are represented bearing baskets on their heads. In a similar spirit Gudea has left us statues of himself as an architect, holding tablet and rule; Ur-Ninâ represents himself in the still more humble rôle of a labourer engaged in the actual work of building the temple for his god.

Both Eannatum and his soldiers wear a conical helmet, covering the brow and carried down low at the back so as to protect the neck, the royal helmet being distinguished by the addition at the sides of moulded pieces to protect the ears. Both the shields and the helmets were probably of leather, though the nine circular bosses on the face of each of the former may possibly have been of metal. Their use was clearly to strengthen the shields, and they were probably attached to a wooden framework on the other side. They would also tend to protect the surface of the shields by deflecting blows aimed at them. The royal weapons consisted of a long lance or spear, wielded in the left hand, and a curved mace or throwing-stick, formed of three strands bound together at intervals with thongs of leather or bands of metal. When in his chariot on the march, the king was furnished with additional weapons, consisting of a flat-headed axe like those of his soldiers, and a number of light darts, some fitted with double points. These last he carried in a huge quiver attached to the fore part of his chariot, and with them we may note a double-thonged whip, doubtless intended for driving the ass or asses that drew the vehicle. It is probable that the soldiers following Eannatum in both scenes were picked men, who formed the royal body-guard, for those in the battle-scene are distinguished by the long hair or, rather, wig, that falls upon their shoulders from beneath their helmets,[25] and those on the march are seen to be clothed from the waist downwards in the rough woollen garment similar to that worn by the king. They may well have been recruited among the members of the royal house and the chief families of Lagash. The king's apparel is distinguished from theirs by the addition of a cloak, possibly of skin,[26] worn over the left shoulder in such a way that it leaves the right arm and shoulder entirely free.

Behind the king is a little figure intended for the royal cup-bearer, Anita, and facing him are five of his children. It is usually held that the first of these figures, who bears the name of Lidda and is clothed in a more elaborate dress than the other four, is intended for the king's eldest son.[45] But in addition to the distinctive dress, this figure is further differentiated from the others by wearing long hair in place of having the head shaved. In this respect it bears some resemblance to an archaic statuette, which appears to be that of a woman;[46] and the sign attached to Lidda's name, engraved upon the stone, is possibly that for "daughter," not "son." It is thus not unlikely that we should identify the figure with a daughter of Ur-Ninâ. The other figures in the row are four of the king's sons, named Akurgal, Lugal-ezen, Anikurra and Muninnikurta. A curious point that may be noted is that the height of these figures increases as they recede from the king. Thus the first of the small figures, that of Akurgal, who succeeded Ur-Ninâ upon the throne, is represented as smaller than his brothers, and it has been suggested in consequence that he was not the king's eldest son,[47] a point to which we will return later. In the scene sculptured upon the lower half of the plaque the king is represented as seated upon a throne and raising in his right hand a cup from which he appears to be pouring a libation. We may probably see in this group a picture of the king dedicating the temple after the task of building was finished. The inscription records the fact that he had brought wood from the mountains, doubtless employed in the construction of the temples, a detail which emphasises the difficulties he had overcome. The cup-bearer who stands behind the throne is in this scene, not Anita, but Sagantug, while the figure facing the king is a high official named Dudu, and to the left of Dudu are three more of the king's sons named Anunpad, Menudgid, and Addatur.

