A History of Sumer and Akkad
by L. W. King · English · Gutenberg #49345 · 878,469 chars · public domain (US)
The Project Gutenberg eBook of A History of Sumer and Akkad
This eBook is for the use of anyone anywhere in the United States and
most other parts of the world at no cost and with almost no restrictions
whatsoever. You may copy it, give it away or re-use it under the terms
of the Project Gutenberg License included with this eBook or online
at www.gutenberg.org. If you are not located in the United States,
you will have to check the laws of the country where you are located
before using this eBook.
Title: A History of Sumer and Akkad
Author: L. W. King
Release date: July 2, 2015 [eBook #49345]
Most recently updated: October 24, 2024
Language: English
Other information and formats: www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/49345
Credits: Produced by Madeleine Fournier and Marc D'Hooghe (Images generously made available by the Hathi Trust.)
*** START OF THE PROJECT GUTENBERG EBOOK A HISTORY OF SUMER AND AKKAD ***
A HISTORY
OF
SUMER AND AKKAD
AN ACCOUNT OF THE EARLY RACES
OF BABYLONIA FROM PREHISTORIC
TIMES TO THE FOUNDATION OF
THE BABYLONIAN MONARCHY
BY
LEONARD W. KING, M.A., F.S.A.
Assistant in the Department of Egyptian and Assyrian
Antiquities, British Museum
WITH MAP, PLANS, AND ILLUSTRATIONS
NEW YORK
FREDERICK A. STOKES COMPANY
PUBLISHERS
1910
[Illustration: Stele of Narâm-Sin, king of Agade, representing the king
and his allies in triumph over their enemies.--Photo, Mansell & Co.]
PREFACE
The excavations carried out in Babylonia and Assyria during the last
few years have added immensely to our knowledge of the early history
of those countries, and have revolutionized many of the ideas current
with regard to the age and character of Babylonian civilization. In
the present volume, which deals with the history of Sumer and Akkad,
an attempt is made to present this new material in a connected form,
and to furnish the reader with the results obtained by recent discovery
and research, so far as they affect the earliest historical periods.
An account is here given of the dawn of civilization in Mesopotamia,
and of the early city-states which were formed from time to time in
the lands of Sumer and Akkad, the two great divisions into which
Babylonia was at that period divided. The primitive sculpture and
other archaeological remains, discovered upon early Babylonian sites,
enable us to form a fairly complete picture of the races which in those
remote ages inhabited the country. By their help it is possible to
realize how the primitive conditions of life were gradually modified,
and how from rude beginnings there was developed the comparatively
advanced civilization, which was inherited by the later Babylonians and
Assyrians and exerted a remarkable influence upon other races of the
ancient world.
In the course of this history points are noted at which early contact
with other lands took place, and it has been found possible in the
historic period to trace the paths by which Sumerian culture was
carried beyond the limits of Babylonia. Even in prehistoric times it is
probable that the great trade routes of the later epoch were already
open to traffic, and cultural connections may well have taken place
at a time when political contact cannot be historically proved. This
fact must be borne in mind in any treatment of the early relations of
Babylonia with Egypt. As a result of recent excavation and research it
has been found necessary to modify the view that Egyptian culture in
its earlier stages was strongly influenced by that of Babylonia. But
certain parallels are too striking to be the result of coincidence,
and, although the southern Sumerian sites have yielded traces of no
prehistoric culture as early as that of the Neolithic and predynastic
Egyptians, yet the Egyptian evidence suggests that some contact may
have taken place between the prehistoric peoples of North Africa and
Western Asia.
Far closer were the ties which connected Sumer with Elam, the great
centre of civilization which lay upon her eastern border, and recent
excavations in Persia have disclosed the extent to which each
civilization was of independent development. It was only after the
Semitic conquest that Sumerian culture had a marked effect on that
of Elam, and Semitic influence persisted in the country even under
Sumerian domination. It was also through the Semitic inhabitants
of northern Babylonia that cultural elements from both Sumer and
Elam passed beyond the Taurus, and, after being assimilated by the
Hittites, reached the western and south-western coasts of Asia Minor.
An attempt has therefore been made to estimate, in the light of recent
discoveries, the manner in which Babylonian culture affected the early
civilizations of Egypt, Asia, and the West. Whether through direct or
indirect channels, the cultural influence of Sumer and Akkad was felt
in varying degrees throughout an area extending from Elam to the Aegean.
In view of the after effects of this early civilization, it is of
importance to determine the region of the world from which the Sumerian
race reached the Euphrates. Until recently it was only possible to
form a theory on the subject from evidence furnished by the Sumerians
themselves. But explorations in Turkestan, the results of which have
now been fully published, enable us to conclude with some confidence
that the original home of the Sumerian race is to be sought beyond
the mountains to the east of the Babylonian plain. The excavations
conducted at Anau near Askhabad by the second Pumpelly Expedition
have revealed traces of prehistoric cultures in that region, which
present some striking parallels to other early cultures west of the
Iranian plateau. Moreover, the physiographical evidence collected by
the first Pumpelly Expedition affords an adequate explanation of the
racial unrest in Central Asia, which probably gave rise to the Sumerian
immigration and to other subsequent migrations from the East.
It has long been suspected that a marked change in natural conditions
must have taken place during historic times throughout considerable
areas in Central Asia. The present comparatively arid condition of
Mongolia, for example, is in striking contrast to what it must have
been in the era preceding the Mongolian invasion of Western Asia in
the thirteenth century, and travellers who have followed the route of
Alexander's army, on its return from India through Afghanistan and
Persia, have noted the difference in the character of the country at
the present day. Evidence of a similar change in natural conditions
has now been collected in Russian Turkestan, and the process is
also illustrated as a result of the explorations conducted by Dr.
Stein, on behalf of the Indian Government, on the borders of the
Taklamakan Desert and in the oases of Khotan. It is clear that all
these districts, at different periods, were far better watered and more
densely populated than they are to-day, and that changes in climatic
conditions have reacted on the character of the country in such a way
as to cause racial migrations. Moreover, there are indications that
the general trend to aridity has not been uniform, and that cycles
of greater aridity have been followed by periods when the country
was capable of supporting a considerable population. These recent
observations have an important bearing on the Sumerian problem, and
they have therefore been treated in some detail in Appendix I.
The physical effects of such climatic changes would naturally be
more marked in mid-continental regions than in districts nearer the
coast, and the immigration of Semitic nomads into Syria and Northern
Babylonia may possibly have been caused by similar periods of aridity
in Central Arabia. However this may be, it is certain that the early
Semites reached the Euphrates by way of the Syrian coast, and founded
their first Babylonian settlements in Akkad. It is still undecided
whether they or the Sumerians were in earliest occupation of Babylonia.
The racial character of the Sumerian gods can best be explained on
the supposition that the earliest cult-centres in the country were
Semitic; but the absence of Semitic idiom from the earliest Sumerian
inscriptions is equally valid evidence against the theory. The point
will probably not be settled until excavations have been undertaken at
such North Babylonian sites as El-Ohêmir and Tell Ibrâhîm.
That the Sumerians played the more important part in originating and
moulding Babylonian culture is certain. In government, law, literature
and art the Semites merely borrowed from their Sumerian teachers, and,
although in some respects they improved upon their models, in each case
the original impulse came from the Sumerian race. Hammurabi's Code
of Laws, for example, which had so marked an influence on the Mosaic
legislation, is now proved to have been of Sumerian origin; and recent
research has shown that the later religious and mythological literature
of Babylonia and Assyria, by which that of the Hebrews was also so
strongly affected, was largely derived from Sumerian sources.
The early history of Sumer and Akkad is dominated by the racial
conflict between Semites and Sumerians, in the course of which the
latter were gradually worsted. The foundation of the Babylonian
monarchy marks the close of the political career of the Sumerians as
a race, although, as we have seen, their cultural achievements long
survived them in the later civilizations of Western Asia. The designs
upon the cover of this volume may be taken as symbolizing the dual
character of the early population of the country. The panel on the face
of the cover represents two Semitic heroes, or mythological beings,
watering the humped oxen or buffaloes of the Babylonian plain, and is
taken from the seal of Ibni-Sharru, a scribe in the service of the
early Akkadian king Shar-Gani-sharri. The panel on the back of the
binding is from the Stele of the Vultures and portrays the army of
Eannatum trampling on the dead bodies of its foes. The shaven faces of
the Sumerian warriors are in striking contrast to the heavily bearded
Semitic type upon the seal.
