Part 8 (1/2)
The greater part of this information with regard to the struggles between Gishkhu and s.h.i.+rpurla, between the period of Mesilim, King of Kish, and that of Entemena, is supplied by the inscription of the latter ruler which has been found written around a small cone of clay. There is little doubt that the text was also engraved by the orders of Entemena upon a stone stele which was set up, like those of Mesilim and Eannadu, upon the frontier. Other copies of the inscription were probably engraved and erected in the cities of Gishkhu and s.h.i.+rpurla, and to ensure the preservation of the record Entemena probably had numerous copies of it made upon small cones of clay which were preserved and possibly buried in the structure of the temples of s.h.i.+rpurla. Entemena's foresight in this matter has been justified by results, for, while his great memorials of stone have perished, the preservation of one of his small cones has sufficed to make known to later ages his own and his forefathers' prowess in their continual contests with their ancient rival Gishkhu.
After the reign of Entemena we have little information with regard to the relations between Gishkhu and s.h.i.+rpurla, though it is probable that the effects of his decisive victory continued to exercise a moderating influence on Gishkhu's desire for expansion and secured a period of peaceful development for s.h.i.+rpurla without the continual fear of encroachments on the part of her turbulent neighbour. We may a.s.sume that this period of tranquillity continued during the reigns of Enannadu II, Enlitarzi, and Lugal-anda, but, when in the reign of Urukagina the men of Gishkhu once more emerge from their temporary obscurity, they appear as the authors of deeds of rapine and bloodshed committed on a scale that was rare even in that primitive age.
In the earlier stages of their rivalry Gishkhu had always been defeated, or at any rate checked, in her actual conflicts with s.h.i.+rpurla. When taking the aggressive the men of Gishkhu seem generally to have confined themselves to the seizure of territory, such as the district of Gu-edin, which was situated on the western bank of the Shaft el-Hai and divided from their own lands only by the frontier-ditch. If they ever actually crossed the Shaft el-Hai and raided the lands on its eastern bank, they never ventured to attack the city of s.h.i.+rpurla itself. And, although their raids were attended with some success in their initial stages, the ruling patesis of s.h.i.+rpurla were always strong enough to check them; and on most occasions they carried the war into the territory of Gishkhu, with the result that they readjusted the boundary on their own terms.
But it would appear that all these primitive Chalaean cities were subject to alternate periods of expansion and defeat, and s.h.i.+rpurla was not an exception to the rule. It was probably not due so much to Urukagina's personal qualities or defects as a leader that s.h.i.+rpurla suffered the greatest reverse in her history during his reign, but rather to Gishkhu's gradual increase in power at a time when s.h.i.+rpurla herself remained inactive, possibly lulled into a false sense of security by the memory of her victories in the past. Whatever may have been the cause of Gishkhu's final triumph, it is certain that it took place in Urukagina's reign, and that for many years afterwards the hegemony of Southern Babylonia remained in her hands, while s.h.i.+rpurla for a long period pa.s.sed completely out of existence as an independent or semi-independent state.
The evidence of the catastrophe that befell s.h.i.+rpurla at this period is furnished by a small clay tablet recently found at Telloh during Captain Cros's excavations on that site. The doc.u.ment on which the facts in question are recorded had no official character, and in all probability it had not been stored in any library or record chamber. The actual spot at Telloh where it was found was to the north of the mound in which the most ancient buildings have been recovered, and at the depth of two metres below the surface. No other tablets appear to have been found near it, but that fact in itself would not be sufficient evidence on which to base any theory as to its not having originally formed part of the archives of the city. Its unofficial character is attested by the form of the tablet and the manner in which the information upon it is arranged. In shape there is little to distinguish the doc.u.ment from the tablets of accounts inscribed in the reign of Urukagina, great numbers of which have been found recently at Telloh. Roughly square in shape, its edges are slightly convex, and the text is inscribed in a series of narrow columns upon both the obverse and the reverse. The text itself is not a carefully arranged composition, such as are the votive and historical inscriptions of early Sumerian rulers. It consists of a series of short sentences enumerating briefly and without detail the separate deeds of violence and sacrilege performed by the men of Gishkhu after their capture of the city. It is little more than a catalogue or list of the shrines and temples destroyed during the sack of the city, or defiled by the blood of the men of s.h.i.+rpurla who were slain therein.