Behind the king is a little figure intended for the royal cup-bearer, Anita, and facing him are five of his children. It is usually held that the first of these figures, who bears the name of Lidda and is clothed in a more elaborate dress than the other four, is intended for the king's eldest son.[45] But in addition to the distinctive dress, this figure is further differentiated from the others by wearing long hair in place of having the head shaved. In this respect it bears some resemblance to an archaic statuette, which appears to be that of a woman;[46] and the sign attached to Lidda's name, engraved upon the stone, is possibly that for "daughter," not "son." It is thus not unlikely that we should identify the figure with a daughter of Ur-Ninâ. The other figures in the row are four of the king's sons, named Akurgal, Lugal-ezen, Anikurra and Muninnikurta. A curious point that may be noted is that the height of these figures increases as they recede from the king. Thus the first of the small figures, that of Akurgal, who succeeded Ur-Ninâ upon the throne, is represented as smaller than his brothers, and it has been suggested in consequence that he was not the king's eldest son,[47] a point to which we will return later. In the scene sculptured upon the lower half of the plaque the king is represented as seated upon a throne and raising in his right hand a cup from which he appears to be pouring a libation. We may probably see in this group a picture of the king dedicating the temple after the task of building was finished. The inscription records the fact that he had brought wood from the mountains, doubtless employed in the construction of the temples, a detail which emphasises the difficulties he had overcome. The cup-bearer who stands behind the throne is in this scene, not Anita, but Sagantug, while the figure facing the king is a high official named Dudu, and to the left of Dudu are three more of the king's sons named Anunpad, Menudgid, and Addatur.

Behind the king is a little figure intended for the royal cup-bearer, Anita, and facing him are five of his children. It is usually held that the first of these figures, who bears the name of Lidda and is clothed in a more elaborate dress than the other four, is intended for the king's eldest son.[45] But in addition to the distinctive dress, this figure is further differentiated from the others by wearing long hair in place of having the head shaved. In this respect it bears some resemblance to an archaic statuette, which appears to be that of a woman;[46] and the sign attached to Lidda's name, engraved upon the stone, is possibly that for "daughter," not "son." It is thus not unlikely that we should identify the figure with a daughter of Ur-Ninâ. The other figures in the row are four of the king's sons, named Akurgal, Lugal-ezen, Anikurra and Muninnikurta. A curious point that may be noted is that the height of these figures increases as they recede from the king. Thus the first of the small figures, that of Akurgal, who succeeded Ur-Ninâ upon the throne, is represented as smaller than his brothers, and it has been suggested in consequence that he was not the king's eldest son,[47] a point to which we will return later. In the scene sculptured upon the lower half of the plaque the king is represented as seated upon a throne and raising in his right hand a cup from which he appears to be pouring a libation. We may probably see in this group a picture of the king dedicating the temple after the task of building was finished. The inscription records the fact that he had brought wood from the mountains, doubtless employed in the construction of the temples, a detail which emphasises the difficulties he had overcome. The cup-bearer who stands behind the throne is in this scene, not Anita, but Sagantug, while the figure facing the king is a high official named Dudu, and to the left of Dudu are three more of the king's sons named Anunpad, Menudgid, and Addatur.

Another of Ur-Ninâ's plaques is not completely preserved, for the right half is wanting upon which was the figure, or possibly two figures, of the king. On the portion that has been recovered are sculptured two rows of figures, both facing the right. The first in the lower row is Anita, the cup-bearer; then comes a high official named Banar; then Akurgal, distinguished by the title of "son," and on the extreme left Namazua, the scribe. Of the four figures preserved in the upper row, the two central ones are Lugal-ezen and Muninnikurta, both of whom bear the title of "son," as on the largest of the three plaques. The reading of the names upon the figures on the right and left is uncertain, but they are probably intended for officials of the court. The one on the left of the line is of some interest, for he carries a staff upon his left shoulder from which hangs a bag. We may perhaps regard him as the royal chamberlain, who controlled the supplies of the palace; or his duty may have been to look after the provisions and accommodation for the court, should the king ever undertake a journey from one city to another.[48]