A word should, perhaps, be said on two further subjects--the early
chronology and the rendering of Sumerian proper names. The general
effect of recent research has been to reduce the very early dates,
which were formerly in vogue. But there is a distinct danger of the
reaction going too far, and it is necessary to mark clearly the points
at which evidence gives place to conjecture. It must be admitted that
all dates anterior to the foundation of the Babylonian monarchy are
necessarily approximate, and while we are without definite points
of contact between the earlier and later chronology of Babylonia,
it is advisable, as far as possible, to think in periods. In the
Chronological Table of early kings and rulers, which is printed as
Appendix II., a scheme of chronology has been attempted; and the
grounds upon which it is based are summarized in the third chapter, in
which the age of the Sumerian civilization is discussed.
The transliteration of many of the Sumerian proper names is also
provisional. This is largely due to the polyphonous character of
the Sumerian signs; but there is also no doubt that the Sumerians
themselves frequently employed an ideographic system of expression. The
ancient name of the city, the site of which is marked by the mounds
of Tello, is an instance in point. The name is written in Sumerian as
Shirpurla, with the addition of the determinative for place, and it
was formerly assumed that the name was pronounced as Shirpurla by the
Sumerians. But there is little doubt that, though written in that way,
it was actually pronounced as Lagash, even in the Sumerian period.
Similarly the name of its near neighbour and ancient rival, now marked
by the mounds of Jôkha, was until recently rendered as it is written,
Gishkhu or Gishukh; but we now know from a bilingual list that the name
was actually pronounced as Umma. The reader will readily understand
that in the case of less famous cities, whose names have not yet been
found in the later syllabaries and bilingual texts, the phonetic
readings may eventually have to be discarded. When the renderings
adopted are definitely provisional, a note has been added to that
effect.
I take this opportunity of thanking Dr. E. A. Wallis Budge for
permission to publish photographs of objects illustrating the early
history of Sumer and Akkad, which are preserved in the British Museum.
My thanks are also due to Monsieur Ernest Leroux, of Paris, for kindly
allowing me to make use of illustrations from works published by him,
which have a bearing on the excavations at Tello and the development
of Sumerian art; to Mr. Raphael Pumpelly and the Carnegie Institution
of Washington, for permission to reproduce illustrations from the
official records of the second Pumpelly Expedition; and to the editor
of _Nature_ for kindly allowing me to have _clichés_ made from blocks
originally prepared for an article on "Transcaspian Archaeology," which
I contributed to that journal. With my colleague, Mr. H. R. Hall, I
have discussed more than one of the problems connected with the early
relations of Egypt and Babylonia; and Monsieur F. Thureau-Dangin,
Conservateur-adjoint of the Museums of the Louvre, has readily
furnished me with information concerning doubtful readings upon
historical monuments, both in the Louvre itself, and in the Imperial
Ottoman Museum during his recent visit to Constantinople. I should add
that the plans and drawings in the volume are the work of Mr. P. C.
Carr, who has spared no pains in his attempt to reproduce with accuracy
the character of the originals.
L. W. KING.
CONTENTS
CHAPTER I
INTRODUCTORY: THE LANDS OF SUMER AND AKKAD
Trend of recent archaeological research--The study
of origins--The Neolithic period in the Aegean area,
in the region of the Mediterranean, and in the Nile
Valley--Scarcity of Neolithic remains in Babylonia due
largely to character of the country--Problems raised by
excavations in Persia and Russian Turkestan--Comparison
of the earliest cultural remains in Egypt and
Babylonia--The earliest known inhabitants of South
Babylonian sites--The "Sumerian Controversy" and a
shifting of the problem at issue--Early relations
of Sumerians and Semites--The lands of Sumer and
Akkad--Natural boundaries--Influence of geological
structure--Effect of river deposits--Euphrates
and the Persian Gulf--Comparison of Tigris and
Euphrates--The Shatt en-Nîl and the Shatt el-Kâr--The
early course of Euphrates and a tendency of the
river to break away westward--Changes in the
swamps--Distribution of population and the position
of early cities--Rise and fall of the rivers and the
regulation of the water--Boundary between Sumer and
Akkad--Early names for Babylonia--"The Land" and its
significance--Terminology
CHAPTER II
THE SITES OF EARLY CITIES AND THE RACIAL CHARACTER OF
THEIR INHABITANTS
Characteristics of early Babylonian sites--The
French excavations at Tello--The names Shirpurla
and Lagash--Results of De Sarzec's work--German
excavations at Surghul and El-Hibba--The so-called
"fire-necropoles"--Jôkha and its ancient
name--Other mounds in the region of the Shatt
el-Kâr--Hammâm--Tell 'Îd--Systematic excavations at
Fâra (Shuruppak)--Sumerian dwelling-houses and circular
buildings of unknown use--Sarcophagus-graves and
mat-burials--Differences in burial customs--Diggings at
Abû Hatab (Kisurra)--Pot-burials--Partial examination
of Bismâya (Adab)--Hêtime--Jidr--The fate of cities
which escaped the Western Semites--American excavations
at Nippur--British work at Warka (Erech), Senkera
(Larsa), Tell Sifr, Tell Medîna, Mukayyar (Ur), Abû
Shahrain (Eridu), and Tell Lahm--Our knowledge of North
Babylonian sites--Excavations at Abû Habba (Sippar),
and recent work at Babylon and Borsippa--The sites of
Agade, Cutha, Kish and Opis--The French excavations
at Susa--Sources of our information on the racial
problem--Sumerian and Semitic types--Contrasts
in treatment of the hair, physical features, and
dress--Apparent inconsistencies--Evidence of the later
and the earlier monuments--Evidence from the racial
character of Sumerian gods--Professor Meyer's theory
and the linguistic evidence--Present condition of the
problem--The original home and racial affinity of the
Sumerians--Path of the Semitic conquest--Origin of
the Western Semites--The eastern limits of Semitic
influence
CHAPTER III
THE AGE AND PRINCIPAL ACHIEVEMENTS OF SUMERIAN
CIVILIZATION
Effect of recent research on older systems of
chronology--Reduction of very early dates and
articulation of historical periods--Danger of the
reaction going too far and the necessity for noting
where evidence gives place to conjecture--Chronology
of the remoter ages and our sources of
information--Classification of material--Bases
of the later native lists and the chronological
system of Berossus--Palaeography and systematic
excavation--Relation of the early chronology to that of
the later periods--Effect of recent archaeological and
epigraphic evidence--The process of reckoning from below
and the foundations on which we may build--Points upon
which there is still a difference of opinion--Date for
the foundation of the Babylonian Monarchy--Approximate
character of all earlier dates and the need to think
in periods--Probable dates for the Dynasties of Ur
and Isin--Dates for the earlier epochs and for the
first traces of Sumerian civilization--Pre-Babylonian
invention of cuneiform writing--The origins of
Sumerian culture to be traced to an age when it was
not Sumerian--Relative interest attaching to many
Sumerian achievements--Noteworthy character of the
Sumerian arts of sculpture and engraving--The respective
contributions of Sumerian and Semite--Methods of
composition in Sumerian sculpture and attempts at an
unconventional treatment--Perfection of detail in the