No mention is made in the list of the palace of the Urukagina, or of any secular building, or of the dwellings of the citizens themselves. There is little doubt that these also were despoiled and destroyed by the victorious enemy, but the writer of the tablet is not concerned for the moment with the fate of his city or his fellow citizens. He appears to be overcome with the thought of the deeds of sacrilege committed against his G.o.ds; his mind is entirely taken up with the magnitude of the insult offered to the G.o.d Ningirsu, the city-G.o.d of s.h.i.+rpurla. His bare enumeration of the deeds of sacrilege and violence loses little by its brevity, and, when he has ended the list of his accusations against the men of Gishkhu, he curses the G.o.ddess to whose influence he attributes their success.
No composition at all like this doc.u.ment has yet been recovered, and as it is not very long we may here give a translation of the text. It will be seen that the writer plunges at once into the subject of his charges against the men of Gishkhu. No historical _resume_ prefaces his accusations, and he gives no hint of the circ.u.mstances that have rendered their delivery possible. The temples of his city have been profaned and destroyed, and his indignation finds vent in a mere enumeration of their t.i.tles. To his mind the facts need no comment, for to him it is barely conceivable that such sacred places of ancient wors.h.i.+p should have been defiled. He launches his indictment against Gishkhu in the following terms: ”The men of Gishkhu have set fire to the temple of E-ki [... ], they have set fire to Antashura, and they have carried away the silver and the precious stones therefrom! They have shed blood in the palace of Tirash, they have shed blood in Abzubanda, they have shed blood in the shrine of Enlil and in the shrine of the Sun-G.o.d, they have shed blood in Akhush, and they have carried away the silver and the precious stones therefrom! They have shed blood in the Gikana of the sacred grove of the G.o.ddess Ninmakh, and they have carried away the silver and the precious stones therefrom! They have shed blood in Baga, and they have carried away the silver and the precious stones therefrom! They have shed blood in Abzu-ega, they have set fire to the temple of Gatumdug, and they have carried away the silver and the precious stones therefrom, and have destroyed her statue! They have set fire to the.... of the temple E-anna of the G.o.ddess Ninni, and they have carried away the silver and the precious stones therefrom, and have destroyed her statue! They have shed blood in Shapada, and they have carried away the silver and precious stones therefrom! They have....
in Khenda, they have shed blood in the temple of Nindar in the town of Kiab, and they have carried away the silver and the precious stones therefrom! They have set fire to the temple of Dumuzi-abzu in the town of Kinunir, and they have carried away the silver and the precious stones therefrom! They have set fire to the temple of Lugaluru, and they have carried away the silver and the precious stones therefrom! They have shed blood in E-engura, the temple of the G.o.ddess Nina, and they have carried away the silver and the precious stones therefrom! They have shed blood in Sag..., the temple of Amageshtin, and the silver and the precious stones of Amageshtin have they carried away! They have removed the grain from Ginarbaniru, the field of the G.o.d Ningirsu, so much of it as was under cultivation! The men of Gishkhu, by the despoiling of s.h.i.+rpurla, have committed a transgression against the G.o.d Ningirsu! The power that is come unto them, from them shall be taken away! Of transgression on the part of Urukagina, King of Girsu, there is none. As for Lugalzaggisi, patesi of Gishkhu, may his G.o.ddess Ni-daba bear on her head (the weight of) this transgression!”
Such is the account, which has come down to us from the rough tablet of some unknown scribe, of the greatest misfortune experienced by s.h.i.+rpurla during the long course of her history. Many of the great temples mentioned in the text as among those which were burnt down and despoiled of their treasures are referred to more than once in the votive and historical inscriptions of earlier rulers of s.h.i.+rpurla, who occupied the throne before the ill-fated Urukagina. The names of some of them, too, are to be found in the texts of the later pate-sis of that city, so that it may be concluded that in course of time they were rebuilt and restored to their former splendour. But there is no doubt that the despoiling and partial destruction of s.h.i.+rpurla in the reign of Urukagina had a lasting effect upon the fortunes of that city, and effectively curtailed her influence among the greater cities of Southern Babylonia.
