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