best Sumerian work--Casting in metal and the question of
copper or bronze--Solid and hollow castings and copper
plating--Terra-cotta figurines--The arts of inlaying
and engraving--The more fantastic side of Sumerian
art--Growth of a naturalistic treatment in Sumerian
design--Period of decadence
CHAPTER IV
THE EARLIEST SETTLEMENTS IN SUMER; THE DAWN OF HISTORY
AND THE RISE OF LAGASH
Origin of the great cities--Local cult-centres
in the prehistoric period--The earliest Sumerian
settlements--Development of the city-god and evolution
of a pantheon--Lunar and solar cults--Gradual growth of
a city illustrated by the early history of Nippur and
its shrine--Buildings of the earliest Sumerian period at
Tello--Store-houses and washing-places of a primitive
agricultural community--The inhabitants of the country
as portrayed in archaic sculpture--Earliest written
records and the prehistoric system of land tenure--The
first rulers of Shuruppak and their office--Kings and
patesis of early city-states--The dawn of history in
Lagash and the suzerainty of Kish--Rivalry of Lagash
and Umma and the Treaty of Mesilim--The _rôle_ of the
city-god and the theocratic feeling of the time--Early
struggles of Kish for supremacy--Connotation of royal
titles in the early Sumerian period--Ur-Ninâ the founder
of a dynasty in Lagash--His reign and policy--His sons
and household--The position of Sumerian women in social
and official life--The status of Lagash under Akurgal
CHAPTER V
WARS OF THE CITY-STATES; EANNATUM AND THE STELE OF THE
VULTURES
Condition of Sumer on the accession of
Eannatum--Outbreak of war between Umma and Lagash--Raid
of Ningirsu's territory and Eannatum's vision--The
defeat of Ush, patesi of Umma, and the terms of peace
imposed on his successor--The frontier-ditch and the
stelæ of delimitation--Ratification of the treaty at the
frontier-shrines--Oath-formulæ upon the Stele of the
Vultures--Original form of the Stele and the fragments
that have been recovered--Reconstitution of the scenes
upon it--Ningirsu and his net--Eannatum in battle
and on the march--Weapons of the Sumerians and their
method of fighting in close phalanx--Shield-bearers and
lance-bearers--Subsidiary use of the battle-axe--The
royal arms and body-guard--The burial of the dead after
battle--Order of Eannatum's conquests--Relations of
Kish and Umma--The defeat of Kish, Opis and Mari, and
Eannatum's suzerainty in the north--Date of his southern
conquests and evidence of his authority in Sumer--His
relations with Elam, and the other groups of his
campaigns--Position of Lagash under Eannatum--His system
of irrigation--Estimate of his reign
CHAPTER VI
THE CLOSE OF UR-NINÂ'S DYNASTY, THE REFORMS OF
URUKAGINA, AND THE FALL OF LAGASH
Cause of break in the direct succession at Lagash--Umma
and Lagash in the reign of Enannatum I.--Urlumma's
successful raid--His defeat by Entemena and the
annexation of his city--Entemena's cone and its
summary of historical events--Extent of Entemena's
dominion--Sources for history of the period between
Enannatum II. and Urukagina--The relative order
of Enetarzi, Enlitarzi and Lugal-anda--Period of
unrest in Lagash--Secular authority of the chief
priests and weakening of the patesiate--Struggles
for the succession--The sealings of Lugal-anda
and his wife--Break in traditions inaugurated by
Urukagina--Causes of an increase in officialdom and
oppression--The privileges of the city-god usurped by
the patesi and his palace--Tax-gatherers and inspectors
"down to the sea"--Misappropriation of sacred lands and
temple-property, and corruption of the priesthood--The
reforms of Urukagina--Abolition of unnecessary posts
and stamping out of abuses--Revision of burial
fees--Penalties for theft and protection for the poorer
classes--Abolition of diviner's fees and regulation of
divorce--The laws of Urukagina and the Sumerian origin
of Hammurabi's Code--Urukagina's relations to other
cities--Effect of his reforms on the stability of the
state--The fall of Lagash
CHAPTER VII
EARLY RULERS OF SUMER AND KINGS OF KISH
Close of an epoch in Sumerian history--Increase in
the power of Umma and transference of the capital
to Erech--Extent of Lugal-zaggisi's empire, and
his expedition to the Mediterranean coast--Period
of Lugal-kigub-nidudu and Lugal-kisalsi--The dual
kingdom of Erech and Ur--Eushagkushanna of Sumer and
his struggle with Kish--Confederation of Kish and
Opis--Enbi-Ishtar of Kish and a temporary check to
Semitic expansion southwards--The later kingdom of
Kish--Date of Urumush and extent of his empire--Economic
conditions in Akkad as revealed by the Obelisk of
Manishtusu--Period of Manishtusu's reign and his
military expeditions--His statues from Susa--Elam and
the earlier Semites--A period of transition--New light
on the foundations of the Akkadian Empire
CHAPTER VIII
THE EMPIRE OF AKKAD AND ITS RELATION TO KISH
Sargon of Agade and his significance--Early recognition
of his place in history--The later traditions of Sargon
and the contemporary records of Shar-Gani-sharri's
reign--Discovery at Susa of a monument of "Sharru-Gi,
the King"--Probability that he was Manishtusu's father
and the founder of the kingdom of Kish--Who, then, was
Sargon?--Indications that only names and not facts
have been confused in the tradition--The debt of Akkad
to Kish in art and politics--Expansion of Semitic
authority westward under Shar-Gani-sharri--The alleged
conquest of Cyprus--Commercial intercourse at the period
and the disappearance of the city-state--Evidence of
a policy of deportation--The conquest of Narâm-Sin
and the "Kingdom of the Four Quarters"--His Stele of
Victory and his relations with Elam--Narâm-Sin at the
upper reaches of the Tigris, and the history of the Pir
Hussein Stele--Narâm-Sin's successors--Representations
of Semitic battle-scenes--The Lagash Stele of Victory,
probably commemorating the original conquest of Kish
by Akkad--Independent Semitic principalities beyond
the limits of Sumer and Akkad--The reason of Akkadian
pre-eminence and the deification of Semitic kings
CHAPTER IX
THE LATER RULERS OF LAGASH
Sumerian reaction tempered by Semitic influence--Length
of the intervening period between the Sargonic era
and that of Ur--Evidence from Lagash of a sequence of
rulers in that city who bridge the gap--Archaeological
and epigraphic data--Political condition of Sumer
and the semi-independent position enjoyed by
Lagash--Ur-Bau representative of the earlier patesis
of this epoch--Increase in the authority of Lagash
under Gudea--His conquest of Anshan--His relations
with Syria, Arabia, and the Persian Gulf--His
influence of a commercial rather than of a political
character--Development in the art of building which
marked the later Sumerian period--Evolution of the
Babylonian brick and evidence of new architectural
ideas--The rebuilding of E-ninnû and the elaborate
character of Sumerian ritual--The art of Gudea's
period--His reign the golden age of Lagash--Gudea's
posthumous deification and his cult--The relations of
his son, Ur-Ningirsu, to the Dynasty of Ur
CHAPTER X
THE DYNASTY OF UR AND THE KINGDOM OF SUMER AND AKKAD
The part taken by Ur against Semitic domination in an
earlier age, and her subsequent history--Organization of
her resources under Ur-Engur--His claim to have founded
the kingdom of Sumer and Akkad--The subjugation of Akkad
by Dungi and the Sumerian national revival--Contrast
in Dungi's treatment of Babylon and Eridu--Further
evidence of Sumerian reaction--The conquests of Dungi's
earlier years and his acquisition of regions formerly
held by Akkad--His adoption of the bow as a national
weapon--His Elamite campaigns and the difficulty in
retaining control of conquered provinces--His change of
title and assumption of divine rank--Survival of Semitic
influence in Elam under Sumerian domination--Character