While Ur-Ninâ's sons upon the smaller plaques are all roughly of the same size, we have noted that the similar figures upon the largest plaque vary slightly in height. It has been suggested that the intention of the sculptor was to indicate the difference in age between the brothers, and in consequence it has been argued that Akurgal, who succeeded Ur-Ninâ upon the throne of Lagash, was his fifth, and not his eldest, son. This inference has further been employed to suggest that after Ur-Ninâ's death there may have followed a period of weakness within the state of Lagash, due to disunion among his sons; and during the supposed struggle for the succession it is conjectured that the city may have been distracted by internal conflicts, and, in consequence, was unable to maintain her independence as a city-state, which she only succeeded in recovering in the reign of Eannatum, the son and successor of Akurgal.[49] But a brief examination of the theory will show that there is little to be said for it, and it is probable that the slight difference in the height of the figures is fortuitous and unconnected with their respective ages. It may be admitted that a good deal depends upon the sex of Lidda, who, on the largest plaque, faces the standing figure of Ur-Ninâ. If this is intended for a son of the king, his richer clothing marks him out as the crown-prince; but, even so, we may suppose that Akurgal was Ur-Ninâ's second son, and that he succeeded to the throne in consequence of Lidda having predeceased his father. But reasons have already been adduced for believing that Lidda was a daughter, not a son, of Ur-Ninâ. In that case Akurgal occupies the place of honour among his brothers in standing nearest the king. He is further differentiated from them by the cup which he carries; in fact, he here appears as cup-bearer to Lidda, the office performed by Anita and Saguntug for the king.

That the crown-prince should be here represented as attending his sister may appear strange, but, in view of our imperfect knowledge of this early period, the suggestion should not be dismissed solely on that account. Indeed, the class of temple votaries, who enjoyed a high social position under the Semitic kings of the First Dynasty of Babylon, probably had its counterpart at the centres of Sumerian worship in still earlier times; and there is evidence that at the time of the First Dynasty, the order included members of the royal house. Moreover, tablets dating from the close of Ur-Ninâ's dynasty show the important part which women played in the social and official life of the early Sumerians.[50] Thus it is possible that Ur-Ninâ's daughter held high rank or office in the temple hierarchy, and her presence on the plaque may have reference to some special ceremony, or act of dedication, in which it was her privilege to take the leading part after the king, or to be his chief assistant. In such circumstances it would not be unnatural for her eldest brother to attend her. In both the other compositions Lidda is absent, and Akurgal occupies the place of honour. In the one he stands on a line with the king immediately behind the royal cup-bearer, and he is the only royal son who is specifically labelled as such; in the other he is again on a line with the king, separated from Anita, the cup-bearer, by a high officer of state, and followed by the royal scribe. In these scenes he is clearly set in the most favoured position, and, if Lidda was not his sister but the crown-prince, it would be hard to explain the latter's absence, except on the supposition that his death had occurred before the smaller plaques were made. But the texts upon all three plaques record the building of Ningirsu's temple, and they thus appear to have been prepared for the same occasion, which gives additional weight to the suggestion that Lidda was a daughter of Ur-Ninâ, and that Akurgal was his eldest son.

But, whether Akurgal was Ur-Ninâ's eldest son or not, the evidence of at least the smaller of the two complete plaques would seem to show that he was recognized as crown-prince during the lifetime of his father, and we may infer that he was Ur-Ninâ's immediate successor. For an estimate of his reign we must depend on references made to him by his two sons. It has already been mentioned that the early part of the text engraved upon the Stele of the Vultures appears to have given an account of the relations between Lagash and Umma during the reigns preceding that of Eannatum,[51] and in a badly preserved passage in the second column we find a reference to Akurgal, the son of Ur-Ninâ. The context is broken, but "the men of Umma" and "the city of Lagash" are mentioned almost immediately before the name of Akurgal,[52] and it would appear that Eannatum here refers to a conflict which took place between the two cities during the former's reign. It should be noted that upon his Cone[53] Entemena makes no mention of any war at this period, and, as in the case of Ur-Ninâ's reign, his silence might be interpreted as an indication of unbroken peace. But the narratives may be reconciled on the supposition either that the conflict in the reign of Akurgal was of no great importance, or that it did not concern the fertile plain of Gu-edin. It must be remembered that the text upon the Cone of Entemena was composed after the stirring times of Eannatum, Entemena's uncle, and the successes won by that monarch against Umma were naturally of far greater importance in his eyes than the lesser conflicts of his predecessors. It is true that he describes the still earlier intervention of Mesilim in the affairs of Lagash and Umma, but this is because the actual stele or boundary-stone set up by Mesilim was removed by the men of Umma in Eannatum's reign, an act which provoked the war. The story of Mesilim's intervention, which resulted in the setting up of the boundary-stone, thus forms a natural introduction to the record of Eannatum's campaign; and the fact that these two events closely follow one another in Entemena's text is not inconsistent with a less important conflict being recorded by the Stele of the Vultures as having taken place in the reign of Akurgal.