We may now turn our attention to the leader of the men of Gishkhu, under whose direction they achieved their final triumph over their ancient, and for long years more powerful, rival s.h.i.+rpurla. The writer of our tablet mentions his name in the closing words of his text when he curses him and his G.o.ddess for the destruction and sacrilege that they have wrought. ”As for Lugalzaggisi,” he says, ”patesi of Gishkhu, may his G.o.ddess Nidaba bear on her head (the weight of ) this transgression!”
Now the name of Lugalzaggisi has been found upon a number of fragments of vases made of white calcite stalagmite which were discovered by Mr.
Haynes during his excavations at Nippur. All the vases were engraved with the same inscription, so that it was possible by piecing the fragments of text together to obtain a more or less complete copy of the records which were originally engraved upon each of them. From these records we learned for the first time, not only the name of Lugalzaggisi, but the fact that he founded a powerful coalition of cities in Babylonia at what was obviously a very early period in the history of the country. In the text he describes himself as ”King of Erech, king of the world, the priest of Ana, the hero of Nidaba, the son of Ukush, patesi of Gishkhu, the hero of Nidaba, the man who was favourably regarded by the sure eye of the King of the Lands (i.e.
the G.o.d Enlil), the great patesi of Enlil, unto whom understanding was granted by Enki, the chosen of the Sun-G.o.d, the exalted minister of Enzu, endowed with strength by the Sun-G.o.d, the wors.h.i.+pper of Ninni, the son who was conceived by Nidaba, who was nourished by Ninkharsag with the milk of life, the attendant of Umu, priestess of Erech, the servant who was trained by Ninagidkhadu, the mistress of Erech, the great minister of the G.o.ds.” Lugalzaggisi then goes on to describe the extent of his dominion, and he says: ”When the G.o.d Enlil, the lord of the countries, bestowed upon Lugalzaggisi the kingdom of the world, and granted unto him success in the sight of the world, when he filled the lands with his power, and conquered them from the rising of the sun unto the setting of the same, at that time he made straight his path from the Lower Sea of the Tigris and Euphrates unto the Upper Sea, and he granted him dominion over all from the rising of the sun unto the setting of the same, so that he caused the lands to dwell in peace.”
Now when first the text of this inscription was published there existed only vague indications of the date to be a.s.signed to Lugalzaggisi and the kingdom that he founded. It was clear from the t.i.tles which he bore, that, though Gishkhu was his native place, he had extended his authority far beyond that city and had chosen Erech as his capital. Moreover, he claimed an empire extending from ”the Lower Sea of the Tigris and Euphrates unto the Upper Sea.” There is no doubt that the Lower Sea here mentioned is the Persian Gulf, and it has been suggested that the Upper Sea may be taken to be the Mediterranean, though it may possibly have been Lake Van or Lake Urmi. But whichever of these views might be adopted, it was clear that Lugalzaggisi was a great conqueror, and had achieved the right to a.s.sume the high-sounding t.i.tle of lugal halama, ”king of the world.” In these circ.u.mstances it was of the first importance for the study of primitive Chaldaean history and chronology to ascertain approximately the period at which Lugalzaggisi reigned.
The evidence on which such a question could be provisionally settled was of the vaguest and most uncertain character, but such as it was it had to suffice, in the absence of more reliable data. In settling all problems connected with early Chaldaean chronology, the starting-point was, and in fact still is, the period of Sargon I, King of Agade, inasmuch as the date of his reign is settled, according to the reckoning of the scribes of Nabonidus, as about 3800 B.C. It is true that this date has been called in question, and ingenious suggestions for amending it have been made by some writers, while others have rejected it altogether, holding that it merely represented a guess on the part of the late Babylonians and could be safely ignored in the chronological schemes which they brought forward. But nearly every fresh discovery made in the last few years has tended to confirm some point in the traditions current among the later Babylonians with regard to the earlier history of their country. Consequently, reliance may be placed with increased confidence on the truth of such traditions as a whole, and we may continue to accept those statements which yet await confirmation from doc.u.ments more nearly contemporary with the early period to which they refer. It is true that such a date as that a.s.signed by Nabonidus to Sargon is not to be regarded as absolutely fixed, for Nabonidus is obviously speaking in round numbers, and we may allow for some minor inaccuracies in the calculations of his scribes. But it is certain that the later Babylonian priests and scribes had a wealth of historical material at their disposal which has not come down to us. We may therefore accept the date given by Nabonidus for Sargon of Agade and his son Naram-Sin as approximately accurate, and this is also the opinion of the majority of writers on early Babylonian history.