of Dungi's Elamite administration--His reforms in
the official weight-standards and the system of
time-reckoning--Continuation of Dungi's policy by his
successors--The cult of the reigning monarch carried
to extravagant lengths--Results of administrative
centralization when accompanied by a complete delegation
of authority by the king--Plurality of offices and
provincial misgovernment the principal causes of a
decline in the power of Ur
CHAPTER XI
THE EARLIER RULERS OF ELAM, THE DYNASTY OF ISIN, AND THE
RISE OF BABYLON
Continuity of the kingdom of Sumer and Akkad and the
racial character of the kings of Isin--The Elamite
invasion which put an end to the Dynasty of Ur--Native
rulers of Elam represented by the dynasties of
Khutran-tepti and Ebarti--Evidence that a change in
titles did not reflect a revolution in the political
condition of Elam--No period of Elamite control in
Babylonia followed the fall of Ur--Sources for the
history of the Dynasty of Isin--The family of Ishbi-Ura
and the cause of a break in the succession--Rise of an
independent kingdom in Larsa and Ur, and the possibility
of a second Elamite invasion--The family of Ur-Ninib
followed by a period of unrest in Isin--Relation
of the Dynasty of Isin to that of Babylon--The
suggested Amorite invasion in the time of Libit-Ishtar
disproved--The capture of Isin in Sin-muballit's reign
an episode in the war of Babylon with Larsa--The last
kings of Isin and the foundation of the Babylonian
Monarchy--Position of Babylon in the later historical
periods, and the close of the independent political
career of the Sumerians as a race--The survival of their
cultural influence
CHAPTER XII
THE CULTURAL INFLUENCE OF SUMER IN EGYPT, ASIA AND THE
WEST
Relations of Sumer and Akkad with other lands--Cultural
influences, carried by the great trade-routes, often
independent of political contact--The prehistoric
relationship of Sumerian culture to that of
Egypt--Alleged traces of strong cultural influence--The
hypothesis of a Semitic invasion of Upper Egypt in
the light of more recent excavations--Character of
the Neolithic and early dynastic cultures of Egypt,
as deduced from a study of the early graves and their
contents--Changes which may be traced to improvements
in technical skill--Confirmation from a study of
the skulls--Native origin of the Egyptian system of
writing and absence of Babylonian influence--Misleading
character of other cultural comparisons--Problem
of the bulbous mace-head and the stone cylindrical
seal--Prehistoric migrations of the cylinder--Semitic
elements in Egyptian civilization--Syria a link in
the historic period between the Euphrates and the
Nile--Relations of Elam and Sumer--Evidence of early
Semitic influence in Elamite culture and proof of its
persistence--Elam prior to the Semitic conquest--The
Proto-Elamite script of independent development--Its
disappearance paralleled by that of the Hittite
hieroglyphs--Character of the earlier strata of the
mounds at Susa and presence of Neolithic remains--The
prehistoric pottery of Susa and Mussian--Improbability
of suggested connections between the cultures of Elam
and of predynastic Egypt--More convincing parallels
in Asia Minor and Russian Turkestan--Relation of
the prehistoric peoples of Elam to the Elamites of
history--The Neolithic settlement at Nineveh and the
prehistoric cultures of Western Asia--Importance of
Syria in the spread of Babylonian culture westward--The
extent of early Babylonian influence in Cyprus, Crete,
and the area of Aegean civilization
APPENDICES
I. Recent Explorations in Turkestan in their Relation to
the Sumerian Problem
II. A Chronological List of the Kings and Rulers of
Sumer and Akkad
INDEX
LIST OF PLATES
I. Stele of Narâm-Sin, representing the king and his allies in triumph
over their enemies Frontispiece
II. Doorway of a building at Tello erected by Gudea; on the left is a
later building of the Seleucid Era
III. Outer face of a foundation-wall at Tello, built by Ur-Bau
IV. Limestone figure of an early Sumerian patesi, or high official
V. Fragment of Sumerian sculpture representing scenes of worship
VI. The Blau monuments
VII. Diorite statue of Gudea, represented as the architect of the
temple of Gatumdug
VIII. Clay relief stamped with the figure of a Babylonian hero, and
fragment of limestone sculptured in relief; both objects illustrate the
symbol of the spouting vase
IX. Impressions of early cylinder-seals, engraved with scenes
representing heroes and mythological beings in conflict with lions and
bulls
X. South-eastern facade of a building at Tello, erected by Ur-Ninâ
XI. Limestone figures of early Sumerian rulers
XII. Plaques of Ur-Ninâ and of Dudu
XIII. Portion of these "Stele of the Vultures" sculptured with scenes
representing Eannatum leading his troops in battle and on the march
XIV. The burial of the dead after battle
XV. Portion of a black basalt mortar bearing an inscription of Eannatum
XVI. Brick of Eannatum, recording his genealogy and conquests and
commemorating the sinking of a well in the temple of Ningirsu
XVII. Marble gate-socket, bearing an inscription of Entemena
XVIII. Silver vase dedicated to the god Ningirsu by Entemena
XIX. Mace-heads and part of a diorite statuette dedicated to various
deities
XX. Mace-head dedicated to the Sun-god by Shar-Gani-sharri, and other
votive objects
XXI. Cruciform stone object inscribed with a votive text of an early
Semitic king of Kish
XXII. Impressions of the cylinder-seals of Ubil-Ishtar, Khashkhamer,
and Kilulla
XXIII. Clay cones of Galu-Babbar and other rulers
XXIV. Brick pillar at Tello, of the time of Gudea
XXV. Seated figure of Gudea
XXVI. Votive cones and figures
XXVII. Gate-socket of Gudea, recording the restoration of the temple of
the goddess Ninâ
XXVIII. Brick of Ur-Engur, King of Ur, recording the rebuilding of the
temple of Ninni in Erech
XXIX. Votive tablets of Dungi, King of Ur, and other rulers
XXX. Clay tablets of temple-accounts, drawn up in Dungi's reign
XXXI. Circular tablets of the reign of Bûr-Sin, King of Ur
XXXII. Bricks of Bûr-Sin, King of Ur, and Ishme-Dagan, King of Isin
XXXIII. Specimens of clay cones bearing votive inscriptions
XXXIV. (i and ii) The North and South Kurgans at Anau in Russian
Turkestan. (iii) Terra-cotta figurines of the copper age culture from
the South Kurgan at Anau
ILLUSTRATIONS IN THE TEXT
1-2. Figures of early Sumerians engraved upon fragments of shell.
Earliest period: from Tello
3-5. Later types of Sumerians, as exhibited by heads of male statuettes
from Tello
6-8. Examples of sculpture of the later period, representing different
racial types
9-11. Fragments of a circular bas-relief of the earliest period,
commemorating the meeting of two chieftains and their followers
12. Limestone panel representing Gudea being led by Ningishzida and
another deity into the presence of a seated god
13. Figure of the seated god on the cylinder-seal of Gudea
14-15. Examples of early Sumerian deities on votive tablets from Nippur
16. Fragment of an archaic relief from Tello, representing a god
smiting a bound captive with a heavy club or mace
17-19. Earlier and later forms of divine headdresses
20. Perforated plaque engraved with a scene representing the pouring
out of a libation before a goddess
21. Fragments of sculpture belonging to the best period of Sumerian art
22. Limestone head of a lion from the corner of a basin in Ningirsu's
temple
23. Upper part of a female statuette of diorite, of the period of Gudea
or a little later
24. Limestone head of a female statuette belonging to the best period
of Sumerian art
25. One of a series of copper female foundation-figures with supporting
rings
26-27. Heads of a bull and goat, cast in copper and inlaid with
mother-of-pearl, lapis-lazuli, etc.