The names of the successors of Lugal-shag-engur, Mesilim's contemporary, upon the throne of Lagash have not yet been recovered, and we do not know how long an interval separated his reign from that of Ur-Ninâ, the early king of Lagash, from whose time so many inscriptions and archaeological remains have been recovered at Tello.[25] It is possible that within this period we should set another ruler of Lagash, named Badu, to whom reference appears to be made by Eannatum upon the famous Stele of the Vultures. The passage occurs in the small fragment that has been preserved of the first column of the text engraved upon the stele,[26] the following line containing the title "King of Lagash." The context of the passage is not preserved, but it is possible that the signs which precede the title are to be taken as a proper name, and in that case they would give the name of an early ruler of the city. In favour of this view we may note that in the text upon an archaic clay tablet found below the level of Ur-Ninâ s building at Tello[27] the name Badu occurs, and, although it is not there employed as that of a king or patesi, the passage may be taken as evidence of the use of Badu as a proper name in this early age.

But, whether Akurgal was Ur-Ninâ's eldest son or not, the evidence of at least the smaller of the two complete plaques would seem to show that he was recognized as crown-prince during the lifetime of his father, and we may infer that he was Ur-Ninâ's immediate successor. For an estimate of his reign we must depend on references made to him by his two sons. It has already been mentioned that the early part of the text engraved upon the Stele of the Vultures appears to have given an account of the relations between Lagash and Umma during the reigns preceding that of Eannatum,[51] and in a badly preserved passage in the second column we find a reference to Akurgal, the son of Ur-Ninâ. The context is broken, but "the men of Umma" and "the city of Lagash" are mentioned almost immediately before the name of Akurgal,[52] and it would appear that Eannatum here refers to a conflict which took place between the two cities during the former's reign. It should be noted that upon his Cone[53] Entemena makes no mention of any war at this period, and, as in the case of Ur-Ninâ's reign, his silence might be interpreted as an indication of unbroken peace. But the narratives may be reconciled on the supposition either that the conflict in the reign of Akurgal was of no great importance, or that it did not concern the fertile plain of Gu-edin. It must be remembered that the text upon the Cone of Entemena was composed after the stirring times of Eannatum, Entemena's uncle, and the successes won by that monarch against Umma were naturally of far greater importance in his eyes than the lesser conflicts of his predecessors. It is true that he describes the still earlier intervention of Mesilim in the affairs of Lagash and Umma, but this is because the actual stele or boundary-stone set up by Mesilim was removed by the men of Umma in Eannatum's reign, an act which provoked the war. The story of Mesilim's intervention, which resulted in the setting up of the boundary-stone, thus forms a natural introduction to the record of Eannatum's campaign; and the fact that these two events closely follow one another in Entemena's text is not inconsistent with a less important conflict being recorded by the Stele of the Vultures as having taken place in the reign of Akurgal.