The diggings at Nippur furnished indications that certain inscriptions found on that site and written in a very archaic form of script were to be a.s.signed to a period earlier than that of Sargon. One cla.s.s of evidence was obtained from a careful study of the different levels at which the inscriptions and the remains of buildings were found. At a comparatively deep level in the mound inscriptions of Sargon himself were recovered, along with bricks stamped with the name of Naram-Sin, his son. It was, therefore, a reasonable conclusion roughly to date the particular stratum in which these objects were found to the period of the empire established by Sargon, with its centre at Agade. Later on excavations were carried to a lower level, and remains of buildings were discovered which appeared to belong to a still earlier period of civilization. An altar was found standing in a small enclosure surrounded by a kind of curb. Near by were two immense clay vases which appeared to have been placed on a ramp or inclined plane leading up to the altar, and remains were also found of a ma.s.sive brick building in which was an arch of brick. No inscriptions were actually found at this level, but in the upper level a.s.signed to Sargon were a number of texts which might very probably be a.s.signed to the pre-Sargonic period. None of these were complete, and they had the appearance of having been intentionally broken into small fragments. There was therefore something to be said for the theory that they might have been inscribed by the builders of the construction in the lowest levels of the mound, and that they were destroyed and scattered by some conqueror who had laid their city in ruins.
But all such evidence derived from noting the levels at which inscriptions are found is in its nature extremely uncertain and liable to many different interpretations, especially if the strata show signs of having been disturbed. Where a pavement or building is still intact, with the inscribed bricks of the builder remaining in their original positions, conclusions may be confidently drawn with regard to the age of the building and its relative antiquity to the strata above and below it. But the strata in the lowest levels at Nippur, as we have seen, were not in this condition, and such evidence as they furnished could only be accepted if confirmed by independent data. Such confirmation was to be found by examination of the early inscriptions themselves.
It has been remarked that most of them were broken into small pieces, as though by some invader of the country; but this was not the case with certain gate-sockets and great blocks of diorite which were too hard and big to be easily broken. Moreover, any conqueror of a city would be unlikely to spend time and labour in destroying materials which might be usefully employed in the construction of other buildings which he himself might erect. Stone could not be obtained in the alluvial plains of Babylonia and had to be quarried in the mountains and brought great distances.
[Ill.u.s.tration: 188.jpg STONE GATE]
Socket Bearing An Inscription of Uk-Engur, An Early King of The City Of Ur. Photograph by Messrs. Mansell & Co.
From any building of his predecessors which he razed to the ground, an invader would therefore remove the gate-sockets and blocks of stone for his own use, supposing he contemplated building on the site. If he left the city in ruins and returned to his own country, some subsequent king, when clearing the ruined site for building operations, might come across the stones, and he would not leave them buried, but would use them for his own construction. And this is what actually did happen in the case of some of the building materials of one of these early kings, from the lower strata of Nippur. Certain of the blocks which bore the name of Lugalkigubnidudu had been used again by Sargon, King of Agade, who engraved his own name upon them without obliterating the name of the former king.
It followed that Lugalkigubnidudu belonged to the pre-Sargonic period, and, although the same conclusive evidence was not forthcoming in the case of Lugalzag-gisi, he also without much hesitation was set in this early period, mainly on the strength of the archaic forms of the characters employed in his inscriptions. In fact, they were held to be so archaic that, not only was he said to have reigned before Sargon of Agade, but he was set in the very earliest period of Chaldaean history, and his empire was supposed to have been contemporaneous with the very earliest rulers of s.h.i.+rpurla. The new inscription found by Captain Cros will cause this opinion to be considerably modified. While it corroborates the view that Lugalzaggisi is to be set in the pre-Sargonic period, it proves that he lived and reigned very shortly before him. As we have already seen, he was the contemporary of Urukagina, who belongs to the middle period of the history of s.h.i.+rpurla. Lugalzaggisi's capture and sack of the city of s.h.i.+rpurla was only one of a number of conquests which he achieved. His father Ukush had been merely patesi of the city of Gish-khu, but he himself was not content with the restricted sphere of authority which such a position implied, and he eventually succeeded in enforcing his authority over the greater part of Babylonia. From the fact that he styles himself King of Erech, we may conclude that he removed his capital from Ukush to that city, after having probably secured its submission by force of arms. In fact, his t.i.tle of ”king of the world” can only have been won as the result of many victories, and Captain Cros's tablet gives us a glimpse of the methods by which he managed to secure himself against the compet.i.tion of any rival. The capture of s.h.i.+rpurla must have been one of his earliest achievements, for its proximity to Gish-khu rendered its reduction a necessary prelude to any more extensive plan of conquest. But the kingdom which Lugalzaggisi founded cannot have endured long.