28. Stamped terra-cotta figure of a bearded god, wearing a horned
headdress
29. Scheme of decoration from a libation-vase of Gudea, made of dark
green steatite and originally inlaid with shell
30. Convex panel of shell from the side of a cup, engraved with a scene
representing a lion attacking a bull
31-33. Fragments of shell engraved with animal forms, which illustrate
the growth of a naturalistic treatment in Sumerian design
34-37. Panels of mother-of-pearl engraved with Sumerian designs, which
were employed for inlaying the handles of daggers
38. Archaic plaque from Tello, engraved in low relief with a scene of
adoration
39. Figure of Lupad, a high official of the city of Umma
40. Statue of Esar, King of Adah
41. Emblems of Lagash and of the god Ningirsu
42. Mace-head dedicated to Ningirsu by Mesilim, King of Kish
43. Early Sumerian figure of a woman, showing the Sumerian dress and
the method of doing the hair
44. Plaque of Ur-Ninâ, King of Lagash
45. Portion of a plaque of Ur-Ninâ, sculptured with representations of
his sons and the high officials of his court
46. Part of the Stele of the Vultures representing Ningirsu clubbing
the enemies of Lagash in his net
47. Part of the Stele of the Vultures sculptured with a sacrificial
scene which took place at the burial of the dead after battle
48. Part of the Stele of the Vultures representing Eannatum deciding
the fate of prisoners taken in battle
49-51. Details from the engravings upon Entemena's silver vase
52-53. Seal-impression of Lugal-anda, patesi of Lagash, with
reconstruction of the cylinder-seal
54-55. A second seal-impression of Lugal-anda, with reconstruction of
the cylinder
56. White marble vase engraved with the name and title of Urumush, King
of Kish
57. Alabaster statue of Manishtusu, King of Kish
58. Copper head of a colossal votive lance engraved with the name and
title of an early king of Kish
59. Stele of Narâm-Sin, King of Akkad, from Pir Hussein
60. Portion of a Stele of Victory of a king of Akkad, sculptured in
relief with battle-scenes; from Tello
61. Other face of Fig. 60
62-63. Copper figures of bulls surmounting cones, which were employed
as votive offerings in the reigns of Gudea and Dungi
64-65. Tablets with architect's rule and stilus from the statues B and
F of Gudea
66. Figure of a god seated upon a throne, who may probably be
identified with Ningirsu
67. Mace-head of breccia from a mountain near the "Upper Sea" or
Mediterranean, dedicated to Ningirsu by Gudea
68. Designs on painted potsherds of the Neolithic period (Culture I.)
from the North Kurgan at Anau
69. Designs on painted potsherds of the Aeneolithic period (Culture
II.) from the North Kurgan at Anau
MAPS AND PLANS
I. Plan of Tello, after De Sarzec
II. Plan of Jôkha, after Andrae
III. Plan of Fâra, after Andrae and Noeldeke
IV. Plan of Abû Hatab, after Andrae and Noeldeke
V. Plan of Warka, after Loftus
VI. Plan of Muḳayyar, after Taylor
VII. Plan of Abû Shahrain, after Taylor
VIII. Early Babylonian plan of the temple of Enlil at Nippur and its
enclosure; cf. Fisher, "Excavations at Nippur" I., pl. 1
IX. Plan of the Inner City at Nippur, after Fisher, "Excavations at
Nippur," I., p. 10
X. Plan of the store-house of Ur-Ninâ, at Tello, after De Sarzec
XI. Plan of early building at Tello, after De Sarzec
XII. Map of Babylonia, showing the sites of early cities. Inset: Map of
Sumer and Akkad in the earliest historical period
A HISTORY OF SUMER AND AKKAD
CHAPTER I
INTRODUCTORY: THE LANDS OF SUMER AND AKKAD
The study of origins may undoubtedly be regarded as the most striking
characteristic of recent archaeological research. There is a peculiar
fascination in tracking any highly developed civilization to its
source, and in watching its growth from the rude and tentative efforts
of a primitive people to the more elaborate achievements of a later
day. And it is owing to recent excavation that we are now in a position
to elucidate the early history of the three principal civilizations of
the ancient world. The origins of Greek civilization may now be traced
beyond the Mycenean epoch, through the different stages of Aegean
culture back into the Neolithic age. In Egypt, excavations have not
only yielded remains of the early dynastic kings who lived before the
pyramid-builders, but they have revealed the existence of Neolithic
Egyptians dating from a period long anterior to the earliest written
records that have been recovered. Finally, excavations in Babylonia
have enabled us to trace the civilization of Assyria and Babylon
back to an earlier and more primitive race, which in the remote past
occupied the lower plains of the Tigris and Euphrates; while the more
recent digging in Persia and Turkestan has thrown light upon other
primitive inhabitants of Western Asia, and has raised problems with
regard to their cultural connections with the West which were undreamed
of a few years ago.
It will thus be noted that recent excavation and research have
furnished the archaeologist with material by means of which he may
trace back the history of culture to the Neolithic period, both in the
region of the Mediterranean and along the valley of the Nile. That
the same achievement cannot be placed to the credit of the excavator
of Babylonian sites is not entirely due to defects in the scope or
method of his work, but may largely be traced to the character of the
country in which the excavations have been carried out. Babylonia is
an alluvial country, subject to constant inundation, and the remains
and settlements of the Neolithic period were doubtless in many places
swept away, and all trace of them destroyed by natural causes. With
the advent of the Sumerians began the practice of building cities upon
artificial mounds, which preserved the structure of the buildings
against flood, and rendered them easier of defence against a foe. It
is through excavation in these mounds that the earliest remains of
the Sumerians have been recovered; but the still earlier traces of
Neolithic times, which at some period may have existed on those very
sites, must often have been removed by flood before the mounds were
built. The Neolithic and pre-historic remains discovered during the
French excavations in the graves of Mussian and at Susa, and by the
Pumpelly expedition in the two Kurgans near Anau, do not find their
equivalents in the mounds of Babylonia so far as these have yet been
examined.
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.
Although the earliest Sumerian settlements in Southern Babylonia are
to be set back in a comparatively remote period, the race by which
they were founded appears at that time to have already attained to a
high level of culture. We find them building houses for themselves
and temples for their gods of burnt and unburnt brick. They are
rich in sheep and cattle, and they have increased the natural
fertility of their country by means of a regular system of canals and
irrigation-channels. It is true that at this time their sculpture
shared the rude character of their pottery, but their main achievement,
the invention of a system of writing by means of lines and wedges, is
in itself sufficient indication of their comparatively advanced state
of civilization. Derived originally from picture-characters, the signs
themselves, even in the earliest and most primitive inscriptions as
yet recovered, have already lost to a great extent their pictorial
character, while we find them employed not only as ideograms to express
ideas, but also phonetically for syllables. The use of this complicated
system of writing by the early Sumerians presupposes an extremely
long period of previous development. This may well have taken place
in their original home, before they entered the Babylonian plain. In
any case, we must set back in the remote past the beginnings of this
ancient people, and we may probably picture their first settlement in
the neighbourhood of the Persian Gulf some centuries before the period
to which we may assign the earliest of their remains that have actually
come down to us.
In view of the important _rôle_ played by this early race in the
history and development of civilization in Western Asia, it is of
interest to recall the fact that not many years ago the very existence
of the Sumerians was disputed by a large body of those who occupied
themselves with the study of the history and languages of Babylonia.
What was known as "the Sumerian controversy" engaged the attention of
writers on these subjects, and divided them into two opposing schools.
At that time not many actual remains of the Sumerians themselves
had been recovered, and the arguments in favour of the existence of
an early non-Semitic race in Babylonia were in the main drawn from
a number of Sumerian texts and compositions which had been found
in the palace of the Assyrian king, Ashur-banipal, at Nineveh. A
considerable number of the tablets recovered from the royal library
were inscribed with a series of compositions, written, it is true, in
the cuneiform script, but not in the Semitic language of the Assyrians
and Babylonians. To many of these compositions Assyrian translations
had been added by the scribes who drew them up, and upon other tablets
were found lists of the words employed in the compositions, together
with their Assyrian equivalents. The late Sir Henry Rawlinson rightly
concluded that these strange texts were written in the language of some
race who had inhabited Babylonia before the Semites, while he explained
the lists of words as early dictionaries compiled by the Assyrian
scribes to help them in their studies of this ancient tongue. The early
race he christened "the Akkadians," and although we now know that this
name would more correctly describe the early Semitic immigrants who
occupied Northern Babylonia, in all other respects his inference was
justified. He correctly assigned the non-Semitic compositions that had
been recovered to the early non-Semitic population of Babylonia, who
are now known by the name of the Sumerians.
Sir Henry Rawlinson's view was shared by M. Oppert, Professor Schrader,
Professor Sayce, and many others, and, in fact, it held the field until
a theory was propounded by M. Halévy to the effect that Sumerian was
not a language in the legitimate sense of the term. The contention of
M. Halévy was that the Sumerian compositions were not written in the
language of an earlier race, but represented a cabalistic method of
writing, invented and employed by the Babylonian priesthood. In his
opinion the texts were Semitic compositions, though written according
to a secret system or code, and they could only have been read by a
priest who had the key and had studied the jealously guarded formulæ.
On this hypothesis it followed that the Babylonians and Assyrians were
never preceded by a non-Semitic race in Babylonia, and all Babylonian
civilization was consequently to be traced to a Semitic origin. The
attractions which such a view would have for those interested in
ascribing so great an achievement to a Semitic source are obvious, and,
in spite of its general improbability, M. Halévy won over many converts
to his theory, among others Professor Delitzsch and a considerable
number of the younger school of German critics.
It may be noted that the principal support for the theory was derived
from an examination of the phonetic values of the Sumerian signs. Many
of these, it was correctly pointed out, were obviously derived from
Semitic equivalents, and M. Halévy and his followers forthwith inferred
that the whole language was an artificial invention of the Babylonian
priests. Why the priests should have taken the trouble to invent so
complicated a method of writing was not clear, and no adequate reason
could be assigned for such a course. On the contrary, it was shown
that the subject-matter of the Sumerian compositions was not of a
nature to justify or suggest the necessity of recording them by means
of a secret method of writing. A study of the Sumerian texts with the
help of the Assyrian translations made it obvious that they merely
consisted of incantations, hymns, and prayers, precisely similar to
other compositions written in the common tongue of the Babylonians and
Assyrians, and thus capable of being read and understood by any scribe
acquainted with the ordinary Assyrian or Babylonian character.
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]
That Babylonian civilization and culture originated with the Sumerians
is no longer in dispute; the point upon which difference of opinion now
centres concerns the period at which Sumerians and Semites first came
into contact. But before we embark on the discussion of this problem,
it will be well to give some account of the physical conditions of the
lands which invited the immigration of these early races and formed
the theatre of their subsequent history. The lands of Sumer and Akkad
were situated in the lower valley of the Euphrates and the Tigris, and
corresponded approximately to the country known by classical writers
as Babylonia. On the west and south their boundaries are definitely
marked by the Arabian desert and the Persian Gulf which, in the
earliest period of Sumerian history, extended as far northward as the
neighbourhood of the city of Eridu. On the east it is probable that
the Tigris originally formed their natural boundary, but this was a
direction in which expansion was possible, and their early conflicts
with Elam were doubtless provoked by attempts to gain possession of the
districts to the east of the river. The frontier in this direction
undoubtedly underwent many fluctuations under the rule of the early
city-states, but in the later periods, apart from the conquest of
Elam, the true area of Sumerian and Semitic authority may be regarded
as extending to the lower slopes of the Elamite hills. In the north
a political division appears to have corresponded then, as in later
times, to the difference in geological structure. A line drawn from a
point a little below Samarra on the Tigris before its junction with the
Adhem to Hît on the Euphrates marks the division between the slightly
elevated and undulating plain and the dead level of the alluvium, and
this may be regarded as representing the true boundary of Akkad on the
north. The area thus occupied by the two countries was of no very great
extent, and it was even less than would appear from a modern map of the
Tigris and Euphrates valley. For not only was the head of the Persian
Gulf some hundred and twenty, or hundred and thirty, miles distant from
the present coast-line, but the ancient course of the Euphrates below
Babylon lay considerably to the east of its modern bed.