But, whether Akurgal was Ur-Ninâ's eldest son or not, the evidence of at least the smaller of the two complete plaques would seem to show that he was recognized as crown-prince during the lifetime of his father, and we may infer that he was Ur-Ninâ's immediate successor. For an estimate of his reign we must depend on references made to him by his two sons. It has already been mentioned that the early part of the text engraved upon the Stele of the Vultures appears to have given an account of the relations between Lagash and Umma during the reigns preceding that of Eannatum,[51] and in a badly preserved passage in the second column we find a reference to Akurgal, the son of Ur-Ninâ. The context is broken, but "the men of Umma" and "the city of Lagash" are mentioned almost immediately before the name of Akurgal,[52] and it would appear that Eannatum here refers to a conflict which took place between the two cities during the former's reign. It should be noted that upon his Cone[53] Entemena makes no mention of any war at this period, and, as in the case of Ur-Ninâ's reign, his silence might be interpreted as an indication of unbroken peace. But the narratives may be reconciled on the supposition either that the conflict in the reign of Akurgal was of no great importance, or that it did not concern the fertile plain of Gu-edin. It must be remembered that the text upon the Cone of Entemena was composed after the stirring times of Eannatum, Entemena's uncle, and the successes won by that monarch against Umma were naturally of far greater importance in his eyes than the lesser conflicts of his predecessors. It is true that he describes the still earlier intervention of Mesilim in the affairs of Lagash and Umma, but this is because the actual stele or boundary-stone set up by Mesilim was removed by the men of Umma in Eannatum's reign, an act which provoked the war. The story of Mesilim's intervention, which resulted in the setting up of the boundary-stone, thus forms a natural introduction to the record of Eannatum's campaign; and the fact that these two events closely follow one another in Entemena's text is not inconsistent with a less important conflict being recorded by the Stele of the Vultures as having taken place in the reign of Akurgal.

The only other evidence with regard to the achievements of Akurgal is furnished by the titles ascribed to him by his two sons. Upon the Stele of the Vultures,[54] Eannatum describes him as "king" of Lagash, and from this passage alone it might be inferred that he was as successful as his father Ur-Ninâ in maintaining the independence of his city. But in other texts upon foundation-stones, bricks, and a small column, Eannatum describes him only as "patesi," as also does his other son Enannatum I. It should be noted that in the majority of his inscriptions Eannatum claims for himself the title of patesi, and at the end of one of them, in which he has enumerated a long list of his own conquests, he exclaims, "He (i.e. Eannatum) is the son of Akurgal, the patesi of Lagash, and his grandfather is Ur-Ninâ, the patesi of Lagash."[55] That he should term Ur-Ninâ "patesi" does not accord with that ruler's own texts, but, if Eannatum himself had been merely a patesi at the beginning of his reign, and his father had also been one before him, he may well have overlooked the more ambitious title to which his grandfather had laid claim, especially as this omission would enhance the splendour of his own achievements. It is also possible that at this time the distinction between the two titles was not so strictly drawn as in the later periods, and that an alteration in them did not always mark a corresponding political change.[56] However this may be, the subsequent conflicts of Eannatum suggest that Lagash had failed to maintain her freedom. We may assume that the North had once more interfered in the affairs of Sumer, and that Kish had put an end to the comparative independence which the city had enjoyed during Ur-Ninâ's reign.

The only other evidence with regard to the achievements of Akurgal is furnished by the titles ascribed to him by his two sons. Upon the Stele of the Vultures,[54] Eannatum describes him as "king" of Lagash, and from this passage alone it might be inferred that he was as successful as his father Ur-Ninâ in maintaining the independence of his city. But in other texts upon foundation-stones, bricks, and a small column, Eannatum describes him only as "patesi," as also does his other son Enannatum I. It should be noted that in the majority of his inscriptions Eannatum claims for himself the title of patesi, and at the end of one of them, in which he has enumerated a long list of his own conquests, he exclaims, "He (i.e. Eannatum) is the son of Akurgal, the patesi of Lagash, and his grandfather is Ur-Ninâ, the patesi of Lagash."[55] That he should term Ur-Ninâ "patesi" does not accord with that ruler's own texts, but, if Eannatum himself had been merely a patesi at the beginning of his reign, and his father had also been one before him, he may well have overlooked the more ambitious title to which his grandfather had laid claim, especially as this omission would enhance the splendour of his own achievements. It is also possible that at this time the distinction between the two titles was not so strictly drawn as in the later periods, and that an alteration in them did not always mark a corresponding political change.[56] However this may be, the subsequent conflicts of Eannatum suggest that Lagash had failed to maintain her freedom. We may assume that the North had once more interfered in the affairs of Sumer, and that Kish had put an end to the comparative independence which the city had enjoyed during Ur-Ninâ's reign.