Under Sargon of Agade, the Semites gained the upper hand in Babylonia, and Erech, Grishkhu, and s.h.i.+rpurla, as well as the other ancient cities in the land, fell in turn under his domination and formed part of the extensive empire which he ruled.
Concerning the later rulers of city-states of Babylonia which succeeded the disruption of the empire founded by Sargon of Agade and consolidated by Naram-Sin, his son, the excavations have little to tell us which has not already been made use of by Prof. Maspero in his history of this period.*
* The tablets found at Telloh by the late M. de Sarzec, and published during his lifetime, fall into two main cla.s.ses, which date from different periods in early Chaldaean history. The great majority belong to the period when the city of Ur held pre-eminence among the cities of Southern Babylonia, and they are dated in the reigns of Dungi, Bur- Sin, Gamil-Sin, and Ine-Sin. The other and smaller collection belongs to the earlier period of Sargon and Naram-Sin; while many of the tablets found in M. de Sarzec's last diggings, which were published after his death, are to be set in the great gap between these two periods. Some of those recently discovered, which belong to the period of Dungi, contain memoranda concerning the supply of food for the maintenance of officials stopping at s.h.i.+rpurla in the course of journeys in Babylonia and Elam, and they throw an interesting light on the close and constant communication which took place at this time between the great cities of Mesopotamia and the neighbouring countries.
[Ill.u.s.tration: 190.jpg STATUE OF GUDEA.]
The most famous of the later patesis, or viceroys, of s.h.i.+rpurla, the Sumerian city in Southern Babylonia now marked by the mounds of Telloh. Photograph by Messrs.
Mansell & Co.
Ur, Isin, and,Larsam succeeded one another in the position of leading city in Babylonia, holding Mppur, Eridu, Erech, s.h.i.+rpurla, and the other chief cities in a condition of semi-dependence upon themselves. We may note that the true reading of the name of the founder of the dynasty of Ur has now been ascertained from a syllabary to be Ur-Engur; and an unpublished chronicle in the British Museum relates that his son Dungi cared greatly for the city of Eridu, but sacked Babylon and carried off its spoil, together with the treasures from E-sagila, the great temple of Marduk. Such episodes must have been common at this period when each city was striving for hegemony. Meanwhile, s.h.i.+rpurla remained the centre of Sumerian influence in Babylonia, and her patesis were content to owe allegiance to so powerful a ruler as Dungi, King of Ur, while at all times exercising complete authority within their own jurisdiction.
During the most recent diggings that have been carried out at Telloh a find of considerable value to the history of Sumerian art has been made. The find is also of great general interest, since it enables us to identify a portrait of Gudea, the most famous of the later Sumerian patesis. In the course of excavating the Tell of Tablets Captain Cros found a little seated statue made of diorite. It was not found in place, but upside down, and appeared to have been thrown with other debris scattered in that portion of the mound. On lifting it from the trench it was seen that the head of the statue was broken off, as is the case with all the other statues of Gudea found at Telloh. The statue bore an inscription of Gudea, carefully executed and well preserved, but it was smaller than other statues of the same ruler that had been already recovered, and the absence of the head thus robbed it of any extraordinary interest. On its arrival at the Louvre, M. Leon Heuzey was struck by its general resemblance to a Sumerian head of diorite formerly discovered by M. de Sarzec at Telloh, which has been preserved in the Louvre for many years. On applying the head to the newly found statue, it was found to fit it exactly, and to complete the monument, and we are thus enabled to identify the features of Gudea. Prom a photographic reproduction of this statue, it is seen that the head is larger than it should be, in proportion to the body, a characteristic which is also apparent in a small Sumerian statue preserved in the British Museum.