In general character the lands of Sumer and Akkad consist of a flat
alluvial plain, and form a contrast to the northern half of the Tigris
and Euphrates valley, known to the Greeks as Mesopotamia and Assyria.
These latter regions, both in elevation and geological structure,
resemble the Syro-Arabian desert, and it is only in the neighbourhood
of the two great streams and their tributaries that cultivation can
be carried out on any extensive scale. Here the country at a little
distance from the rivers becomes a stony plain, serving only as
pasture-land when covered with vegetation after the rains of winter
and the early spring. In Sumer and Akkad, on the other hand, the
rivers play a far more important part. The larger portion of the
country itself is directly due to their action, having been formed by
the deposit which they have carried down into the waters of the Gulf.
Through this alluvial plain of their own formation the rivers take a
winding course, constantly changing their direction in consequence of
the silting up of their beds and the falling in of the banks during the
annual floods.
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.
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.
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.
[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 folding 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.
CHAPTER II
THE SITES OF EARLY CITIES AND THE RACIAL CHARACTER OF THEIR INHABITANTS
The excavations which have been conducted on the sites of early
Babylonian cities since the middle of last century have furnished
material for the reconstruction of their history, but during different
periods and for different districts it varies considerably in value
and amount. While little is known of the earlier settlements in
Akkad, and the very sites of two of its most famous cities have not
yet been identified, our knowledge of Sumerian history and topography
is relatively more complete. Here the cities, as represented by the
mounds of earth and _débris_ which now cover them, fall naturally
into two groups. The one consists of those cities which continued in
existence during the later periods of Babylonian history. In their
case the earliest Sumerian remains have been considerably disturbed
by later builders, and are now buried deep beneath the accumulations
of successive ages. Their excavation is consequently a task of
considerable difficulty, and, even when the lowest strata are reached,
the interpretation of the evidence is often doubtful. The other group
comprises towns which were occupied mainly by the Sumerians, and, after
being destroyed at an early date, were rarely, or never, reoccupied by
the later inhabitants of the country. The mounds of this description,
so far as they have been examined, have naturally yielded fuller
information, and they may therefore be taken first in the following
description of the early sites.
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]
[Illustration: TELLO after de Sarzec]
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 monuments and inscriptions from Tello have furnished us with
material for reconstructing the history of the city with but few
gaps from the earliest age until the time when the Dynasty of Isin
succeeded that of Ur in the rule of Sumer and Akkad. To the destruction
of the city during the period of the First Dynasty of Babylon and
its subsequent isolation we owe the wealth of early records and
archaeological remains which have come down to us, for its soil has
escaped disturbance at the hands of later builders except for a short
interval in Hellenistic times. The fact that other cities in the
neighbourhood, which shared a similar fate, have not yielded such
striking results to the excavator, in itself bears testimony to the
important position occupied by Lagash, not only as the seat of a long
line of successful rulers, but as the most important centre of Sumerian
culture and art.
[Illustration: DOORWAY OF A BUILDING AT TELLO ERECTED BY GUDEA, PATESI
OF SHIRPURLA; ON THE LEFT IS PART OF A LATER BUILDING OF THE SELEUCID
ERA. Déc. en Chald., pl. 53 (bis).]
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.
[Illustration: JÔKHA after Andrae]
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.
[Illustration: FÂRA after Andrae and Noeldeke]
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 most interesting discoveries at Fâra were the graves. These consist
of two classes, sarcophagus-graves and mat-burials. The sarcophagi
are of unglazed clay, oval in form, with flat bottoms and upright
sides, and each is closed with a terra-cotta lid. In the mat-burials
the corpse with its offerings was wrapped in reed-matting and placed
in a grave dug in the soil. The bodies were never buried at length,
for in both classes of graves the skeletons are found lying on their
sides with their legs and arms bent. The right hand usually holds a
drinking-cup, of clay, stone, copper or shell, which it appears to
be raising to the mouth; and near the skull are often other vessels
and great water-pots of clay. In the graves the weapons of the dead
man were placed, and the tools and ornaments he had used during life.
Copper spear-heads and axes were often found, and the blades of daggers
with rivets for a wooden handle, and copper fish-hooks and net-weights.
[Illustration: OUTER FACE OF A FOUNDATION-WALL AT TELLO, BUILT BY
UR-BAU, PATESI OF SHIRPURLA.--Déc. en Chald., pl. 51.]
The ornaments were very numerous, the wealthy wearing bead-necklaces
of agate and lapis-lazuli, the poorer contenting themselves with paste
or shell, while silver finger-rings and copper arm-rings were not
uncommon. A very typical class of grave-furniture consisted of palettes
or colour-dishes, made of alabaster, often of graceful shape, and
sometimes standing on four feet. There is no doubt as to their use, for
colour still remains in many of them, generally black and yellow, but
sometimes a light rose and a light green. Since all other objects in
the graves were placed there for the personal use of the dead man, we
may infer that colour was employed at that period for painting the body.
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.
There is thus no doubt as to the racial character of the inhabitants of
this early settlement. The discovery of a brick inscribed with the name
of Khaladda, patesi of Shuruppak, proved that Fâra was the site of the
ancient city which later tradition regarded as the scene of the Deluge.
Khaladda's inscription is not written in very archaic characters, and
he probably lived in the time of the kings of Sumer and Akkad. We may
thus infer that Shuruppak continued to exist as a city at that period,
but the greater part of the site was never again inhabited after the
destruction of the early town by fire. We have described its remains
in some detail as they are our most valuable source of information
concerning the earliest Sumerians in Babylonia. Until the objects
that were found have been published it is difficult to determine
accurately its relation in date to the earlier remains at Tello. A few
fragments of sculpture in relief were discovered in the course of the
excavations, and these, taken in conjunction with the cylinder-seals,
the inscribed tablets, and the pottery, suggest that no long interval
separated its period from that of the earliest Sumerians of history.
[Illustration: ABÛ HATAB after Andrae and Noeldeke]
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.
Such are the principal early Sumerian mounds in the region of the Shatt
el-Kâr and the Shatt el-Hai. Other mounds in the same neighbourhood may
well prove to be of equally early dates; but it should be noted that
some of these do not cover Sumerian cities, but represent far later
periods of occupation. The character of the extensive mound of Jidr to
the east of Fâra and Abû Hatab is doubtful; but the use of lime-mortar
in such remains as are visible upon the surface indicates a late epoch.
A number of smaller tells may be definitely regarded as representing a
settlement in this district during Sassanian times. Such are Dubâ'i,
which, with two others, lies to the south of Fâra, and Bint el-Mderre
to the east; to the same period may be assigned Menêdir, which lies
to the north-east, beyond Deke, the nearest village to Fâra. This
last mound, little more than a hundred yards long, covers the site of
a burial-place; it has been completely burrowed through by the Arabs
in their search for antiquities, and is now covered with fragments of
sarcophagi. The mounds of Mjelli and Abû Khuwâsîj to the west of Fâra
are probably still later, and belong to the Arab period.
It will have been noted that all the Sumerian mounds described or
referred to in the preceding paragraphs cover cities which, after being
burned down and destroyed in a comparatively early period, were never
reoccupied, but were left deserted. Lagash, Umma, Shuruppak, Kisurra,
and Adab play no part in the subsequent history of Babylonia. We may
infer that they perished during the fierce struggle which took place
between the Babylonian kings of the First Dynasty and the Elamite
kings of Larsa. At this time city after city in Sumer was captured and
retaken many times, and on Samsu-iluna's final victory over Rîm-Sin, it
is probable that he decided to destroy many of the cities and make the
region a desert, so as to put an end to trouble for the future. As a
matter of fact, he only succeeded in shifting the area of disturbance
southwards, for the Sumerian inhabitants fled to the Sea-country on
the shores of the Persian Gulf; and to their influence, and to the
reinforcements they brought with them, may be traced the troubles of
Samsu-iluna and his son at the hands of Iluma-ilu, who had already
established his independence in this region. Thus Samsu-iluna's policy
of repression was scarcely a success; but the archaeologist has reason
to be grateful to it. The undisturbed condition of these early cities
renders their excavation a comparatively simple matter, and lends a
certainty to conclusions drawn from a study of their remains, which is
necessarily lacking in the case of more complicated sites.