The only other evidence with regard to the achievements of Akurgal is furnished by the titles ascribed to him by his two sons. Upon the Stele of the Vultures,[54] Eannatum describes him as "king" of Lagash, and from this passage alone it might be inferred that he was as successful as his father Ur-Ninâ in maintaining the independence of his city. But in other texts upon foundation-stones, bricks, and a small column, Eannatum describes him only as "patesi," as also does his other son Enannatum I. It should be noted that in the majority of his inscriptions Eannatum claims for himself the title of patesi, and at the end of one of them, in which he has enumerated a long list of his own conquests, he exclaims, "He (i.e. Eannatum) is the son of Akurgal, the patesi of Lagash, and his grandfather is Ur-Ninâ, the patesi of Lagash."[55] That he should term Ur-Ninâ "patesi" does not accord with that ruler's own texts, but, if Eannatum himself had been merely a patesi at the beginning of his reign, and his father had also been one before him, he may well have overlooked the more ambitious title to which his grandfather had laid claim, especially as this omission would enhance the splendour of his own achievements. It is also possible that at this time the distinction between the two titles was not so strictly drawn as in the later periods, and that an alteration in them did not always mark a corresponding political change.[56] However this may be, the subsequent conflicts of Eannatum suggest that Lagash had failed to maintain her freedom. We may assume that the North had once more interfered in the affairs of Sumer, and that Kish had put an end to the comparative independence which the city had enjoyed during Ur-Ninâ's reign.

Assuming that Badu represents a royal name, it may be inferred from internal evidence furnished by Eannatum's inscription that he lived and reigned at some period before Ur-Ninâ. The introductory columns of Eannatum's text appear to give a brief historical summary concerning the relations which were maintained between Lagash and the neighbouring city of Umma in the period anterior to Eannatum's own reign. Now the second column of the text describes the attitude of Umma to Lagash in the reign of Akurgal, Ur-Ninâ's son and successor; it is thus a natural inference that Badu was a still earlier ruler who reigned at any rate before Ur-Ninâ. Whether he reigned before Lugal-shag-engur also, there are no data for deciding. It will be noted that Eannatum calls him "king" of Lagash, not "patesi," but the use of these titles by Eannatum, as applied to his predecessors, is not consistent, and, that he should describe Badu as "king," is no proof that Badu himself claimed that title. But he may have done so, and we may provisionally place him in the interval between the patesi Lugal-shag-engur and Ur-Ninâ, who in his numerous texts that have been recovered always claims the title of "king" in place of "patesi," a fact that suggests an increase in the power and importance of Lagash.[28] To the same period we may probably assign Enkhegal, another early king of Lagash, whose name has been recovered on an archaic tablet of limestone.[29]

[1] "Déc. en Chaldée," p. xl.; cf. Thureau-Dangin, "Königsinschriften," pp. 10 ff.

[2] With the lower part of Col. IV. (pl. xl.), ll. 5-8, cf. Col. V., ll. 23-29.

[3] Literally, "devoured.".

[4] Col. I., ll. 10 ff. ("Déc. en Chaldée," p. xlvii.).

[5] Obv., Col. VII. (lower part) and Col. VIII. ff.

[6] Cone-Inscription, Col. I., ll. 32 ff.

[7] "Cuneiform Texts in the British Museum," Pt. VII., pl. 1 f., No. 23580.

[8] "Déc. en Chaldée," p. xliv., Galet E.

[9] Cone-Inscription, Col. II., ll. 11-18.