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.
[Illustration: WARKA after Loftus]
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.
[Illustration: MUKAYYAR after Taylor]
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.
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.
[Illustration: ABÛ SHAHRAIN after Taylor]
It will thus be seen that excavations conducted on the sites of the
more famous cities of Sumer have not, with the single exception of
Nippur, yielded much information concerning the earlier periods of
history, while the position of one of them, the city of Isin, is still
unknown. Our knowledge of similar sites in Akkad is still more scanty.
Up to the present time systematic excavations have been carried out
at only two sites in the north, Babylon and Sippar, and these have
thrown little light upon the more remote periods of their occupation.
The existing ruins of Babylon date from the period of Nebuchadnezzar
II., and so thorough was Sennacherib's destruction of the city in 689
B.C., that, after several years of work, Dr. Koldewey concluded that
all traces of earlier buildings had been destroyed on that occasion.
More recently some remains of earlier strata have been recognized, and
contract-tablets have been found which date from the period of the
First Dynasty. Moreover, a number of earlier pot-burials have been
unearthed, but a careful examination of the greater part of the ruins
has added little to our knowledge of this most famous city before the
Neo-Babylonian era. The same negative results were obtained, so far
as early remains are concerned, from the less exhaustive work on the
site of Borsippa. Abû Habba is a far more promising site, and has been
the scene of excavations begun by Mr. Rassam in 1881 and 1882, and
renewed by Père Scheil for some months in 1894, while excavations were
undertaken in the neighbouring mounds of Deir by Dr. Wallis Budge in
1891. These two sites have yielded thousands of tablets of the period
of the earliest kings of Babylon, and the site of the famous temple of
the Sun-god at Sippar, which Narâm-Sin rebuilt, has been identified,
but little is yet accurately known concerning the early city and its
suburbs. The great extent of the mounds, and the fact that for nearly
thirty years they have been the happy hunting-ground of Arab diggers,
would add to the difficulty of any final and exhaustive examination. It
is probably in the neighbourhood of Sippar that the site of the city of
Agade, or Akkad, will eventually be identified.
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 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.
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.
[Illustration: LIMESTONE FIGURE OF AN EARLY SUMERIAN PATESI, OR HIGH
OFFICIAL.--Brit. Mus., No. 90929; photo. by Messrs. Mansell & Co.]
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.
[Illustration: Fig. 1.--Fig. 2. Figures of early Sumerians,
engraved upon fragments of shell, which were probably employed for
inlaying boxes, or for ornamenting furniture. Earliest period: from
Tello.--Déc., pl. 46, Nos. 2 and 1.]
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.
[Illustration: Fig. 3--Fig. 4--Fig. 5--Later types of Sumerians, as
exhibited by heads of male statuettes from Tello. Figs. 4 and 5 are
different views of the same head, which probably dates from the age of
Gudea; Fig. 3 may possibly be assigned to a rather later period.--In
the Louvre; Cat. Nos. 95 and 93.]
Two distinct racial types are thus represented on the monuments,
differentiated not only by physical features but also by the method
of treating the hair and by dress. Moreover, the one type is
characteristic of those rulers whose language was Sumerian, the other
represents those whose inscriptions are in the Semitic tongue. Two
apparent inconsistencies should here be noted. On the Stele of the
Vultures, Eannatum and his soldiers are sculptured with thick hair
flowing from beneath their helmets and falling on their shoulders.
But they have shaven faces, and, in view of the fact that on the same
monument all the dead upon the field of battle and in the burial mounds
have shaven heads, like those of the Sumerians assisting at the burial
and the sacrificial rites, we may regard the hair of Eannatum and his
warriors as wigs, worn like the wigs of the Egyptians, on special
occasions and particularly in battle. The other inconsistency arises
from the dress worn by Hammurabi on his monuments. This is not the
Semitic plaid, but the Sumerian fringed mantle, and we may conjecture
that, as he wrote his votive inscriptions in the Sumerian as well as in
the Semitic language, so, too, he may have symbolized his rule in Sumer
by the adoption of the Sumerian form of dress.
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]
[Illustration: Fig. 6.--Fig. 7.--Fig. 8.--Examples of sculpture of the
later period, from Tello, representing different racial types--_Déc.,_
pl. 26, Figs. 10_b_ and 10_a_; pl. 21, Fig. 5.]
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.
[Illustration: Fig. 9--Fig. 10--Fig 11--Fragments of a circular
bas-relief of the earliest period, from Tello, sculptured with a scene
representing the meeting of two chieftains and their followers. The
different methods of treating the hair are noteworthy.--In the Louvre;
Cat. No. 5.]
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.
[Illustration: Fig. 12.--Limestone panel sculptured in relief, with
a scene representing Gudea being led by Ningishzida and another god
into the presence of a deity who is seated on a throne.--In the Berlin
Museum; _cf. Sum. und Sem._, Taf. VII.]
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]
[Illustration: Fig. 13. Figure of the seated god on the cylinder-seal
of Gudea.--_Déc.,_ p 293.]
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]
[Illustration: Fig. 14.--Fig. 15. Votive tablets from Nippur, engraved
with scenes of worship.--Cf. Hilprecht, _Explorations_, p. 475, and
_Old Bab. Inscr._, II., pl. xvi.]
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.
[Illustration: Fig. 16--Sumerian deities on an archaic relief from
Tello.--_Déc._, pl. 1, Fig. 1.]
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.
[Illustration: Fig. 17--Fig. 18--Fig. 19--Earlier and later forms of
divine headdresses. Figs. 17 and 18 are from the obverse of the Stele
of the Vultures, fragments C and B; Fig. 19, the later form of horned
headdress, is from a sculpture of Gudea.--_Déc._, pl. 4, and pl. 26,
No. 9.]
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.
[Illustration: FRAGMENT OF SUMERIAN SCULPTURE REPRESENTING SCENES OF
WORSHIP BEFORE THE GODS.--_In the Louvre; Déc. en Chald., pl._ 23.]
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]
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.
In view of the absence of Semitic influence in Sumer during the
earlier periods, it may be conjectured that the Semitic immigrants
did not reach Babylonia from the south, but from the north-west,
after traversing the Syrian coast-lands. This first great influx of
Semitic nomad tribes left colonists behind them in that region, who
afterwards as the Amurru, or Western Semites, pressed on in their turn
into Babylonia and established the earliest independent dynasty in
Babylon. The original movement continued into Northern Babylonia, and
its representatives in history were the early Semitic kings of Kish and
Akkad. But the movement did not stop there; it passed on to the foot of
the Zagros hills, and left its traces in the independent principalities
of Lulubu and Gutiu. Such in outline appears to have been the course
of this early migratory movement, which, after colonizing the areas
through which it passed, eventually expended itself in the western
mountains of Persia. It was mainly through contact with the higher
culture of the Sumerians that the tribes which settled in Akkad were
enabled later on to play so important a part in the history of Western
Asia.
[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.
CHAPTER III
THE AGE AND PRINCIPAL ACHIEVEMENTS OF SUMERIAN CIVILIZATION
Considerable changes have recently taken place in our estimate of
the age of Sumerian civilization, and the length of time which
elapsed between the earliest remains that have been recovered and the
foundation of the Babylonian monarchy. It was formerly the custom to
assign very remote dates to the earlier rulers of Sumer and Akkad,
and although the chronological systems in vogue necessitated enormous
gaps in our knowledge of history, it was confidently assumed that
these would be filled as a result of future excavation. Blank periods
of a thousand years or more were treated as of little account by many
writers. The hoary antiquity ascribed to the earliest rulers had in
itself an attraction which outweighed the inconvenience of spreading
the historical material to cover so immense a space in time. But
excavation, so far from filling the gaps, has tended distinctly to
reduce them, and the chronological systems of the later Assyrian
and Babylonian scribes, which were formerly regarded as of primary
importance, have been brought into discredit by the scribes themselves.
From their own discrepancies it has been shown that the native
chronologists could make mistakes in their reckoning, and a possible
source of error has been disclosed in the fact that some of the early
dynasties, which were formerly regarded as consecutive, were, actually,
contemporaneous. Recent research on this subject has thus resulted in
a considerable reduction of the early dates, and the different epochs
in the history of Sumer and Akkad, which were at one time treated as
isolated phenomena, have been articulated to form a consistent whole.
But the tendency now is to carry the reaction rather too far, and to
compress certain periods beyond the limits of the evidence. It will be
well to summarize the problems at issue, and to indicate the point at
which evidence gives place to conjecture.
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.