[10] Cf. Obv., Col. XIX.-XXII., and Rev., Col. III.-V.

[11] Obv., Col. XVI.—Rev., Col. V.

[12] The fragments A-F have been published in "Déc. en Chaldée" on the following plates: Plate 4, A, B, and C, Obverse (it should be noted that on the plate the letters B and C should be interchanged); Plate 3, A, B, and C, Reverse (the letters B and C are here placed correctly); Plate 4 (bis), D and E, Obverse; Plate 3 (bis), D and E, Reverse; Plate 4 (ter), F, Obverse and Reverse. The fragment G, which connects C with F, is published in "Cun. Texts in the Brit. Mus.," Pt. VII., pl. 1.

[13] These are known by the symbols D and E; see p. 131, Fig. 46. In the course of its transport from Tello to Constantinople the upper part of fragment D was unfortunately damaged, so that the god's brow, and his eye, and the greater part of his nose are now wanting (see "Déc. en Chaldée," pl. 4 bis). In the block the missing portions have been restored from a squeeze of the fragment taken at Tello by M. de Sarzec (cf. "Déc.," p. 194 f.).

[14] Cf. Heuzey, "Rev. d'Assyr.," III., p. 10. Its first adoption by the Semites is seen on the recently discovered monument of Sharru-Gi, an early king of Kish; see below, Chap. VIII., p. 220 f.

[15] See above, p. 128 f.

[16] The fragment is known as B; "Déc. en Chaldée," pl. 4 (see above, p. 129, n. 1). For her headdress, see above, p. 51, Fig. 18.

[17] Fragment G; see above, p. 129, n 1.

[18] Fragments C and F; see above, p. 129, n. 1.

[19] "Déc. en Chaldée," p. xliii., Galet A, Col. V. f.

[20] These are numbered A, D (which is joined to E), and B; see above, p 129, n. 1.

[21] See above, p. 125.

[22] See the plate facing p. 124.

[23] Fragment B, Reverse (see above, p. 129, n. 1).

[24] See the plate facing p. 124.

[25] See above, p. 43.

[26] See above, p. 42, n. 1.

[27] Fragment C, Reverse; see the plate facing p. 138.

[28] The remains of this scene upon fragment F are figured in the text; for the fragment G, see "Cun. Texts in the Brit. Mus.," Pt. VII., pl. 1.

[29] See above, p. 68, Fig. 20.

[30] See Obv., Col. VI., ll. 25 ff., Col. VII., ll. 1 ff.

[31] Foundation-stone A, Col. V., l. 23—Col. VI., l. 5; "Déc.," p. xliii.

[32] See Col, VI., ll. 6 ff.

[33] See Col. IV., ll. 25 ff.

[34] See the opposite plate.

[35] Foundation-stone A, Col. III., l. 13.

[36] Col. VI., ll. 6 ff.

[37] The phrase is not to be taken to mean that Eannatum buried the bodies of the slain Elamites, though it may be a conventional formula employed to describe any important battle. It may be noted that Entemena definitely states that he left the bones of his enemies to bleach in the open plain, and this was probably the practice of the period. Each side would bury its own dead to ensure their entrance into the Underworld.

[38] Rev., Col. VI., l. 10—Col. VII., l. 3.

[39] The name is expressed by the conflate sign, formed of the signs URU and A, the phonetic reading of which is unknown.

[40] The name of the place was formerly read in a short inscription engraved upon a mace-head of Gudea, and it was supposed to be described in that passage as lying near the Persian Gulf; cf. Heuzey, "Rev. Arch.," vol. xvii. (1891), p. 153; Radau, "Early Bab. Hist.," pp. 81, 191. But the syllable as occurs in that text without the determinative for "place," and it is rather to be interpreted as part of the name of the mountain from which Gudea obtained the breccia for his mace-head; and the mountain itself is described as situated on "the Upper Sea," i.e. the Mediterranean, see below, p. 270 f.

[41] See "Rev.," Col. VIII.