A second class of material, which is of even greater importance for
settling the chronology of the later Sumerian epoch, comprises the
chronological documents drawn up by early scribes, who incorporated in
the form of lists and tables the history of their own time and that of
their predecessors. The system of dating documents which was in vogue
was not a very convenient one from the point of view of those who used
it, but it has furnished us with an invaluable summary of the principal
events which took place for long periods at a time. The early dwellers
in Babylonia did not reckon dates by the years of the reigning king,
as did the later Babylonians, but they cited each year by the event
of greatest importance which took place in it. Such events consisted
in the main of the building of temples, the performance of religious
ceremonies, and the conquest of neighbouring cities and states. Thus
the dates upon private and official documents often furnish us with
historical information of considerable importance.
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.
A third class of material for settling the chronology has been found
in the external evidence afforded by the early historical and votive
inscriptions to which reference has already been made, and by tablets
of accounts, deeds of sale, and numerous documents of a commercial
and agricultural character. From a study of their form and material,
the general style of the writing, and the nature of the characters
employed, a rough estimate may sometimes be made as to the time at
which a particular record was inscribed, or the length of a period
covered by documents of different reigns. Further, in the course of the
excavations undertaken at any site, careful note may be made of the
relative depths of the strata in which inscriptions have been found.
Thus, if texts of certain kings occur in a mound at a greater depth
than those of other rulers, and it appears from an examination of the
earth that the mound has not been disturbed by subsequent building
operations or by natural causes, it may be inferred that the deeper
the stratum in which a text is found the earlier must be the date to
be assigned to it. But this class of evidence, whether obtained from
palaeographical study or from systematic excavation, is sometimes
uncertain and liable to more than one interpretation. In such cases it
may only be safely employed when it agrees with other and independent
considerations, and where additional support is not forthcoming, it is
wiser to regard conclusions based upon it as provisional.
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.
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.
[Illustration: Brit. Mus., No. 86261.--Brit. Mus., No. 86260.--THE
BLAU MONUMENTS.]
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.
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]
[Illustration: DIORITE STATUE OF GUDEA, PATESI OF SHIRPURLA,
REPRESENTED AS THE ARCHITECT OF THE TEMPLE OF GATUMDUG.--In the Louvre;
Déc. en Chald., pl. 14.]
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.
[Illustration: Fig. 20. Perforated plaque engraved with a scene
representing the pouring out of a libation before a goddess.--In the
Louvre; Cat. No. 11.]
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.
[Illustration: Fig. 21.--Fragments of sculpture belonging to the best
period of Sumerian art.--_Déc._, pl. 25, Figs. 4 and 6.]
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.
[Illustration: Fig. 22.--Limestone head of a lion which decorated
the corner of a basin set up by Gudea in Ningirsu's temple at Lagash
(Shirpurla).--Déc., pl. 24, Fig. 3.]
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.
[Illustration: Fig. 23.--Upper part of a female statuette of diorite,
of the period of Gudea or a little later.--_Déc_., pl. 24 _bis_, Fig.
2.]
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.
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]
[Illustration: Fig. 24.--Limestone head of a female statuette belonging
to the best period of Sumerian art.--_Déc._, pl. 25, Fig. 2.]
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.
[Illustration: CLAY RELIEF STAMPED WITH THE FIGURE OF THE BABYLONIAN
HERO GILGAMESH, HOLDING A VASE FROM WHICH TWO STREAMS OF WATER FLOW.
_Brit. Mus., No._ 21204.]
[Illustration: FRAGMENT OF LIMESTONE SCULPTURED IN RELIEF WITH VASES
FROM WHICH STREAMS OF WATER FLOW. _Brit. Mus., No._ 95477]
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]
[Illustration: Fig. 25--One of a series of copper female
foundation-figures with supporting rings, buried in a structure of
unburnt brick beneath stone foundation-records. From Tello; period of
Ur-Ninâ. _Déc._, pl. 2 _ter_, Fig. 3.]
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.
[Illustration: Fig. 26-27.--Heads of a bull and a goat cast in copper
and inlaid with mother-of-pearl, lapis-lazuli, etc. The bull's head was
found at Tello, and that of the goat at Fâra.--_Déc._, pl. 5 _ter_,
Fig. 2; _Zeits. für Ethnol._, 1901, p. 163.]
[Illustration: Fig. 28. Stamped terra-cotta figure of a bearded god,
wearing the horned headdress, to which are attached the ears of a bull.
Period of Gudea.--_Déc._, pl. 39, Fig. 3.]
The art of inlaying was widely practised by the Sumerians, who not
only treated metal in this way, but frequently attempted to give more
expression or life to stone statues by inlaying the white of the eye
with mother-of-pearl or shell, and representing the pupil and iris by
lapis-lazuli or bitumen. A similar method was employed to enrich votive
stone figures of animals, and to give a varied and polychrome effect to
vases carved in stone. The finest example of this class of work is a
libation-vase of Gudea made of dark green steatite, which was dedicated
by him to his patron deity Ningishzida. The vase has a short projecting
spout running up from the base and grooved, so as to allow only a small
stream of liquid to escape during the pouring of a libation. Its scheme
of decoration is interesting as it affords an excellent example of the
more fantastic side of Sumerian art, inspired by a large and important
section of the religious belief. The two intertwined serpents, whose
tongues touch the point where the liquid would leave the vase, are
modelled from nature, but the winged monsters on each side well
illustrate the Sumerian origin of later Babylonian demonology.
[Illustration: Fig. 29. Scheme of decoration from a libation-vase of
Gudea, made of dark green steatite and originally inlaid with shell.
_Déc._, pl. 44, Fig. 2; cf. Cat., p. 281.]
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.
[Illustration: IMPRESSION OF A CYLINDER-SEAL ENGRAVED WITH SCENES
REPRESENTING AN EARLY BABYLONIAN HERO, PROBABLY GILGAMESH, IN CONFLICT
WITH A LION.--_Brit. Mus., No._ 89147.]
[Illustration: IMPRESSION OF A CYLINDER-SEAL ENGRAVED WITH A SCENE
REPRESENTING GILGAMESH AND EA-BANI IN CONFLICT WITH BULLS IN A WOODED
AND MOUNTAINOUS COUNTRY.--_Brit. Mus., No._ 89308.]
[Illustration: IMPRESSION OF A CYLINDER-SEAL ENGRAVED WITH A SCENE
REPRESENTING MYTHOLOGICAL BEINGS, BULLS, AND LIONS IN CONFLICT.--_Brit.
Mus., No._ 89538.]
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]
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.
One of the most interesting engraved fragments that have been recovered
consists of a slightly curved piece of shell, which probably formed
part of a small bowl or cup. The rest of the side seems to have been
built up of pieces of similar shape, held together by bitumen, or,
more probably, fitted to a metal lining by rivets through holes in the
shell. The scene engraved upon the fragment represents a lion seizing a
bull in a thicket of shrubs or high flowering plants. Though the group
upon the fragment is complete in itself, there are indications that it
formed only part of a more elaborate composition.
[Illustration: Fig. 30--Convex panel of shell from the side of a cup,
engraved with a scene representing a lion attacking a bull; early
Sumerian period. _Déc._, pl. 46, No. 3; cf. Cat. p. 189]
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.
[Illustration: Fig. 31.--Fig. 32.--Fig. 33. Three fragments of
shell engraved with animal forms, which illustrate the growth of a
naturalistic treatment in Sumerian design.--_Déc._, pl. 46, Nos. 4, 5,
and 8.]
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.
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.
[Illustration: Fig. 34.--Fig. 35.--Fig. 36.--Fig. 37. Four panels of
mother-of pearl, engraved with Sumerian designs, which were employed
for inlaying the handles of daggers. They belong to a period of
decadence in Sumerian art.--In the Louvre; Cat. Nos. 232 ff.]
The above brief sketch of the principal forms and productions of
Sumerian art may serve to vindicate the claim of the Sumerians to a
place among the more artistic races of antiquity. Much oriental art is
merely quaint, or interesting from its history and peculiarities, but
that of the Sumerians is considerably more than this. Its sculpture
never acquired the dull monotony of the Assyrian bas-reliefs with their
over-elaboration of detail, intended doubtless to cloak the poverty
of the design. Certain conventions persisted through all periods, but
the Sumerian sculptor was never a slave to them. He relied largely on
his own taste and intelligence, and even the earliest work is bold and
spirited. After centuries of independent development fresh vigour was
introduced by the nomad Semitic races who settled in the north, but in
the hands of the later Semites the Sumerian ideals were not maintained.
For the finest period of Babylonian art we must go back to a time some
centuries before the founding of the Babylonian monarchy.
[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
Showing first 200,000 characters. Full text: gutenberg.org/ebooks/49345